"Childproof Gun" Part 2

T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
Agent9mm posted the original thread here: [Link to invalid post

Here is the link to the original story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_750000/750506.stm

There's some very good discussion in the original thread; thanks to the presence of richg, one of the designers of this concept gun.

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
As an optional extra, this device may or may not survive int he marketplace. As a mandated supposed "safety", it is a no-go.

For one, it increases the complexity of operation. I, personally, prefer Glocks with no external safeties and keep all other guns with safeties off (I do not own 1911 type designs yet). My mother can't even operate controls on many guns because of wrist damage and so has to reply on gross motions (like cycling the slide) over fine motions needed to operate the device you propose.

Choice in the levels of security is good. Mandated devices which may and in this case are VERY likely to facilitate extra accidents or failures in use are not so good

------------------
Oleg "peacemonger" Volk

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>by Richg
Here's a little tidbit to think about concerning the market for it. A few years back, most automobile manufacturer's included only the driver's side airbag as standard, the passenger side was a singular option onto itself. Now this is marketing genius! Imagine a husband and wife go into purchase a car. Can you imagine if the husband tried to not pay for the airbag option with his wife right there (my apologies to anyone who tried this ? Who's going to be sitting in the passenger seat?

Of course the husband is going to do his best to be a safe driver with his wife sitting next to him (and vice versa with the wife driving). And of course the chances they will be involved in a severe enough head on crash to cause the airbags to deploy are slim (not as slim as being involved in a gun accident as a child, but slim nonetheless). So did people ever buy the passenger airbag option? You bet they did!! They happily clunked down an extra $1500+.


Now I understand not all of the analogy transfers over to guns and kids, basically due to the fact that you could be driving as safe as humanly possible and still get ivolved in a serious accident due to some idiot. But a parent could be trying to practice the best gun safety they know--right up until the day they make one flub up and their kid finds the gun and shoots himself.

Envision the car buyer scenario with a new gun buyer (one who hasn't really owned a handgun before). A husband and wife go into the gun shop to purchase a handgun for protection of their home and family. You mean to tell me the mom is going to let the husband skimp on the extra $35 for some extra security for their children? That she's going to calculate that the added 1.5 seconds to the time it would already take them to remove the gun from whatever other safes/locks they
would normally use is too much? I definitely think a large portion of parents would calculate the inconvenience of using a gun like this for home protection to be neglible
when compared to the benefit that the childproofing might just save their child in case they flub up.[/quote]


This isn't marketing genius, this is guvment mandates. Remember originally the government mandated a drivers side airbag. This is why the passanger side bag was an option.

Since then, passanger side bags have become mandatory. Now, now one has any choice, they simply have to spend the extra $3000 for both air bags.

Here's another little tidbit, when air bags were first introduced, the Guvment said they would add ~ $200 to the cost of the car, per bag. We now know that the actual cost is more like $1500 per bag to the consumer. I suspect that your estimate of $35 is probably very low, perhaps only 20% of the actual future cost to the consumer.

Also, i still disagree with the premiss that people will want to purchase a firearm with this extra piece of security on it. What is the most popular firearms right now,

1) revolvers, no safeties, very few moving parts, disgustingly reliable

2) Glocks, no safeties, few moving parts, disgustingly reliable

If people were more concerned with children getting their hands on their firearms, they'd all be purchasning 1911's and H&K P7's, which are probably the hardest pistols to use by non-trained persons and children.

Don't get me wrong, i am wholly in support of your design as an option, I wouldn't buy it, but i'm sure some people would (though i think it a very small number of people); but that isn't going to be the case. Firearms for public sale are going to be mandated with "child-proofing" systems, smart-guns if you will, and Firearms for the Police will still be the same old reliable basic model that you can trust your life on.

How paranoid am I, i will not even buy a pistol that has a magazine safety! :)

~USP


[This message has been edited by USP45 (edited May 17, 2000).]
 
Richg,
You have an interesting idea. On a positive note, your device eliminates the Buck Rogers, computerized, gee whiz factor that seems to dominate the smartgun dialogue nowadays.
Aside from a number of obvious shortcomings already mentioned (and not unusual in early prototypes of any sort), the major problem I see with this device is the same that applies to any locking mechanism. Its value is directly proportional to the level of personal responsibility practiced by the user.
According to Lott, the statistical incidence of accidental firearm discharge that your device would prevent is virtually nonexistent with responsible gunowners. The incidents that draw attention to a need for a device of this sort usually occur in an environment where drug or alcohol abuse is common or there is criminal activity present.
IOW, an environment that is devoid of responsible gunowners.
Unlike clinton's claim that criminals living in crackhouses will put triggers locks on their stolen guns, I personally don't believe that this or any locking device is likely to be used by the people who most need them.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by USP45:
This isn't marketing genius, this is guvment mandates. Remember originally the government mandated a drivers side airbag. This is why the passanger side bag was an option.

Since then, passanger side bags have become mandatory. Now, now one has any choice, they simply have to spend the extra $3000 for both air bags.[/quote]

This isn't true. Airbags had been around for YEARS before they became mandated by the government. Volvo especially has had them for a very long time (I believe at least as early as the mid 80's), as well as various other european models. When I said standard, I meant standard as most automobile maufacturer's included a driver's side airbag as part of the standard options vehicles come with (like a radio, or windshield wipers). Right when the buzz about airbags was growing, the automobile manufacturer's saw a golden opportunity: let's make driver's side airbags standard, but passenger side an option. If that isn't marketing genius, I don't know what is.

I don't know the year off hand which they became government mandated, but I do know that at least as late as 1993 even driver's side was still an option (as my car doesn't have one, but my sisters does--both are 1993's.) I'm pretty sure it is later than that still, as I don't think the Dodge Viper offered any airbags until 1996.

As for our estimate about the extra cost to the gun, that was based upon researching with several machine shops the extra cost required to make new casting molds, machine them, machine the required components, and assembly. It wasn't based off of some government agency, so I feel it is reasonable. We got a range of estimates from the machinists, took the high end of each, then estimated retailer markups, unforseen manufacturing costs, etc. as best we could. We felt the total wouldn't add more than $35 per gun to the consumer, assuming a production run of 10,000 units.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Karanas:
According to Lott, the statistical incidence of accidental firearm discharge that your device would prevent is virtually nonexistent with responsible gunowners.[/quote]

You're absolutely correct. If a gun owner practiced perfect gun safety all the time, then there would be no need for something like this.

But being simply people, we are not perfect. We are always going to make mistakes, and those mistakes will always have consequences. No matter how seriously you may take gun safety, there is still the small possibility that you will make a mistake. Same goes for driving a car. No matter how seriously I take driving a car, I admit that I have changed lanes without taking what driving safety instructors would call a completely thorough look in all my mirrors. And although I've never been involved in an accident which was my fault, this could quite possibly be due to the "safety cushion" of other drivers giving a honk if I'm doing someting unsafe. Do I rely on them to honk at me to tell me when I'm doing something unsafe? No, I try my best to be a safe driver at all times, but it's nice to know that if for some reason I get distracted (ever have a bee fly into your car while driving?) there's a safety cushion out there for me. I think the same applies to a handgun.

A childproof handgun isn't for everyone, but it would be a nice option for those who would want it.

When I was doing research in the beginning for this project, I came across several journal articles that were very interesting, and I think many of you would find interesting as well (they mainly dealt with how much extra parents would be willing to pay for a childproof handgun, as well as the benefits of teaching children gun safety, etc.) If you would like, I will post some of the findings.

Rich

[This message has been edited by richg (edited May 17, 2000).]
 
Just a point to consider here to clarify things. Rich helped designed something he thinks would add safety to handguns. Period. He is not the government and has no mandating abilities. Most guns already have a variety of safety features to assure they can be used properly. These include sights, safeties, heavy trigger pulls, proper engineering so they don't explode in the wrong manner, etc. Not all of us like some of these features and we make purchasing decisions or we modify the guns to our personal preference. For example, I don't like the heavy pull of a double action that has no safety, so I have a single action with a safety that I use. Rich is just suggesting an option. It may be an option some people want. There may not be enough people for the product to be economically viable in the market place, but who knows? We all wish to maintain our options and that is why we support the RKBA. It keeps our option open to keep and bear arms should we wish to do so. Whether or not the government mandates that such safeties be put on guns is really another issue not associated with Rich and Rich should not have to defend his product because of governmental problems. The government wants to limit our options and believe it or not, Rich is trying to expand our options.
 
One other note.

The design is meant for less than proficient users. They'd also be most likely to turn the gun sideways (aiming at places other than a safe backstop) while trying to puzzle out the safety.
 
Richg,
Don't take this the wrong way, but congratulations, you just reinvented the wheel. What do I mean? HK invented a 'child proof' pistol several years ago. It is the P7. There are several versions, but they all make use of a 'squeeze cocking' safety that was hailed as child proof, because children 'didn't have the hand strength necessary to function the weapon'or 'they weren't smart enough to figure out how it functioned'.

And that's the fatal flaw in your design also. The thinking that if a child can't figure out how to make this 'child safe' firearm function the first time, then they would just forget about it and go play someplace else. There's only one problem with thinking that if a child at first did not succeed, they would give up. It's wrong. You are approaching this from the testing stand point of allowing a child to play with your 'child safe modified firearm' for what, a few minutes? Maybe five or ten minutes at most? I have an idea for you. Bring in five children, one at a time and tell them you want them to figure out how they would make this firearm work. Bring them back day after day after day and let them keep trying until they do figure it out. Congratulations, you just simulated having a 'child proof firearm' in a home where children are left unattended for several hours everyday. They're called 'latch key kids' and the parents expect them to come home from school and entertain themselves for several hours daily until the parents come home.

Let me give you another marketing failure. They were called 'child proof lighters'. Have you seen any on the shelves lately??? I haven't. Why? Because the kids figured out how to function them faster than the adults did. AND the adults quit buying them BECAUSE they were so hard to operate. I'm sure the inventors of that fiasco were as well intentioned as you and your friends are. Perhaps you should consider another line of work. We don't need you to reinvent the wheel. Or the 'child proof firearm' for that matter. It's been done.

Oh, yeah, guess what? That six year old child that shot the other six year old child. Guess what kind of pistol that six year old child used. You guessed it. A 'child proof squeeze cocker' firearm. So much for child proofing. The point is, children are much more inquisative than adults. And once you figure that out, you will realize how useless a 'childproof firearm' truly is. The only real child proof firearm is the one that has had the chamber welded shut and the the firing pin removed and the firing pin hole welded shut. And even then, you might find a child that could figure out how to reverse even those drastic measures. Just something to think about, however well intentioned you and your friends were. The worst part is, you gave the liberal media another page in the 'we can control people by using saftey features not thought of before' venue. Yeah, right!! IF you ever come up with a way to control people effectively, it's time for this civilzation to be brought down. IMHO.
 
Has anyone actually fired the Beretta pistol with the safety device attached? The picture makes it appear that there are extra parts attached to the backstrap, which presents the problem of making a large-gripped pistol even bulkier.
 
I think I'm with Oleg on this one. If the device is no more than an option, very well. I can see maybe my brother, with two young boys, considering it. For me, as I have no children, it would be nothing more than a hinderance.

Of course we all know the government's fondness of mandating shiny new things that end up being pigs in the long run (MTBE, airbags that can kill small people, etc),
 
I'd like to comment on the airbag analogy, because I think it fits quite well indeed. They were offered optionally and appeared to do quite well. After a lobbying campaign and loud media fanfare, they were mandated, and we now are forced to use them.

Guess what? After a few years in service, it was discovered that children and small adults (like my wife: five feet, one-half inch and cute as a button) may have their necks broken by the bags' discharges because they are forced to sit too close by the arrangement of the controls. It takes alot, but it is grudgingly admitted in the media. The fix for the now-understood-as-dangerous bags? Get a form from the Gubmnt, state why you need to be excused, and send it in. IF permission is granted, you can have a licenced dealer install a defeat switch at your own expense. The cost? A neat $200.

Oh, yea. I recently had the clock spring go out in the steering wheel of my airbag-equipped car. The clock spring is a circular flexible link with a multi-line electrical conductor which connects all the wires from the dash to the switches on your steering wheel through the wheels turning and tilting joint. I'm not about to sit down in front of this explosive device and do exploratory surgery to figure out and repair the problem. That's like trying to figure That cost from a dealer was $150 plus parts.
 
richg

Quick question: will you feel at all responsible if someone buys your gizmo and then is raped/murdered because that extra 1.5 seconds was too long? Your comments show you haven't spent enough time studying self-defense situations to know that the 1.5 seconds you've added has time after time been the difference between life and death. Further, search this list for info on ChrisMIV's wife. She shot an attacker off of her a short while ago. She couldn't have done that with a weapon using your device.

Personally, I hope you get a patent on this thing. And then I hope you agree to be strictly liable whenever someone dies as a result. You've created an inherently unsafe product.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buzz_knox:
richg

Quick question: will you feel at all responsible if someone buys your gizmo and then is raped/murdered because that extra 1.5 seconds was too long? Your comments show you haven't spent enough time studying self-defense situations to know that the 1.5 seconds you've added has time after time been the difference between life and death. Further, search this list for info on ChrisMIV's wife. She shot an attacker off of her a short while ago. She couldn't have done that with a weapon using your device.

Personally, I hope you get a patent on this thing. And then I hope you agree to be strictly liable whenever someone dies as a result. You've created an inherently unsafe product.[/quote]

I'm not richg, nor do I play him in a movie. I strongly disagree with your statment buzz_knox. Gopher was correct. Richg is trying to supply an option, which may get some people to reconsider owning a gun. Do you consider the gun manufactures to be responsible for gun accidents. Didn't they FAIL to take into account all possibilities. As long as this is just an option, I congraduate richg on his (and his partners) work. Even if it is mandated, I will not blame him, only those who mandated it.

------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
 
"Do you consider the gun manufactures to be responsible for gun accidents. Didn't they FAIL to take into account all possibilities."

Speaking as a gun owner and an attorney who's specialized for years in negligence suits, in no way do I consider gun manufacturers to be responsible for gun accidents. That's about as idiotic as saying that car manufacturers are responsible for drunk driving. After all, the technology for installing breathalyzer systems into car ignition systems has been around for years, but car manufacturers aren't doing anything with it. Why shouldn't we sue them?

The classic case of firearms liability are the Colt and Ruger cases where somehow cocked their pistols, fooled around with the trigger and was shot as a result. They whined that the weapons if the owner was being negligent. Hello? Where is the logic in that?
The ONLY people responsible for gun accidents are the people who commit the negligent acts themselves: the idiots who "play" with guns and the parents who fail to teach their children about guns. Those are the only people responsible.

As for richG, he's not providing an option; he's taking a product reasonably safe for its intended use and making it inherently dangerous for it user.

AS for your comment about gun manufacturers not taking all possibilities into account, are you serious? Let's think about it: we know squib loads exist and they are dangerous. So, all pistols should be single shot so that you have to look in the barrel to insure that it wasn't a squib load before you fire another way. Gee, I'd feel safer, wouldn't you?

You want a safety system? Fine. We'll design a weapon with a saliva and/or ear wax monitor. It won't go off if someone sticks the barrel in their mouth or ear. That's the only way you'd stop most of these so-called "accidents."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buzz_knox:

Quick question: will you feel at all responsible if someone buys your gizmo and then is raped/murdered because that extra 1.5 seconds was too long?

As for richG, he's not providing an option; he's taking a product reasonably safe for its intended use and making it inherently dangerous for it user.
[/quote]

OK, well let's see here. I guess I can use the logic of your argument to sue the manufacturer's of gun safes, then as well, can't I? Those take a significant portion of time to open up (most of them much longer than 1.5 seconds), so I guess I should sue gun safe manufacturers since I can't open up my safe fast enough when an intruder has entered my house?

This is the same logic you used, since it all comes down to the seconds it takes you to have your gun ready. By using a gun safe, you can put yourself in a dangerous situation since the gun isn't immediately accesible to you.

A gun safe's primary purpose is to keep unwanted users from accessing/using the gun. A childproofing device's primary purpose is the same.

MattVDW: we did not fire the prototype. Basically due to various liability concerns, as well as the fact that for our prototype, we didn't use the same materials a gun manufacturer would use. Instead of steel, we used aluminum. Aluminum is easier to machine, and thus cheaper--remember, we only had a $6000 budget for EVERYTHING. But since none of the internal firing sequence was touched, I see no reason why there would be any problems. Yes, the grip is wider with the linkage embedded in it (just over .1" wider). Again, this is one of the small things that show up in a rough prototype, but would be non-existant in a production model.

Rich
 
Too many people are failing to see the fact that THIS IS A PROTOTYPE. Final designs will (presumably) be an improvement over the original design.

One improvement I might suggest is the bility for the device to be easily detached once a pistol is modified to accept it. This would allow gun owners the choice of having their current firearms modified by any competent gunsmith to accept this new safety. Perhaps the safety could be sold as an aftermarket part for $50 to $60 that could be detached if the weapon were to be a carry piece. I don't know what the difficulty would be in doing this but it is just a thought.

I realize that this would immediately make the anti-victim lobby jump up and say "EVERYONE MUST PUT THESE ON THEIR FIREARMS" but all the people who clamber around saying "they'll pass a new law and I'll have to follow it and I'll be very sad" must not believe in their rights as a citizen are important enough to fight for. In the legislature, courts or streets.

Congratulations on an interesting design, Rich.
 
Here in Conn . we have had a trigger lock
law called "The Conn. Gun Owners Criminal Liability Law" since 1993.

Basically , we are responsible, both criminally and civily, if unauthorized users,
either childern or adults, aqiure access to our unlocked firearms and injure or kill themseves or others with our firearms.

We are relieved from responsibility if we can show that the firearms were stolen.

For this purpose, I keep broken off trigger locks available in case they need to be scattered around a thief scene as well as broken door locks for the same purpose.

It comes down to covering your butt in this maner.

Do I believe in trigger locks? No. Do I use trigger locks on my self defense guns . NO.
But every person living in my house hold
has had the NRA Pistol Safety Course and
knows how to safely load, unload and fire a hand gun.

There are no childern in the household and when guests come with childern , I tell them that I have loaded firearms and ask them to wait outside until I unload and place all firearms in my gun safe with the exception of my self defense gun which is hostered upon my person.

It is a big pain in the neck , but if it keeps me from being sued, it is well worth it.
Outlaw bad childern , not guns! he,he, he!

MY GUNS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR POORLY BROUGHT UP and POORLY EDUCATED, BAD CHILDERN.

---MOTHERS, DON'T LET YOUR CHILDERN GROW UP TO BE FELONS.

TRY MORALS, DICIPLINE AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FIREARMS SAFETY TRAINING INSTEAD.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>we did not fire the prototype. Basically due to various liability concerns, as well as the fact that for our prototype, we didn't use the same materials a gun manufacturer would use.[/quote]

Richg,

I can understand the use of aluminum to save money but I'm puzzled by the "liability concerns". If you, as the creator of the device, were to test it yourself, who would be liable to whom for what in the event of a problem?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt VDW:
I can understand the use of aluminum to save money but I'm puzzled by the "liability concerns". If you, as the creator of the device, were to test it yourself, who would be liable to whom for what in the event of a problem? [/quote]

Can you imagine the administrative hassles I would of had to go through in order to get permission to fire it? It was a school project, funded by the center for injury research. I'm sure they could easily be found liable in some sense, as we weren't designing and fabricating this device for myself, I was doing it for a grade in school.

Comdex: Thank you for the congrats... The way the prototype is currently designed, it would cost too much money to make it an add-on device. For the same reasons why it costs an arm and a leg to add options to a car once it's out of the factory (ever think about adding ABS? haha, forget about it!!). Maybe a manufacturer could take our idea and find a way to do it, but I'm done, I already got my grade :).

I think there has been some very good debate about this. I just am curious about a few points:

1. It seems one of the biggest concerns voiced here is that with a device like this, it takes a small portion of time to arm the weapon. Now I understand every second counts in an emergency situation and an infinite number of scenarios can be developed in which a user shot off an attacker, and wouldn't have been able to do as such if they needed an extra 1.5 seconds to arm their weapon.

But to this I say, look at gun safes. Part of gun safety as outlined by the NRA is ensuring that, when not in use, your weapon is stored in a manner such that unauthorized users cannot access it. By using a gun safe to ensure the proper storage of your weapon, it also requires a small portion of time to open up before you can arm your weapon. From this, I can develop an infinite number of scenarios in which a user would get hurt/killed while trying to get their weapon out of the gun safe (especially if they store the ammunition in a separate place).

Should we take gun safes off of the market since they put the users at a risk? No. The people buying them have calculated the risks of owning one, and have decided that the safety benefits of owning a gun safe and storing their weapons inside one outweigh the risk that they will be hurt/killed while trying to open it up.


2. Another concern seems to be the possibility that if this becomes an option on handguns, that it will soon be mandated by the government. But I agree with Cordex, something like this would only happen if the Americans opposed to it didn't voice their opposition in the streets, courts, and legislature.

Other than those two points, were there other reasons why a device like this should not be made an option on the market?

Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top