“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)

  • Gipson

    |

    As a NRA trained instructor for Louisiana CC, with over 50 years of teaching/training, and experience in both military & Law enforcement, I know (in a ideal world) anyone carrying a firearms should be exposed to real world “shoot/don’t shoot” stress, because, nothing can match the real “OH S**T its happening” moment, but more training and practice sure helps the “ARMED CITIZEN” cope with the pressure! Don’t bet a life on a mandated gismo (smart gun) LEARN IT RIGHT

    Reply

  • Dr H

    |

    Another factor to consider in this debate is that many of the proposed “smart” technologies to prevent so-called unauthorised discharges are actually vulnerable to remote disabling. Just about anything that has a component that can be addressed on one or more frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum can be targeted. Whether it’s a computer, electronic watch, automobile ignition, GPS, cell phone, RFID chip, or similar device, all of these are susceptible to some form of remote manipulation or functional blocking. I was involved in a law-enforcement investigation of radio-frequency disabling of electronic automobile ignitions back in the 1970s. We know that the technologies have now been developed that can render all of those classes of electronic/electromagnetic devices inoperative, and some products have been designed with undisclosed back-door access. There is of course no assurance that remote-manipulation capabilities might be restricted to “good guys” acting lawfully.

    Reply

  • Bobo

    |

    I recall when I worked for a large company they put in certain sophisticated software that barred people in going into shopping websites. Within two weeks one of the young kids in the company showed me a simple way of defeating the blocker and getting into the shop on line sights without the company knowing. Any software can be defeated including the bad or good guys defeating smart gun technology.

    Reply

  • Jimi Jah

    |

    I’d rather throw out of office dumb polititians.

    Reply

  • Bob

    |

    We have gone nuts over technology in this country. It is very useful in some areas, but I have some old (1974) tractors that I keep on the farm because they DON’T have any electronics on them. I can work on them and usually get them to run for that very reason. Even they have some mechanical safety devices on them to keep them from being started in gear, but I have a newer one that has safety switches so it won’t start if the PTO is engaged, or the auxiliary hydraulics are on, so when it won’t start the first thing one has to do is run the list of things that someone might have left on that are preventing it starting. You don’t have time for that kind of trash with guns used for protection. The best safety on a gun is the person holding it.

    Reply

  • Douglas

    |

    I’m a gunsmith. I could do a booming (pun intended) business in removing any “smart” crap they mandate.

    Reply

  • Nick Liberto

    |

    The technology regarding smart guns seems to be an attempt to cash in on some emotional desire to make guns safer. There are no safe guns in the world. They were never meant to be safe, but rather to be a tool of destruction.
    It is estimated that there are 300M guns in private hands in the U.S. I think that is a very conservative estimate. There could easily be half again that many and none of them qualify as smart guns. So, if smart guns became the only guns one could purchase, it would make little or no impact.
    The biggest problem I have with a smart gun is that it is almost assuredly a way for the govt. to have a record of who owns what in the way of such a weapon. We are thus back to universal registration.
    The important thing to remember is that we are endowed with unalienable rights by our creator, not by any politico. It is important that we do not become a secular nation that disregards our creator, for then we cede our rights to man. What man gives, man can take away.

    Reply

    • Mike

      |

      We already have “Universal Registration” via Instant Background Check. That is a record of YOU purchasing a firearm (that is just long guns), for a hand gun you must first obtain a “Pistol Permit” before you even purchase, that is another Instant Background Check plus fingerprinting and a photo op. Then when you obtain that permit you have to go and purchase that gun you have been eyeballing and take to your local Police Chief for a “inspection” then you get your little card (green in Livonia MI) so they already have a list of everything you bought for last 20 years new or from a FFL seller and remember Centerfire Systems? They had lists of every purchase from them from screws to bullets to “parts sets”, so they pretty much have that list to knock on doors already. I remember when all you had to do is be of legal age and have a picture ID, M1s at Woolworths at Universal Mall in Warren MI for $69.99. Those days are gone. They are watching me type this now, if I did not think it true I would be a fool.

      Reply

    • indiana steve

      |

      Not only knowing who has the guns, but they most assuredly would know every time you fired that gun and where you were.

      Reply

  • Norm

    |

    I was absolutely astounded by that so called Senator’s remarks complaining about us subjects not cooperating with the government. Jesus lady!!! Waah, waah, waaaaaah! They won’t let us! waah, waah waah. They’re not cooperating with us. Waah, waah, waah!

    King George: General Washington, I give you my word.. if you carry smart weapons I’ll repeal the Townshend Acts.

    George Washington: LMAO!!!!

    Reply

  • Robert H

    |

    Let’s first be honest – Smart guns make sense when we are talking about a large issue to a department’s officers – the people who are most likely to get in a situation where someone want’s to take it away by force and use it on them. It also makes sense for an individual buyer to be able to have one if it makes sense to them and their personal likes. Now, since we’re being honest let’s also admit that it is the blatant anti gun laws that defy any reason, like the law pushed through by State Senater Loretta Weinberg. Then after realizing what a blatant screw up that law was she tries to blackmail the Firearm Sellers in New Jersey by telling them she will repeal the law if they all agree to sell smart guns. You know, I’m not a politician (probably because I respect myself), but last time I looked you didn’t implement a screwed up and blatantly nut job law, then use it to blackmail your constituents. Well, it is New Jersey, so I could be wrong.

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Robert H,

      If we are really being honest, only the most professionally competent and technically savvy really knows that smart guns make no sense at all when we are talking about defensive weaponry that works when it has to.

      These are the people that could care less about politics because they require the use of weapons on a daily bases for the tools of their trade. Continuing in the vein of honesty, the real truth is these professionals will never risk using a weapon that could add another possible point of failure to a lifesaving tool.

      In all honesty, it will be rejected by the police and military after the rigors of their required departmental testing shows time and again this technology fails per their standards, and thus it will never be adopted for professional use.

      Despite this, the anti-gun politicians such as Senator Loretta Weinberg will continue to mandate such flawed ideology upon the rest of us because quite frankly the anti-gun types don’t care if our guns ever go off – regardless of which end of the gun you’re on.

      Reply

  • Rick

    |

    Beyond that, would you want, say, Remlin putting in the same quality of computer coding that they do with their junk rifles? GM and John Deere claim that THEY, not you, own the software In their vehicles and tractors and you have no rights to it. Want the same with your guns?
    I can imagine the disclaimers in the fine print of such a weapon. “We’re not responsible for this not working (even though we claim we own the software), and if it doesn’t you or your survivors are welcome to use our binding arbitration panel located in Deersnot, Iowa.”

    Reply

    • Eugene

      |

      Iowa? Unlikely. India? Most assuredly.

      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: