A dream of gun-control advocates for decades, the Armatix iP1 is the country’s first smart gun. Its introduction is seen as a landmark in efforts to reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings. Proponents compare smart guns to automobile air bags — a transformative add-on that gun owners will demand. But gun rights advocates are already balking, wondering what happens if the technology fails just as an intruder breaks in.

via ‘We need the iPhone of guns’: Will smart guns transform the gun industry? – The Washington Post.

But according to the Violence Policy Center (The same people who invented the term “assault Weapon”) it is not such a hot idea, in fact they consider it pretty much useless and go on lengths to explain why in their fact sheet Smart Guns Backgrounder.

Now, they are not stating their opposition to Smart Guns because they suddenly had a change of heart and are now fully respectful of the Second Amendment, no sir; they just don’t want guns in the hands of the Citizens of this country …period.  A Smart Gun is still a gun that shoots and kills busloads of innocent children on their way to buy Skittles for a abandoned-puppies fundraiser.

I want to see the reaction of other Gun Control groups on this. It is gonna be funny as hell as I predict some level on internecine conflict plus the Media being absolutely confused….and good measure of laughing on our part.

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

8 thoughts on “Smart Gun Hits the California Market. Gun Control Group thinks it is a bad idea…Say what?”
  1. Ironic, how the gun grabbers clamored for these smart guns, and now that it’s actually being marketed, they don’t like it.

    And they say there is no slippery slope.

  2. I love the irony in that smart guns are bad for not being effective, yet all of the anti-rights crowd’s proposals are all at least equally ineffective.

    Also curious was how they were able to admit that suicides are the majority of gun deaths, and that unintentional deaths are exceedingly rare, with the unintentional deaths of children being even rarer still.

    Then of course since it’s a persuasive document, they saved their strongest/most important argument for last. With smart guns, more people will buy more guns!

  3. with the “smart gun backgrounder”

    If you replace “personalized gun” with “modern sporting rifle” or just “hand gun” I’d swear the NRA or similar put that out instead of the brady bunch…

Comments are closed.