Smart Guns

[Pariah3j]

I think the general consensus is that currently, the tech isn't there - but lets play this thought game out a little more. Lets assume they fix the current tech limitations - which one day will probably be the case. Just take a look at computers 20 yrs ago vs today or Cell phones 20yrs ago vs Today. The tech will probably, eventually get there, I think - but even once it does, I still don't want it.

I look at it like this - what would making a smart gun accomplish ? What problem does it solve ?

Next you need to ask - What are the draw backs for implementing it ? Does it solve/fix the problem it was suppose to solve ? What are the draw backs/double edged sword/law of unintended consequences ?

So it would accomplish keeping someone from picking up the firearm on the spot and using it unauthorized. This could be used against you by disabling the authorization system or overriding it and preventing it from being fired. This is the double edged sword - there are some scenarios where you might not have been able to foresee someone else needing to shoot your gun in a hurry. Another thought is if the trigger is tied to this mechanism, it could be used to fire the gun without you pulling the trigger - think 'swatting' as it is now only making your gun go off suddenly.

I've seen the idea, that by having this tech on the gun, you would reduce or prevent theft because the would be thief wouldn't be able to use it. The process of securing it wouldn't prevent theft because there would quickly become a market for reprogramming/stripping authorization. This is just a smart lock or password in bio-metric form and those are already defeated - funny thing is that the better bio-metric tech gets, the easier it becomes to fool. I could even see it being used against you - such as in a court case as 'evidence' that you fired it.

These are just a few of the negatives I can think of, I'm sure there are more.

[The Annoyed Man]

The only way to make a gun "smart" is to introduce electronics into the firing system. Electronics can and do fail, for reasons as simple as a dead battery. Some "smart gun" systems have involved the owner having a Bluetooth or similar technology ring on his/her finger which must pair with a Bluetooth receiver in the gun. What happens if they won't pair? That kind of stuff happens all the time with cellphone earpieces and other peripherals. The gun then becomes a very expensive brick, and its owner is left defenseless right when they most need the defense capability.

And, even if the technology can become as reliable as an anvil, if someone can take your gun, they can also take your ring finger off with a knife if they have to so that the ring will stay paired to the gun.

The next time someone suggests smart gun technology to you, ask them how many car thieves have been deterred by not having the keys to the car.

[Abraham]

Smart guns = snowflake-think!

Get rid of forks, knives, spoons, too!

Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, everything....and then yes, yes, yes, we'll be safe, ...wait, I don't know you, arrgggghhh....

[zmcgooga]

Are we strictly talking about handguns? Because if someone was to offer me one of these, I'd take it smiling all the way home http://www.tracking-point.com/ . But for a EDC, no I barley can keep my phone working all the time, don't want to have to worry about my gun to.

[The Annoyed Man]

If politicians ever do succeed in ramming this down gun owners' throats, I would only agree to it if the technology had been thoroughly tested under field and actual combat conditions by America's various federal police agencies......especially agency-wide by the Secret Service, the Capital Police, and both ATF and FBI field agents. After they had field tested it for several years by placing the president's and congresspersons' lives on the line, and could report zero fatalities due to the failure of the smart technology, THEN I would agree that it should be available to those of the public who want it. But I would never advocate that all guns sold should have it......especially all handguns. If politicians are going to pass that crap, then let THEM be the first ones whose lives depend on it working perfectly.

After Congress voted itself exceptions to Obamacare, and the legislatures of several states, Texas included, voted privileges to themselves that they won't extend to other license holders, I'm absolutely dead set against politicians voting any kind of exception for themselves to the rules they heap on the rest of us. And when it comes to making the rest of us into guinea pigs for their ignorance-filled cockamamie ideas, I'm ALL for them being the guinea pigs first. I'm absolutely finished with being a victim any longer to half-baked ideas from a bunch of overcoiffed mullet-heads.

[Abraham]

zmcgooga,

I'm baffled.

Are you anti-gun ownership...?

[Middle Age Russ]

"Smart Guns" are a "public safety" minded solution to the issue of firearms that can do damage via simple mechanisms and operation. By design, the "Smart Gun" inserts one or more barriers to operating a firearm, and adds complexity in one way or another to accomplish this. I'd rather any gun I might ever need to use simply work when I pick it up, rather than having to rely on biometric checking, RFID, magnetic or other "keys" to disable an internal lock on the gun itself. If I feel a gun of mine needs to be locked up, it is, but when I pull a gun out of the safe chambering a round is the only operation needed to be able to use it. Only a small percentage or firearms owners/users have them for express public safety reasons. Most have them for personal safety, hunting, sport and other legitimate Liberty-minded reasons.

[rotor]

This is just another hurdle to 2A and not really a safety issue. It's like Massachusetts 10 pound trigger pull requirement for gun sale there. I can't stand guns with built in locks. I can't even keep my wife's car key fob from going dead. Every time I use her car my key has a dead battery. Perhaps someday in the future something perfect will be invented but it's not here yet. Worry about things that you can control such as texting and driving.

[Salty1]

how long does it take to ctl-alt-delete a smart gun..... personally I have no desire to find out, malfunction clearance is enough to know and learn......

[yerasimos]

To be consistent, I have to conclude that this so-called "smart gun" technology in and of itself is just as morally neutral as the millions of conventional firearms that are already in general circulation among criminals, police, military and law-abiding citizens alike, and that are here to stay and are unlikely to be made "smart".

That said, as others have noted in this thread, there are serious practical problems with having to punch in a PIN, or depending upon a Bluetooth or RFID token, or a battery, or whatever, to activate a personal firearm before responding to an imminent or in-progress criminal assault. Therefore, for practical purposes, this "technology" should be shunned in the marketplace just as there is no marketplace for briefcase-format, rotary-dial cellular phones.

This might come across as somewhat tinfoil-hat, but another serious problem I foresee is if any firearms, whether the "smart guns" described above or something closer to regular firearms, are equipped with wireless connectivity for remotely enabling or disabling the firing mechanism. So many companies and wannabe visionaries are caught up in the Internet of Things (IoT) trend/fad (treadlightly brought this up earlier in the thread), and I see significant problems if this is pushed into firearms or mandated by law.

I can see how IoT-linked firearms would be favored by people like Michael Bloomberg, Gavin Newsom and other wannabe dictators and micromanagers, as they would be thrilled with a way to administratively and remotely disable these "smart guns" via a simple software toggle, whether to enforce a so-called "Gun Violence Restraining Order" or to cause distress with political adversaries or anyone else they do not like. IoT firearms could also be exploited and disabled by sophisticated criminals seeking to prevent their victims from protecting themselves, or to impair a potential or in-progress armed police response.

Again, while IoT-linked firearms and "smart guns" technologies are morally neutral by themselves, I see them as presenting a misleading sense of security and prone to misuse and abuse, just as "dumb" firearms are sometimes misused by dumb or evil people.

[Lynyrd]

What about an EMP? Just saying.

[remington79]

I was also thinking about EMPs and solar flares. Tech would be used to track and disable so called smart guns. For years now people have been able to hack cars using the bluetooth link from the tire pressure sensor to the car's computer. It's now come out that the CIA can weaponize cars through hacking the computers on them. Then there's the other valid reasons such as if your hands were dirty or if someone else had to use it. On the versions that have been made they have a delay before the lock disengages. I think one was a couple of seconds.

[LucasMcCain]

There is absolutely no advantage to smart guns. Zero. They are an affront to the second amendment and should be fought tooth and nail by everyone who cares at all for their right to keep and bear arms. The military isn't using smart guns. The police are not using smart guns. I'm not using a smart gun either. I wear gloves while I'm on the motorcycle; am I supposed to take them off if I need to use my gun so that it can read my fingerprints? A friend wanted to show me how the fingerprint reader on her iPhone works last night. It took her three tries to get it to work. What if your hand is dirty or bloody or injured? What if your significant other or child or friend needs to use your gun?

Gun locks. Bio-metric safes. Training. Retention holsters. Every "advantage" smart guns are supposed to have can already be accomplished by other means which lack the disadvantages inherent in smart guns.

Finally, I'm sorry, but you can't leave politics out of this question. Politics are the ONLY reason these abominations are being developed. There have already been laws passed saying that as soon as smart guns are available in a given market, all other guns are illegal. That is where this road leads. It ends with the government holding the ability to deactivate any gun it's not holding.

Smart guns aren't. /rant

[G.A. Heath]

A "smart" gun wouldn't have to be electronic.

Didn't Smith play with a revolver that would not fire unless you were wearing a magnetic ring?

Yes, and I believe Massad Ayoob has one if I correctly recall what he told me when I interviewed him on my podcast (When it was the "Open Carry Report). This particular firearm would never make it in the so-called smart gun market because it adds complexity which gun owners would not like, and it is easily bypassed with a magnet which anti-gunners would not like.

I would like to say at work we have a biometric time clock (This is our second model that we have used) and we have employees who have make multiple attempts to clock in/out under relatively controlled conditions (and we have the sensitivity set so that people can identified as someone else in some cases). I also have a few 'smart devices' with biometric sign in, and there are rare times I simply have to use the password/pin override to use it as I get locked out from too many attempts. My current devices that use such technology are a Galaxy S6 and an ASUS T102HA. If I need my weapon I want to be able to draw, aim, and fire. I would prefer to live rather than try to enter a password/pin to override biometric system in time so I could shoot the guy pointing his pistol at me.