‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby

[SecularMotion]

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. A few fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers were all it took.

Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. “Belinda?” the person wrote. “Is that you?”

Her offense? Trying to market and sell a new .22-caliber handgun that uses a radio frequency-enabled stopwatch to identify the authorized user so no one else can fire it. Ms. Padilla and the manufacturer she works for, Armatix, intended to make the weapon the first “smart gun” for sale in the United States.

But shortly after Armatix went public with its plans to start selling in Southern California, Ms. Padilla, a fast-talking, hard-charging Beverly Hills businesswoman who leads the company’s fledgling American division, encountered the same uproar that has stopped gun control advocates, Congress, President Obama and lawmakers across the country as they seek to pass tougher laws and promote new technologies they contend will lead to fewer firearms deaths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us/politics/smart-firearm-draws-wrath-of-the-gun-lobby.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

[ileus]

1. 22s without RFIDs shoot people.

[krispos42]

2. Funny how the cops aren't using them.

I mean, if it's so reliable and safe, surely the CHP and LAPD have massive orders placed already, right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. You weren't supposed to notice that, or have the bad taste to mention it when you did

It's just not done to disrupt the propagandizing with inconvenient truths.
For shame...

[krispos42]

4. When it's reliable enough for the cops, I'll take a look.

Hell, I've even discussed taking the ElectronX system that Remington used to offer for their rifles and putting it in "smart" pistols.

[DonP]

5. Don't forget Bloomberg's bodyguards ...

... as well as Shannon Watts armed security team.

I'm sure, as the thought leaders on "Gun Safety", they'll want to use their high profile positions to lead the way on "Smart Guns".

[JoePhilly]

8. Are cops in the habit of leaving their guns laying around?

[bossy22]

10. police have had guns stolen from them all the time

A significant number of law enforcement shooting deaths are committed with the officers own weapon being used against him

[JoePhilly]

13. Far less frequent than a kid killed using a

parent's gun.

[gejohnston]

14. actually not

One makes the news, the other doesn't.

[S_B_Jackson]

15. It's not uncommon....

go the restroom, leave their gun belt w/ firearm on the hook on the back of door to the john. Walk off and leave it. Happens a couple of times a week nationwide.

Major oopsie and they take a fair amount of flack for it on gun boards like glocktalk, sigforum, ar15-forum, etc....

[jeff47]

12. Yeah, they clearly should have bought them before they were available.

Apparently you missed the word "new" plastered all over the article.

[TupperHappy]

6. If ever the situation called for it...

...and I needed to use a firearm for self-defense, I certainly would not want to have the equivalent of the Microsoft 'Blue Screen of Death' scenario happen.

[pneutin]

16. COVER ME, I'M REBOOTING

nothing to see here

[geckosfeet]

7. I am not so much wrathful as amused that someone thinks that this has potential.

Clearly not a gun owner, nor one who has any clue about firearms and the technologies that have been available for years to prevent unauthorized use. Just someone who thinks they can market the tech to the "dumb rubes" who own guns.

Another tech titillated fail.

[rrneck]

9. All they have to do is

put 'em on the market. If the people who buy guns like them, fine and dandy. If not, oh well. Life is hard in business. And of course all it will take is one instance where the gun got it's owner killed to start the lawsuits. I can hear it now, "We're not liable! The gun functioned exactly as it was designed!" Where have I heard that before?

Of course it would never occur to them to have the government mandate the technology even if it doesn't work. Naaaahhhh. That would never happen. That would be using government to enrich private enterprise at the expense of the public. Who would do a thing like that?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. "it would never occur to them to have the government mandate the technology even if it doesn't work"

I'll wager anyone pushing for such a mandate also owns stock in the companies that own the patent.

[rrneck]

17. Yep.

And good meaning Dems lap it right up. The 1% works both sides of the street.