search
top

Administration Report on Smart Gun Technology Coming This Week

Remember when President Obama ordered the military and federal agencies to come up with a plan on how to promote smart-gun technology through the procurement process? Well, that report might be due out this week:

Sources in and out of government say the administration is about to put forward a report from the agencies on the way forward on smart guns. The document could be released as early as this week, these sources say.

Its exact recommendations are being closely guarded by the White House, but it’s likely to reopen a years-long debate on whether smart guns ultimately can cut down the number of accidental shooting deaths — 500 in 2013 alone, 30 of those under age 5.

Bicycles kill more people in accidents every year. Accidental poisoning kills 38,851 people every year, and 76 of those were children under the age of 5 (via Poison Control Center). Unlike accidental shootings, which thanks to community education efforts have been on the decline, accidental poisonings among both adults and those under 5 have been increasing substantially. So why all the attention on this issue? To me, the answer is clear. This isn’t about saving the lives of children, it’s about gaining political advantage over those rubes in flyover country.

We have to be ready for this. Any manufacturer who cooperates with this shit gets the Smith & Wesson treatment. For those readers who are young, gun owners nearly drove the iconic gunmaker out of business because they cooperated with the Clinton Administration to enact back door bans for civilians. Military and police contracts represent a small percentage of the industries overall business. If a company wishes to lose all their civilian business entirely, by all means, bow to pressure from this administration or the next.

11 Responses to “Administration Report on Smart Gun Technology Coming This Week”

  1. Zermoid says:

    Damn I’m old, I remember the S&W boycott.
    Never was a big fan of their guns but I’ll never buy one again. At least not a new one, maybe a used one as that doesn’t fund the company that I still see as a traitor to the cause.
    I don’t care who owns it the brand is toxic IMO.

  2. stephana says:

    All of my guns are smart. I pull the trigger and they magically fire a round.

  3. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Only S&W gun I own is a used model 629 revolver and it will most likely stay that way. Nothing too spectacular about their M&P line (or much else of theirs) for me…

  4. Nick L. EMT-P says:

    Not to mention alcohol related deaths, injuries and long term morbidity. No background checks for even Assault ETOH: http://i1.wp.com/www.wonderslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kalashnikov-Vodka-AK-47-Bottle.jpg?resize=500%2C323

  5. j t bolt says:

    Now THERE is the optimistic and Happy Sebastian I like to read so much.

    • Sebastian says:

      Oh, I’m still pretty optimistic about gun rights, even though not so much for court protections for now. It’s everything else I worry might go to hell :)

  6. Matthew Carberry says:

    No particular reason to gloom and doom yet. There’s 3 possible outcomes, right?

    1) DOD/Fed LEO report reality and says the tech isn’t functionally useful for them, thus nothing they can do to promote development by buying/not buying from suppliers.

    2) DOD/Fed LEO report tech not useful for them and they require exemptions, but they will only buy from manufacturer’s who fund development.

    3) DOD/Fed LEO political bosses bend over to the lame duck and say they will start using the tech as soon as available (thus screwing their own troops) and will only do business with manufacturers who offer them prototypes to get into field use ASAP.

    Regardless, Congress still controls the purse strings and can hold hearings forcing the heads of the reporting agencies to go on record that the tech is suitable for defensive use, or not, and thus that their agencies will be using it simultaneous with/prior to civilians, or not. If the two answers are inconsistent, they can be asked to explain why.

  7. Paul L. says:

    I would be willing to look at “smart guns” when it is mandatory that all Law Enforcement has to have them. As opposed to the double standard of Law Enforcement demanding exceptions like the high capacity magazines/”Murder Clips” bans.

    • Archer says:

      Considering the whole “smart gun” concept was forwarded ostensibly to prevent LEOs from being shot with their own sidearms if/when grabbed from their holsters by violent suspects, I find it terribly hypocritical for them to request/demand exemptions and ironic that they get any at all.

      Doubly so when they advocate banning so-called “large- or high-capacity magazines”, “assault weapons”, and “body armor” for civilians (which they are, too, BTW) — but demand recognition of their right and need for “standard-capacity magazines”, “patrol rifles”, and “protective garments”.

      No. Just, no.

      • Archer says:

        As an aside, I’ll take a serious look at “smart guns” when the President — who is behind the latest push for this crap — first requires that ALL Secret Service weapons (pistols AND rifles AND SMGs) incorporate the technology and that ALL agents use them, including the ones assigned to protecting his kids.

        I won’t hold my breath….

  8. Harry Schell says:

    If the “smart guns” work as well as “smart diplomacy”, I reckon there will be a lot of dead people…

top