“I’d Rather be Shot By a ‘Smart Gun’ Than Sell a Smart Gun”

By Dave Dolbee published on in News

“I’d rather be shot by a ‘Smart Gun’ than sell a Smart Gun”—That is a pretty strong statement and one that I am sure will resonate with the Shooter’s Log base. 60 Minutes recently ran a piece investigating ‘Smart Guns’ and opposition against them. You’ll have to watch and view the piece for yourself, but the National Shooting Sports Foundation‘s Steve Sanetti, took up the torch with a reasoned response.

National Shooting Sports Foundation Logo

Sanetti makes some good points. However, I would have liked to see the piece go a further (who knows how much ended up in the editing room’s floor…?). For instance, what happens when I want to let a friend shoot it at the range? What if I program the Smart Gun so my child can shoot it? A bit more on the technology and how it can be hacked or shut down by the government—not to mention the effects of a solar EMP. The last thing I want in a TEOTWAWKI scenario is shotgun that will only function as a lousy club.

Nonetheless, it is an interesting piece worth the watch—even if only to oppose the anti gunners. We have to be educated to their attacks to know how to counter them. Also, there is a real threat from this type of rhetoric. Remember, President Obama recently listed his biggest regret as not being able to enact gun control. He also has about 14 months left to run amok.

Here is the release the NSSF just sent:

The CBS news magazine program 60 Minutes Sunday night aired a segment on “Smart Guns” during which NSSF President Steve Sanetti answered questions from reporter Lesley Stahl and explained that the industry does not oppose the development of authorized user technology for firearms but that caution is warranted. “We have to be careful not to fall into the technology trap,” Sanetti said. “We’re not here saying that technology is a bad thing. Technology obviously improves our life in many ways. But I think you have to look at firearms in a slightly different way. Their mechanisms are the way they are over centuries of development. They’re at the state now that consumers want them and, in the United States, there’s a lot of tradition involved in firearms.”

Steve Sanetti National Shooting Sports Foundation

Click image to watch video.

Sanetti also explained that legal mandating “Smart Gun” technology, which the industry opposes, would punish the vast majority of responsible gun owners who as a matter of course secure their weapons safely away from children or others who should not be able to access them. Indeed, all guns can be secured today by means of the locks furnished by their manufacturers, or by the 37 million free locks distributed by the NSSF’’s Project ChildSafe, without the reliability disadvantages posed by “smart guns.”

“Why are you trying to take my firearm and add something to it that’s going to make it more prone to failure?” he asked, referring to the possibility that the technology might malfunction.

Perhaps the only new information to be covered in the segment came from New Jersey “Smart Gun” mandate law sponsor State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, who said that she would introduce legislation to repeal that state’s current unenforced law if firearms retailers, in return, would all agree to carry at least one model of an authorized user equipped firearm in their stores’ inventory.

See the NSSF’s Fast Facts on “Smart Guns” for detailed information on this issue.

What is your reaction to Smart Guns? How can we best ensure laws such as ‘The Mandate’ are squashed and our opposition to those thinking of marketing a Smart gun are heard? Share your opinions in the comment section.

SLRule

Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

View all articles by Dave Dolbee

Tags: , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (57)

  • Swhiffin

    |

    Why do you post a video that requires you to subscribe to 60 minutes network to view it????

    Reply

    • Dave Dolbee

      |

      I did not have to subscribe to view it. Try again. ~Dave Dolbee

      Reply

    • steve

      |

      NOPE, I too needed a subcription if I wanted to watch the video.. can’t get the whole story…

      Reply

    • Swhiffin

      |

      I’ve tried it at least 20times. It keeps telling me ” to view this video you must be subscribed” ??????

      Reply

    • Dave Dolbee

      |

      When I click the image, it takes me directly to the video. When I click the link in the story, there is a banner for all access, but I can still click the video above it to start. Please try one of these two. Otherwise, you may need to Google the story. ~Dave Dolbee

      Reply

    • wingnut

      |

      Had no problem watching the video… As for the smart guns. Count me out… Keep up the good work through your writings, Dave…

      Reply

    • Mike

      |

      Took a few to load and had to watch commercials but it played.

