|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Why Don't We Have Life-Saving Smart Guns Yet?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://www.keepandarms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
For decades inventors have been trying to make guns that can be fired only by their owners, without sacrificing reliability. Stuffy industry types call them personalized weapons, but everyone else just calls them smart guns.
Most smart-gun prototypes so far have depended on biometrics (voice, palm, or fingerprint scans) to verify the owner, but none have made it to production. With the possibility of sweat or blood blocking a sensor, dependability remains a concern.
|
| Comment by:
jac
(9/9/2015)
|
Two reasons. They're not life saving. And the people that buy guns don't want them.
The police don't want them. The military doesn't want them. Hunters don't want them. Civilians don't want them.
The only people that want them are the anti gun liberals that won't buy them anyway. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/9/2015)
|
| Because they are STINK!!! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
