This gun would operate on the same basis as the wireless dog collars do in that the guns would be regulated by officials elected by the community in which the person lives, jobs would be created by setting up satellite feed of positions of guns, and setting up zones, like the wireless dog collars, that would shut the gun down if it were to be inside that zone. The gun's owner would remain anonymous by the people who run the communication feed setting up a company that would charge any government official $10,000 and the person's permission to reveal their identity. For a police officer to request data would require a court order and the person's presence when they receive the data.
If it were possible to create a firearm that could be made temporarily inoperable that couldn't be altered by the owner, I think it would help to make people less wary of people owning firearms. I think the entire purpose of owning a firearm is just a vicious cycle of, "I need a gun to protect myself because someone bought a gun to protect himself, and he bought a gun to protect himself because someone bought a gun to protect himself...Ad infinitum", but Americans do love their guns.
Does anyone see the stupidity in this thesis? First off, how are you going to go about making a gun that works in that manner? What if no one buys them? How hard would you think it would be to remove that feature? And with this logic, the liberal that raised this question will soon be trying to justify putting trackers in guns. So in short, How about, No.
I think the biggest detriment to the argument of creating a gun that will shut itself off in a certain area is the simple fact that even modern firearms that we use today are incredibly simple in design, and can easily be disassembled-in fact, they MUST be disassembled in order to work properly (cleaning and such). A criminal could easily tear out any device that automatically shuts the gun off and replace it with one that works.
To put it simply, there is NO WAY that you can completely disable a firearms functionality like that.
Gun owners, as well, would not favor the idea because they feel that their rights are being infringed upon for no valid reason. There is no reason that the government should mandate that an electronic piece of technology should be installed into everyone's weapon, as that presents a risk that everyone's firearm can eventually be disabled at the will of the government. Given that the firearm is reserved as the civilian defense against tyranny, tyranny could take them away with the push of a button.
Furthermore, it is an invasion of privacy if you intend to make sure that the electronics are on at all times inside of the gun, as there is no way to tell unless an absolute intrusion upon an individuals personal life-and the infringement of their right to bare arms-is conducted by the government.
So, no. It wouldn't work.
Criminals will either produce their own guns or buy them off the black market, or just modify them to not meet standards, and we are no better off than we started. (except for the bad people have working guns, and the good people don't). This would also be incredibly expensive and difficult to implement. And sorry for the headline, but all these proposals have the exact same problem...That criminals don't abide by laws.
Most firearm owners own some firepower to be able to protect themselves, their family, and their property. It's easy to see how such a system could go haywire, be expanded past it's original boundaries (like every other government program in our history) or simply be ineffective. As others have stated, it's very simple to disassemble most firearms. Criminals would have gunsmiths or buy on the black market. Not only would such a policy make it that much easier for more tyrannical government, it would also harm the law-abiding citizen's ability to protect themselves against criminals.
And you'd better believe that firearms would be even more expensive.
And you know who makes money when something becomes illegal and expensive? Criminals.