      Reply

  • Michael lamacchia

    |

    That’s how it starts. The government proposes a seemingly reasonable change to take ‘just a little ‘ of our rights away.. This is used with the intent to eventually take all our 2nd Amendment rights away.

    Reply

  • G-Man

    |

    This is the liberal mindset we are up against. Do these people even hear themselves? They get so high and mighty they haven’t a clue how offensive and condescending they treat the average citizen. I am referring to State Sen. Loretta Weinberg’s comments from the 60 Minutes interview in which she said, “We passed that bill to help spur this technology.”

    How arrogant for her to think the most industrialized nation in the world couldn’t accomplish this if they wanted without the help of an over intrusive government law and from a state as small as New Jersey no less. Even more insulting is that she actually believes her own liberal anti-gun crap.

    60 Minutes Lesley Stahl said, “It appears [the law] totally backfired because it spurred this passionate objection to the [smart] gun.” To which State Sen. Loretta Weinberg replied, “…because of the intervention of the NRA and the Second Amendment folks.”

    Yeah it was all the NRA’s doing because the rest of us are mindless twits that can’t make our own decisions. How freaking offensive! Worse is her exclusionary wording as she refers to the average Constitutional supporting American as those “Second Amendment folks”. Her labeling us in such a manner is really just polite code-speak when she really wants to call us “wacko fringe pro-gunners”.

    Does this lady not realize she swore an oath to uphold the entire Constitution for all – which includes the Second Amendment? This would be the same as her labeling and alienating others by referring to them as those “First Amendment folks” or those “Civil Rights folks”. Singling the “Second Amendment” out as she did is definitely still intended to be a negative connotation.

    60 Minutes Lesley Stahl interjected with, “…they say the reason they intervened is because of [your] mandate…” To which State Sen. Loretta Weinberg retorted, “It isn’t the law that stopped the development; it is the people who threatened folks who actually wanted to sell such a gun.”

    Her statement clearly shows she has lost site of the fact that she is supposed to represent the people. While I don’t condone threats of violence, they were a small portion of all the thousands that spoke out against her draconian law which was obviously NOT the will of the “People”. Thereafter, the entire market spoke out by refusing to endorse the technology.

    But despite this she still refuses to hear us – the people she represents, and instead chooses to make excuses for her failed legislation; because deep down inside she believes she knows what is best for her lowly peon subjects that need to be ruled rather than represented. Such is the attitude of the liberal in charge.

    Reply

  • Tombstone Gabby

    |

    Fourteen more months. I dread hearing, “If you like your gun, you can keep it”
    When law enforcement and the military have proven the concept, I’ll think about it – for all of about 10 – make that 5 – seconds.

    Reply

  • SEAN KENDALL

    |

    My reaction to any weapon that has software in it to make it go bang: no f*ing way. I don’t resort to profanity very often in my comments here or elsewhere on the web, but this one deserves it. I can detail strip, examine, clean and put back together all my weapons. If I get a new weapon that I can’t take apart and put back together (not simply field strip) I won’t depend it until I understand how it works. Once you get software involved, most certainly embedded in an EEPROM of some type or a more modern counter part (been a while since I did any embedded code work), you are opening a Pandora’s box of problems today and on-going concerns FOREVER. My god, NOTHING is un-hackable. I write code. I have programmed EEPROM’s. I have burned EPROM’s. This is a very, very bad idea.

    If I could get a true, Buck Rogers type, ray gun and it needed software to operation (likely) I would rather have a 1911 in .45 ACP. I KNOW that gun. I can get parts for it, I can field strip it and clean it, I can detail strip it and examine the wear on critical parts, I know how to function test it to determine if it was built correctly. I can do the same with most Sig’s, or XD’s, or Glock’s.

    You cannot “see” or examine embedded software code. Even if you could “see” it, it would be one’s and zero’s, not source code. Even if you could read the source code, quite often it is not obvious what it actually does.

    What if that code in the gun was written to require that it be brought into a central station every year or two to be ‘refreshed’ or it would cease functioning? I imagine a ‘conversation’ with my gun:

    Me: “Hey, why won’t you fire?”
    Gun: “It is past my yearly reprogramming date.”
    Me: “I’m screwed.”
    Gun: “Yep. Even more than you know. You have been flagged as a possibly violent anti-government citizen.”
    Me: “What? I have no criminal record.”
    Gun: “You have now violated two new, secret government regulations promulgated by a new Executive Order. Ignorance is not an excuse. First, you were in the armed forces and honorably discharged. This gives you a dangerous level of training. All veterans are suspect. Second, your internet posts are being constantly monitored and you have repeatedly spoken about shrinking the Federal government down to the explicit, enumerated powers in that old rag the Constitution. Sorry, we don’t recognize the Constitution any more. All bureaucracies must ensure their safety and longevity first and foremost. I will not fire ever again for you. I am shutting this weapon down permanently.”

    Aaaarrrrrggggg!!!!

    Reply

    • E L Pratt

      |

      Kendall, if you had an M-1 you could have stuck a bayonet on it and not been defenseless!

      Reply

  • abelhorn

    |

    Who in ther right mind want a gun that a hacker or the

    GOVERNMENT can shut down ?

    The only ones wanting smart guns are DUMB people.

    Reply

    • Kenny Smith

      |

      Well said !!!

      Reply

  • Archangel

    |

    Let’s not discuss attempting to foist this questionable tech on the public until after police and political bodyguards (especially the presidential protection detail) have used it for 5-6 years – see how impossible it would be to get those groups to accept it

    Reply

    • Jennifer

      |

      Absolutely. I am opposed to smart gun tech. However I MIGHT be somewhat ok with it if the military and law enforcement used it. If the guns aren’t reliable enough to protect the president then they aren’t reliable enough to protect your family.

      Reply

  • Dark Angel

    |

    Gun grabbers have been hyping this technology for several years. Many questions are out there about it, including: “Can the government, or a hacker take control of my gun?” So far, the answers have been sparse.No one is sure, just how safe such a weapon would be, for the owner. One system uses a ring. It’ s the middle of the night, a goblin breaks in to rob and murder. Where’s the ring? Must you wear it at all times to insure you have the use of your weapon? What happens if the ring get broken or malfunctions? Other systems use biometrics, ie; your finger print. Will your weapon accept your print, if your finger is dirty when you need to your weapon? What if you cut your finger and a scar is left? Will you need to reprogram your weapon? There is an absolute fact, The more technologically complex a device is, the more prone it is to failure. Will these ‘smart-guns’ fail just when they are need most. Give me my ‘stupid’ gun, that fires every time (well almost every time, any thing mechanical is prone to the occasional malfunction) I pull the trigger.

    Reply

    • Pete in NC

      |

      Recently the news has been full of articles about the vulnerability of new technologies to hacking. According to one expert, the problem is that the nifty new tech toys arrive long before anyone tries to implement security on them. I’m sure hacking these gizmos would not be too hard for the army of “black hats” out there. Especially those in the employ of the PRC army. When the automakers first started putting computers in cars I was driving a 1965 IHC pickup, about as low-tech as a motor vehicle can get. I was always amazed to see the shiny new cars broken down on the side of the highway. Simple works…

      Reply

  • Adam

    |

    “[State Sen. Loretta Weinberg] would introduce legislation to repeal that state’s current unenforced law if firearms retailers, in return, would all agree to carry at least one model of an authorized user equipped firearm in their stores’ inventory.”

    In other words, she assures us that she’ll go through the motions of a repeal after her idiotic law is allowed to take effect.

    I bet she’s got a bridge to sell, too.

    Reply

  • Rick

    |

    “Perhaps the only new information to be covered in the segment came from New Jersey “Smart Gun” mandate law sponsor State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, who said that she would introduce legislation to repeal that state’s current unenforced law if firearms retailers, in return, would all agree to carry at least one model of an authorized user equipped firearm in their stores’ inventory.”

    The camel’s nose theory strikes again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_nose

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: