Poll: Plurality would support law requiring that all guns sold in state be “smart guns”

posted at 7:21 pm on August 13, 2014 by Allahpundit

Eric Holder’s a big fan, you know. And if this YouGov poll is accurate, so are key components of the Democratic base.

Out: Expanded background checks. In: Fingerprint detection technology in all new guns?

sg

Check the crosstabs and you’ll find that every demographic sampled thinks smart guns are a good idea — including people who own guns themselves (47/36). That surprised me. The gun owners I know tend to regard smart guns as a trojan horse for more intrusive regulations and a potentially dangerous bit of technology. If the ID recognition system built into the gun malfunctions at the wrong moment, so does your capacity for self-defense. And yet: 47/36.

The important question is the one about mandates, though. Do you support a law requiring that all guns be smart guns?

man

Women are +13, voters earning less than $40,000 per year are also +13, and blacks are +31. (The sample size for blacks is very small, meaning a larger margin of error, but black voters do tend to support gun control measures when polled.) Those are three pillars of the Democratic coalition; if they’re rosy on smart guns, rest assured that congressional Democrats eventually will be too. There are a few surprises, though. Young adults, another key Democratic group, are mildly opposed to a state mandate on smart gun tech; maybe that’s evidence that they really are more libertarian than older voters or maybe it too is a function of a small-ish sample. Latino voters are slightly pro-mandate, but nowhere near as much as blacks are or Democrats generally (53/16). Is that an outlier or evidence that the GOP has some room to maneuver with Latinos on gun issues? (My guess: Outlier.)

What’s not surprising is that the numbers diverge sharply depending on whether you own a gun or not. Gun owners oppose the state mandate 24/56 whereas those who live in a household without a gun support it 44/26. (People who don’t own a gun themselves but share a household with someone who does support it most of all at 52/28.) The silver lining for gun-rights fans is that Second Amendment supporters have always punched above their weight politically because of their passion for the issue. If gun owners are adamantly anti-mandate while a plurality overall are mildly pro-mandate, pols will think twice about following the topline number.

Exit quotation: “I looked right across a table at Eric Holder — yeah, the attorney general of the United States — and told him, ‘If you try to mandate my smart-gun technology, I’ll burn it down.’ The Intelligun is designed to save lives, not restrict freedom.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Alternate headline..dumb people want smart guns.

HumpBot Salvation on August 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM

“I looked right across a table at Eric Holder — yeah, the attorney general of the United States — and told him, ‘If you try to mandate my smart-gun technology, I’ll burn it down.’ The Intelligun is designed to save lives, not restrict freedom.”

Effing beautiful!

CW on August 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM

This is one of those polls that is designed to change opinions in itself.

CW on August 13, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Thank goodness we’re a Constitutional Republic then.

Oh, wait …

ShainS on August 13, 2014 at 7:26 PM

39% ? That sounds strangely familiar.
/

And they call Right Wingers paternalistic.

CW on August 13, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Fine. But first a federal ban on pot and abortions.

Dongemaharu on August 13, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Effing beautiful!

CW on August 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Heh.

Sounds like some a Randian hero …

ShainS on August 13, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Of course with a governmental control switch that once flicked on, would deactivate all the guns.

#tyranny

portlandon on August 13, 2014 at 7:28 PM

This will only increase gun ownership. If the only person who can use my gun is ME, then my partner will buy a gun that can only be used by HIM.

That’s TWO guns, which is more guns, not less guns.

Besides, this won’t affect any guns already out there.

Once again, bad guys won’t care…

ladyingray on August 13, 2014 at 7:28 PM

No one who owns a gun, or who would like to own a gun for protection, would ever support the democarts’ ridiculous “smart gun” push.

Pork-Chop on August 13, 2014 at 7:28 PM

How do you borrow your buddy’s gun at the range? Or do a legal, friend to friend sale?

rbj on August 13, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Poll: Plurality would support law requiring that all guns sold in state be “smart guns

They mean like the ones in the new Judge Dredd that blow your whole arm off if your not the owner?

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 13, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Well, thankfully the second amendment already decided this issue.

Timin203 on August 13, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Dang! Right on top of an EMP thread? Oye!

SailorMark on August 13, 2014 at 7:33 PM

How do you borrow your buddy’s gun at the range? Or do a legal, friend to friend sale?

rbj on August 13, 2014 at 7:29 PM

It’s like those Smart keys for the ignition on modern cars.

a spare key used to cost $3 dollars to make.

Now with that chip and crap in them, it’s like $150 for a spare key to be programmed and cut.

portlandon on August 13, 2014 at 7:34 PM

When the …. hits the fan, Murphy’s Law often predominates.

When you NEED a gun, you don’t want ‘the blue screen of death’. Or a dead battery.

GarandFan on August 13, 2014 at 7:35 PM

People can hack anything.

The bad guys will find a way to wear a wrist band that unlocks any gun they have in their hand.

portlandon on August 13, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Sounds good.
 
Secret Service can use it for the first three years, DEA can be added to help test for years 3-5, add any other federal officers for years 5 through 10, then add state and local law enforcement for years 10-15, and we can discuss civilian implementation after viewing their results.

rogerb on August 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM

I am keeping my view open until I have more information. Such as:

1. How much will a WORKING system cost. By working, i mean one that has sub-second recognition in real work emergency use(grab from the night stand to ready to fire) and MINIMAL false negatives( Don’t want to be locked out when I need it)

2. Does the system support multiple authentication? I don’t want to be REQUIRED to buy separate guns for myself, my wife, and my daughter, just so we can defend ourselves or hit the range.

3. How do you transfer use? IF switching authorized users is easy, that would solve the range issue but not the defense one. Too easy and it does nothing to stop guns from ending up in the wrong hands(literally now).

This is a new tech that is only just showing up. It will need time to prove reliable and useful. But the IDEA is a good one. If the cost was LOW and it worked PERFECTLY, why would you not want it?

OBQuiet on August 13, 2014 at 7:38 PM

The Technology may be safe and effective. :) If the AG and the Feds are certain it works, let’s first mandate it for ALL Federal LEO’s. And require that ANY Grant awardees from DHS or DOJ also implement it at the state and local level.

Then and only then should we think about mandating its use by private citizens…

the drill sgt on August 13, 2014 at 7:38 PM

I have a “smart” gun and love it…I aim it, pull the trigger, and it sends lead down range. The weird thing is it was developed in 1911.

trs on August 13, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Gubmint agents have a master shut off dohickey?

BL@KBIRD on August 13, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Now with that chip and crap in them, it’s like $150 for a spare key to be programmed and cut.

portlandon on August 13, 2014 at 7:34 PM

I’ve been driving around with one key for 6 years. I fu<king REFUSE to pay anyone that much for a $2.00 chip embedded in a key. I'm all for the free market, but if you told me the Feds were gonna go after the car companies for gouging people, you might get me to go along.

BierManVA on August 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM

LEOs:No more throwing your “backup” to your partner who’s out of ammo,eh?

SailorMark on August 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Of course, all guns will be tied directly to Holder’s DNA. No one else need apply.

vnvet on August 13, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Alternate headline..dumb people want smart guns.

HumpBot Salvation on August 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM

+ a googol
(google it if you must)

Dolce Far Niente on August 13, 2014 at 7:42 PM

“Do you support or oppose a law that would require all guns sold in your state the have “smart gun” technology once the technology becomes commercially available, even if it substantially increases the cost of a new firearm?”

80% oppose
17% support
3% too stupid to be breathing

Nobody bothered to ask that question, did they? Everyone knows that implementing this technology would make the cost of a new firearm prohibitive for a whole class of people – the middle class.

IronDioPriest on August 13, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Only a progressive would think an object is “smart”, thereby relieving them of the need to be.

Flange on August 13, 2014 at 7:45 PM

I think this technology would be GREAT for law enforcement; just think, no more fears of a citizen-suspect trying to wrest away an officer’s gun!

Yes, I absolutely feel we should make this expensive technology available to our Federal LEOs first and foremost, working its way down through the state and local level, and we poor citizens will volunteer to be last in line for this cool new stuff.

Its only fair.

Dolce Far Niente on August 13, 2014 at 7:45 PM

All of my guns are ‘smart’. I only allow responsible, law-abiding people close to them.

rmkdbq on August 13, 2014 at 7:47 PM

I bet it wouldn’t take too much more effort to have your allotment of ammo associated at purchase to your weapon’s unique signature either, would it?
 
