ShamboPyro
Member
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/23/technology/smart-guns
Making your gun rely on an electronic circuit to work; what a great idea! :banghead:
Making your gun rely on an electronic circuit to work; what a great idea! :banghead:
James Bond Smart Grips CNN
- Thread starter ShamboPyro
- Start date
- Status
TheSaint
Member
When the police and military adopt this, sure I'll do likewise. I'm not holding my breath. This is intrinsically expensive and unreliable, as any time you add additional engineering to any mechanical device the failure rate goes up.
RiverPerson
Member
No thanks.
The price alone would probably remove access to guns from lower income households.
The price alone would probably remove access to guns from lower income households.
TRX
Member
The very first problem with lock systems, which is usually glossed over: the fail mode
Does the lock fail-to-fire, or fail-to-safe?
The assumption of most of the lock proponents is fail-to-safe.
The requirement of the people who would actually be carrying a gun for defense would usually be fail-to-fire.
If it doesn't go boom, it's just an awkwardly shaped club.
Does the lock fail-to-fire, or fail-to-safe?
The assumption of most of the lock proponents is fail-to-safe.
The requirement of the people who would actually be carrying a gun for defense would usually be fail-to-fire.
If it doesn't go boom, it's just an awkwardly shaped club.
Watch the video. Pow, pow, click but no slide lock back at one point while she's demonstrating at around 50 seconds.
I can't be completely sure but it looks like she had a failure of some sort after a couple of shots. I'm betting it has to do with the technology and not the gun. This indicates to me that simpler is better.
Imagine for a moment that you've got your gun drawn, it has for some reason been drenched in water. Would you prefer for the gun to work with electronics inside that are potentially compromised by water? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Basically for me, computer tech isn't reliable enough to place it inside of a gun.
Every few years I have to buy a new computer because the internal mechanisms fail. My firearms however, are unburdened by computerized tech and continue to work perfectly. I've got guns that are older than me that still work fine, can I say the same about computers or technology? Nope.
I can't be completely sure but it looks like she had a failure of some sort after a couple of shots. I'm betting it has to do with the technology and not the gun. This indicates to me that simpler is better.
Imagine for a moment that you've got your gun drawn, it has for some reason been drenched in water. Would you prefer for the gun to work with electronics inside that are potentially compromised by water? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Basically for me, computer tech isn't reliable enough to place it inside of a gun.
Every few years I have to buy a new computer because the internal mechanisms fail. My firearms however, are unburdened by computerized tech and continue to work perfectly. I've got guns that are older than me that still work fine, can I say the same about computers or technology? Nope.
The Teacher
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 89
NeuseRvrRat
Member
good thing about electronic interlocks is they're easily bypassed 
Carl N. Brown
Member
I went to check the laser sight on my "space gun" (scope sighted Explorer II pistol) and the batteries had died.
Biometric guns sound like a high-maintenence item with maybe a niche need: correction officers "in population" among the prisoners.
On the other hand, look at the reaction to extra safeties added to hammer guns--Savage 24, Marlin 336, Puma 1892, Taurus 73--and the efforts folks go to to disable the superfluous safeties.
Since the 1996 gun bans in Australia, ever so often I check the Aussie news: there are frequent busts of "bikies" operating garage or basement shops building MAC10s. "Biometrics? Biometrics? We don't need no stinkin' biometrics."
Biometric guns sound like a high-maintenence item with maybe a niche need: correction officers "in population" among the prisoners.
On the other hand, look at the reaction to extra safeties added to hammer guns--Savage 24, Marlin 336, Puma 1892, Taurus 73--and the efforts folks go to to disable the superfluous safeties.
Since the 1996 gun bans in Australia, ever so often I check the Aussie news: there are frequent busts of "bikies" operating garage or basement shops building MAC10s. "Biometrics? Biometrics? We don't need no stinkin' biometrics."
Carl N. Brown
Member
One of the arguments of anti-gunners against Right-To-Carry is that pricey gun permits go to people in better off neighborhoods with the lowest crime rates, while few permits are issued to people who live in high crime neighborhoods who would have the most need, so nobody should get a permit.
I can hear it now: the hi-tech "safe" guns can only be owned by wealthy people in better off neighborhoods with the lowest crime rates who don't really need them, while people who live in high crime neighborhoods who would have the most need for self defense cannot afford them, so nobody should get a gun.
I can hear it now: the hi-tech "safe" guns can only be owned by wealthy people in better off neighborhoods with the lowest crime rates who don't really need them, while people who live in high crime neighborhoods who would have the most need for self defense cannot afford them, so nobody should get a gun.
Carne Frio
Member
You just need faith in the progress of technology and
wait for your phased plasma rifle in a 40 watt range.
wait for your phased plasma rifle in a 40 watt range.
InkEd
Member
This kind of junk has been on the drawing board for DECADES. Anyone remember the one that required the user to wear a little ring with a chip in it. It was shown on The History Channel back in the 1990's (along with early Land Warrior prototypes) on Modern Marvels?
IIRC it was the brain(fart)-child of either Colt or S&W. It did fail safe to FIRE but the components were to delicate.
Even if it does come to market, it will probably be less well received than the ILS on S&W revolvers. No thank you.
IIRC it was the brain(fart)-child of either Colt or S&W. It did fail safe to FIRE but the components were to delicate.
Even if it does come to market, it will probably be less well received than the ILS on S&W revolvers. No thank you.
Haha, I can already hear the politicians of 2130ad now....
" no one NEEDS a 40 watt plasma rifle for hunting!"
"The 2a doesn't cover plasma rifles, our founding fathers could never have imagined this technology!"
" a 2 shot 20watt plasma rifle is all you need to defend your home, I promise you, one or two zaps in the air an the bad guys will go running..."
DeathByCactus
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 245
Cool idea... But, I am skeptical about the practical applications involved here. Electricity and firearms... hrmmm.
Lol...
"Umm, your gun isn't working..."
..
"Ahh man, sorry, my battery died. One minute."
Lol...
"Umm, your gun isn't working..."
..
"Ahh man, sorry, my battery died. One minute."
Did you hear at 1:20 the guy saying they were starting to embed chips in humans in the fatty part of the hand?
USAF_Vet
Member
So is this like Judge Dredds Lawgiver?
I'll get on board when I get voice activated ammo and action changes.
"I am the law!"
I'll get on board when I get voice activated ammo and action changes.
"I am the law!"
Texan Scott
Member
This really makes me want to build a black powder blunderbuss kit.
JFrame
Member
I imagine that many funds-strapped people who can barely scrape together the money for a low-end firearm for home protection would not be able to afford this additional "smart" technology.
Why do anti-gun people want to discriminate against the poor?
.
Why do anti-gun people want to discriminate against the poor?
.
- Status
