Re: 'Smart guns' - an inherent failure
Hoo boy. Let's see.
1. I *STILL* don't use a semi-automatic because they *STILL* aren't as reliable as revolvers. Oh, well, guess I don't know what I'm talking about, as my gun doesn't even have a mechanical safety, it being a revolver, and, as the adage goes, 'the whole gun is the safety'. I need my defensive gun to always work whether I maintain it or not, so I have a revolver.
2. Let's talk about the 'rule of threes': 'three seconds, three yards, three rounds'. Nearly all defensive uses of firearms will be over in three seconds, happen at a range of under three yards, and use three or fewer rounds. Given that this thing takes a leisurely second and a half to work, that's fully half of the *AVERAGE* time it takes to end an engagement. Gunfighting is furiously quick and seconds count.
3. If mandated, it will increase the cost of the defensive gun. Some guns will go up by quite a bit. Possibly enough to put the cheapest guns out of the hands of the people who can least afford to be without one, the poor in bad neighborhoods.
4. I guess the state of Idaho has not occurred to you. My relatives who used to live there bought a massive pistol precisely because they needed something to carry during the winter that wasn't a rifle. Most modern combat pistols and nearly all revolvers work fine without gloves because, well, it's often cold outside, and some of us refuse to let our fingers freeze off because you are ill-informed.
5. Sure, 'designed to fail safe' means it is prejudiced against working, which is worse.
6. So you have to make everyone in the house put their finger on the thing and learn how to hold it just right so it might fire if needed? Meh.
7. I do *NOT* have a 'license' to own a gun, living, as I do, in the land of the free. I live in Tejas. I *DO* have a license to carry a concealed firearm, but there is *NO* requirement anywhere in there that I should 'maintain' my gun to any particular standard. It is assumed I'm not an idiot so will see to adequate maintenance, but that's pretty much oiling periodically and cleaning after firing, neither of which are strictly required for the operation of the pistol. Seriously, if a modern firearm won't work after being left in a closet for a few years, it's not a good firearm. The days of guns turning into rust when you leave them alone for a year or two are long gone. I can leave any of my defensive pistols in the closet or in a safe for months on end without firing them and know for certain they will fire when I need them to. This 'device' can't meet that *REQUIREMENT* as a defensive pistol needs to always, always, always go bang when needed. Imagine a fire extinguisher that required a battery to work and you see the problem...
Funny thing that you are partly correct in that the freedom to own a firearm does restrict your other freedoms. There are places I can't go when carrying. I can't drink alcohol when carrying. However, you are completely wrong about your moralistic high road, as I don't have a gun to kill someone else; I have a gun to prevent that from happening, whether upon my person or upon some other person. If you've ever studied actual firearm combat, you'll know that the point isn't to kill someone else but to stop them, unless you're an assassin.
That being said, in my opinion, a government that does not allow its citizens the right to self-defense is a government that has subjects, not citizens.
I will make one more comment, and that is to point out that the major shooting you had in Australia makes grim reading. Nobody made an effort to stop the man because everyone felt that it was up to the authorities.
We had a shooting in Tejas a long time ago, in Austin. Quite a few people were killed, but not as many as would have been if it weren't for armed citizens. First, there were many people in the crowd armed with .357 Magnum revolvers that could shoot high enough to be useful against the man's position in a tower. These people bravely drove him to cover, which allowed many people to get medical attention and reduced his field of fire such that he couldn't shoot as many people. Second, many of the people in the crowd had rifles in their vehicles and brought those out, making it that much harder for him to do his worst. Third, the three people that put an end to his spree consisted of two sheriff's deputies and a guy off the street. Those three charged up the tower and shot him.
I know it seems to be backwards, but Sandy Hook was the reason I finally went and got my concealed handgun license. I could not stand by and watch my children get shot if there was anything I could do about it. While I appreciate that you and those who think like you think it's a moral issue, to me, it's a personal issue: I have to, as a man, defend my family and provide them with the means to defend themselves. And, to quote the article, 'when seconds matter, police are minutes away'.
And I would point out that this is a *VERY* common theme: the anti-gunners have theoretical knowledge of guns while the pro-gun people have actual experience with them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
