Steve Sanetti

“I’d Rather be Shot By a ‘Smart Gun’ Than Sell a Smart Gun”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s (NSSF) Steve Sanetti Talks About ‘Smart Guns’ on 60 Minutes

The CBS news magazine program 60 Minutes Sunday night aired a segment on “Smart Guns” during which NSSF President Steve Sanetti answered questions from reporter Lesley Stahl and explained that the industry does not oppose the development of authorized user technology for firearms but rather that caution is warranted. “We have to be careful not to fall into the technology trap,” Sanetti said. “We’re not here saying that technology is a bad thing. Technology obviously improves our life in many ways. But I think you have to look at firearms in a slightly different way. Their mechanisms are the way they are over centuries of development. They’re at the state now that consumers want them and, in the United States, there’s a lot of tradition involved in firearms.”

Steve Sanetti

Sanetti also explained that legal mandating “Smart Gun” technology, which the industry opposes, would punish the vast majority of responsible gun owners who as a matter of course secure their weapons safely away from children or others who should not be able to access them. Indeed, all guns can be secured today by means of the locks furnished by their manufacturers, or by the 37 million free locks distributed by the NSSF’s Project ChildSafe, without the reliability disadvantages posed by “smart guns.”

“Why are you trying to take my firearm and add something to it that’s going to make it more prone to failure?” he asked, referring to the possibility that the technology might malfunction.

National Shooting Sports Foundation logo

Perhaps the only new information to be covered in the segment came from New Jersey “Smart Gun” mandate law sponsor State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, who said that she would introduce legislation to repeal that state’s current unenforced law if firearms retailers, in return, would all agree to carry at least one model of an authorized user equipped firearm in their stores’ inventory.

See NSSF Fast Facts on “Smart Guns” for detailed information on this issue.

Where do you fall on the debate on Smart guns? Share your thoughts in the comment section.

12 thoughts on ““I’d Rather be Shot By a ‘Smart Gun’ Than Sell a Smart Gun””

  1. what i think about smart guns is just about what i think about googles new smart car.just heard on one news now that googles new smart car was pulled over in calif. for driving to slow.who could get in a smart car and relax and take a nap,just the same when i lay my little head down to sleep i dont have to wonder if my super blackhawk thats got 5 in it because its an old 3 screw will go bang if i need it too. mabey its more like boom! lol

  2. I wouldn’t want such a firearm. What if it failed by chance, such as dirty hands or an injury to your hand that was needed for ID? That could happen with a police officer. What if he was incapacitated & a fellow officer needed his gun, because his malfunctioned? What if the government mandated only where it could be used, how often it could be used & perhaps even for them to track where it’s located & worst of all who owns it?
    What if an owner wanter to sell or trade it. Would you even be allowed to sell or trade it? I wouldn’t trust the government with anything that could be mandate to be made to suit their purposes.

  3. The smart of course will use technology that won’t be able to be overridden like the technology used to prevent hacking in the White house or Pentagons computers.

  4. Just because some techie invents It, an it works for some, doesn’t mean it’s needed or wanted. Nothing fixes everything, and smart guns, are no exception.
    What we need are smarter gun owners.

  5. Even a “smart gun” can’t shoot anyone. You should know that guns don’t shoot people – people do.

  6. Guns are analog machines. They are tools. What is so inherently volatile about them that makes such pushes for new technology (not from consumers, which is elemental to this discussion) necessary in the eyes of some people?

    Guns don’t generally harm anyone unless a series of steps happens. They are not “automatic”. One still has to put ammo into the gun and operate the mechanisms that make the gun fire. Just like any machine that is not powered through an engine or electricity, unless it those things that make a gun fire a round happen, the gun won’t fire. Guns are plenty safe already. The only thing that makes properly working guns unsafe is when an unsafe person has control over them. Since persons cannot yet be legislated on this level (the Second Amendment), there will continue to be a push to do things to guns though the legal system.

    The whole concept is fallacious on its face. You can’t blame a device for the acts of its operator. We collectively understand this when it comes to convicting drunk drivers. Cars are not altered to manage the still-pervasive problem of intoxicated driving. The concept is never even discussed on a legislative level, nor should it be.

    Given that any rational arguments regarding the value of altering guns with new technology for “safety” fall apart quickly, it is obvious that any attempt to legislate guns or facilitate changes in guns through legislation is solely an attempt to skirt the Constitution, to violate guaranteed rights, and is nefarious. It should be criminal. Attempting to violate my rights is generally considered criminal, but this is not the case when the specific right is the one enumerated in the Second Amendment. When are we as a society going to start prosecuting legislators for rights violations?

    I’ll leave it at that. This is a subject for which I hold strong opinions and strong passions. Best to keep my point simple.

  7. I wonder if the moslums that just shot up the people of Paris
    today had Smart Guns…
    It was a dumb Ideal with Bill Clinton and its a dumb ideal now.
    As we all know it bit by bit with this bunch of Socialist

  8. I would trust Loretta Weinberg about as far as I can kick her limousine. This is the most uneducated legislator in my experience. She replied to a question of her knowledge of firearms. “why are you asking me about that? I don’t know anything about guns!” She is also the one who was caught on an open mike telling her fellow senators that making all firearms illegal was the real goal.

  9. Time, and technology marches on. It’s inevitable. Maybe someday all firearms will be “smart guns” to help out some of our idiot users. Today is NOT that day. Any attempts at “smart guns” has failed, and will continue to do so until the real question is answered. A power source that will not fail or “run out” ever. Any other attempts are useless, as a battery will always die at the most inconvenient time, and in the case of a defensive situation, that could be fatal. That leads to big lawsuits, and no reputable firearms firm is that stupid as to risk it. Parachutes and guns. If you need one and don’t have one, chances are you will never need one again.

  10. I’m ok with the idea of smart guns, might even consider purchasing one at some point (after the tech proves itself) but I sure wouldn’t want it to be my only choice and I HIGHLY doubt I’d ever use one as a carry gun, nor do I want the government to be able to mandate that once they’re sold, that’s all that can be sold (Hello NJ!)…

Leave a Reply