Ziana Astralos wrote:
> Okay, first off, I wish to establish that I in *no*
> way wish to become involved in the gun discussions.
> However, I was reading the paper yesterday evening and
> discovered something which I thought might be of
> interest to the people who *have* been discussing gun
> stuff. So, I thought I'd share this clipping with you:
> _Firm unveils 'smart gun'_
> SYDNEY, Australia -- An Aus-
> tralian company unveiled a newly
> developed "smart gun" Tuesday
> that it claims won't fire if it
> falls into the wrong hands.
> To fire the gun the shooter
> has to be wearing a special ring
> concealing a transponder, which
> communicates a code to the pis-
> tol. "If it's lost or stolen it
> can't be used," inventor Mike
> O'Dwyer said.
> There ya go. Probably everyone who's interested has
> already heard about it anyway, but the times when I
> can come up with something semi-worthwhile to
> contribute are pretty rare, so I thought I'd try. :)
Good effort Ziana. They don't mention that if the registered owner isn't
home and his wife gets attacked by a rapist/robber/murderer, she has no
hope of defending herself or the kids. So you buy your wife a gun, fine.
Your kids, who under such circumstances are most likely to not be the
object of immediate attention, actually have a very good chance of being
the ones to retreive either weapon, neither of which they can use. Smart
guns are for dumb people.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:06 MDT