Serious Smart Guns

[Deck Knight]

On the other hand Deck, a lot of terrible incidents of gun violence in the US comes down not to criminal activity, but guns misused by non-owner citizens (ie kids and family of gun owners). In these incidents, a smart gun would be a big preventative measure-- I think that's unfoubtful. So, if the weapon can be used to effectively work for it's intended user, society stands to see more peace just from preventing those incidents.

Meanwhile, having to making guns dumb is just one more barrier to would be criminals. I'd have to say the overall effect seems heavily weighed to greater social safety.

Proper gun storage and family education avoids almost all those problems. The only ones it doesn't are ones like Lanza where the kid is disturbed in the head, but still theoretically competent enough to bypass standard protective measures.

And what happens when 13 year old miss (or the wife) is the only one home when someone breaks in. She can't use dad/hubby's "smart gun" because it's not bio-coded for her - or can they bio-code multiple users or tag guns to multiple bracelets.? Can you take the bracelet off while you sleep? Where does it have to be stored? Can you trust your kids not to lose their gun bracelets?

I'd rather we avoid the impulse to pass intrusive laws and mandates when the issue can be addressed by product users not being lazy and inattentive. The gun cannot be un-invented, all these "smart" guns would do under such mandate is price more responsible people out of the market for home defense and provide an additional layer of potential failure when seconds count.

I also don't think it's wise, just based on how guns actually work, to put sensitive machinery into an object that will inherently receive frequent amounts of high stress. The function of the gun's mechanism is to redistribute the force of the explosion to the projectile, but as everyone knows guns still have recoil. It's physically impossible to distribute all of that energy into the projectile - some of it does get forced back throughout the weapon and its user.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Humans are lazy and inattentive. [/reality]

 

[dwarfstar]

I never thought I'd be backing up Deck Knight, but I believe his analysis is correct here. There are numerous practical problems involved with this technology, which I don't think we can ignore, and the argument that people are often lazy and inattentive, true as it is, doesn't necessarily outweigh that. Furthermore, mass-production of "smart guns" won't take the old ones out of circulation (even if production of the old kind is outlawed, which shouldn't and probably couldn't happen), so changing the law such that only producing or buying smart guns is legal has the potential to place the law-abiding gun owner at a disadvantage against a criminal in possession of an old-style gun.
I really do think that a lot of the risk associated with gun ownership is tied to our cultural attitude toward guns in the US - they're simultaneously glorified by the media/gun lobbies and treated as taboo by many citizens (in that we're reluctant to educate children about responsible ownership and usage of firearms). Lazy and inattentive though people may be, understanding goes a long way. We have the potential to ameliorate the danger that guns pose to the public without outlawing them or legally mandating a form that isn't even necessarily safer; why not do it?
(And for any fellow lefties who might be inclined to oppose this sort of firearms education, consider this: a means of self-defense against cops and others abusing their power is by no means a bad thing.)

 

[mattj]

I can't think of a reasonable objection to non mandatory smart guns. I want one.

 

[Deaga]

I also don't think it's wise, just based on how guns actually work, to put sensitive machinery into an object that will inherently receive frequent amounts of high stress. The function of the gun's mechanism is to redistribute the force of the explosion to the projectile, but as everyone knows guns still have recoil. It's physically impossible to distribute all of that energy into the projectile - some of it does get forced back throughout the weapon and its user.

Fortunately, engineers aren't dumb, so they can design the gun in a way that the recognition system isn't damaged by the recoil. Really, it won't come apart as you fire the gun.

I really think these smart guns are about the best idea possible, but they sure as hell won't become common, especially in America with the crazy gun-love culture they(you?) have there.

 

[xenu]

Fortunately, engineers aren't dumb, so they can design the gun in a way that the recognition system isn't damaged by the recoil. Really, it won't come apart as you fire the gun.

Installing a biometric recognition system on a gun won't cause Newton's third law to come undone - "Engineers will use science to fix it" is a really flimsy argument especially when you consider the delicate circuitry involved and the magnitude of the recoil generated. You can't redistribute a directional force like you can heat, for one, and trying to fortify or somehow "armor-clad" the recognition system would make the gun so unwieldy it would defeat the entire point of having a firearm.

This whole technology strikes me as somehow naive, to be honest. The security of the system and the strength of its encryption are moot points here because even AES-256 can be broken using a strong arm and a hammer. Digital solutions can't correct problems inherent in the "analog" i.e the object itself. Heat up a smart gun enough and I guarantee it'll fire.

