Gun Control & RKBA

bossy22

(3,547 posts)

13. In that instance it would be helpful

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:14 PM

Jan 2014

but that does not mean the pros outweigh the cons. It should be noted that much of the legislation regarding this issue specifically exempts police and military from the requirement to have owner authorized weapons. So in many cases the situation you talk about would not happen since the officers gun would still be "old technology".

The technology is just not there at the moment. It's not reliable enough (main reason why police will not accept it) and its quick to deactivate. A modern gun is essentially still electronic free- its all mechanical. Any introduction of an electronic part to a gun (unless the gun was completely redesigned) could easily be defeated by just removing the part. Just open up a modern handgun and see how many parts there are- not many. This is done for a reason- the simpler the design the less there is to go wrong.

I haven't seen one piece of technology proposed that couldn't be defeated with a screwdriver in less than a few minutes

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is It Time To Put Chips In Guns? [View all] SecularMotion Jan 2014 OP

I prefer to put them in dips. Common Sense Party Jan 2014 #1

LOL. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #2

Post removed Post removed Jan 2014 #3

It's a fair question: Why don't you discuss your own OPs? friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #6

Well, he did. See where he called a fellow DUer a "Stalker?" Eleanors38 Jan 2014 #37

Not stalking, don't flatter yourself. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #20

...or as someone once said... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2014 #34

Yeah. Straw Man Jan 2014 #4

No ileus Jan 2014 #5

What if I sale it? flamin lib Jan 2014 #12

RFID makes sense on three levels; flamin lib Jan 2014 #7

"It makes unauthorized use impossible..."until it's hacked friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #9

Okay, so in a confrontation with police an assailant takes the officer's flamin lib Jan 2014 #11

In that instance it would be helpful bossy22 Jan 2014 #13

It doesn't make sense on many levels bossy22 Jan 2014 #15

Just be honest, okay? flamin lib Jan 2014 #17

I would not oppose it in that case bossy22 Jan 2014 #18

Ya mean like fly by wire? Or drive by wire? flamin lib Jan 2014 #22

Again, I don't have an ideological problem with it bossy22 Jan 2014 #23

Up thread you commented that flamin lib Jan 2014 #27

You are more than free to work on it bossy22 Jan 2014 #28

"mandate it and work out the kinks later". Is it so unreasonable to be against this? flamin lib Jan 2014 #30

no its not bossy22 Jan 2014 #31

Thalidomide was not produced or prescribed in the US. flamin lib Jan 2014 #32

So a testing regime did its job? bossy22 Jan 2014 #35

Someone spent time coming up with a prototype. Eleanors38 Jan 2014 #38

Exactly bossy22 Jan 2014 #40

When the military and the police widely implement it, i'll consider it. AtheistCrusader Jan 2014 #8

One comment illustrates the mindset of the proponents: friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #10

So I have a concealed weapons permit and am out walking my dog with a five shot snub nosed ... spin Jan 2014 #25

It also illustrates the problem with our soundbite politics bossy22 Jan 2014 #41

It's not as simple as many believe bossy22 Jan 2014 #14

The technology is here now and functional. flamin lib Jan 2014 #16

that were true, several gun manufactures are gejohnston Jan 2014 #19

Yeah, I cited that up-thread. flamin lib Jan 2014 #24

go ahead, produce it, test it bossy22 Jan 2014 #26

It won't happen any time soon because flamin lib Jan 2014 #29

so maybe that should tell you something bossy22 Jan 2014 #33

This is getting really boring. I answer every objection yet you find flamin lib Jan 2014 #36

you didn't answer anything bossy22 Jan 2014 #39

in the laboratory bossy22 Jan 2014 #21

So what is your point of discussion here? Packerowner740 Jan 2014 #42