Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the for-when-you-want-to-tweet-about-something-while-you're-shooting-it dept.

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."

10 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. Why a surprise? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Willingness to buy a smartgun does not equate to support of legislation to require only smartguns. That is the primary fallacy of the submitter.

    1. Re:Why a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Why a surprise? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where did the submitter say that it should be required by law?

      There are state legislatures that have already passed laws saying that as soon as such guns are available for retail sale anywhere, only such guns will be allowed to be sold going forward. It doesn't matter whether someone here mentioned such a thing, it's part of the landscape now, and it's one of the main reasons people are opposing this technology. Because idiots have already gone past the "saying" part, and have passed laws requiring exactly this.

      If this is news to you, then you're out of touch with the some of the central issues involved.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  2. Propaganda much? by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  3. Survey methodology? by ageoffri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
  4. Re:It's all in the execution by zeugma-amp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    This is an ex-parrot!
  5. Re:How smart? by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  6. I don't believe this propaganda for one second by JonTurner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:How smart? by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re: Governmentally-mandated backdoored gun by Grendol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The survey was performed by the New Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Michael Bloomberg is notorious for building organizations to support his anti firearm viewpoints. They will target populations with their poll to get the desired result. I don't trust the poll results because I don't trust the motives of Bloomberg.