Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
United States Technology

Surprising Support Among Americans For Purchasing Smart Guns (jhsph.edu) 464

Lucas123 writes: A new survey from Johns Hopkins revealed that 59% percent of Americans, if they were to buy a new handgun, are willing to purchase a smart gun. More surprisingly, the web-based survey of almost 4,000 people found that four in 10 gun owners and 56% of political conservatives would buy a smart gun. "The results of this study show that there is potentially a large commercial market for smart gun technology," said Julia Wolfson. "This has been one of the biggest arguments against smart guns, that people just don't want them. This research shows otherwise."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Surprising Support Among Americans For Purchasing Smart Guns

Comments Filter:
  • How smart? (Score:4, Funny)

    by magarity ( 164372 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @05:47PM (#51353569)

    How many people surveyed think "smart gun" is some kind of technology where you don't have to aim very carefully; just tell the gun where you want the shot to go. Or maybe a gun with WiFi or an 4K HD screen.

    • Re:How smart? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Friday January 22, 2016 @05:58PM (#51353685)

      It's even better than that. From TFA:

      Among the findings: Fifty-nine percent of all respondents said they would be willing to consider a childproof gun if they were to purchase a new weapon.

      Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?

      The issue is when it comes down to the specific technology. Will the gun function when you need it to?

      • by mikael ( 484 )

        Some weapons already require two triggers to be pulled at the same time. Some smart gun systems use fingerprint or voice recognition. Others use a RFID ring that only activates the weapon when it is close to the wearer. But what if you have a cold, have been injured in the hands?

        • Re:How smart? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @07:09PM (#51354233)

          Anyone who has ever cycled the slide on a semi auto can tell you that it's pretty much beyond a "child's" capability.

          A teen, yes, but some toddler or six year old, no. So when you talk "child proofing" you are talking the same thing as covers on the outlets, a fence around the pool and gates across the stairs.

          So, an empty chamber and storing above 5 feet high is about as child proof as you need for a semi.

        • But what if you have a cold, have been injured in the hands?

          Then the gun will be useless to whoever takes it out of your cold, injured hands.

          Sorry, couldn't resist.

      • Re:How smart? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @06:26PM (#51353899)
        Perfect example of phrasing the question in order to get the desired response. All this survey tells me is that almost 2/3s of the respondents didn't understand the question.
        • Re:How smart? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @08:20PM (#51354585) Homepage Journal

          Some other things I noticed.
          They checked between gun and non-gun owners, but didn't not the proportions, or attempt to determine, like with elections, 'likely gun purchasers'. As they noted, support dropped substantially with gun owners.

          Also, they used non-standard terminology and spoke in vague theoreticals - Sure, I'd consider buying a smart gun if they were available. I'd consider buying a self-driving car, if they were available. Neither are yet in a state where they can be commercial sale successes, much less mandated.

          Also, for smart guns the use case is currently too limited. For the cost of a smart gun I can buy a regular gun, and a gun safe large enough to hold it and numerous other firearms. Guns that work with gloves, IE RFID, are likely to still fire if I'm struggling with an attacker, and they have their hands on it(though this is rare). Fingerprint scanners are far too easy to foul.

          As a matter of course, I assume that if the criminal has any real amount of time with the firearm to work on it that he'll be able to either reprogram it for himself or disable the 'smart' system.

      • Re:How smart? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by harrkev ( 623093 ) <<kfmsd> <at> <harrelsonfamily.org>> on Friday January 22, 2016 @06:29PM (#51353937) Homepage

        Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?

        Ummm. Anybody sane? We already have things to make guns childproof. They are called "locks" and "safes." I keep mu firearms in a safe with a push-button lock. No batteries to wear out, and a simple design with little to go wrong.

        I am not against adding smart technology to firearms. But I am against requiring it. Simply stated, the problem is reliability. Sometimes people use a gun to defend themselves, which means that it HAS to work. Do you want to be defenseless because of a dead battery or a firmware issue?

        Personally, I will consider it a viable option when it is good enough for the FBI and police. If it is not reliable enough for them, it is not reliable enough for me.

        • Remote disabling (Score:4, Insightful)

          by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @07:13PM (#51354257)
          Its not just a reliability issue. One of the reasons the anti-gun folks are interested in smart guns and smart gun research is that one of those research topics is how to remotely disable a smart gun. Even so the legitimate user can not operate it. Its not even that hard to imagine the anti-gun crowd eventually wanting the default state of a smart gun to be disabled, only allowing it to enable when at a licensed gun range.
      • by JazzLad ( 935151 )
        At the risk of invoking Clinton's famous "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is" - depending on your definition of proof, I, for one.

        Starting at age 10, I take my children shooting at the range. Now, unable to use without me? Sure, absolutely. Unable to use at all? No, thanks. If surveyed and the surveyor can't quantify that, I would say 'no' to that question as the question itself is too open to interpretation and thus the results are open to manipulation (x% of people think children should n
      • Re:How smart? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sowelu ( 713889 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @06:31PM (#51353961)

        If you use it for target shooting instead of self defense (I do), then I'm pretty sure it'll function when I "need" it to. If it doesn't, who cares, I guess I'm renting from the range today.

        Not every gunowner has self defense in mind.

        • If you use it for target shooting instead of self defense (I do), then I'm pretty sure it'll function when I "need" it to.

          Someone who is attacking you is called "a target"...

      • by drnb ( 2434720 )

        Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?

        And what is wrong with the current methods, say including a $10 cable padlock in the box at the factory? Childproofing is a solved problem.

      • Re:How smart? (Score:5, Informative)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @08:02PM (#51354491) Journal

        Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?

        That's too easy:

        The company is called Keystone Sporting Arms, and they make .22 rifles called the "Crickett" and the "Chipmunk" that are meant for children as young as five years old. They became famous a few years ago when a five year old killed his two year old sister with what Keystone sells as "My First Gun". They are still proudly marketing their products to kindergartners.

        http://www.crickett.com/ [crickett.com]

        "Quality Firearms for America's Youth"

        I assume from your use of the letter "u" in the word "favour" that you are not American. This would explain why you might that there is a level below which the American gun industry would not sink.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 )

        > Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?

        Google for news articles about the Armatix IP1 smart gun. It's a "smart gun" that requires the user to wear a watch with an authorized RFID chip in order to fire. When a gun shop here in California put it on sale a couple years back, the NRA crowd completely flipped their shit. The store was subject to boycotts. And the owners received hate mail and death threats. And it wasn't just from Californians. Gun nutters nationwide came out of the woodwork

        • Sounds like a perfect sidearm for police officers, since they are often shot with their own weapon. How many Police Departments have adopted it as their official service weapon? None? I guess there must be something wrong with it.

          • http://www.armatix.de/iP1-Pistol.779.0.html?&L=1 [armatix.de]

            .22 LR calibre, 10 round magazine

            That probably has something to do with it. .22 LR isn't exactly a law enforcement, hunting, or home defense round. It's more like a: "Goto the range occasionally to shot holes in paper targets. Don't want especially clever and explorative children to be able to fire it if they find the thing." round.

            In any event, once again, the point is not the technical effectiveness of this, or any other, "childproof" safety system. I

    • Like this bad boy. http://tracking-point.com/ [tracking-point.com]

  • Why a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @05:47PM (#51353571)
    Willingness to buy a smartgun does not equate to support of legislation to require only smartguns. That is the primary fallacy of the submitter.
    • Re:Why a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22, 2016 @05:55PM (#51353657)

      I bet it's one of those surveys where the wording influences the results:

      Q: Will you use a "smart gun" that will fire when you want it to, with 100% reliability, and not fire at any other time? A: Yes!

      Q: Will you use a "smart gun" that may not fire when you need it to, that is easily bypass-able after being stolen, and is more expensive and less reliable? A: Hell no.

    • Re:Why a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @05:58PM (#51353681) Journal

      Nice straw man fallacy!

      • Re:Why a surprise? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Mr. Shotgun ( 832121 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @07:25PM (#51354315)

        Nice straw man fallacy!

        The straw man argument was from TFA: Julia Wolfson. "This has been one of the biggest arguments against smart guns, that people just don't want them. This research shows otherwise." No, the biggest argument was concerning the trigger laws that New Jersey [npr.org] and other areas set up mandating the smart gun technology on all firearms after it became available anywhere. Lawrence Keane, of the National Sport Shooting Foundation, said "If people think there's a market for these products, then the market should work," in other words absent these laws the gun industry would endorse the further development of smart gun technology.

        Incidentally during the whole fight back in 2014 about smart gun technology one was reviewed [americas1stfreedom.org]. They found it prone to misfire and slow to start up among other things. Obviously not a proven technology as of yet.

  • Propaganda much? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pecosdave ( 536896 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @05:50PM (#51353607) Homepage Journal

    This isn't a technology site anymore. It's a pro-central power mouthpiece and disseminator of propaganda.

  • what happens... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by executioner ( 113014 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @05:52PM (#51353613)
    when the batteries run out of juice and you need to use the "smart gun".

    there may be support to purchase, not to mandate that as the only type of gun. and that support will last until the first time it fails to function. (which might also be the last time it is needed as well)

    • We have high tech batteries that could tell you when they are at the 10% remaining or whatever level.

      I am against "smart weapon" being required, however as I have children and their friends in my house I'd definitely be interested in 99.9999% reliable "smart gun". Heck even "dumb guns" malfunction, or can malfunction if you are injured (e.g. hand not providing enough resistance so semi-auto pistol jams; I lead with a revolver for that reason)

    • when the batteries run out of juice and you need to use the "smart gun".

      If you survive, you get criticized for not properly maintaining your weapon.

    • Wouldn't that fall under proper, regular gun maintenance?
  • by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @05:53PM (#51353619)

    I would definitely buy a smart gun if I could. Having a weapon for self defense does have the risk of it being turned on you.

    However, I would need to be convinced that it would work when I needed it to. If they try and require smart guns, but the unlock mechanism is faulty and causes me to be unable to use my weapon, I don't want it and I don't want that law.

    They need to have a mechanism that is nearly foolproof before I'd ever consider that rule. Otherwise, it's a license for the makers of shitty smart gun technology to mint money while no one is any safer.

    • by zeugma-amp ( 139862 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @05:55PM (#51353655) Homepage
      I'll think about it when the police and secret service are forced to use nothing but these so-called "smart" guns. You can bet your ass that they'll be exempted from any such requirement.
    • by clodney ( 778910 )

      I would definitely buy a smart gun if I could. Having a weapon for self defense does have the risk of it being turned on you.

      However, I would need to be convinced that it would work when I needed it to. If they try and require smart guns, but the unlock mechanism is faulty and causes me to be unable to use my weapon, I don't want it and I don't want that law.

      They need to have a mechanism that is nearly foolproof before I'd ever consider that rule. Otherwise, it's a license for the makers of shitty smart gun technology to mint money while no one is any safer.

      I've never felt the need for a gun, but knowing how many gun accidents there are each year, I would certainly consider a smart gun if I found myself wanting a gun.

      Rather than making them compulsory (which is nowhere in the article), maybe the answer is to change the liability equation.

      Smart gun didn't fire when it should have -> manufacturer is potentially liable
      Didn't buy a smart gun and gun discharged accidentally or after a theft -> gun buyer is potentially liable

      That would force owners and manufac

      • Rather than making them compulsory (which is nowhere in the article)

        It doesn't have to be in the article. It's already the law in more than one state. As soon as such a product goes on sales in any gun store in any state anywhere, the laws in those states require that ONLY such guns be allowed for sale thereafter. Yes, it's that absurd. And the people who vocally complain about these things are keeping that new reality in mind when they do.

    • I get the sentiment... but I gotta point out that most people REALLY suck at understanding probability. Take the probability that you need to defend yourself on a given day, say .1%, (one day in a thousand) and multiply that by the probability that during said encounter, your attacker would gain control of your weapon... 10% (say 9 times out of 10 you keep control)... then lets say that there is a 50/50 chance that the perp will harm you with that gun once they've taken control of it: that results in a .0

  • by ageoffri ( 723674 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @05:54PM (#51353645)

    Let's see some information on how they did a "web-based survey". I really have a hard time believing the numbers they are talking about. I don't know of a single firearm enthusiast who would buy a smart gun as more then a novelty item.

    As far as I'm concerned, when Feinstein's bodyguards are willing to only carry smart guns, then the technology is mature enough for use.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jonnythan ( 79727 )

      It's a scientific published in a major peer-reviewed journal.

      Go read the study instead of just heading straight to the comments on Slashdot to bitch and moan about how you think they possibly may have conducted their study.

    • by jsrjsr ( 658966 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @07:04PM (#51354191)

      I find it interesting that none of the articles I can find even discuss the methodology or the questions.

      If I were asked if I would purchase a smart gun that was less reliable, only available in .22 Long Rifle and cost two or three times what a dumb gun cost, my answer would be NO.

      If I were asked if I would consider purchasing a smart gun that was proven reliable, available in several common cartridges (9mm, .45ACP, etc) and cost just a bit more, my answer would be YES.

      How you word the questions is a big part of the answers you get. BTW, the first question reflects where the technology for smart guns is today.

  • We didn't grant the government the authority to mandate or limit our right to have and bear arms in the Constitution. It isn't actually up to them.
  • The actual paper (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    By the way, you need to pay to read their methodology, [aphapublications.org] so there's no point in debating whether or not their findings are valid.

  • Selection bias (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This screams selection/confirmation bias.

  • by JonTurner ( 178845 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @06:03PM (#51353731) Journal

    Sorry, but I don't believe this for one moment.

    A firearm must, above all things, be reliable. There is no indication whatsoever that the so-called "smart" features (whatever that is) have been developed to anything even close to acceptable real-world performance. Meaning "I pull trigger, gun goes bang every time." I've seen crappy fingerprint recognizing prototypes, some that require an associated bracelet or ring (works great until the battery dies...), GPS-enabled (no signal? stinks for you).

    The police won't carry it.
    The military doesn't want it.
    Neither does the general public.

    Of course it's a sample size of only a few but the gun owners I know (including myself) with whom I have discussed this very topic are agreed -- none of us would ever, EVER own a firearm complicated with failure points (aka "electronics"), which, I will add, could easily be jammed.

    I say the study is propaganda meant to sway the easily influenced public herd, or encourage some politicians with reading comprehension issues to ignore the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

    • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

      > none of us would ever, EVER own a firearm complicated with failure points (aka "electronics"), which, I will add, could easily be jammed.

      Why would you never EVER own it? If this existed, it would be one more layer of protection so some kid can't shoot himself or some other kid. Keep in mind, this would be in addition to your real guns.

      A lot of men keep a gun at hand in the case of a home invasion. A home invasion is very unlikely, but it's still a rather common by cases of defensive gun use. Seems

      • >>Why would you never EVER own it?
        A simple matter of reliability and trust which goes beyond firearms. Given the choice between a simple machine and a complicated one proven to be less reliable with unknown points of failure, I will choose to rely upon a simple tool.

        >>If this existed, it would be one more layer of protection so some kid can't shoot himself or some other kid.
        if. if. if. I don't mean to be snide, but given a limitless list of other hypothetical situations anything could be anythin

    • except guns mechanically fail too. ever shoot an "1800 match", your gun will jam in some matches, that's some time in a 90 shot string it fails because of fouling. if you are injured or tired you can "limp wrist" the firing of a pistol so it jams. Anyone who argues with me hasn't been competition shooter firing hundreds of rounds a week for years, those who go to the range every two months and pop off a box or two STFU.

      • except guns mechanically fail too. ever shoot an "1800 match", your gun will jam in some matches, that's some time in a 90 shot string it fails because of fouling. if you are injured or tired you can "limp wrist" the firing of a pistol so it jams.

        It's clear that some pistols are much more susceptible to this than others. Yes, you can hold a 1911 wrong, to the point that it FTEs. And hell, if you just put the wrong ammo in it, it can FTE so hard that you need a tool and elbow grease to clear the jam. Happened to me when I went 1911 shopping, with a S&W. Then I bought a Kimber... which can still jam.

        Most people say that a jam is not a realistic concern for most people with a Glock. I think the trigger sucks balls and I can't hit shit with them so

    • by Lab Rat Jason ( 2495638 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @06:38PM (#51354021)

      About RFID and GPS: Do you think a criminal would hesitate for even a second to carry a jamming device if he knew the homeowner/cop had this tech?

    • Sorry, but I don't believe this for one moment.

      A firearm must, above all things, be reliable. There is no indication whatsoever that the so-called "smart" features (whatever that is) have been developed to anything even close to acceptable real-world performance. Meaning "I pull trigger, gun goes bang every time." I've seen crappy fingerprint recognizing prototypes, some that require an associated bracelet or ring (works great until the battery dies...), GPS-enabled (no signal? stinks for you).

      What if you're a hunter, recreational shooter, or anyone else who wants a gun for some purpose other than self-defence?

      There should be a very large market for such a product.

  • Show me a gun owner who would pay a 200% premium on their next purchase to have a gun that could fail to save their life if it runs out of batteries and I'll show you a shill for the gun control movement.
  • If you have a gun, adding a smart gun to that collection is pretty wise. It's yet another layer of security to prevent the gun from being used by a child, or used against you. It's a definite feature- every layer of security has statistical effects, after all.

    The concern is that, once smart guns are around, that someone will try to ban normal guns, pointing to smart guns and being allied with a fascist judge who will check the boxes. As long as we have some assurance that this isn't in the cards, you'll

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I read the link to the story (I know, I know). As they say, their are lies, damn lies, and statistics. 50% of the people surveyed were NON gun owners. I.E. People who appear not to have actually used a firearm, may never want one or understand the need for 100% reliability. Let's do a survey of JUST gun owners and see how they respond to the "smart gun" tech.

    Also, this survey was done by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Mr. Bloomberg is an ardent anti-gun nut, so anything having to do wit

  • by Anaxagoras ( 190565 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @06:20PM (#51353851)

    As an avid gun enthusiast I think smart guns are an awful idea and so does everyone i know who shoots. This is /. so I'll start with the technological reasons first.

    There are two types of smart gun technology out there.
    1) Fingerprint: yeah ok, give me a fingerprint reader that works every time and i'll consider it. Are my hands sweaty? Am I nervous shaking? Covered in dirt? Mud? Sweat? How about Blood? It's winter I"m wearing gloves now what? Will it still work in all those conditions and more?
    2.) RFID: this is a wireless signal. Wireless signals can be jammed. If cops/military start carrying smart guns with rfid we'll see this happen no doubt in my mind. Even if they don't people will still figure out how they work and hack them for fun.

    But they keep your guns from being used when their stolen. Sure if hackers never exploit the technology, no one figures out how to disable/remove it, and if no one ever posts howtos on youtube... that will never happen...right?

    When i carry my gun i need to know it will work every time because if i ever have to use it(very unlikely) it's because i feel my life or someone else's life is depending on it. Even then, I don't know it will work every time. Every now and again you can get a bad/light primer strike not igniting the round, a jam, a misfeed, a broken part like an extractor or mainspring, the list goes on. Guns mostly work all the time, the failure rate is very low, and they're mostly all built on technology that's largely unchanged for over a hundred years for a good reason, it's reliable and works. If you are carrying a gun for self protection, duty, hunting or any other lawful purpose you want it to go bang every single fucking time. Show me a technology that cant be exploited, disabled, and will have zero chance of negatively affecting reliability and then we'll talk. Until then get the hell off my lawn. #'MURICA

    • There are two types of smart gun technology out there.

