The Smart Gun Doesn’t Exist for the Dumbest Reasons

mmattockx said:
There have been smart gun designs that certainly do work, if unsatisfactorily from a gun owner's standpoint.
Mark
Click to expand...

If they dont work to the satisfaction of the majority of consumers, then they dont work.

Slavex said:
once these are actually instituted into firearms, you'll see lawsuits every single time one doesn't work and a gunowner is hurt or killed because they couldn't get it to work. Unlike the attempts by the anti gun people, who file lawsuits over the criminal misuse of firearms, the lawsuits from people harmed when a gun doesn't work will actually make it through the courts and the makers will pay huge.
Click to expand...

I suspect each of these start ups are one law suit away from bankruptcy. Once one of these companies fail, all the rest of them will find it very difficult to get business insurance...

The people who are committed to seeinf this concept fail wont have very long to wake before finding or manufacturing a test case.

I hope some Silicon Valley Morons launch an IPO for a smart gun clmpany so I can short sell it all the way to zero.
 
I'm mostly annoyed that they're calling it a "Smart Gun".

Since every time I've seen that in science fiction and other 'nerdy' things, it's always talking about a gun that is 'smart' in how it aims, often with bullets that can track, or at least have limited abilities to curve around obstacles. 'Want to fire your gun remotely? There's an App for that!'

I find the real life version of the Smart Gun much less acceptable.
 
GreenBob said:
If I remember correctly based on 20 year data, on average there are 340 deaths involving children between 5 to 14 years of age and firearms a year in the U.S.
Click to expand...
I don't have access to the stats but that number makes no sense. It would mean that there has been nearly one child killed with a gun per day every year for the past 20 years. Now if you do what some of the anti-gun groups have done and consider "children" to be anyone under the age of 20 then the number would be plausible since there are lots of teenage gang members & drug dealers killed by guns each year but calling a 19 year old banger a 'child' is disingenuous at best.
 
Just like the study in Ontario that counted "child" as up to age 24 and anything as gunshot wounds, including pellets, paintballs and even Nerf.
 
There could be another purpose to smart guns. Once we have legislation that all guns must be smart, the next step can be to confiscate all guns that aren't. In fact, if the definition of "smart" is hard enough to meet, then none will qualify and all can be confiscated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom