Smart Guns - A Stupid Idea

Glenn, I agree. If the gun is not reliable, it's not worth my time. However, too many people have been skeptical of this gun without seeing FINAL test results. We can all say "I'm in this field or that field..." but until the unreliability of this product is proven, I have no reason to doubt it will work.


Why does the FBI carry 1911's ? Why are duty loads often hollowpoints that are known for their unreliable feeding ?

If reliability were the ultimate factor in why we purchase a gun, we would all be carrying revolvers.
 
MusclesMcGee, et al,

Forget about what might cause a smart gun to fail the user/owner. The idea does not have enough merit to get that far. They don't prevent anyone (owner, criminals, kids) from using them as a club or stealing them to disable the "smart" mechanism at leisure.

The only real answer is personal control and/or lock up in a suitable lockable anchored container or safe.

Trigger locks and smart guns are like car locks. The criminal can bypass any locking device--in this case it is easier because the gun is transportable. It would be safer to keep cars locked in the garage, but sometimes we have to leave them laying around. On the other hand, there is no excuse for leaving a gun laying around.
 
As far as I can see, when the battery in your smart gun dies (and it will at the most catastrophic and worst moment when the gun has to work), so do you.
 
Hey Muscles,
Just had to say that. :)

It might seem strange that I am taking Plusp's side in this, but I am.

I have my search gloves on almost constantly. Will this smart gun work if the SHTF in the middle of a search?
In the winter I wear a heavier version of my search gloves for my entire shift, do I have to take my glove off first, will I have time?

The issue of one officer needing another officer's gun is easily explained. Miami shoot-out, North Hollywood bank robbery were two instances where officers ran their gun's dry and depleted all ammo on their belt. If they were armed with smart guns could they have picked up a fallen officer's sidearm and gone to work? I don't know and I don't want to find out the hard way.
Several SWAT teams around the country require all team members to carry the same handgun for just that reason. Smart guns will negate that option.

Put yourself in the situation. We just entered a room and I take a .308 right through the melon. I go down, you grab some cover and everyone else never makes it inside. You run all your guns dry, you realize you have to re-load, ah-ha, you'll take my guns, nope, its a smart gun and you can't shoot it. Sucks to be you!

I realize this is all theoretical. But I believe Plusp has a valid point. There, I said it.

The real issue is, as Art stated, Why is my life as an LEO, more important than my wife's life? or my brother's? mother's? etc.etc.

------------------
"There is a common thread between competition and combat shooting - only hits count" Keith Cunningham
 
FVK, in terms of search gloves, you make a good point, and that in itself would make a smartgun a poor option.

In regards to a swat team, why couldn't all members have their guns programmed to a universal key ? That way, while you could use a fellow officers weapon, the bg couldn't.

I have to agree, as it is right now, the smart gun sounds like a bad idea for law enforcement or military. I am making my points exclusively based on a civilian purchase. You have to understand, the idea of a criminal using my stolen gun REALLY bothers me.
 
Muscles,

I completely understand and agree with your concern about your own weapon being used against you. It was this concern that lead me to seriously consider a 1911 with the various levers all over it. That half-a nanosecond it takes a non-gun-educated criminal to figure it out can save your butt. I recall reading in several places LEO's that preferred weapons that are not quickly figured out, in case their weapon is taken from them.

However, this entire smart gun issue is total hogwash at the current time. I do not believe the smart gun issue is intended for anyone's safety. It is politicians issuing statements that make the public feel good, make them look good because they care, and provide an easy target for the public to direct their emotions. Politicians can not state that we as individuals are responsible for our actions. It is far better to direct blame towards gun manufacturers, or the NRA, etc.. Take Clinton's response to the 6 year-old shooting. He didn't say anything about the kid's living environment and the people responsible for his upbringing, he started talking about why was that kid able to pull the trigger. We all pay the price because no one ever criticizes people such as the people who were responsible for that child. I would enjoy seeing one newscast where irresponsible behavior is frowned upon. Instead, we always get finger pointing, and excuses for irresponsible behavior, thus encouraging it.

I develop software and do a little engineering on some electronic gizmo's, and there is no way I would want any electronic junk on my gun. What about product liability?

Our leaders never go after the individuals responsible for these atrocities. Anyone here who is 30 or older surely remembers when people felt responsible for their actions, were embarrassed and ashamed if their name was printed in the newspaper for a criminal act, etc.. Take the McDonald's scalding coffee story. If that had happened in the 70's, that woman's family would have put her in a retirement home for her own safety, and would have been embarrassed that she burned herself. I feel sooooo old right now.
 
Ah, the police and military are exempt from smart guns. Now why would that be?

Doesn’t it occur to people that there is something wrong when the people responsible for your safety require you to be more vulnerable in order to “protect” you.




[This message has been edited by u2glock (edited March 24, 2000).]
 
The FBI decided to carry 1911s because they got a case of IPSC envy.

SWAT and HRT guys couldn't just carry a Glock or Sig like anyone else - they have to be special.

When I took LFI-1, 2/3s of the class had Glocks - Ayoob had a fancy 1911. It went belly up for awhile.

Now that's a new controversy - 1911 vs Glock
;)

You are right about revolvers. But given semis can jam more, why add another reason to jam?
 
Guys, try this simple experiment to test the viability of smart guns:

Beat on your computer with a hammer.

Now tell me how a waferboard with a couple of chips on it is gonna stand up to the forces present inside a gun. Maybe a gas-op .22 pistol wouldn't kill the board. Maybe.

If someone can come up with a smart gun that works when you need it to work, great. I still won't buy it.

I am an admitted gadget-freak. I just bought an AR on Wednesday and I'm already looking at the Surefire M500 light and a Jewell trigger, for example. However, when a gadget poses the very real possibility that its failure may result in my death, I have to give it a miss.

------------------
http://pub6.ezboard.com/blibertarian
 
Muscles,
I understand.

------------------
"There is a common thread between competition and combat shooting - only hits count" Keith Cunningham
 
Glenn,

At the Feb. LFI-1 he had a 686. And the gun STILL had a failure when one of the Winchester rounds loaded in it failed to go off. Poor guy can't win. :)
 
Okay, let's say the technology has been absolutel perfected.
No glitches, bugs, vulnerabilities, etc.
So everything is okay MusclesMcGee?
Are you sure?

How come your new "smart" Handgun cost $7500?
New technology, especially new electronic technology, and really small tech. at that; is VERY expensive!
Do you think that new Lasik vision surgery really is $3000? Or an MRI costs $10,000?
The providers of the service (the owners of the equipment) are trying to get back their costs.
I suppose in another decade that laser vision correction might only cost $100, and MRI's might be down to the cost of the average X-ray.

I've no problem with smart technology that works, won't fail, will work for my wife, and that the cops would carry too;
I'm just absolutely opposed to the prices we will see.

If they can't outlaw 'em, they'll just make the prices so high that nobody will be able to buy one.

Furthermore, if the police are exempt and carrying a regular mechanical gun, they will be a much greater target for theft.
Right now G19's go for around $300 used, and maybe 9mm's on the criminal market might sell out of the trunk of a car for a hundred bucks or so.

But what if in the future the blackmarket prices go up incredibly!?
Now the cop's sidearm is worth $1000 on the blackmarket instead of $100.
At this point some criminals will see it worth the risk to try to kill the cop and take his gun.

In my opinion, cops being exempt from smart gun tech. is likely to make their job more dangerous.

$.02, -Kframe
 
I agree with all of the concerns posted above. While a "smart gun" is a worthwhile pursuit, it's a product I will not buy unless it is affordable and, most importantly, it is a product that is used by the military and every LEA in America. If it isn't good enough for the cops, I don't want it for my own self-defense. And I think congress should remove the law enforcement and military exemptions from the S&W agreement to ensure that any "smart guns" are 110% reliable.

Dick
 
what most people don't know is that there is a civilian smartgun program and a Police smartgun program. The police smart gun would be much more threat tolerant and prolly be a proximity multi user radio badge driven system. I still can't figure how that prevents an officer from being shot with his smart gun.

there was a guy on the Diane Rehm show from
International Union of Police Associations
who talked about both programs

he said colt has ended the iColt effort

here is a real audio of the hour long show: http://www.wamu.org/ram/2000/r1000313.ram
 
Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:

<snip>
If you know recognition software - you know that it is unrealiable enough to be a risk.
Let's say that it fails only with a prob. of
.001. That means for every thousand draws of a gun, that sucker will fail on its own.