      And both use batteries, which can die at the most inopportune time. Supercaps could perhaps mitigate this to a degree, but they don't hold a charge forever either.
  • A new survey from Johns Hopkins revealed that 59% percent of Americans, if they were to buy a new handgun, are willing to purchase a smart gun

    And how, exactly, did they ask this question?

    "If you were willing to buy a new handgun, would you be willing to buy a smart gun?"

    Well, I'd answer "yes" to that, despite not being willing in the slightest to buy a new handgun. In fact I'd suspect more "non-gun-fans" would answer yes to it than "gun-fans" (to simplistically divide the nation into those two camps for a moment).

    And besides all that, who wouldn't want a hypothetically perfect smart gun that never misreads a palm? Because that's what people will

  • It is all how you formulate the question.

    Same person asked two questions about so called "smart" technology will give two very different answers. I have to assume that that was the case.

    The real test is actual use of so called smart guns. Reality is there are lot of guns that are smart, meaning there is electronic component in those: anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets and even larger weapons.

    Reality is that no army in the world is not using smart weapons, because guns are made to be as simple as possible a

  • Dunno why this is so surprising, it makes sense really. Most arguments against smart guns that I've heard boil down to the increased risk that the smart gun won't go off because it doesn't recognise you or because the battery is flat or some such. Even before balancing those cases out with possibility that your gun gets stolen or you lose it because you put it down and forget or leave it your suitcase for some reason and then lend the suitcase to your kids to go on camp with or whatever, I calculate that o
  • I think that phrase from the "study" says it all. 350 million+ guns in the nation, 40%+ of households have guns, and they post results of a web survey of 4000 anonymous people? Also we have Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg, and The New Venture Fund from Bill and Melinda Gates as the folks involved with this. Um. No.
  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @06:27PM (#51353915)

    ...and a billion dollars, and a lot of other stuff, too.

    I think even die-hard gun owners wouldn't turn down their favorite gun done smart gun style, provided it was the perfect smart gun that only let the people they wanted shoot at the things they wanted shot and worked right every time.

    But back in the real world, I can't have a pony, every day isn't my birthday and nobody's going to give me a billion dollars.

    And no smart gun will work that way either. They will all have futzy technology that will make them not shoot when they're supposed to, or worse, shoot when they're supposedly not supposed to.

  • Because gun owners are, by and large, single issue voters. Politically you can do anything you please to then so long as you don't touch their guns. They're also a highly motivated and well organized voting block. They swing elections in our two party system. People in favor of gun control, by contrast, are much less likely to vote and if they do have a host of more pressing issues.

    If you care about this country then please, drop the gun control issue. You've lost. Focus on improving folks access to foo
    • Because gun owners are, by and large, single issue voters. Politically you can do anything you please to then so long as you don't touch their guns.

      Really? That's insane behaviour. Do you think these people realise that they are encouraging tyranny?

    • by Sowelu ( 713889 )

      I'm pretty sure 40% of Americans aren't single-issue voters about guns.

    • by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Friday January 22, 2016 @07:05PM (#51354207)

      Because gun owners are, by and large, single issue voters. Politically you can do anything you please to then so long as you don't touch their guns.

      That kind of statement, which is far from reality, is rooted in the inability to understand that a very large number of thoughtful, educated, and engaged citizens are against gun control. It makes those that are for it feel better about themselves, I suppose.

      • by DogDude ( 805747 )
        inability to understand that a very large number of thoughtful, educated, and engaged citizens are against gun control.

        You can't be thoughtful or educated if you really believe that individuals should be able to be armed at all times. Basic literacy precludes that idea.
  • I'm not the slightest bit pro-gun, but even I will concede "smart guns" are a dumb idea. A gun needs to work when you press the trigger, depending on failable electronics is dumb, dumb, dumb.

  • For all the people saying they don't want a smart gun, and giving a good reason why not...so what? Who cares? The question is really if ANYBODY would. And surely there is a percent of people who do want to buy them.

    To use a car metaphor, I would never buy a Ford Explorer, and I can give you lots of reasons why it's not a great car for me....but that's an entirely different question than if they're bad for everybody.

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.

Working...