Smart Guns and problems with carry outside the home

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, what happens if you're in your home and a burglar comes and your wife can't use your gun because her fingerprint isn't allowed for that gun or you have the ring (which would most likely be a different size anyway).

No reason you can't have two RFID tags that are recognized by the gun. Likewise there is no reason you can have one RFID tag that operates all you guns.

Whether that tag is a ring, bracelet, watch, implant, etc it doesn't matter. The technology is the same.
 
What? I'm not talking about pushing an "idea" and getting people to like something there. I am talking about what I said and what I replied to which is "mandating" them (them meaning smart guns). Regardless of who else uses them or how well they work for those other people, they should never be mandated to the public/private citizens, period. Nothings whatsoever to do with incandescent bulbs or whatever.

Warp, I was agreeing with your point although apparently not very clearly.

Incandescent bulbs- Jan 1, 2014 - 40w and 60w bulb productions were federally banned leaving more expensive energy-efficient bulbs as choices. 75w and 100w bulbs were already banned previously. A comparatively insignificant mandate but a mandate nonetheless.

Obamacare - You already know the story behind these mandates.

Smartguns - TBD? How long for attempts to mandate after selling the idea to the unwashed masses?

My point is the trends have very little fairness in them. Regardless of what private citizens think or want, gov't administration will push its agenda (barring any serious push back) into law(mandates). After all, isn't it all just "common sense legislation"? Right? For the children?

Have you ever seen the gov't not try to sell its ideas to the masses before pressing to mandate them?
 
Last edited:
What has been left unsaid in all this is the more crucial point.

What happens to the millions upon millions of 'dumb' guns?

They do not simply vanish. Bad people will be able to get them. Bad people will be able to bring them to the US. Even is a magic wand waved all the 'dumb' guns away, there would still be zip guns and the like. Our BP friends will be more than some put out if they have to give up their .44 Walkers.
 
Never heard of the light bulb thing. Seems out of line...but obviously still nowhere near the level of magnitude of "wrong" that mandating firearms would be
 
Light bulb thing was devised because "people" were not buying 'enough' CFL lamps.
The fact that cost remains a huge issue is of no matter. That lamp color remains an issue is of no matter. That extremely poor fixture design (like putting only a single 2x 75W ceiling fixtures in too many apartments) is of no matter. Neither the fact that the US exists in an international market beyond US ability to regulate being of no matter.

So, the "ban" is a ruse.

The manufacturers merely have to reduce the wattage to make "legal" lamps. So, 100W are now 91W; 75 are now 68; 60W are now 58W.

All of which is becoming moot with the surge in LED lighting.

Still a pain to find 25W PAR20 mini floods.
 
While most of us agree that this technology is too unreliable for general use, there is another scenario to consider.
Some have mentioned the problems with the ring types possibly not working with gloves on or fingerprint readers failing due to a "foreign substance" (blood was mentioned) on the reader or the spouse "not authorized" on that gun, what about the owner being forced to use their "weak" hand?

Neither one would work then.
 
Eh, the lightbulb thing was concocted by the Green Mafia as well as the high-end lightbulb companies (GE/Siemens/etc) who were being badly undercut by imported bulbs. As 'wasteful' as the tech is, it is dead simple and any third-world joint can build the things; that's not profitable if you are in business making jet engines in the other half of your corporate structure. So you get some senators on the horn, and start pimping your latest greatest 'improvement' on the light bulb, which costs several hundred times the .05$ cost of an incandescent (cha-ching!), doesn't last near as long since the electronics on board seem to die before the lighting element does, contains mercury and other toxic materials, and require a full-on recycling mandate to deal with them. Jobs all around (you know the kind).

LED has a lot more promise, but simple geometry has proved them to be a poor replacement; they simply don't have enough emitter surface area to properly light a large volume, so you get either focused harsh light or very spotty/dim coverage. At least they aren't all blue, anymore. And like I said earlier, despite the claims of longevity, the tech is evolving so rapidly you'll likely have to replace your purchase with something better within a year (assuming the crummy electronics which China still can't do as well as a tungsten filament haven't died)

I stockpiled about six boxes of 100W bulbs, which often last longer than the 'high tech' devices which replaced them (esp CCFL), and simply work better in every way (esp CCFL). Truly the 'vinyl record' of lighting; for the true connoisseur :D. Felt positively Russian when I bought all the remaining boxes off the shelf shortly before the ban for stockpile, too.

My point is that the incandescents were banned because no one stood up for them, because the only beneficiaries were oblivious consumers (who still don't know about the ban, and just assume market forces made them disappear, or something) and foreign garbage manufacturers. Guns do not have this problem; the consumer is well informed and attentive, the manufacturers are here and have no desire to soak all us rubes (see: Colt and S&W in the '90s, the latter of whom learned its lesson), profits are already peaked, and there are no outside interests other than gun control interested in pushing smart guns who might eventually tag-team us.

TCB
 
Never heard of the light bulb thing. Seems out of line...but obviously still nowhere near the level of magnitude of "wrong" that mandating firearms would be

You likely didn't hear about it because it didn't happen. (Common theme with gun issues) The government didn't ban incandescent light bulbs. They did set a minimum standard for watts per lumens of light. Manufacturers updated their technology and now the lightbulbs on the shelf today are more efficient.

Today if you want a "60 Watt" bulb you can get:
43 Watt - Incandescent
14 Watt - Compact Fluorescent
9 Watt - LED
 
The CONCEPT is a good one for its original intent, which was pretty much for uniformed police officers losing their weapons in a struggle. I could also see it as an advantge for open carry people. (I'd still be wanting a concealed backup of the old fashioned type.) For a home defense weapon, or a concealed carry weapon, I don't see them as particularly useful, and possibly even harmful. For "safety in the home", with children, etc, it would seem to be a least desired choice. A quick access bio-lock or combination lock box would be a more sensible choice.

The problem is that is only a concept, with no proven record of reliability, and I'm guessing is only supported by the president because it's extremely expensive. It's like so many things today that have developing techonology that they are trying to shove down our throats with legislation before it is even remotely ready or cost effective enough to be implemented. I see this as the "fossil fuels" debate in another form. Let's ban conventional guns today because 20 years from now we might have a reliable smart gun that you might be able to afford. Technology can be great, but you can't legislate it into existance.

I voluntarily bought compact flourescent bulbs long ago when they were still quite expensive with the incentive to save on my electric bill, and change them less often, which is how it should be. Not because a government agency threatened to charge me with a crime for not doing my part to save the planet.
 
Last edited:
Light bulb thing was devised because "people" were not buying 'enough' CFL lamps.
The fact that cost remains a huge issue is of no matter. That lamp color remains an issue is of no matter. That extremely poor fixture design (like putting only a single 2x 75W ceiling fixtures in too many apartments) is of no matter. Neither the fact that the US exists in an international market beyond US ability to regulate being of no matter.

So, the "ban" is a ruse.

The manufacturers merely have to reduce the wattage to make "legal" lamps. So, 100W are now 91W; 75 are now 68; 60W are now 58W.

All of which is becoming moot with the surge in LED lighting.

Still a pain to find 25W PAR20 mini floods.

CapnMac, I'm borrowing and rewriting your original post. I'm not putting words in your mouth by any means. I just wonder if someone in the future will make a statement similar to yours in the form that I've rewritten it in. The following quote is NOT attributed to you. The red is my changes.

The Smart Gun thing was devised because "govt" did not want citizens buying firearms under a right it failed to restrict.
The fact that cost remains a huge issue is of no matter. That revolvers and semi-autos exist remains an issue of no matter. That extremely poor electronic design (regulated to include fail-safe shutdowns in case of interference or hacking) is of no matter. Neither the fact that the US exists in an international market beyond US ability to regulate being of no matter.

So, the antiquated technology firearm "ban" is a ruse.

The manufacturers merely have to redesign their production lines to make "safe" guns. So, handguns are now RFID activated, long guns are finger-print activated.

All of which is becoming moot with the surge in "???" technology.

Still a pain to find 22LR MiniMags.
 
You likely didn't hear about it because it didn't happen. (Common theme with gun issues) The government didn't ban incandescent light bulbs. They did set a minimum standard for watts per lumens of light. Manufacturers updated their technology and now the lightbulbs on the shelf today are more efficient.

It's still mandate. One made using their own judgment while disregarding what the consumer may prefer to buy.

Today if you want a "60 Watt" bulb you can get:
43 Watt - Incandescent
14 Watt - Compact Fluorescent
9 Watt - LED

While you're getting the same amount of lumens in a lower wattage bulb, it's not the same bulb or bulb technology. Same with firearms under smart gun technology.

TimSr hit on a point. If the manufacturers want to make a smart gun product for the market, create away. If buyers voluntarily prefer a smart gun, then by all means have at it.

But let's not pretend that gov't administrations aren't in the business of pushing agendas and mandates as fits their needs. They'll package anything they want as law/policy/regulation in a pretty package, with a bow on top, if it'll sell faster to a supportive audience. When the level of interest from an affected group isn't large enough, they'll circumvent at will. (And who wouldn't want safer guns? Smart Guns. They're just like your gun; But different.)

Now can we get off the light bulbs. They were just a means to illustrate a point; Not the main topic.
 
The only smart gun I want is one that knows I know more than it does and is content to hang on my hip and let me do the thinking for it. Seriously - does anyone ever trust anything this government tells us?
 
I love technology, work with it daily, here's how I feel about it integrated in to my firearms. BTW this girl would get a nasty slide cut if it fired.


smart-gun-self-defense.jpg
 
Had visions of an altercation; Gun somehow gets knocked from my hand and lands at my wife's/friend's/coworker's feet:
"Pick it up! Use it!"
"Um . . . I can't."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top