Should smart guns be illegal?

If so, then turnover will be exceptionally slow.

Not from law-abiding citizens.

 

But if its stolen it could be, whereas you shiny new smart gun could not.
Further your new smart gun cannot be turned on you either.
Further still why would you want to keep your old crappy gun when you have a new smart one.
It feels like you are just being awkward for awkwards sake.

 

Yes, but its very clear gun owners are super sensitive to any attempt at change, so slowly it has to be.

 

You -clearly- don't understand the majority of people who legally own guns.

 

Just unnecessary and ineffective change.
As we should.

 

Yes, without breaking the 2nd amendment. So there are conditions?

 

The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms.
Some people do not have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

That's fine with me. I'm looking for something that might reduce gun related death in the U.S without harming those who enjoy owning guns.

Frankly there are very few options when every change is considered a direct challenge regardless of intent.

 

Yes, and the government decide who and why.

 

The government is limited in its ability to do so by the constitution.

 

And rightly so.

 

Current demand is being met with all the firearms currently in the market- the vast bulk of which are not new. Most firearms do not wear out very quickly unless they are improperly cared for. Removing firearms from the market before they actually wear out, stop functioning and become irreparable will decrease the supply and thus necessarily increase the demand. Increased demand will increase profit margins and incentivize an increase in manufacturing to meet -and profit from- that demand.

 

Are they? Who does the constitution say is not allowed to keep a gun?

 

The Constitution doesn't limit rights.

 

Yes ofcourse, but I was assuming a very slow attrition. And 20 million new guns are sold each year, so one could calculate a similar number of old guns fall out of circulation.

 

No sure what you mean here. Clearly the government can remove a gun from you by force if you rob a bank of are insane. So there must be some allowances.

 

It is - by the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment

"... the right of the people..."
Not everyone is part of "the people".

 

Utter nonsense- under normal usage and maintenance, modern firearms won't wear out for centuries.

 

Sure it could, and if computer geeks can hack into the Pentagon, they can break the FW code in a gun.

Perhaps not, but it might not work when I need it to when my Glock 19 will work every time.

I will never have a "new smart gun", so it's a moot point.

 

No, the pile just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

 

Only if you're making the assumption that guns arent becoming more popular ;D

granted this a bit dated, but I see no reason the trend would have done anything but further increase since this:
"According to the NSSF-adjusted data for background checks, the first seven months of 2020 saw a record 12.1 million background checks conducted—up 71% from the same period of 2019. All of this adds up to an astonishing five million new gun owners this year."

Thats 5 million new gun owners in 7 months, in addition to people who already own guns and continue to buy more.

...and that was before 'ban semi autos' Biden and Harris got elected, which always drives gun sales up even higher.

and jic you werent aware, the prices of firearms in the US continues to increase as suppliers have difficulty in meeting the demand, and ammo is nearly impossible to get even tho manufacturers are pumping out nearly as much as they usually do. The discrepency between the minor resource shortages from the last year of covid shutdowns vs the severe drop in product availability 'on the shelf' is purportedly due entirely to a major spike in consumer demand. Of course, some folks think the govt is buying it all up so we can't get any, but there hasn't been any good evidence of that this time (like there was some years ago, back around 2012 I think, when that actually did happen).

 

Who is "Not the people"
And more importantly, who decides who is not "people"
The 2nd amendment mentions a well regulated militia. But that would exclude all the individual gun owners.

 

Even with those figures you would still see a slow switch over to the new smart weapons.
As I keep emphasising, I recognise the hopelessness of trying to force change, so I seek changes gun owners might find acceptable.

In the back of my mind is the huge number of murders the US sees every year, far above other first world countries and five times higher than the UK (Where I live)

 

Well we are the third most populous nation... its hardly fair to compare our total number of murders to nations with much lower populations. Per capita is the most common comparison, in which case we're lower than the global average. Relative to population density, which is a known factor in violence, our murder rate is about half of Canada's (we have ~10x the pop density and only ~5x the murder rate). People tend to have more problems with eachother when they have to live closer together... Other factors commonly not cited by typically oversimplified violence statistics include wealth disparity, unemployment, mental health resources, cultural differences, to name a few.

The weapons I keep on hand for self defense will not be 'smart' until it can be achieved without batteries. I have enough problems just finding a flashlight that works when I really need one and that happens far more often than needing a gun.

 

• United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990) - A case dealing with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are "the People" when referred to in the Constitution:[6]

[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller