Discussion on SMART guns and assault Rifles

[Moby]

After every crazy does something crazy the main stream media and the left want to punish all the non crazies. CT incident being no different except that we have a socialistic administration currently that would love nothing more than to disarm America.

A lot has been tossed around about smart guns. I have zero contact with any of them. What are some of your thoughts on this technology on assault weapons. I would not be for this technology on my carry weapon or home defense weapons. If I ever need those a malfunction of this technology is not acceptable. I know the argument over an AR15 being a home defense firearm and my personal opinion is it is a terrible choice for that purpose.
Far to much penetration for the close quarters your children may be in. So for the sake of this discussion please let's keep the assault riffle (all of them) out of the realm of home protection. Even if you choose to use one for that purpose.

My AR10 (.308) is used for paper punching, hog hunting, and let's hope I never need to defend the flag with it. But my opinion for assault rifles being allowed in American hands is that the government is fully aware it's citizenry is armed with assault rifles thus needs to tread lightly. I would hate for any of that to happen however.

So, for hog hunting, and killing paper zombies, would smart technology be a bad thing on assault weapons? Like the four button combination on my quick access safe. Perhaps the same on the stock of a firearm. Of fingerprint recognition from the trigger. I do not know all the available technology, but let's say before you handed your son an AR15 you had to put in the code for the rifle to fire. Think that's a good idea? Of course it would add to the cost of the firearm. What are your thoughts on this? Let's be honest. An assault weapon is a far more powerful firearm than hand guns. And more killing can be done rapidly with one. So would it be a good idea to disrupt there use for this. Even though it is rare.

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

For any system to be considered for any firearm it will have to be one that is identical in reliability to a firearm not so equipped. Failing that test means the firearm is no longer RELIABLE.

Also, to what end? What about the millions of firearms already in the hands of owners? They represent and endless supply. I'm regularly shooting firearms that are over 100+ years old and they are not even close to being worn out. I expect them to last another 100 or 200 or 300 years if taken care of.

As for an assault weapon being more powerful than a handgun ... OK, but that is not a matter of any real consequence. Yes, my AR-15 is more powerful than my Walther P-38. Your AR-10 is more powerful than my AR-15.

If we're speaking of lethality against soft targets in a confined area where said targets cannot fight back or flee ... I see no significant difference in the end result between any high powered pistol round vs 5.56 vs 7.62.

I also don't accept that you can kill faster with an assault rifle than you can with a pistol (in the previously mentioned situation). Regardless of magazine capacity differences, reloading takes seconds. If we're talking a stop watch timed event, you're correct, but in the overall, real world ... I see no difference in the end result.

 

[Scorch]

There is a lot of talk from anti-gunners about smart guns. Only problem I see with it is they don't exist. So we have to rely on dumb humans to control themselves and not shoot other humans.

 

[trg42wraglefragle]

Being a Smart gun will I be able to instantly upload the groups I've shot to facebook?
I hope it will be fully able to connect with my smart phone, laptop, smart camera and smart TV

Seriously though, I have no doubt that this kind of technology could exist, but if its as reliable as the cellphones and laptops I've owned then they can stick it!
I find technology so unreliable, I don't want to have to turn my gun off and on again for it to reboot because the safety wont come off.

The only piece of good 100% reliable technology I have is in my motorbike, and thats still mainly mechanical not stupid circuit board, mothership nonsense.

P.S. I'm not an older generation folk either, if your wondering.

 

[kozak6]

Who are you trying to keep "assault weapons" from?

A keycode lock isn't any better than a padlock or trigger lock.

James Holmes lawfully purchased his firearms. Scanning a fingerprint before he went back inside wouldn't have stopped him.

 

[Moby]

All good points.
I was thinking the lack of responsibility of the mother
of the CT shooter allowing her son access (or failure to prevent access)
of her firearms.

But you are correct, a trigger lock would do the same thing.

 

[Scorch]

IIRC, the CT shooter's mother was unable to keep her son from getting the rifle in question because she was dead. Remember, just because someone is mentally unstable does not mean they are stupid or unable to make a plan to get weapons.

 

[MagnumWill]

If I see the term "assault weapon" again, I'm going to scream.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

So we have to rely on dumb humans to control themselves and not shoot other humans.

+1.

You can't legislate stupid out of existence. A smart gun, if they existed, would only be as smart as the person that owns it.

So why smart guns sound like a great option to the average person, they won't stop any crimes simply because you call them smart. People do dumb things no matter how smart the technology is.

Banning assault weapons won't stop crime, nor will banning magazines, nor will a gun registry, nor will smart guns. A person motivated to commit a crime will do so not matter what law is put in place to stop him.

I find it very interesting that people push gun bans and restrictions while selling the idea that those acts will prevent further violent attacks. I also find it interesting that the Bath School disaster is never mentioned by any of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Evil will find a way. Law abiding citizens will obey the laws. Criminals won't. A gun free zone has never stopped a criminal from committing a crime and it never will. A smart gun is only as smart as its owner.

 

[Mr.Scott]

Assault rifles are very rarely used in crimes. They are to expensive. A semi auto rifle is not an assault rifle. If you seriously value your 2nd amendment rights, you need to be educated about it.
To be an assault rifle it must be cable of automatic fire. If you can't use the correct terminology it hurts us. It shows that you've fallen for the false terms spewed by the media.
A stick can be used to assault someone so are all sticks "assault sticks"?

 

[berettaprofessor]

First; let's please stop using the term "Assault rifle", even among ourselves. The language was invented to be damaging to the pro-gun cause. It is a semi-automatic rifle, an Ar-15 type rifle, or an AK-47, AK74, etc.

Second; the OP has fallen into the trap of considering "compromises". This approach has gotten us to where I can't have an automatic rifle without a bunch of Federal intervention or to where I can't have a suppressor to protect my hearing better.

Third; You can't legislate against, or protect against "CRAZY". Crazy is crazy.

Fourth: Mods, this thread, if it remains open, should be moved to a more appropriate forum, like the General Discussion.

 

[Art Eatman]

Having just returned from overdosing on crab claws, french fries and good companionship, I'm late to the fray.

The only part of the OP that matters here is the pluses and minuses of smart-gun technology.

Mommy and daddy and little kids and politicians' natterings and yawpings are not germane to the topic.

My own opinion? Since the police and military use firearms on a regular basis of need far more than the private sector folks, let them test the technology for reliability. They're employees of the public sector which is advocating the use.

I think that we all agree that hearing a click instead of a bang is a real bummer. I therefore do not wish to be a guinea pig in testing the concept.

So: Does anybody know of any test samples--prototypes--which did or did not function in an appropriate manner?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Colt did a study once, IIRC, that found that there were folks who would buy 'smart' guns who wouldn't buy regular guns.

If they could be made to work - then that's a market decision.

However, the problem was that some wanted to make it mandatory for all new guns to be smart guns. I think that is the law in NJ, if they ever are made to work.

Mandating them is the sticky point. Their existence will be like gun anti flies to honey , so to speak.

 

[Art Eatman]

But the questions to be answered are:

1. Does it always recognize the proper user?
2. Does it always ignore some other would-be user?
3. Will it always go bang for the proper user?
4. Will it always not go bang for some other would-be user?
5. Can some unauthorized would-be user defeat the system?

The answer must be 100% yes or such a firearm is totally useless other than as some form of hammer or lever.

Q: How many thousands of on-off cycles would reasonably establish reliability? 50,000 seems a good start, to me. Pick up gun. Activate gun. Shoot. Shut down gun. Repeat test.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The NJIT got a grant from Taurus to work on a smart gun. I knew a guy who was involved. It never worked well enough.

It would be disaster for a military, police or SD gun. Why it might not work at the same rate as the 1911s in an IDPA match - hahaha! I can say that as I'm shooting mine tomorrow if the weather does screw us up.

For a hunting or target gun - then it's a market decision. Mandating them is what evil folks want. Some gun companies wanted that too - it was suggested that if it was mandated then Colt would have had a shot at the police market. All police guns would be obsolete and there would be huge market for the new smart replacements. Their first Colt competitor and the basis for the smart gun was the Colt 2000 - which was a disaster.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

How about this?

The gun will only "not work" for people who are in a database as being anti-2A. This would be ideal really. They don't want the gun to work and believe guns are bad so not having it work when they might want it to would be ideal.

Any opposed?

 

[Ridge_Runner_5]

If I see the term "assault weapon" again, I'm going to scream.

Tell me about it. I saw the thread title and rolled my eyes so hard I pulled a muscle.

 

[stu925]

Here's my thoughts, all of my firearms may be called upon for duty in a defensive role at some point so all of them must be 100% reliable. I'll grab whichever firearm is closest to me in the event of an emergency. As of right now the "Smart gun" technology doesn't exist and the ones that have been tried have failed to be 100% reliable and cost prohibitive. Does this mean that one will be built that won't be 100% reliable? No. Will I buy one? No. Should they be mandated? Absolutely not. If you truly want to keep your firearms out of the hands of unauthorized users, lock them up. Use a biometric safe if it makes you feel better (although I'm not positive this technology is 100% reliable).

As I recall the original purpose of "Smart guns" was so that if a police officer's duty gun were taken by a criminal it couldn't be used against said officer. This is truly a noble pursuit since I can see no better use of the technology than to keep safe those that strive to protect us. However if the technology were reliable you would see those guns in the holsters of Police officers worldwide I would think. "Smart guns" have been a miserable failure thus far.

As a collective whole firearms owners need to stop using the terms "Assault Rifle". This term bring to mind the firearms in the hands of combat troops which are select fire weapons. The rifles commonly referred to as "Assault Rifle" are generally gas operated semi-automatic rifles. Call them ARs, AKs, Rifle, Modern Sporting Rifles, call them whatever you like as long as it isn't an "Assault Rifle". The sooner we stop describing our rifles as "Assault Rifles" the sooner they will be accepted by the mainstream (not that we need acceptance from anyone) and perhaps they will stop being vilified.

Just my 2 cents,

Stu

 

[chris in va]

You guys don't understand their thinking.

A: M&P don't need smart technology for their rifles. They are immune from civilian restrictions.

B: Non-gun types don't see a need for semiauto rifles. A 'smart' chip that malfunctions on occasion wouldn't be a crucial impediment. They see these type of rifles as 'optional' in society and unnecessary. That's why they're pushing for a ban.