TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: So? When ours were too young to be trusted on their own with a gun our guns either stayed locked up, or if accessible, trigger locked with the key on a chain around my neck. This was before fast opening personal gun safes for handguns were available. These days it would take me no more than 5 seconds to open my gun safe. If you need faster availability it should be on your person anyway.

Right. Locked up or on your person. Those are the two choices today.

VMI77 wrote: But would you leave a "smart" gun somewhere accessible to a child and trust that it wouldn't malfunction and fire when it isn't supposed to? I wouldn't, so I see little value in "smart" guns for that purpose...in addition to seeing little value in a gun that only I can shoot, since that makes my guns effectively worthless to anyone else in the family that might need to use one for defense.

I wouldn't trust something brand new that I was the beta tester on. And I think you're right - they're not as good as they could be, but without new investment, they'll be something that "mostly" works - which isn't good enough for me.

Most of these technologies can be programmed so that anyone who is "able" to and "should" can use them. It's not 1:1.

If they work, like 99.9%+ - then I'd find it useful..

For my kids, I wouldn't consider 99.9% a safe technology when it comes to something potentially lethal like a gun. I don't like to rely on technology because sooner or later it always fails. 99.9% safe just means that there is a 1 out of a 1,000 chance something can go wrong. That means that 1 of every 1,000 is going to malfunction. I wouldn't want my child to be the 1 out of the 1,000 that experienced a failure. So, while it might be extra insurance over just locking a gun up, I'd still lock the gun up even if it was a "smart" gun.

cb1000rider wrote:I understand why most people have no use for a "smart" gun. If you've got kids, however, the possibility of this technology would help in a lot of situations. Basically, as a parent, I can't have an unlocked firearm anywhere. Either I carry the firearm or I lock it up, there's no putting it down to work on something or temporarily leaving it in the car that's parked in the garage. It's a hassle... And yes my child IS firearm trained, but the law says I can't leave anything in an available space and I take the responsibility seriously.

So? When ours were too young to be trusted on their own with a gun our guns either stayed locked up, or if accessible, trigger locked with the key on a chain around my neck. This was before fast opening personal gun safes for handguns were available. These days it would take me no more than 5 seconds to open my gun safe. If you need faster availability it should be on your person anyway.

But would you leave a "smart" gun somewhere accessible to a child and trust that it wouldn't malfunction and fire when it isn't supposed to? I wouldn't, so I see little value in "smart" guns for that purpose...in addition to seeing little value in a gun that only I can shoot, since that makes my guns effectively worthless to anyone else in the family that might need to use one for defense.

It isn't just the Feds, all liberal anti-gun utopias, like MA, give criminals a pass when it comes to violating gun laws, and only jail law abiding gun owners who make mistakes they can be hung for.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=28557#more-28557

Joshua Diaz, 36, pleaded not guilty to drug and firearms charges during his arraignment Thursday before Judge Michael Ripps in Springfield District Court.

State police stopped Diaz for a motor vehicle violation and seized two packets of heroin, 72 grams of marijuana and a loaded 38 caliber firearm, Assistant District Attorney Cary Szafranski said.

Ripps set bail at $20,000 and continued the case to Feb. 5.

A token bail of $2k cash. This is an example of how lawyers and judges in gun control jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, cooperate to minimize the laws’ impact on their fellow criminal justice system professionals, to wit, the criminals.

Now here’s the part we left out:

A Springfield man with 37 criminal convictions…

… Diaz has been arrested on firearms and breaking and entering charges as well.

Note, “arrested,” not, “convicted.” So he’s either out on bail on a gun charge, or he’s had a previous gun charge broomed or bargained down.

You would not get that deal, but until he actually commits a murder (or gets whacked himself, occupational hazard in the recreational pharmaceuticals biz), Joshua Diaz will. And then the Massachusetts papers will decry the “gun violence” and call for more punishment of those that did not do it

.

Liberals have zero interest in reducing gun crime.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223114/

The new EOs change nothing in that regard. But we do have some guidance from the Attorney General that indicates the Administration may indeed try to prosecute marginal cases it previously would not have. . . . So this is not to be part of any rule change, but merely a policy decision to prosecute ‘gun dealers, hobbyists and collectors,’ under the ‘new guidance.’ Rather than change the rule, they will use the current vague rule to send ‘hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.’

But if you like your guns you can keep your guns.