No green light, no boom.
 
And it would probably only add an additional $0.25 – $0.50 to each round.

rogerb on August 13, 2014 at 7:47 PM

The Intelligun has an official failure rate of one in ten thousand. If the battery goes dead on a civilian model, the gun locks, but on models being marketed to police departments, a dead battery unlocks the pistol completely. When you pick up the gun, your fingers naturally touch its biometric scanners. A pressure sensor keeps the gun turned on. If you put it down, the gun locks within a second. The consumer model has a manual override — a key a person can use to unlock a firearm that has a dead battery.

……

Meanwhile, the Intelligun doesn’t send or receive signals. It can’t be turned on or off by anyone in some government office. It puts the power in the hands of the individual. Gentry says, “This technology can create a safer country . . . if the government will just stay out of our way.”

Interesting stuff.

CW on August 13, 2014 at 7:49 PM

One thing to consider: fingerprints fade with age and readers won’t recognize them. I had experience with a “secure” lock. My boss could program and open it regularly. I at 60 years could not.

To hell with that!

FOWG1 on August 13, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Nobody bothered to ask that question, did they? Everyone knows that implementing this technology would make the cost of a new firearm prohibitive for a whole class of people – the middle class.

IronDioPriest on August 13, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Good point. It’s essentially a push poll .

CW on August 13, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Pretty smart advertising.

BKeyser on August 13, 2014 at 7:54 PM

how long before they put a “kill” signal in it? (sorry for the pun) Like they want to put in smart phones.

RonK on August 13, 2014 at 7:54 PM

FOGW – never knew that.

Did a little research :

The patient who was detained for lacking prints had hand–foot syndrome that was caused by his chemotherapy drug. What are some other ways that fingerprints can disappear?
The most prominent of those problems involve bricklayers—who wear down ridges on their prints handling heavy, rough materials frequently—or people who work with lime [calcium oxide], because it’s really basic and dissolves the top layers of the skin. The fingerprints tend to grow back over time. And, surprisingly, secretaries, because they deal with paper all day. The constant handling of paper tends to wear down the ridge detail.

Also, the elasticity of skin decreases with age, so a lot of senior citizens have prints that are difficult to capture. The ridges get thicker; the height between the top of the ridge and the bottom of the furrow gets narrow, so there’s less prominence. So if there’s any pressure at all [on the scanner], the print just tends to smear.

A Singaporean cancer patient was detained by U.S. customs because his cancer treatment had made his fingerprints disappear. A forensic expert explains other ways people can lose–intentionally and unintentionally–one of their unique identifiers
May 29, 2009 |By Katherine Harmon
man without fingerprints can you lose your fingerprint


A 62-year-old man from Singapore was traveling to the U.S. to see relatives last December and was detained after a routine fingerprint scan showed that he actually had none. So how did this happen?

- Scientific American

CW on August 13, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Oops forgot this part:

The man, identified in a medical journal case report only as “Mr. S,” had been on chemotherapy to keep his head and neck cancer in check. As it turns out, the drug, capecitabine (brand name, Xeloda) had given him a moderate case of something known as hand–foot syndrome (aka chemotherapy-induced acral erythema), which can cause swelling, pain and peeling on the palms and soles of the feet—and apparently, loss of fingerprints.

CW on August 13, 2014 at 7:57 PM

OT, cannot help myself

Google streetview goes underwater.

https://www.google.com/maps/views/streetview/oceans?gl=us

CW on August 13, 2014 at 8:03 PM

If the government mandates “smart guns,” the technology will work as well as Obamacare does.

Socratease on August 13, 2014 at 8:05 PM

rogerb on August 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM

That is the right idea. If the stuff is so great, let the FEDs use it to work out the kinks.

OBQuiet on August 13, 2014 at 8:05 PM

From the YouGov FAQs:

What kind of rewards are offered for participating in surveys?

When you take surveys you accumulate points which can later be redeemed for rewards. There are a number of options in our rewards center like: tote bags, t-shirts and PrePaid Gift Cards. PrePaid Gift Cards include brands such as VISA, Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart and iTunes to name a few. See our Rewards page for a complete list.

