remotely disabled firearms?

This is a discussion on remotely disabled firearms? within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; With high-tech guns, users could disable remotely: Associated Press Business News - MSN Money yeah, no way this could be used for the wrong reasons....

Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By ccw9mm
  • 2 Post By archer51

Thread: remotely disabled firearms?

  1. #1
    Member Array floggindave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    113

    remotely disabled firearms?


  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array lionround's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Posts
    1,733
    I really want my weapon's ability to fire to depend on a battery.
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    -- Steven Wright
    1950 Colt .38 Police Positive Special
    2013 SCCY 9mm CPX-2 Stainless Steel
    US Army 1973-1977, 95B

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,082
    Imagine criminals walking around with "jammers" that'll interfere with any ID-to-chip sort of communication, or some other deactivating mechanism operable from a distance, or simple "whiz-bang" technological failure (ie, battery zap, chip malf, static/EMP zap, whatever). And that disabling-by-other-method (besides my own choice and action) includes the potential of a malevolent government desiring my arms to not function.

    For something I'm betting my life on, that something had darned well better function when I need it to, no excuses.
    msgt/ret likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #4
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,944
    Don't want it. Won't have it.
    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member
    Array Xader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by lionround View Post
    I really want my weapon's ability to fire to depend on a battery.
    Also, there is no such thing as a 100% secure system. You can bet there would be vulnerabilities, and it wouldn't take long for the bad guys to come up with a way to disable your SD gun.

    edit: ccw9mm beat me to it.

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,161
    I'm sure Bloomberg and the Secret Service are rushing to get this "new technology" in the hands of their departments. After all, it will keep the kids safer.
    msgt/ret and Gearhead like this.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,144
    Quote Originally Posted by archer51 View Post
    I'm sure Bloomberg and the Secret Service are rushing to get this "new technology" in the hands of their departments. After all, it will keep the kids safer.
    I can see them demanding it for the general public that they consider may be allowed to own firearms but of course the police, military and their security details will be exempt.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •