NEW handgun innovation!

[mbailey]

I would think it would also help with recreating / investigating an officer involved shooting. They could tell when and where the gun was pulled and discharged. The location of the officer, coupled with a body cam it would go a long way to assist the officer in showing it was a justifiable shooting.......or god forbid the opposite.

Just a little note....I grew up in a family of LEOs. Dad was a PA State Trooper, his brother was INS and my moms twin brother was DEA. So I may be a little biased and lean in that direction. I say give them the best tools available, with a system of checks and balances. God knows their job is hard enough without having the media judge them in the court of public opinion.  

And Meatwad, the first time I see that uniform, I'm headed to Canada.    

[Flench]

I would think it would also help with recreating / investigating an officer involved shooting. They could tell when and where the gun was pulled and discharged. The location of the officer, coupled with a body cam it would go a long way to assist the officer in showing it was a justifiable shooting.......or god forbid the opposite.

Just a little note....I grew up in a family of LEOs. Dad was a PA State Trooper, his brother was INS and my moms twin brother was DEA. So I may be a little biased and lean in that direction. I say give them the best tools available, with a system of checks and balances. God knows their job is hard enough without having the media judge them in the court of public opinion.  

And Meatwad, the first time I see that uniform, I'm headed to Canada.    

We got good cop's around here but I'm down in the country and the people can open carry . Can't say that about the Game Warden's , there azzz hat's .

[Gman]

I don't think adding any kind of electronic system that could somehow keep an officer from firing if needed is a good idea.  A tracking system hidden in the grip plate is one thing, but the expense of all this whiz bang stuff to determine ballistics is replication of tech and science that L/E already has to recreate shooting scenes for the most part.  If it is designed with the idea of holding L/E accountable for shooting somehow, a body/helmet cam will do a much better job of this than some firearm attached system.  I mean, what happens if there is an incident with an officer that is questionable where he didn't draw his weapon?  Then what purpose would such a system as the OP serve?

I only mention a tracking system for situations where an officer is harmed and his weapon stolen, THAT would give L/E a good tool to help track whoever took it, but as for the rest, I don't think many L/E agencies would be signing up for that.

[oldskool65]

In the uk we have much lower firearm use and have a different attitude to them and although i dissagree with public ownership of guns .I agree that Le need them and if an officer has to think about the legality of his or her shot for too long (which this device may promote) i could be the innocent victim of an armed assailant 
So at least here in good ole Blighty Its  a big fat No to any device that gets in the way of an officer taking down a bad guy so I or any other law abiding citizen lives

[Rob52240]

In the uk we have much lower firearm use and have a different attitude to them and although i dissagree with public ownership of guns .I agree that Le need them and if an officer has to think about the legality of his or her shot for too long (which this device may promote) i could be the innocent victim of an armed assailant 
So at least here in good ole Blighty Its  a big fat No to any device that gets in the way of an officer taking down a bad guy so I or any other law abiding citizen lives

Would you accept help from a heavily armed good samaritan if you were being victimized by a violent criminal? 

Where I live, we believe that public safety is an individual responsibility as much as it is the government's responsibility.

[guncrasher]

In the uk we have much lower firearm use and have a different attitude to them and although i dissagree with public ownership of guns .I agree that Le need them and if an officer has to think about the legality of his or her shot for too long (which this device may promote) i could be the innocent victim of an armed assailant 
So at least here in good ole Blighty Its  a big fat No to any device that gets in the way of an officer taking down a bad guy so I or any other law abiding citizen lives

I think you really misunderstand how the device works and what it does.



semp

[Hetzer7]

It's a black box for the gun, doesn't effect the operation of it.

[SysError]

It's a black box for the gun, doesn't effect the operation of it.

Well said.

I would think that most L/Es would welcome something like this.  Just like most of them who welcome body cams.  They protect the good name of good cops.

[Rich46yo]

Why I wonder would anyone even think we feel a need to have our good names protected?

This so called "innovation" is nothing but uneeded trash being trolled by a company trying to make a dime manipulating a current event for profit. The cars already have GPS and cameras. Why would you need a gun to? Ive had nights in the ghetto where Ive had to draw a gun 1/2 dozen times going from one shooting to another, one robbery after another, one gang call after another. All fricking night long. Night after night. Have a problem with it? We'll find a way to never do it again. Lotsa luck living in that world.

We cant even keep 1/2 the cams up in the cars. Gee the ear cams and gun gadgets should do just fine.

Speaking for the guys and Gals who need to have their good names protected you should just hear what we think of this tech crap being bought while our pensions are being skewered. It couldnt be repeated in this forum believe me.

[jolly22]

I actually like this idea.. It's a good way to keep track of what is going on the line of fire. This "Snartgun" isn't going to conflict with the operation of the gun, just collects and transmits data.

[Rich46yo]

I actually like this idea.. It's a good way to keep track of what is going on the line of fire. This "Snartgun" isn't going to conflict with the operation of the gun, just collects and transmits data.

Exactly what does it keep track of? Recreating a shooting scene is actually pretty easy with physical evidence alone.

Its the witness evidence thats hard. You can have 10 different witnesses and get 10 different stories, most of all since 9 of them probably didnt even see it.

This is a greedy attempt to troll useless tech in order to make a buck on the sad events of Ferguson MO. Totally useless crap.

[Bodhi]

Doesn't look to wireless when you see a cable running from the weapon to the belt...  sorry, that's a hindrance that an officer does not need and it presents a very clear safety issue.

As for cameras... all for them, if they are better views.  Much an officer can see is not recorded by the current technology and that is the crux of the issue when it comes to cameras.

[guncrasher]

Doesn't look to wireless when you see a cable running from the weapon to the belt...  sorry, that's a hindrance that an officer does not need and it presents a very clear safety issue.

As for cameras... all for them, if they are better views.  Much an officer can see is not recorded by the current technology and that is the crux of the issue when it comes to cameras.

there's no wires. 

one thing that makes me wonder is what is the big deal about that technology.  I see some hesitate to use it.  I guess they have their reason, havent yet seen some really good reason why not to have it, well other than money.   

but this is what I see in my life:

-if my car moves and my key is not near it I get an alert on my phone right away.

-If I wanted to I could set up the thermostat remotely just by using my phone.

-my front door can be locked/unlocked using just a phone

-i could turn on/off the lights using my phone

-why is that some people think that it is wrong if I get a text saying somebody moved my gun when I am not home.  that's what i see the technology doing.


anyway, it really isnt up to us to decide what is right or wrong for some departments.  some thought it was a good idea, some others wont go for it.  I guess it's really up to them.


semp




semp

[bustr]

Once it's good for the police, then we are often next with funny catch-22 wordings introduced into the text of ordinances and laws to allow local, state and federal gov the broadest discretion with gun owners. Stealth control of our actions. And cause court challenges to take for ever while we citizens sit in legal limbo. Just wait until firearms are mandated with biometric locks like in the first Judge Dredd movie. All it will take is the police using it as standard equipment, then the push is for the public to accept it as common sense.

We all need to be safe, because safety is common sense. Guns kill people, guns are not safe. If it's good enough for the police, well, we all need to be safe. That should out weight any constitutional amendment.

There will be unintended consequences to something like this that will eventually effect the lives of gun owners. If none of us can really agree in this post. Think about government officials who can create laws and ordinances who don't agree with gun owners.

It's not the company making money off recent tragedies that is so bad. It's the officials who will attempt to entwine this into legal firearms ownership as one more expensive hurdle to achieving ownership of a firearm. Kind of like failed attempts to place a $10.00 tax on single .22 - .50 cal rounds.