Personalised Smart Guns

[Zero]

Sorry if already posted but this caught my eye and seems to be of great import (maybe):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...be76da-8f58-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

I had not realised some states had passed laws whereby after the first pruchase of such a gun within so many years only such smart guns could be sold in that state (I have not looked at the legislatiion itself, just the article) but that is pretty fundamental.

The idea does have a lot of sense to it but also to the degree the technology is not biometric, but instead dependant on a device such as watch in close proximity, is still full of "what ifs": you leave your watch off (shower, work out, whatever) and then can't use your gun if attacked; your kids picks up your watch and can then use gun; you are knocked out and your partner needs to use the gun (being the closest weapon available) but the watch is on you, etc, etc.

If in close combat obviously the gun could still be turned into yourself and fired - but this would equally apply if on a biometric level and still holding the gun...

- How easy will it be to make "master watches" so I can fire any safe gun I get my hands on.

- Scarily, could a "master watch blocker" (ie frequency emmiting device) be used to jam the signal from your watch so you are left holding a piece of metal without ballistic capability.

- Just how durable and rugged is this watch or whatever device is employed.

Regarding states such as New Jersey where they have legislation where smart guns must be phased in after sale of first viable smart/safe item, does this mean if it is only smart hand-guns intially sold that only standard issue hand guns must in the alloted time only be smart guns, or will this now apply on a blanket approach, including rifles and all other gun types in the state?

Intersting times...

 

[Grenadier]

"Smart Gun" technology isn't going to help reduce crimes in any meaningful way. The anti-gun crowd keeps asserting that it could easily be done, but anyone who can logically look at the costs, and how things could certainly go wrong, will tell you that it's a terrible idea.

The added costs alone would make lawful firearms ownership more difficult (something that the anti-gun crowd does want to see), and I don't relish the idea of paying 400 bucks for a watch that would be dependent on batteries, electronics, and delicate parts. Furthermore, the circuitry that would have to be built into the firearm itself would also be delicate, and similarly would be dependent on batteries.

Electronics can, and do, fail at a rate that would compromise the reliability of a firearm. I've heard from many an anti-gun individual assert that it would only add maybe a tenth of a percentage to the failure rate (I don't know where they got those stupid numbers, but let's assume that they're telling the truth :lol: ). When I ask them if they would accept such failure rates on the brakes or the steering of their vehicles, they immediately get defensive, saying that it would be crazy to accept that... When I ask them why, I usually get an angry answer about how that could easily place someone in harm's way.

Also, if you ask the rank and file law enforcement personnel if they endorse the use of "smart guns," with such unnecessary garbage, you're going to get a "Hell No" response, since they, just like anyone else, want weapons that work as reliably as possible when you pull that trigger.

 

[billc]

Not only that, but what if I am not with my gun but my wife is...she will also need the same device I have to use the gun...and if the criminal manages to kill me...not only will he take my gun from my cold dead hand...he'll take the gadget needed to use the gun from my cold dead hand as well...

 

[Grenadier]

Another thing to consider:

The implementation of mandatory "smart guns" wasn't done to increase anyone's safety. It's simply another way to severely restrict the lawful ownership of firearms, since it cannot be practically implemented.

It's really no different than the city of Chicago, who says "you can own a gun, but it must be registered." Of course, unless your last name is Daley or Emmanuel, they won't accept your registration. They'll claim "we DO allow the lawful ownership of firearms," but at the same time, they put up enough roadblocks to have made it all but impossible.

 

[Zero]

"
Also, if you ask the rank and file law enforcement personnel if they endorse the use of "smart guns," with such unnecessary garbage, you're going to get a "Hell No" response, since they, just like anyone else, want weapons that work as reliably as possible when you pull that trigger.

Hmmm, I had not thought of this as also applying to LEOs.

 

[jks9199]

Most cops, especially firearms instructors, are generally of the "less is more" school with regard to gadgets and guns. Too much to go wrong when you need the gun. I'm a fan of Glocks; there are 37 parts to a Glock pistol. No external safety switch to deal with. No frills to get in the way or stop working if it gets dirty or dusty or just doesn't like a transition from a warm car to bitter cold outside to a hot house...

All these ideas are great for a target shooter... but are problems for a defensive shooter. Home defense... I don't want to have to find the safety watch, ring, or whatever when someone's breaking into my house. Defensive carry, professionally or otherwise... what if I have to shoot with my off hand 'cause my primary hand is injured? What if my partner is injured and down, but has a loaded gun -- while my gun goes dry? Fastest reload is another gun that's already loaded... Oops... I can't shoot 'cause my watch doesn't match his. What if I'm struggling with someone, and the watch gets broken off my hand, but I have to shoot? How long do you think it'll take the bad guys to figure out that all they have to do is separate the cop from the safety watch?

I kind of agree... these are moves that make people feel good, but do little to really enhance firearm or public safety. And maybe inch closer to denying guns under a different name.