Smart Gun Technology

U

Uncle Buck

New member
There is a very interesting article about "smart gun" technology in forbes. Enough to make one wonder if the technology is even ready for prime time.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/josephsteinberg/2014/05/04/smartguns/

I do not know enough about the guns, mainly because I would never own one, to understand the whole thing, but one thing that would concern me is the "watch".

Could the watch be programmed to match more than one gun, or would each gun require an unique watch? If you go to the range with a bag full of guns, you have to change the watch each time you change the gun.

If you have two guns, one near your favorite recliner and another in the nightstand, you would have to remember to change them out when you go from room to room. I always remove my watch before going to bed...

What other problems do you folks think would arise from this technology?

(There is another thread going about Smart guns in MD, but I think this is a little different topic, so I started a new thread.)
 
B

BarryLee

New member
I oppose mandating their use, but have wondered at which point the technology might become mature enough for widespread use. The issues related to watches and other proximity sensors would need to be overcome, but it seems there may be a way to do that.

I can see some possible benefits to law enforcement if they were to be disarmed in a fight. The other issues often mentioned related to someone else using your gun has some validity, but it seems responsible storage would make more sense.

As of now the technology doesn’t seem to be ready and there are way too many regulatory concerns, but long term I expect we’ll see their use one day.
 
U

Uncle Buck

New member
Another problem I would have with the proximity sensors is the same one I have for my magazines. I have about 40 magazines, some with the guns, some in the cigar box in the safe. Now I would have to make sure the sensor and the magazines get put in the right pile. :confused:
 
P

PoiDog

New member
Say it's the only gun you own. A home invasion happens, and at that point the battery fails.

See ya'.

I'm not interested, since batteries fail when you need them most. It's what they do.

Now, if that is not your only gun, it might be okay. This type of thing only makes sense to a lifelong politician who has had armed guards almost his whole life and figures everyone else must have them too, so why do they need guns?

And to top it off, the OS on the watch is Windows. Gee what could go wrong with that? LOL

Just kidding about that last bit. Blue screen of death for real.
 
G

guruatbol

New member
What if you don't wear a watch? I wear one on Sunday and special occasions and have about a dozen. Depends on where I am going and what the attire is, as to which watch I wear. Most of the time I don't wear one.

So....

I do believe is the technology was there, might have a place in our world. LEO use would be good, military use maybe. Weapon retention techniques are better options I believe at this point.

The technology has to be 100% perfect, which is impossible as we are all human.

Mel
 
S

steve4102

New member
What other problems do you folks think would arise from this technology?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that they can be disabled by LEO and other Government agencies. Hence the reason for them in the first place.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Proponents of this technology focus on a few scenarios, pointing out positive aspects, and shy away from discussion those where the tech is actually a liability.

They tell us about how, if a kid gets your gun, they can't use it. About how if your gun is stolen, its can't be used for crime. About how cops will be saved, if the bad guy get their gun from them, etc.

Essentially, they see smart gun tech as a built in lock, which automatically engages and disengages at the right time, per the presence of the electronic "key", be it a special watch, ring, or even an implanted chip.

Pollyana would be right at home with this thinking.

The problems with this tech are essentially twofold. First, and most important in the short run is the level of reliability. Right now, it sucks. No police or other govt agency will even consider it, for good, and obvious reasons, and neither should we.

When the tech matures to an acceptable level or reliability, the cops and military still won't want it, but may have it rammed down their throats by political hacks. And those same hacks will demand the rest of us use it too.

Possibly they will even go so far as to claim that traditional "dumb" gun are not safe enough, and use that as justification for confiscation.

My understanding is that they can be disabled by LEO and other Government agencies. Hence the reason for them in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is the other problem with the tech. Tech that creates an "authorization" signal to allow the gun to function, can create a jammer for the same signal. And, while, in theory, it might be nice that the cops can push a button and render the bad guys gun(s) non functional, turn that situation around and see how well you like it.

IF the police have the tech, then count on this, it will be stolen, copied, and sold on the street. That right there is a strong argument against it in principle. Smart guns for all of us, but not for them (cops)? any argument you could make in that direction is so much bovine excrement.

Although I can understand how people who's greatest desire is to control other people would like the idea of a smart gun, that they could turn off, from a distance. I'm sure in their eyes that kind of gun would be the ONLY one that should be allowed. That would be a fine step towards their idea of an ideal society, I'm sure.
 
B

Bozz10mm

New member
The biggest argument against smart guns is this article in the Washington Post referencing a New Jersey law passed in 2003 to make smart guns the only guns that could be sold starting 3 years after the first one in the USA is sold.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/06/smart-guns/

I'm sure other states would follow the NJ example. You know California and New York would be all over it, and maybe Connecticut too. I don't live in any of those states, but I don't want to see any more regulation in those already over regulated states.
 
H

Hogtown

New member
what is the max distance from watch to gun before gun fails to fire, heard 11 or 12 inches, most people I know wear watch on weak side so any hit that disables an arm looks to me like it could disable your weapon or at least put you in akward position to fire weapon
 
A

ATN082268

New member
In the end...

44 AMP said:
When the tech matures to an acceptable level or reliability, the cops and military still won't want it, but may have it rammed down their throats by political hacks. And those same hacks will demand the rest of us use it too.

Although I can understand how people who's greatest desire is to control other people would like the idea of a smart gun, that they could turn off, from a distance. I'm sure in their eyes that kind of gun would be the ONLY one that should be allowed. That would be a fine step towards their idea of an ideal society, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

The most telling part in the end will be who is forced to use smart gun technology. If the police, military and government generally get a pass but civilians/private sector does not, then it will clearly be a matter of control and not safety. But by then it will be too late...
 
F

FAS1

New member
Say it's the only gun you own. A home invasion happens, and at that point the battery fails.

See ya'.

I'm not interested, since batteries fail when you need them most. It's what they do.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and it applies to handgun safes as well. Seems like most people oppose the electronics on their guns, but use them to store their HD gun. Kind of ironic and I think it makes the argument more acceptable in the long term for the smart gun.

Just watch when they start saying "You already rely on elec./batteries every time you store your defense gun in an electronic box/safe". What's the difference?
 
U

UncleEd

New member
Enough failures will occur if this comes about and the politicians will say: "Well,
that's just what you deserve for owning a firearm. Now where's my non-compiiant guards?"

Or, "I didn't expect your wife to pick up the firearm locked to you? Well, that's just what she deserved in trying to stop the poor home invader. Now, where's my non-compliant guards?"

Or, "too bad you weren't rich enough to hire off-duty police officers to guard your sorry poor butt."

And then, "Vote for me!"

And, of course, we will vote for them again.
 
Last edited:
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
Goes back to the racist roots of gun control. Good point.

I would suggest that if the mandate is implemented, NJ provide financial aid for folks buying the gun. If you a lower income level, then the state buys it or supplements your purchase. ;)
 
V

vito

New member
Fortunately the Supreme Court has ruled on some recent gun related cases that a law which in practice makes 2nd Amendment rights unusable is itself unconstitutional. That essentially was the thinking in both the Heller and the McDonald cases. So a law requiring smart gun technology that puts gun ownership out of the reach of low income citizens due to the high cost would fall into that same category. Realistically I am not overly worried about this, but I do feel badly for the poor people of NJ. We are rapidly moving to become two Americas, one which includes NY, NJ, MA, MD, CA and HI and maybe a few more states, and one for the rest of the country that still recognizes the 2nd Amendment.
 
J

JERRYS.

New member
if its not good enough to protect our law enforcement officers it surely isn't good enough to protect us.

what law enforcement agency issues "smart guns" to their patrol units? I mean its such a great idea and all right? :rolleyes:
 
J

jimbob86

Moderator
I oppose mandating their use,
Click to expand...

+1.

If the thing is so great, then it's use should not have to be mandated.

if its not good enough to protect our law enforcement officers it surely isn't good enough to protect us.

what law enforcement agency issues "smart guns" to their patrol units? I mean its such a great idea and all right?
Click to expand...

Careful there, you'll give them ideas ..... do you REALLY thing that the power elites give a rat's butt about individual patrol officers?
 
B

BarryLee

New member
Careful there, you'll give them ideas ..... do you REALLY thing that the power elites give a rat's butt about individual patrol officers?
Click to expand...

Exactly, decisions about weapons, ammo, tactics, etc are not necessarily made by front line officers. So, who knows some anti-gun city council somewhere could very likely mandate the use of this technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top