# "Dumb" gun to be marketed to police...sorry guys...



## billc (Aug 11, 2014)

the so called "smart" gun, a,gun that required a special watch in order to fire....has flopped,in the civilian market, so now they are apparently going to try to convince police departments to use it...hopefully no department will be,required to be the guinea pigs for this weapon...


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2014)

Flopped due to pro gun pressure and threats. Not market forces.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 11, 2014)

Stupidest Idea Ever.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Aug 11, 2014)

No, it was attacked because gun grabbers managed to put laws into effect in at least two states requiring all guns have smart gun technology once it came into the market...it is technology that is dumb...and doesn't work reliably....and yet will be used to limit access to real guns...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 11, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Stupidest Idea Ever.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Considering Ive already lost watches in foot chases....among other items....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2014)

billc said:


> No, it was attacked because gun grabbers managed to put laws into effect in at least two states requiring all guns have smart gun technology once it came into the market...it is technology that is dumb...and doesn't work reliably....and yet will be used to limit access to real guns...



 The pro gun Mafia never let it get sold because it did not fit their agenda. 
Dealer Backs Down On Plan To Sell Smart Gun After Pro-Gun Activists Threaten To Kill Him

Hard to sell a device based on its merits when you are getting death threats.


----------



## billc (Aug 12, 2014)

It doesn't fit the Second Amendment...

Smart gun technology could trigger New Jersey law - CNN.com



> The New Jersey law is the only one of its kind in the United States. It requires that within three years of the technology being available, only smart guns be sold in the state.



So, it isn't going to survive on its own merits on New Jersey because it will be used to ban all other guns...the ones that actually work...that is why it was resisted.  It truly is a "dumb" gun...it adds extra levels of possible failure to a tool that may very we'll be used to save a life...and it will be mandated by law...once something this dumb takes root in New Jersey...the other anti gun states won't be far behind...

and from your post...



> Smart gun advocates view the technology&#8217;s potential to reduce suicides and accidental gun deaths as a momentous development in the battle against gun violence.



How does this do any of that...?  Just like background checks, gun registration and magazine limits, they say things like this and it means nothing...but sounds,good for the uninformed...

This is why it was attacked...



> Under the law, Hoffman must determine whether the smart guns meet industry standards and are available for retail sale. The law says "personalized handguns shall be deemed to be available for retail sales purposes if at least one manufacturer has delivered at least one model of a personalized handgun to a registered or licensed wholesale or retail dealer in New Jersey or any other state."



So how is it selling this dumb gun on its merits when it is the only kind of gun that will be allowed to be sold?


----------



## crushing (Aug 12, 2014)

Cases of Officers Killed by Their Own Guns Likely Will Not Change R.I. Policies
"The FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by  criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon,  amounting to *8 percent*."

Problem:  A significant number of police officers are killed in the line of duty with their own service weapon.  
Idea:   Make it more difficult, if not impossible, to use an officer's own weapon against the officer.
Possible Solution:  Smart gun.

Are they not worth it?  Are there better alternatives to prevent these cop killings than the smart gun solution?


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 12, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The pro gun Mafia never let it get sold because it did not fit their agenda.
> Dealer Backs Down On Plan To Sell Smart Gun After Pro-Gun Activists Threaten To Kill Him
> 
> Hard to sell a device based on its merits when you are getting death threats.




Just a friendly suggestion...  

Let's keep this discussion on the topic of the technology itself, and stay away from the political bashing.  There's no need for political name calling here.


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 12, 2014)

crushing said:


> Are they not worth it?  Are there better alternatives to prevent these cop killings than the smart gun solution?



If you can show a technology that is completely reliable under all adverse circumstances, about as close to 100% ironclad as human calculation can allow, and if it can be cheaply installed with quick failsafes in case of accidentally losing the 
controlling device, then there might be an argument for using such things.  

In the real world, though, matching all of the above criteria isn't going to be possible in any way, shape, or form.  You would be inserting more things that could go horribly wrong in the heat of the moment.  

Furthermore, that article clearly states that this type of occurrence where the officer has his firearm used against him is an exceedingly rare one, especially given that LEO's are trained in the skill of firearm retention.  



> "But if you look nationwide, the frequency of a police officer's gun being taken by a suspect is extremely rare."



Trying to implement "smart gun" technology is creating a horrible solution (that would cause more problems) to a problem that doesn't merit it.  

After all, you don't make people (law enforcement or not) wear gas masks on a daily basis, in case of a sarin gas attack.  While such incidents do occur (such as Asahara's subway attack using sarin gas), they occur so rarely, that again, it would be creating more problems than trying to solve one that is statistically not relevant.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 12, 2014)

Simple solution.  Biometrics.   Forget watches, smart chips, proximity sensors, etc.

Develop a way to "Key" a weapon so that only a particular person can use it, that will 'lock' if someone else grabs it.
Include the ability to differentiate between 'living' and 'dead'.

It's a sci-fi solution.  But I don't think it's as far off as most would think.  We can already read a lot about a person by simple contact tests.  I don't think it would be too hard to have a gun 'checked out and personalized' at the station to an individual officer at the beginning of a shift, with the weapon checked back in at the end of the day for wiping, maintenance and restocking so it's ready for the next person.  If I disarm the officer and try to use it, it will detect that I'm not the right user and lock until it's taken back to the station and reset.  Even if it can be garage-reset, it still won't be immediately usable.  Include GPS and other locator tech and increase recover chances.


But a fancy wrist watch system?  Nope.


----------



## billc (Aug 12, 2014)

> Develop a way to "Key" a weapon so that only a particular person can use it, that will 'lock' if someone else grabs it.
> Include the ability to differentiate between 'living' and 'dead'.



For police, sure, it might be a good idea to keep them losing control in a fight...but for civilians?  Imagine someone breaks into your home, as happened to a couple, and the individual the gun is programed for is getting brutally beaten...the other good person gets hold of the gun...but cannot use it.  Or how about a simple trip to the gun range...I'd let you try out my pistol...but I'm the only one who can shoot it...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 12, 2014)

I don't know billc if you can program a firearm for one person I assume you could easily program it for two or three people.  Should not be a hard thing to do.  Civilian wise I can see it making sense that a father/mother have a firearm but they do not want the kid's to use it if it is left out.  Kid's are not programed for it so problem solved.   My biggest issue with technology like this is that in an extreme moment it better work.  That is why professionals have issue with this technology because most do not feel it will completely foolproof at this point in time.  Down the road maybe.   If you are working in law enforcement you want to be damn sure that it works when needed with no hiccups.  Same in a self defense situation.  In regards to making a firearm inert there are certain firearms right now that allow you to key the firearm so that it is unusable until rekeyed. (ie. locked)  I have one. (though I have never used this feature)   Not ideal technology compared to what we are talking about with electronic recognition or smart technology but one of many ways to render a firearm inert at the moment.  This "smart technology" is coming though.  Yet, with so many firearms in circulation without it will it really make a difference?  I do not know!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 12, 2014)

A Glock is maybe $500?

A 2GB MicroSD card is $3.  8GB is $7.

I'm fairly certain that a bio-signature will fit in under 1GB, so multiple authorized users should be possible.
As should be a way to record who pulled the trigger, and other information.
Should be possible to 'lock' the card as well so it can't be easily removed.

For LEO's, program the entire department into each piece so any cop can use any gun, but the guns are locked for civilians.



Now someone give me a $500k grant to do the research and development.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2014)

Nothing battery operated should be depended upon to fire a gun. That's my opinion.....

And there are far too many variables for a bio reader on a pistol IMO. Where is the reader plate on a handgun? How does it take variations of grip and hand size into account? What about switching hands from left to right? Will the whole grip have to be a print reader? There was a holster a few years back that had a finger print reader to release the pistol...utter failure.

While optics and lights and other doodads get added to modern weapons, the fact remains that the weapon itself is a simple machine...not an electronic device. Electronics crash, run out of power, can be jammed, etc. Hell no cell phone Ive ever had went it's lifespan without having to have a battery pull or a hard re-boot. The fingerprint readers to get into my station fail due to dirt, snow, water, etc.

I wont have my life depended on any of that....


----------



## Blindside (Aug 12, 2014)

Bob Hubbard said:


> A Glock is maybe $500?
> 
> A 2GB MicroSD card is $3.  8GB is $7.
> 
> ...



Would it work through gloves, you know that a officer might wear on a cold day?  How about dirt you know, mud, grease, or blood?

The fingerprints on my pinkies are worn down from all the stick work that I do, worn to the point that officers have to repeatedly take my finger prints to get a clear copy for CCW applications.  I know hobby woodworkers who have the same issues with other fingers.  If the gun gets a bad read will it default to "allow" or "lock?"

Items that are needed for life or death situations need to be kept under the KISS rule as much as possible.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2014)

Blindside said:


> Would it work through gloves, you know that a officer might wear on a cold day?  How about dirt you know, mud, grease, or blood?
> 
> The fingerprints on my pinkies are worn down from all the stick work that I do, worn to the point that officers have to repeatedly take my finger prints to get a clear copy for CCW applications.  I know hobby woodworkers who have the same issues with other fingers.  If the gun gets a bad read will it default to "allow" or "lock?"
> 
> Items that are needed for life or death situations need to be kept under the KISS rule as much as possible.



YES!

And all that too.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 12, 2014)

My optical mouse, which is in use 12-16 hrs a day, has a battery life of 3 years.  

Replace the batteries annually.  Like you're supposed to do with smoke detectors.

Better yet, make it run on bio-electric, which is always there.  Unless you're dead.

Cell phone screens can be set to work when one is using gloves.  A slight modification to police gloves should be possible to ensure accuracy and reliability.


This isn't a 'we'll have a production unit out by October' thing.   
TV was patented in 1884.
They weren't a commercial product until the 1920's, and didn't really take off until the late 1940's.
It would be another 60ish years before tube tv's really gave way to flat screens.
In the last 14 years we've seen them rapidly get smaller and larger, thinner, with more features, better quality and lower priced.

What's in my head might take 20 years to develop, refine, and perfect.  

But it's still better than locks, inhibitors, and fancy watches with IR.


----------



## billc (Aug 12, 2014)

The biggest point though, in this discussion...whatever the technology...even if they can make it reliable...it has to be optional for those who want those features not mandated...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 12, 2014)

I disagree Bill. The legal and political parts can (and should) be argued elsewhere.   The only thing I'm concerned with here are the technical aspects.


----------

