Slashdot Mirror
Surprising Support Among Americans For Purchasing Smart Guns (jhsph.edu)
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."
By the way, you need to pay to read their methodology, so there's no point in debating whether or not their findings are valid.
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 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. They found it prone to misfire and slow to start up among other things. Obviously not a proven technology as of yet.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
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/
"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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's really just fine, if the purpose is to keep the gun out of reach of kids, and not to prevent the gun from being stolen.
Can you provide ANY evidence of this ? Any ...
Mandatory smart guns.
... to think smart guns should be default disabled until entering approved firing ranges?
"{New Jersey] Assembly Bill No. 700, is a law that makes the sale of handguns "illegal" unless it is a smart gun that "can only be fired by an authorized or recognized user" and would take effect three years after the technology is available for retail purposes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Remote Disabling.
"TriggerSmart has also patented and developed Wide Area Control ( WAC) where weapons can be remotely enabled and disabled using various wireless protocols. Safe zones can be created around schools and airports so that only authorised guns can operate in the designated area. Alternatively, when authorized guns leave the authorised area they can be tracked and disabled outside the safe zone."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Political willingness to confiscate legally registered firearms.
California’s Assault Weapons ban of 1989 allowed those who owned covered firearms the opportunity to register those firearms and keep them. Registration involved fingerprinting and background checks. This ban also outlawed use of these firearms for hunting, and target shooting in many formerly legal venues. California Bill 2013 AB 174 would revoke these registrations and render these firearms illegal. AB 174 would force current owners to render their formerly legal and registered firearms inoperable, surrender them or remove them from California.
"Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met, are authorized. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...
Do you really think it much of a leap for politicians who would revoke registrations for fingerprinted and background checked owners, registration for rifles that were arbitrarily limited in terms of where they could be used (no hunting, only certain shooting ranges/sites),