Posted on Jan 12, 2017
MIT freshman Kai Kloepfer tries to save lives with smart guns
1.84K
11
6
6
6
0
Any gun that is only "relatively reliable" is not a gun that I want any part of.
MIT freshman Kai Kloepfer tries to save lives with smart guns
Posted from cbsnews.comPosted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
Firearms and Guns
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 5
Suspended Profile
How about smart (trained) gun owners. Stop blaming the gun.
show previous comments
Suspended Profile
LTC (Join to see) - There are people that don't like Glock because the trigger is too light. It's a modification to the pistol which still requires user error to allow an AD. LTC Stephen C. is correct. This mod will not work as advertised one day and we'll blame the gun...
PO1 Tim Grace
If it has electronics in it, it will fail. It isn't a matter of "if", its a matter of "when". I don't know about you, but when I pull the trigger, I want my firearm to go bang, every time. I don't want to tell an attacker "Time out, I have to change the batteries". That would work just like "Gun Free Zones".
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
PO1 Tim Grace - Good point. The fewer moving parts, the fewer opportunities for failure.
1SG Cj Grisham
Yes. This!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Having a firearm that I could 'lock' to myself, or to an on duty police officer, prison guard, or any other responsible and authorized user, is at first glance deeply appealing.
No one but you can use your weapon.
On the other hand, my guns are either on my body, or secured from 'unauthorized' use by safes, gun vaults, cable locks and the like. I don't feel that I need this feature on my weapons.
I wouldn't mind having it, but if, and Only if, it could be proven to be more reliable than the weapon, ammo, magazines and any other accessory I already stake my life on.
I buy and use quality gear, that I practice with and care for. In the unlikely event that some part of the chain fails me, I know how to react to bring it back to operating condition quickly.
If the biometrics fail, you're not going to be changing batteries, cleaning sensors or resoldering connections in the middle of the fight.
When the technology is proof against vibration, temperature extremes, water, sweat, blood, grease, dirt, dust, impact, aggressor interference, non-standard shooting grip/position and dirty fingers (or scraped/mangled/missing fingers), give me a call.
When there's NO CHANCE that I won't be able to fire MY GUN when I NEED TO because of the tech, I'll be 100% behind it. Not before.
No one but you can use your weapon.
On the other hand, my guns are either on my body, or secured from 'unauthorized' use by safes, gun vaults, cable locks and the like. I don't feel that I need this feature on my weapons.
I wouldn't mind having it, but if, and Only if, it could be proven to be more reliable than the weapon, ammo, magazines and any other accessory I already stake my life on.
I buy and use quality gear, that I practice with and care for. In the unlikely event that some part of the chain fails me, I know how to react to bring it back to operating condition quickly.
If the biometrics fail, you're not going to be changing batteries, cleaning sensors or resoldering connections in the middle of the fight.
When the technology is proof against vibration, temperature extremes, water, sweat, blood, grease, dirt, dust, impact, aggressor interference, non-standard shooting grip/position and dirty fingers (or scraped/mangled/missing fingers), give me a call.
When there's NO CHANCE that I won't be able to fire MY GUN when I NEED TO because of the tech, I'll be 100% behind it. Not before.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
There was an article on RP earlier today about hacking or spoofing fingerprints. This is a NoGo on many levels.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google