The Smart Gun is Here

[Bezoar]

this technology has been proven to be unreliable, even in biased lab testing by the manufacturing companies.

Alot of them need brand new batteries EVERY time you want to use it. Try doing that at 2 am....

fingerprint ones, well they tend to work slightly more then half the time when you degrease your hand with solvent and then degrease the sensor pads with solvent. otherwise it wont work.

radio ones have been proven a joke. Way to easy for cheap radio jammers to disable the device from long range. and heavy clothing can mess them up.

and it costs more, hampers you, because try getting some of those devices into your little keltec or lcp..

 

[BoogieMan]

The article said they are being sold at a CA gun shop. Have any been bought?

 

[gyvel]

First of all, I would like to know who the financial backer(s) are for this project.

I would also like to know what "1997 survey" found 59% of gun owners in favor of this type of technology.

Also, I found the reference to S&W's Safety Hammerless revolvers as "nothing more than a historical relic" ludicrous as the gun was produced for 53 years. (1887-1940.)

 

[Salmoneye]

Just as I will never own a gas water-heater or kitchen stove that requires electricity, I will not own anything like the gun in the OP's article...

For those that love to wear watches to bed, I can certainly see a market...

[/sarcasm]

 

[FAS1]

First of all, I would like to know who the financial backer(s) are for this project.

From the article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/we-need-the-iphone-of-guns-will-smart-guns-transform-the-gun-industry/2014/02/17/6ebe76da-8f58-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

"Last month, Ron Conway , a Silicon Valley titan and early investor in Google and Facebook, launched a $1 million X Prize-like contest for smart-gun technology.

“We need the iPhone of guns,” Conway said, noting how the new iPhone 5s can be unlocked quickly with a fingerprint. “The entrepreneur who does this right could be the Mark Zuckerberg of guns. Then the venture capitalists like me will dive in, give them capital, and we will build a multibillion-dollar gun company that makes safe, smart guns.”

I have an iPhone 4 that you just swipe to get to the unlock code that you enter and it NEVER works with one swipe. Not sure about the newer biometric scan to unlock since I don't have one.

 

[Jim March]

http://www.armatix.us/?L=7

The company is *German*. This was designed as a way to deal with ridiculously strict German gun control laws. The gun was designed from the bottom-up to be useless in the context of a 2A right to self defense that does not exist in Germany.

 

[FAS1]

Here's the next piece of the puzzle.

Ed Markey to introduce ‘smart gun’ bill


From the article:
"Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts plans to introduce a bill that would require new handguns be outfitted with personalization technology within two years and that older guns be retrofitted within three years so that the firearms won’t work for unauthorized users."

 

[Skans]

I'm holding out for a smart gun with a retina recognition system incorporated in the muzzle.

 

[g.willikers]

Was there ever an installed device in anything that couldn't be removed or over ridden?
Someone put it in; someone can take it out.

 

[44 AMP]

the reason it's only available in .22 LR? ....because Armatix, themselves, have admitted in the past that the technology was too fragile for heavier-recoiling cartridges.

This is a concern, for certain. Couple a law requiring it, and virtually guaranteed failure (or very short life) if used on anything bigger than a .22?

Some years back, a car maker put out a model that would not start unless the driver's seat belt was fastened. The intent, of course, was to make us safer.

AS I heard the story, there was a woman who had one of these cars, attacked in the parking lot. She broke free, got to her car, and would have been able to get away in any other car. But her "safe" one would not start. BECAUSE she didn't fasten the seat belt. She had other, more important things on her mind, I guess. Because of an unfastened seatbelt, she was attacked again. She did survive, and sued.

Never heard how things turned out for her, personally (win/lose -settlement?) but no car maker has put that feature in any car since.

I can see a similar principle here with the smart gun tech. Unfortunately someone will have to suffer or die before they have standing to bring suit.

 

[gyvel]

Some years back, a car maker put out a model that would not start unless the driver's seat belt was fastened. The intent, of course, was to make us safer.

That feature was on a 1989 Volkswagen Jetta that I had, for one.

 

[willr]

What about the electro magnetic impulse which makes ALL electronic mechanisms not work. That is just the time when you would need it most -- and it won't work! Not only is it useless because most weapons won't have it, it makes your own use more problematic. It is just what the Liberals like --sounds good, so why not do it?

willr

 

[Jim March]

That feature was on a 1989 Volkswagen Jetta that I had, for one.

German. Again. Because they've had such a good history on civil rights [/snark].

True story. Once the USSR took over Eastern Europe after WW2 they set up smaller satellite versions of the KGB in the various slave states. The Czechoslovakians, Hungarians and others were uneasy under the new totalitarian reality and their "secret police" were never all that crazy and the "new order" had to be supplemented by Russian tanks now and again.

But then there was East Germany, home to Stasi - their version of the KGB...which made the actual Soviet KGB go like this:

They were way more hardcore than the KGB.

There is something inherently pro-totalitarian in German culture.

 

[puppyface]

This technology when applied to firearms is useless and dangerous. If we continue to elect to the executive branch politicians that lie about their support
for the 2nd Amendment, we may all be stuck with this junk without any alternative.

 

[Tom Servo]

“The entrepreneur who does this right could be the Mark Zuckerberg of guns. Then the venture capitalists like me will dive in, give them capital, and we will build a multibillion-dollar gun company that makes safe, smart guns.”

I don't think this guy understands guns, or the industry that makes, distributes, and supports them. The public isn't going to pay extra for a weapon of questionable reliability. The shooters and gun writers who drive interest aren't going to want much do with it, either.

So, you know what? Let 'em waste the money. Let 'em fail. It'll prove our point, and it will be a long time before they try it again.

 

[skizzums]

i understand that this technology is unreliable at the moment, but it wont be for very long

i would love to brush it off and say it will never happen, but at this point, i think its inevitable that we will be losing huge chunks of our constitutional rights over the next ten to twenty years

this is an idea the the libbies will rally around and will soon have laws in half the states requiring its use, maybe not this year or next, but very soon

i dont quite know how they will force pre-smart guns to be retrofitted w/o creating gun registries, and an annual check-up to make sure the device is working properly

the massachusetts law will stick, the voters are practically begging for it there

 

[gyvel]

But then there was East Germany, home to Stasi - their version of the KGB...

That's because quite a few STASI were ex-Gestapo.

 

[gyvel]

Anyway, that one congressman has already introduced the bill.

 

[Jim March]

My rebuttal to skizzums:

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

 

[skizzums]

that helps my cynacism some