The Smart Gun Doesn’t Exist for the Dumbest Reasons Firearms makers have resisted Silicon Valley-sponsored digital innovation that could transform public safety.

getpocket.com ^ | 4/15/2019 | Austin Carr, Polly Mosendz, Neil Weinberg

[rktman]

Nobody blames the free market. Nearly half of gun owners in the U.S. would consider buying a smart gun, according to a Johns Hopkins University study. (Michael R. Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP, is a donor to groups that support gun control.) The promise of guns that can be used only by one person is that there will be fewer fired by accident or by someone who shouldn’t have access to a gun, and fewer sold on the black market.

This is the story of why the multibillion-dollar American gun industry hasn’t yet managed to make guns any smarter.

[rktman]

According to assclown nannie bloomers liars. Well, except, sure, half the folks I know would buy a smart gun. Oh, and turn in non-smart guns at the same time. NOT! Sooooo many reasons. But surely whoever develops something would never ever give the powers that be some manner of over-ride code or anything right? Hey nannie bloomers and your anti constitution pals----phu-cough!

[Lurker]

When the Secret Service and security details of all 50 governors adopts has used this technology exclusively for 5 years I still won’t buy it.

L

[Jewbacca]

If there was a market, a smart weapon would be made.

[headstamp 2]

[[Nearly half of gun owners in the U.S. would consider buying a smart gun]]

Until they found out what one is.

[G Larry]

The "idiot" is the one asserting that "smart guns" contribute to "public safety".

Of course that would be the excuse for confiscating 300,000,000 "dumb guns".

[Zhang Fei]

The average gun owner might think a smart gun is one that pinpoints the source of gunfire and delivers a round smack in the middle of that source.

[Brian Griffin]

Let me know when we don’t have to worry about financial identity theft.

[ClearCase_guy]

Liberal argument #1: “The Second Amendment might let you own a musket, but the Founding Fathers never expected citizens to gave modern weapons. It’s crazy to let people own that stuff.”

Liberal argument #2: “The government should mandate that people only own Smart Guns with computer chips made in Silicon Valley which automatically determine who can and cannot fire a particular weapon.”

[NFHale]

“...Nearly half of gun owners in the U.S. would consider buying a smart gun, according to a Johns Hopkins University study. ....”

Clearly, “Johns Hopkins University” never spoke to any of the gun folks I know.

And yes - when every security service for the “Special” and “Elite” amongst us has to use them... I still won’t either.

[Lazamataz]

Three authors. Always a bad sign.

[SaxxonWoods]

So, my gun will work like my computer?

No. Thanks.

[circlecity]

If someone wants to replace their current firearm with a smart gun I will be happy to take the old one off your hands.

[Karma_Sherab]

If the weapon was really “smart”, it would automatically shoot democrats to insure it’s survival

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I will buy a smart gun when Lieberals start buying smart abortions, which is no abortions at all.

[Brian Griffin]

The war on drugs is still failing.

We can’t keep our borders secure from alien invasion.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Of course I want a smart gun, if they're talking about the PGF (I can't afford the $22,000 cost though):

[dp0622]

I don’t want my car to be smart and I don’t want my gun to be smart.

I own them not vice versa

[Rurudyne]

The smart gun doesn’t exist because people don’t want to pay for something progressive gun control freaks want.

[Demiurge2]

“Nearly half of gun owners in the U.S. would consider buying a smart gun, according to a Johns Hopkins University study...”
Which, of course, means that a majority of gun owners polled rejected the idea.

[mylife]

Smart guns are stupid!