Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.
BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?
Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?
Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.
BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?
Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?
The chance of that happening is about nil. First nobody will probably ever break in. Second according to the pro gunners you won't have to actually fire the gun. Third it is extremely unlikely to malfunction.
The best pistol out there claims 90%. Now. Take 10 cookies, add cyanide to one of them. Put them in a bowl. Choose one and eat it.
smart guns could be manipulated remotely
smart guns could be manipulated remotely
Only if it is designed to be remotely manipulated.
Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.
BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?
Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?
Dependability is the point. A multi Billion dollar car manufacturer isn't going to sell something that they know will cost them more money to repair or replace in the future unless they think they can lie their way out of it. Ignition systems are too noticeable to lie about. Dependable smart guns are possible now and will only get more dependable in the future.
Interesting "logic"..........Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
smart guns could be manipulated remotely
Only if it is designed to be remotely manipulated.
Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.
BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?
Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?
The chance of that happening is about nil. First nobody will probably ever break in. Second according to the pro gunners you won't have to actually fire the gun. Third it is extremely unlikely to malfunction.
The best pistol out there claims 90%. Now. Take 10 cookies, add cyanide to one of them. Put them in a bowl. Choose one and eat it.
And since the likelyhood of ever needing to fire in defense is quite astronomical what is the problem?
Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.
You've never heard of the Honorable Artillery Company of Boston have you...... A PRIVATE artillery company that was active with artillery till WWI. Then the artillery simply became too expensive for them to maintain their batteries. The group still exists however.
Nothing in the 2A says I have to own the arms -- just "bear" them.
Therefore if Dim Dung Ill wants me to store a nuke in my back yard, I have the right.
"KEEP AND BEAR". Learn to read jack ass.
Wtf? How do I need to "own" in order to "keep" OR "bear"?
Speako Englishee?
I do. Clearly you don't.
Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.
BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?
Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?
The chance of that happening is about nil. First nobody will probably ever break in. Second according to the pro gunners you won't have to actually fire the gun. Third it is extremely unlikely to malfunction.
The best pistol out there claims 90%. Now. Take 10 cookies, add cyanide to one of them. Put them in a bowl. Choose one and eat it.
Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.
BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?
Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?
Dependability is the point. A multi Billion dollar car manufacturer isn't going to sell something that they know will cost them more money to repair or replace in the future unless they think they can lie their way out of it. Ignition systems are too noticeable to lie about. Dependable smart guns are possible now and will only get more dependable in the future.
I could care less about the possible money that the company would lose. I care about my family and the fact that there is a 10 percent chance that a weapon I would be relying on might fail. That is unacceptable. I wouldn't drive a car if there were a 5% chance the brakes won't work. Would you? Shit GM killed at least a dozen people with a part that had a failure rate of less than one percent. I don't see a single person saying "oh that's OK. shit happens." Not one. They ALL want their pound of flesh...and rightly so.
You picked the wrong analogy dude.
smart guns could be manipulated remotely
Only if it is designed to be remotely manipulated.
Even things that AREN'T supposed to be remotely manipulated are being hacked. Read the tech blogs.
The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.
BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?
Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?
The chance of that happening is about nil. First nobody will probably ever break in. Second according to the pro gunners you won't have to actually fire the gun. Third it is extremely unlikely to malfunction.
The best pistol out there claims 90%. Now. Take 10 cookies, add cyanide to one of them. Put them in a bowl. Choose one and eat it.
I hardly believe the best technology out there is some proposed gun from more than two years ago. There have probably been 4 generations of advancement since then. I'm guessing you feel good enough to continue conversations, but still not good enough to back up your claims.That's OK. It's what I usually expect.
The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.
BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?
Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?
Dependability is the point. A multi Billion dollar car manufacturer isn't going to sell something that they know will cost them more money to repair or replace in the future unless they think they can lie their way out of it. Ignition systems are too noticeable to lie about. Dependable smart guns are possible now and will only get more dependable in the future.
I could care less about the possible money that the company would lose. I care about my family and the fact that there is a 10 percent chance that a weapon I would be relying on might fail. That is unacceptable. I wouldn't drive a car if there were a 5% chance the brakes won't work. Would you? Shit GM killed at least a dozen people with a part that had a failure rate of less than one percent. I don't see a single person saying "oh that's OK. shit happens." Not one. They ALL want their pound of flesh...and rightly so.
You picked the wrong analogy dude.
They thought they could lie through it. I already addressed that anyway. Ignition that doesn't work would be a BIG problem for them, and they know that. Reliability is the point anyway.
smart guns could be manipulated remotely
Only if it is designed to be remotely manipulated.
Even things that AREN'T supposed to be remotely manipulated are being hacked. Read the tech blogs.
I read tech materials on a daily basis. Making an effort to prevent hacking is 90% of the problem.
Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?
Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?
The chance of that happening is about nil. First nobody will probably ever break in. Second according to the pro gunners you won't have to actually fire the gun. Third it is extremely unlikely to malfunction.
The best pistol out there claims 90%. Now. Take 10 cookies, add cyanide to one of them. Put them in a bowl. Choose one and eat it.
I hardly believe the best technology out there is some proposed gun from more than two years ago. There have probably been 4 generations of advancement since then. I'm guessing you feel good enough to continue conversations, but still not good enough to back up your claims.That's OK. It's what I usually expect.
Find one. I follow gun technology closely. Not one of them can even approach 99% reliability. The best I have ever seen is 90% and that is a weapon that has not undergone rigorous real world testing. Armitex just recently went out odf business and theirs was the best of the bunch. However, their pistol cost 1800 dollars. And it was a .22LR. No one in their right mind would ever rely on a .22 for self defense purposes. They chose .22 because the recoil impulse from anything bigger destroyed the hardware that made their pistol smart.
Further you had to wear a watch to make the combo work. Watches need batteries. Watches fail etc. etc. etc. So, you have a weapon that only works 90% of the time. Cost four times more than a comparable non smart pistol and was useless for the purpose it was made for.
Got any other points you wish me to address?