It is a self-selecting group of individuals who are paid to take polls, and then decide if they are interested in a particular poll.

Want to know why they get the results they do?

Selection bias.

ajacksonian on August 13, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Do these utter f***ing morons.not realize:

a) An unfired handgun/rifle/shotgun smells exactly like the boat/plane/truck/train it will besmuggled in on … especially across that southern border that Liberals refuse to defend?

b) It is unbelievably easy to manufacture firearms in the modern age of CNC, EDM, and 3D printing? That if you walk a patrol through the dark alleys of Kabul and Baghdad and you can watch AK parts being made with hundred year old technology? Do you think those.weapons stay there?

-and finally-

c) The amount of privately stockpiled weapons and ammunition in the United States will outlast every single person alive on the planet at this very moment?

M240H on August 13, 2014 at 8:13 PM

Holder left that room and I bet there is a big old grant out there to develop the technology and then make it mandatory.

Cindy Munford on August 13, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Anti Gunners lie. All. the. time.

Don’t cede a single inch to them. They’ll take a mile and you’ll never get your freedom back.

Perspicacious on August 13, 2014 at 8:20 PM

There is nothing newsworthy about this. The Lede is even misrepresentative. The plurality, so glibly advanced, is 39% from the poll data. That is a minimal plurality. In addition, that represents mostly the librul side of our electorate. Why don’t you day that 61% of the people oppose the mandatory smart gun? Oh it is Allapundit, our librul editor stating this. Figures! They are just tryig to jerk us around. Of course, if you look at the next thread over, an EMP would take care of smart guns.

Ge, just think – the rapist has just entered your bedroom at 3:00 in the morning, you just went to the bathroom. YOUR smart gun is laying on the nightstand on your side. Your wife has no access to it. Her gun is in the bathroom and you can’t use it. I know, call 911 the sheriff is only 45 minutes away.

Old Country Boy on August 13, 2014 at 8:31 PM

God, I hate this.

You’d think they’d begin to understand, we’re not as dense as the people who vote for them.

Which, of course, is why they want to import 30 million peons.

formwiz on August 13, 2014 at 8:35 PM

But the IDEA is a good one. If the cost was LOW and it worked PERFECTLY, why would you not want it?

OBQuiet on August 13, 2014 at 7:38 PM

I think your questions are genuine – but should you choose to use this proven technology in your home, then good for you. That is your choice. But it should never be forced upon another American because you happen to think it’s a “good idea.”

And that’s what’s at the crux of this argument…

Questioning “why would you not want it?” is no basis for governmental coercion. A throwaway line oft-used by car salesman should not be the reason behind throwing away our right to self-determination in this country.

dugan on August 13, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Ask Orwellian questions, get Orwellian results.

The rabble would support “‘smart’ larceny” and “‘smart’ rape” if you asked them.

Glenn Jericho on August 13, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Yes, I absolutely feel we should make this expensive technology available to our Federal LEOs first and foremost, working its way down through the state and local level, and we poor citizens will volunteer to be last in line for this cool new stuff.

Its only fair.

Dolce Far Niente on August 13, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Hell if it’s so frackin’ wonderful it should not only be made available to the FEDS it should be mandatory. That way I can make a mint selling portable EMP generators on the side to disable them.

Oldnuke on August 13, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Aren’t firearms the new alcohol or tobacco that the government at local, state, and federal levels see as the hat trick for taxing and we are witnessing this process played through with wolves masquerading as sheep?

ericdijon on August 13, 2014 at 8:59 PM

The only guns I want were designed by John Moses Browning and John C. Garand.

Only ones you need too.

ConstantineXI on August 13, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Please. This is another 90% bs canard. No educated gun owner wants this. They know the inherent dangers of a disabled gun.

bossmanham on August 13, 2014 at 9:11 PM

Does anyone actually believe this poll? Are you out of your freaking mind?

Dan_NV on August 13, 2014 at 9:24 PM

If there is a market for it or if the gun manufactures get in bed with the government….it will happen.

HonestLib on August 13, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Does anyone actually believe this poll? Are you out of your freaking mind?

Dan_NV on August 13, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Forget the poll, progressives are working every angle. They are like rust, they never sleep.

HonestLib on August 13, 2014 at 9:27 PM

There isn’t a market. That’s the point. It’d have to be forced on us.

bossmanham on August 13, 2014 at 9:27 PM

There isn’t a market. That’s the point. It’d have to be forced on us.

bossmanham on August 13, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Think long term like a progressive. When 3-D printing becomes more advanced and cheaper….what will happen is that progressives will give the gun manufactures a choice; side with the government and stay in business and put tight restrictions on 3-D printing. Or go out of business. Progressives love technology. Remember both R and Ds are more progressive by the day.

Sad, but true and folks vote ‘em in office.

HonestLib on August 13, 2014 at 9:34 PM

Ask Orwellian questions, get Orwellian results.

The rabble would support “‘smart’ larceny” and “‘smart’ rape” if you asked them.

Glenn Jericho on August 13, 2014 at 8:45 PM

or put a little “i” in front of it, or say it’s an “app”…

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 13, 2014 at 9:36 PM

I don’t listen to a damn thing anti-2nd Amendment, anti-gun, zealots spew out of their mouths. They’re proven, documented liars.

Case in point, Obammunism.

Most of them, Obama and Holder included, wouldn’t know the working end of the gun if it was pointed at them.

They have proven beyond any doubt, they aren’t concerned IN THE LEAST with “safety”, they’re just using safety as a cover for gun restriction, and if it were up to them, confiscation.

So, to every gun zazi out there, PI$$ OFF.

Meople on August 13, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Its all in the name. Who can be against something smart. Certainly not stupid people. And a good 15% of the people answering that they are for smart guns are simple minded and even when told what they are would be confused and resort to the term “smart”=good.

KMav on August 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM

No thanks. The Feds will make sure they can jam it, then the Police will jam it “in an emergency.” There will be inspections to make sure the guns are legal and licensed, more laws and more “crimes,” and the illegal guns will be popping up everywhere.

Aardvark on August 13, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Please. This is another 90% bs canard. No educated gun owner wants this. They know the inherent dangers of a disabled gun.

bossmanham on August 13, 2014 at 9:11 PM

HK make incredibly reliable guns and the designer is standing by his product. I think you will find that a smart HK weapon is probably less likely to fail than a regular gun from all but a few other manufacturers.

Gun owners do want a safe weapon and these products offer a greater degree of safety for the owner as well as the public. I would have a problem with a mandate for these types of weapons but the gun lobby is overreacting by attacking firms designing and marketing these.

lexhamfox on August 13, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Think long term like a progressive. When 3-D printing becomes more advanced and cheaper….what will happen is that progressives will give the gun manufactures a choice; side with the government and stay in business and put tight restrictions on 3-D printing. Or go out of business. Progressives love technology. Remember both R and Ds are more progressive by the day.

Sad, but true and folks vote ‘em in office.

HonestLib on August 13, 2014 at 9:34 PM

are you really that foolish to believe that if the tech became that good the government would allow it to stand.

RonK on August 13, 2014 at 10:17 PM

Anti Gunners lie. All. the. time.

Don’t cede a single inch to them. They’ll take a mile and you’ll never get your freedom back.

Perspicacious on August 13, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Yep, they do. Never trust them.

slickwillie2001 on August 13, 2014 at 10:17 PM

Plurality…

Know nothings. All they “know” is what legacy media tells them.

Feedie on August 13, 2014 at 10:21 PM

I can remember at least one Western movie where the guns were put on the table, and then the participants grabbed ‘em and fired first or died.

Now, imagine a situation where the bad dudes crash your front door. You jump out of bed and in the dark search for your weapon and that damned ID bracelet. I’m thinking that the bad dudes are gonna love this, and your family is screwed… so to speak.

WestTexasBirdDog on August 13, 2014 at 10:26 PM

Better start buying spare parts for your iron. They’re gonna have to last a longggg time.

44Magnum on August 13, 2014 at 10:34 PM

Someone more or less beat me to it, dumb people want smart guns. But it’s ignorance. Do a poll about “do you wanna live on Mars if they give you a pool and jacuzzi?” People are fine with science fiction smart guns, but would be less inclined to favor them if they knew that they were unreliable, or what happens if the battery is out? or what happens if the bad guy knocks you out? What’s your wife/daughter going to do with that 2 lb. paperweight?