<snip>

If your car won't start, you don't usually die. If your gun won't , you might just do that.
<snip>

What is it with the people on this board? You constantly refuse to see the forest for the trees. The problem that you are dwelling on are the shortcomings of CURRENT proposals for smartguns using CURRENT solutions/technology.....ya friggin' idgit! That is why they aren't for sale yet!

If you think with proper engineering and planning that purely electronic devices cannot be made nearly as reliable as mechanical ones, you know very little of electronics. How about current jet fighters? They are all fly-by-wire...and have very little mechanical backup. There are seldom problems related to this...in fact, the technology saves many lives every year (for instance, the design and programming of the flight control system of the F/A 18 is fly-by-wire and is inherently stable...this means that with enough speed and altitude, the plane will right itself from any spin/attitude)...

How about a Casio G-shock watch? I've owned 3 of them...none have ever been damaged in the slightest...one with a lithium battery lasted over 10 years...and while wearing it, I was a jet mechanic, butchers apprentice, etc...

Stop focusing on the current technologies and put your efforts to solving the problems with the fact that politicians insist on having people accept responsibility for their actions.

aiki
Click to expand...
 
Coineach, ever hear the slogan

"Takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin" ...????

Is the gun made out of the same plastic as my computer ? Was my computer designed to take blows from a sledgehammer ?

Which round exerts the same force on a gun (and user I might add) as well swung sledgehammer ? I didn't realize these new smart guns were chambered in .600 nitro express.

How do night vision, tactical lights, laser lights, ect. manage to hold up under the force of a gun ????

Kframe...$7500 !!!! On the "safegun" site suggested above, they list the device as $30 when sold in bulk.

Hmmm, seems like everyone has lots of poor excuses. If you don't like the "politics" of this new device, fine. Don't expect me to buy the poorly thought out and misguided arguments when actually applied to the effectiveness of the gun.

This is starting to get on the verge of "What if aliens anally probed my smartgun ? Then how would it work mister smartypants ?"
 
Just my opinion:

To make a smart gun that only works for the owner, the handgun will have to somehow deactivate the firing mechanism when it gets a "you are not my owner" input. For that to work, it will either have to
1) function something in the mechanical guts of the handgun such as a firing pin block or trigger/sear safety OR
2) Guns in general will have to be completely redesigned around an electronic ignition system. Then the go/no go is as simple as a micro-circuitry relay.

In the first case, there will have to be some electromotive force put on some linkage or something. I personally think any group of deviant minds could come up with a simple way to permanently jam the appropriate mechanical safety gizmo in the "fire" position. All they might need are drills and chisels or something. Or it might be as complex as designing a drop-in "always fire" part.

In the second case, the electronically fired system is subject to problems with battery power, magnetic interference from high current producing machines, power lines, etc.
not to mention the problems with the signal decoder that the owner carries or something.

So my opinion in a nutshell:
-I don't think any smart gun could be designed to exclusively work for one owner unless...
-the design was so exclusive the owner runs into the danger of the gun not recognizing HIM. I myself don't want my guns to think. When I say GO I want them to GO.

My opinion only, for what it's worth.

Edmund
 
Talked to a recognition guy who said the
current fingerprint chips don't cut it
and they didn't see them doing it in three years.

But ok - idiot - design a chip and sensors
that sees through mud, gloves and blood.

And this will cost 30 bucks?

You carry it,dipstick. Remember the agreement said that if 8 companies agree then all guns go smart.

There are military grade computers and components. How much will a SW 642 cost with this stuff in it?
 
McGee,

You suffer from a complex common to Angelenos, you think LA is the world. Sorry it's not. Some parts of the country experience temps so low that plastic guide rods snap. Have you ever in a Michigan winter? Hoth is Hawaii in comparison. Other states have torrential rains and brutal humidity six months a year. What electronic equipment, exposed to rain and humidity as is a pistol on a duty belt, can survive this? A so-called "smart" gun would have to tolerate all these extremes and still function. It would have to be reliable under brutal usage, e.g. fire thousands of rounds and still function when needed. It will have to withstand little care from people that simply aren't into taking care of their equipment. As Beretta USA states on their Web site, the technology for this does not exist and will not exist in the near future. The folks in the White House know this all too well. By focusing on "safe" and "smart" guns they set the agenda. Instead of coming across as gun banning extremists they appear to be reasonable people. After all, who would not support "smart" guns if it meant saving the lives of LEOs and children?

Make no mistake, by supporting "smart" guns you're playing into the hands of the antis.



------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top