 

[Style_Dota]

What I think this is good for: The family that wants to have a licensed gun in their home in order to protect themselves without risking their family.
What I don't think this is good for: Police Force, Military, etc.

As people have mentioned, there's always some sort of potential backlash when it comes to technology, however, I don't see why this shouldn't be a regular for the modern household. It's not like a baby or a child is going to heat up a gun enough so it can fire. It's a nice solution for the "we don't want our kids shooting themselves" problem, but not for many other gun control issues.

 

[macle]

just get a fucking gun safe and dont give your stupid kids the code. simple

 

[Woodchuck]

but what if there's a robber and my kid's the only one home???????

 

[macle]

get a security system and a safe room

 

[Codraroll]

but what if there's a robber and my kid's the only one home???????

Well, sending a kid with a gun against a robber, possibly also with a gun, doesn't sound like a particularly good idea anyway. I mean, an unarmed kid is a witness at best. An armed kid can be perceived as a threat to the robber's life, which might push him into taking the fight. Even in the event that the kid survives, he'd be scarred for life.

A siren would be much better. Even armed robbers flee when the sound is loud enough to block his thoughts, and neighbours come running to see what's up. Better give the kid some good earmuffs, though.

 

[shinyskarmory]

Proper gun storage and family education avoids almost all those problems. The only ones it doesn't are ones like Lanza where the kid is disturbed in the head, but still theoretically competent enough to bypass standard protective measures.

And what happens when 13 year old miss (or the wife) is the only one home when someone breaks in. She can't use dad/hubby's "smart gun" because it's not bio-coded for her - or can they bio-code multiple users or tag guns to multiple bracelets.? Can you take the bracelet off while you sleep? Where does it have to be stored? Can you trust your kids not to lose their gun bracelets?

I'd rather we avoid the impulse to pass intrusive laws and mandates when the issue can be addressed by product users not being lazy and inattentive. The gun cannot be un-invented, all these "smart" guns would do under such mandate is price more responsible people out of the market for home defense and provide an additional layer of potential failure when seconds count.

I also don't think it's wise, just based on how guns actually work, to put sensitive machinery into an object that will inherently receive frequent amounts of high stress. The function of the gun's mechanism is to redistribute the force of the explosion to the projectile, but as everyone knows guns still have recoil. It's physically impossible to distribute all of that energy into the projectile - some of it does get forced back throughout the weapon and its user.

Hmm...I haven't heard about any guns with biometric scanners. Only one I've heard about is the one that uses RFID to pair itself with a wristwatch, and won't fire unless the wristwatch is X distance away from the gun.

My main issue with the technology is that at the moment it's too expensive and not 100% reliable. If the technology did improve enough to ALWAYS recognize the wristwatch/bracelet/fingerprint/whatever mechanism ends up working best and NEVER fail to fire because of the electronics so long as proper maintenance is done, (please note that I'm excluding mechanical failures like jamming, etc that would happen with any gun, smart or not smart), I would support a transition to selling smart guns only in stores. That probably wouldn't be for at least 5 years minimum, though, and in any case we'd have to grandfather people's old "dumb" guns into the system.

On product users being idiots: people are always idiots. That's why we have seatbelt laws, lifeguards, and the right to sue amusement parks for not putting up signs warning you about the health risks of going on a rollercoaster.

This kind of idiot protection law also happens to disproportionately protect people who actually don't know better (toddlers getting their hands on their parent's guns somehow...) instead of government haters, thrill-seekers, and that one kid who wants to dive into the kiddy pool headfirst.

 

[BenTheDemon]

but what if there's a robber and my kid's the only one home???????

If your kid is mature enough to be home by themselves, they're probably mature enough to know gun safety. Teach them how to use the smart gun.

 

[Rugi]

I don't see why the solution is constantly perceived as being safer guns. In my opinion the solution should be no guns or incredibly strict laws on guns.
EDIT: I forgot the majority of this forum is American nevermind. In Australia no one would even consider this as being a valid idea.

 

[Ash Borer]

I don't see why the solution is constantly perceived as being safer guns. In my opinion the solution should be no guns or incredibly strict laws on guns.
EDIT: I forgot the majority of this forum is American nevermind. In Australia no one would even consider this as being a valid idea.

making guns illegal doesnt get rid of them :-p