You’ll know the technology is reliable when the police and military adopts it, till then, stay away.

And, it is a Trojan horse, by (stupid) politicians hawking something that they don’t understand (but understand they can certainly use) to an even more gullible public.

But mandate away. We always need a new black market.

John_G on August 13, 2014 at 10:47 PM

Five minutes of explanation regarding the problems so-called “smart guns” present in self-defense scenarios would have a dramatic impact on the results seen here.

“Smart guns” sound like a good idea, but they introduce delay and reliability issues, not to mention the possibility that someone in the household (or vehicle, or dinner party, whatever) other than the designated user may need to use the weapon, for example, if the designated user is disabled during an assault.

And then there is the cost.

Surveys such as this one are intended to create the impression a consensus exists when the reality is the opposite. It’s battlespace preparation on the part of gungrabbers who don’t realize they’ve lost the war already.

novaculus on August 13, 2014 at 11:03 PM

Any number of commenters have come up with the idea of sticking the cops with smart guns first. Now, how about some wildman Tea Partier in Congress introduces legislation requiring the Secret Service to be exclusively equipped with smart guns as soon as they are commercially available? Tracing the bill as it moves through the House and Senate should be most interesting.

PersonFromPorlock on August 13, 2014 at 11:36 PM

Plurality of Americans, including a small minority of people who own a gun and nearly every member of the media, know nothing about guns or much of anything else.

What else is new?

I don’t know the first (ok, the third) damn thing about guns, but I can tell you:

1) Any electron-based or even electricity-based technology is hilariously unreliable. Think about every time your computer stops working or even every time it makes you go “?” Now imagine that every time that happens, you die.

But don’t worry, most times there will be a perfectly good explanation!

2) This goes double when comparing computer technology to firing a clean gun, which is a controlled chemical explosion sparked by a direct hit with a hammer and directed, in self defense situations, a few feet away. It’s as close to perfect and fail-safe a technology on God’s green Earth. You’re degrading THAT device to an experimental technology – basically, Windows 3.1.

3) It could be easily removed.

4) It WOULD be easily removed by criminals.

5) That doesn’t count criminals who would just buy the near-infinite number guns that don’t have the technology. You would be setting up a system that would only punish law-abiding citizens.

5.5) Hey, doesn’t this sound familiar?

6) It would always be outrageously expensive, and prohibitively effect the poor.

7) It wouldn’t solve absolutely any problem whatsoever. Seriously, is there some kind of statistically significant epidemic of people being shot with their own guns or something? Do you think the Columbine or Sandy Hook shooters wouldn’t be OKed with any of their family weapons? More to the point, do you think they wouldn’t get OKed with a weapon BEFORE they went on a killing spree?

HitNRun on August 13, 2014 at 11:40 PM

Well, thank goodness for 3D printers.

Tzetzes on August 13, 2014 at 11:44 PM

Alternate headline..dumb people want smart guns.

HumpBot Salvation on August 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM

.
“Bishop” & “thread winner” . . . . . . . . . . . how often does that happen ?

listens2glenn on August 14, 2014 at 1:05 AM

Smart guns are an interesting technology that may do some good. Damifino what good. But it might. Before I’d accept the idea many conditions would have to be met.

1) It must have the capacity to recognize me without me carrying any chips or other stuff that might not be with me in the shower.

2) It must have the capacity for me to introduce it as friends to members of my family. Corollary to that it must be easy to delete remembered friends should I get a divorce. for example.

3) It’s reaction time to unblock should be no more than one second from when I grip the gun in a firing grip. Corollary to that it must not be able to fire without a proper grip.

4) There must ***NOT*** be any back doors that allow the over-militarized police disable the gun. However, a means to emit a suitable noise that indicates the police are here and I might be aiming at one. (That protects them in a legitimate situation and allows me to be sure I hit the police if they are misbehaving as per over-militarized police.)

And so forth. The “Weapons Shops of Isher” and its sequels are worth reading in this light. A. E. van Vogt was there a LONG time before we were, gentlefolks.

