Smart Guns

[apvonkanel]

I've seen a few articles around regarding "smart guns". Now, while refraining from political bashing, I wanted to hear some opinions regarding the idea. Some pro's (limiting access by non-authorized users, just like with my phone) and con's (added cost, and more potential for malfunction) are obvious. Are there any pro's or con's that I'm not seeing here? Again, please keep this about the equipment, not political agendas. I honestly don't care what the liberals want, or what the conservatives want. I'm only curious about the hardware benefits and risks. Hardcore gun purists, techies, and those afraid of all things that go bang come in all affiliations (I actually know an avid hunter that thinks fireworks should be outlawed).

[Jusme]

My only response is don't try to fix what ain't broke.

I can see no advantage to having a gun that only one person can operate. There may be those who differ in their opinions, but, I want my family, to be able to pick up any gun we have available, and defend themselves, or me, if I am somehow incapacitated. Responsible gun owners, already keep guns put away from young children, as well as teach their children gun safety.

You mentioned the increased possibility of failure for so called "smart guns" and that is just another reason to shy away from something that I may need to save my life, or the lives of loved ones.
One of the main arguments put forth by proponents of 'smart guns" is that it can't be taken away and used against someone. This scenario, plays out so rarely, that this argument, doesn't justify the time and money invested in something like this. As of now, there is no "smart gun" on the market, that doesn't suffer greatly from reliability issues. Either from battery failure, or the sensors not "recognizing" the authorized shooter. The whole experiment has been a failure, because there is no real market for these guns.
I am not anti technology, but for a tool that may save my life, that works as is, I say leave it alone. I'll listen to new technology regarding ammo, configurations, that reduce recoil, or several other technological advances, but this is one that I have no use for.

You say you don't want a political discussion regarding "smart guns" but there is almost no way to even delve into their existence, without commenting on the fact, that the very idea, of this type of gun, was pushed so hard by the left, without fully understanding the concepts, or even the technology behind it. There seems to be an almost, science fiction becoming reality, mindset with these folks. They even wanted guns to be equipped with a "shut off" feature which would allow the police or someone else to disable a person's gun if they felt the need. That should tell you all you need to know about their motives. JMHO

[Liberty]

Economy, simplicity, and reliability are reasons I am not interested, but there are other bigger fears of this technology. Once the manufacturers start producing these so-called smart guns, is it a far stretch that the government will insist on them?
Lots of people hate the simple century old technology of manual safety, most of us gun owners aren't going to look on these new fangled gun cripplers.

[allisji]

believe it or not this topic has come up a few times on here.

here's one example: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... t+gun+tech

consensus is: No thanks.

There are better ways to keep your guns out of the wrong hands. I have small kids at home, so I could see the benefit of having one of these for home defense. I would still keep it stored in a convenient location where the kids couldn't get to it, but at least if they did get to it I would have the peace of mind that they shouldn't be able to operate it. That said, I don't know that I would trust it with my life if I know that it could fail electronically and become unusable except for as an expensive throwing weapon or club.

I have a biometric gunvault next to my bed upstairs. It holds two guns, my daily carry gun, and my glock 21 with laser/light. I have another gun locked in a gunvault downstairs in a closet, that I usually carry on the weekends. Other than that all guns are locked in the safe. If I had a smart gun I would probably stow it somewhere in the kitchen, incase I needed access to a weapon when downstairs and unarmed and without time to get to the bedroom closet and open the lockbox to deploy my carry weapon.

All that said. I don't really like the idea of smart guns and wouldn't want to buy one because that would be a vote in favor of smart guns which the gun control crowd would consider a small victory.

[crazy2medic]

I'll keep my dumb ol 1911, yes it's a 106 year old design, but it's a proven combat handgun, it has seen two world wars and multiple smaller conflicts, mine goes bang everytime it's suppose to, it's accurate, reliable and i'm confident in it!
Smart gun? What happens when the technology fails and your life hangs on it's reliability? What if your wife, girlfriend, or family member needs to use it and it only works for you? I personally believe it a solution in search of a problem.

[parabelum]

Economy, simplicity, and reliability are reasons I am not interested, but there are other bigger fears of this technology. Once the manufacturers start producing these so-called smart guns, is it a far stretch that the government will insist on them?
Lots of people hate the simple century old technology of manual safety, most of us gun owners aren't going to look on these new fangled gun cripplers.

What Liberty said there.

[Mike S]

My only response is don't try to fix what ain't broke.

There may be those who differ in their opinions, but, I want my family, to be able to pick up any gun we have available, and defend themselves, or me, if I am somehow incapacitated. Responsible gun owners, already keep guns put away from young children, as well as teach their children gun safety.

The whole experiment has been a failure, because there is no real market for these guns.

I am not anti technology, but for a tool that may save my life, that works as is, I say leave it alone.

Well said.

[treadlightly]

Well, think about the Internet of Things. Your refrigerator, toaster, the porcelain throne, everything in the house is going to be connected to the Totally Really Secure (TM) Internet before long. Why not your firearm?

With a little help from onboard GPS you could even have automatic one click (or double tap, if the threat is obstreperous) purchase of legal help in some areas, or pay your range fee automatically if you were at target practice.

It would also help with gun free zones, conveniently disabling your firearm where property owners have decided for you that such things aren't needed.

That could be a really nice feature. If you're attacked by zombies in my business, you draw and put 'em down. Then we'll chat about guns while waiting for the police to arrive.

If you're attacked by zombies at some cupcake's gun free business, you draw just the same - but clicking the trigger now prevents an embarrassing bang, instead it tweets a cheery, "So long!" to your friends.

I just can't wait to get my new smart gun!

[Soccerdad1995]

The only benefits are political, and the OP asked that those not be mentioned.

Cons = Complexity, additional points of failure, inability to be used by multiple defenders in a household or otherwise, cost, inability to easily transfer / sell to another person, linkage of user info to gun.

[mot7981]

Just trying to look from an alternative view. I think the obvious advantages would be a potential decrease in accidental shootings where non authorized users are involved. This would assume the technology actually worked. You know, child retrieves improperly secured firearm, etc. Also the scenario where an attacker gets the gun away from you and shoots you with your own bullet launcher. All that being said, I’m not for this “advancement”. I agree with previous posters about the issues concerning technology/reliability/expense. Not to mention the possibility of even more potential infringements of our freedoms by our friendly lawmakers.

[Flightmare]

I look at a firearm that only functions with allowed users identified by biometrics the same as a parachute that functioned the same. Would anyone here trust their life to a parachute that required a good fingerprint in order to deploy the chute? Like others have said, what if the reader failed when you needed it, or the battery dies. In the case of the parachute, or the firearm...the result is the same, you're dead.

[bblhd672]

The only "smart gun" is one that does not have a finger on the trigger.

Everything else about "smart gun" technology is politically motivated from the left.

[pushpullpete]

Riiiight, CHL/LTC or someone they love is being attacked & being a law abiding citizen they
tell the bg to hang on a moment while their legally obtained firearm is having trouble with
identifying them before allowing them to defend themselves or their loved one. Nothing to
go wrong w that scenario .
Sounds like the same troublesome technology that is in most of our lives now. Technology is
supposed to make our lives better. Just mho but, this does not. So, no thank you.

[Lynyrd]

The ones I've read about all have a battery somewhere to enable the technology. Let's say a BG comes through my window, wife screams and BG points his gun at her. I grab my "smart" gun, aim at the BG and pull the trigger. Nothing happens. Then I notice the battery is dead.

Yeah, that's a smart gun alright.

[Soccerdad1995]

Just trying to look from an alternative view. I think the obvious advantages would be a potential decrease in accidental shootings where non authorized users are involved. This would assume the technology actually worked. You know, child retrieves improperly secured firearm, etc. Also the scenario where an attacker gets the gun away from you and shoots you with your own bullet launcher. All that being said, I’m not for this “advancement”. I agree with previous posters about the issues concerning technology/reliability/expense. Not to mention the possibility of even more potential infringements of our freedoms by our friendly lawmakers.

Both of these scenarios are extremely unlikely. Might as well focus on new technology to prevent lightning strikes. The net impact from this type of "advancement" will be more dead good guys. But the majority of folks who are blissfully ignorant on the actual facts will "feel" safer.

If we want to use technology to actually make us all safer, then lets work on things for our vehicles like automatic braking, lane departure warnings, blind spot detection, and whatever they will think up next. That is an area where we actually have a lot of needless deaths, unlike anything related to firearms.