{^_^}

herself on August 14, 2014 at 5:50 AM

Exit answer: I require all gun owners to be smart gun owners.

See? Problem solved.

locomotivebreath1901 on August 14, 2014 at 6:12 AM

Dumb question: if I asked, “Would you be in favor of everyone getting free everything at no cost to anyone and everyone being happy and unicorns and rainbows?” you’d get the same result.

Putting aside the stupidity of the concept — it is beyond important that we stop taking away people’s need to think when the act, which is what this kind of “we’ll protect you from yourself” concept does — it is both tactically wrong and technology nonexistent

Next question: “are you in favor of cars that will safely drive you pretty much most of the time, but where the brakes maybe won’t work sometimes if you don’t put your foot on them just right, or if someone else tries to drive your car, or maybe even if the gas is low?”

FiveG on August 14, 2014 at 6:38 AM

and it worked PERFECTLY, why would you not want it?

If you believe this is possible, you really need to spend some time in the real world of mechanical, electronic, and computing devices. Nothing works perfectly. NOTHING. And given that, as previous posters have said, you should be perfectly free to use it if YOU want to. I will not.

OneFreeMan on August 14, 2014 at 8:34 AM

It is a self-selecting group of individuals who are paid to take polls, and then decide if they are interested in a particular poll.

Want to know why they get the results they do?

Selection bias.

ajacksonian on August 13, 2014 at 8:08 PM

You don’t know what the poll is about until you are a ways into it. I’m not sure how they handle the results if you begin it then stop taking the poll and close the tab/window and never return. (I do know you can get back in for a certain period of time, to allow for crashes and loss of network connectivity.)

GWB on August 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Sounds like a windfall for criminals. Now, if your unarmed victim somehow manages to disarm you, they have no way to hold you until the police arrive.

(I’m sure some of the gun owners who support it are thinking of their visiting grandkids, btw.)

Tanya on August 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Oh, Great!!! If I comply with all of my state’s (Kalif) gun laws, I’d have my primary self defense pistol locked and UN-loaded in my safe, and ammo in a remote location. I wake up suddenly one night at 3:00 AM (it’s always 3 AM, right?) and hear footsteps coming down the hall. Great, just great!! Now, i have to clear my head enough to punch in the code to open the safe, then fetch the ammo (XTP-style hollow points), ram the mag up, rack the slide, and then…..OH SH*T!!!..what’s the secret code to fire this b***ard!!!??

See, how each new gun law aids the offensive, and moves the goalposts ever closer to the perp??? But, gosh, the liberals sure feel better!!!

Well, guess what? The CA laws are so poorly written, that normal, everyday gun nomenclature is misrepresented (like in one prposed law 2 yrs ago, they grouped magazines ans autoloaders, like the UPLULA as ammunitilon!!! Me no lie!!!

crankybutt on August 14, 2014 at 1:05 PM

Poll of who, exactly?
Gun owners? Gun haters? People that don’t know diddly about guns?

Smart Gun Technology … tell you what ‘Pro Smart Gun Du-Fi’ if you are CCW and on ‘condition’ YELLOW … you are aware that trouble might be headed your way, and you do EVERYTHING to AVOID IT. EVERYTHING. Including a hasty RETREAT.
But on the other hand if it just pops up and is in your face because someone (not YOU) ‘acted stupidly’ … they you (yes YOU) have to REACT.
And your potential survival is measured in milliseconds, that ONE SECOND delay in the ‘Smart Gun’ giving you the OK to discharge it, JUST MIGHT GET YOU KILLED.

I know LIVeral’s find it difficult to THINK about such matters, but please try. Someday the life you save might be your own.

Missilengr on August 14, 2014 at 1:12 PM

How about a poll on ‘Smart Knife Technology’ or ‘Smart Shovel Technology’ or ‘Smart Hammer Technology’ or … you get the point.
Pun intended.

Missilengr on August 14, 2014 at 1:42 PM

I looked right across a table at Eric Holder — yeah, the attorney general of the United States — and told him, ‘If you try to mandate my smart-gun technology, I’ll burn it down.’ The Intelligun is designed to save lives, not restrict freedom.

This guy thinks DARPA via the NSA doesn’t already have his technology. He has a lot to learn.

stvnscott on August 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM