Smart Guns

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:26 pm

Some survey that most Americans would favor smart Guns (where electronics via finger prints determine if gun will fire). Then I read the article and got this:

Non-owners of guns and people identifying as "liberal" were most likely to consider buying smart guns, while owners of multiple guns were least likely.

Well no ★■◆● Sherlock, those most ignorant of firearms favor something that could very well cost them their lives. Those who know would avoid them worse than than the plague. I'll let the "luddites" here figure out what I'm talking about.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:00 pm

Totally agree. Hate the idea of a smart gun.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:08 pm

I had a fun drunken discussion about this with my brother. We're both pretty liberal. He thought all guns should have some sort of biometric safety feature. I laughed at him, and told him you can't do that because gun nuts require every gun, even guns they don't own, to be fireable by them at a moments notice.

Let me ask you this, do you think a firearm with a biometric safety mechanism is better than no firearm at all?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:00 pm

Biometric guns, huh?

Kind of like this?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:06 am

Ferno wrote:Biometric guns, huh?

Kind of like this?

HaHa....yeah.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:09 am

Good idea in theory, bad idea in practice.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:54 am

Can someone explain why they would care if I purchased a firearm that only I could use? Is it the worry that something like that might actually be successful?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:32 am

Vander wrote:Can someone explain why they would care if I purchased a firearm that only I could use? Is it the worry that something like that might actually be successful?

Vander, no one cares what you buy. we could give you reasons why a biometric gun might not be a good idea but you would discount the advice so no sense wasting page space.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:27 am

You don't want to discuss the topic you brought up? I'm not asking about the pro's and con's of biometric vs. standard firearms. I think I have a pretty good idea. Limiting usage risks failure during an emergency. I'm asking is a limited firearm better than no firearm at all?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:51 am

Pointing a biometric at someone with intent to use it and then finding out it doesn't work is worse than not having one. Not having one makes you think harder about avoiding risky scenarios instead of thinking you have a tool that will mitigate the circumstance and then fails. For example, you and a friend are out on the town. A bad guy comes along and attacks you, semi incapacitating you. Your friend knows you are carrying the pistol so he takes it from you thinking to shoot the attacker...only to find out the gun does not work for him. Now you know one reason the military will not go the biometric route. In a fire fight it would not be uncommon for a soldier to pick up a wounded comrades firearm and use it. Starting to see why a biometric might be worse than no firearm? My question to you, why would you pose your question when mechanically operated firearms are available?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:49 pm

Smart guns are part of that slippery slope that some here will say doesn’t even exist.

But if you put together the pieces with other things such as making ammo expensive and hard to get and removing immunity from firearms manufacturing…you can start to see the pattern of making it hard to get and use a firearm.

A biometric firearm would be more expensive to buy and maintain, if the battery fails…you are screwed, not to mention just more to go wrong…but hey…that’s the plan.

The immunity issue is a freakin joke in my opinion, you can’t make a manufacturer responsible for a legal products usage, if you could auto makers would be sued every time someone dies in a car.

The ammo thing is designed to make it difficult to own and maintain a firearm.

Etc etc…

It all works toward the end goal.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:01 pm

Spidey wrote:Smart guns are part of that slippery slope that some here will say doesn’t even exist.

But if you put together the pieces with other things such as making ammo expensive and hard to get and removing immunity from firearms manufacturing…you can start to see the pattern of making it hard to get and use a firearm.

A biometric firearm would be more expensive to buy and maintain, if the battery fails…you are screwed, not to mention just more to go wrong…but hey…that’s the plan.

The immunity issue is a freakin joke in my opinion, you can’t make a manufacturer responsible for a legal products usage, if you could auto makers would be sued every time someone dies in a car.

The ammo thing is designed to make it difficult to own and maintain a firearm.

Etc etc…

It all works toward the end goal.

Quoted for truth. It's just another means of control. Interest by anti-gun folks in any technology to lock out a gun to a single user has very little to do with theft. It's all about making firearms difficult to acquire and difficult/impossible to transfer. Now if the user had control of the locking technology, and could add family members at will themselves, or add the new user at time of sale and remove themselves, etc, it would be interesting. But you'd still want to use a Glock for simplicity's sake.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:18 pm

woodchip wrote:Pointing a biometric at someone with intent to use it and then finding out it doesn't work is worse than not having one. Not having one makes you think harder about avoiding risky scenarios instead of thinking you have a tool that will mitigate the circumstance and then fails. For example, you and a friend are out on the town. A bad guy comes along and attacks you, semi incapacitating you. Your friend knows you are carrying the pistol so he takes it from you thinking to shoot the attacker...only to find out the gun does not work for him. Now you know one reason the military will not go the biometric route. In a fire fight it would not be uncommon for a soldier to pick up a wounded comrades firearm and use it. Starting to see why a biometric might be worse than no firearm?

You're not telling me anything I haven't considered. This all pretty much falls under "risks failure during an emergency." Bad aim is also such a risk.

My question to you, why would you pose your question when mechanically operated firearms are available?

I ask because the narrow circumstance you describe can be matched by the narrow circumstance of the gun falling into the hands of an unauthorized user. And that is a very real concern that may be alleviated by a biometric safety that works as intended. So to protect my home, I'm better off with a baseball bat than a gun that only I can fire?

Spidey wrote:It all works toward the end goal.

I get it. You're afraid biometric safeties will be successful.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Now if the user had control of the locking technology, and could add family members at will themselves, or add the new user at time of sale and remove themselves, etc, it would be interesting.

Stop being reasonable. Guns are supposed to be fired by everyone.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:24 pm

Vander wrote:
Spidey wrote:It all works toward the end goal.
I get it. You're afraid biometric safeties will be successful.

So you admit to what the actual success of biometric guns would be.

Oh, and I should point out that I can see your question is actually a veiled threat, or at least sounds like one.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:07 pm

my question is, why were the development plans of two gun manufacturers to DEVELOP the technology halted by a threatened NRA membership boycott? It would seem that R and D would eventually get a VERY reliable product to market. Yes, it would be more expensive, but vastly safer in some environments. No one was ever suggesting taking NON-biometric guns off the market, just making smart guns available. Where is the fear of that rooted?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:15 pm

woodchip wrote:Pointing a biometric at someone with intent to use it and then finding out it doesn't work is worse than not having one. Not having one makes you think harder about avoiding risky scenarios instead of thinking you have a tool that will mitigate the circumstance and then fails. For example, you and a friend are out on the town. A bad guy comes along and attacks you, semi incapacitating you. Your friend knows you are carrying the pistol so he takes it from you thinking to shoot the attacker...only to find out the gun does not work for him. Now you know one reason the military will not go the biometric route. In a fire fight it would not be uncommon for a soldier to pick up a wounded comrades firearm and use it. Starting to see why a biometric might be worse than no firearm? My question to you, why would you pose your question when mechanically operated firearms are available?

you really think the common civilian is going to be fighting a war?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:32 pm

callmeslick wrote:my question is, why were the development plans of two gun manufacturers to DEVELOP the technology halted by a threatened NRA membership boycott? It would seem that R and D would eventually get a VERY reliable product to market. Yes, it would be more expensive, but vastly safer in some environments. No one was ever suggesting taking NON-biometric guns off the market, just making smart guns available. Where is the fear of that rooted?

There would be no problem at all until the government decided to make it law that only smart guns can be sold, just like they did with automobiles and many other consumer products over the years.

Just try and buy a new car without seatbelts for example.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:42 pm

Spidey wrote:There would be no problem at all until the government decided to make it law that only smart guns can be sold, just like they did with automobiles and many other consumer products over the years.

Just try and buy a new car without seatbelts for example.

why on Earth wouldn't you want safety equipment? And, to run with your example, if public safety weren't served, or the unreliability documentable, the lawsuits would be immense, so it would be a non-starter on those grounds. Plus, for some applications, I could see where you wouldn't wish to have single user weapons.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:43 pm

also, nothing in your answer, Spidey, speaks at all to why one can justify squashing development of the technology.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:00 pm

Spidey wrote:So you admit to what the actual success of biometric guns would be.

Heh. Don't read too much into that. I think if biometric safeties proved effective and reliable, some would probably push for them to be required on new guns. It would be a fight that wouldn't be won, and it would distract from the real issues that we should be working on. There's 500 million firearms in the US. Gun control is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

But if biometric safeties prove effective and reliable, I can see it as a viable personal choice to minimize unintended consequences. It might even prevent a few deaths.

Oh, and I should point out that I can see your question is actually a veiled threat, or at least sounds like one.

It took me a while to figure out what you meant, and then I had a good laugh. No, I wasn't suggesting that we're going to take your manly guns away leaving you with only the choice between a baseball bat and a girly gun.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:22 pm

Ferno wrote:
woodchip wrote:Pointing a biometric at someone with intent to use it and then finding out it doesn't work is worse than not having one. Not having one makes you think harder about avoiding risky scenarios instead of thinking you have a tool that will mitigate the circumstance and then fails. For example, you and a friend are out on the town. A bad guy comes along and attacks you, semi incapacitating you. Your friend knows you are carrying the pistol so he takes it from you thinking to shoot the attacker...only to find out the gun does not work for him. Now you know one reason the military will not go the biometric route. In a fire fight it would not be uncommon for a soldier to pick up a wounded comrades firearm and use it. Starting to see why a biometric might be worse than no firearm? My question to you, why would you pose your question when mechanically operated firearms are available?

you really think the common civilian is going to be fighting a war?

I mention the military not wanting biometrics and the reason why and somehow you equate that I think the common civilian would be fighting in a war? Man are you on some strange medication to come up with logic like that?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:24 pm

Arguing against biometrics on firearms is feeling a lot like an argument against safety features on cars when they were first being installed.

woodchip wrote:I think the common civilian would be fighting in a war?

No, you did. In that analogy of yours. Why else would you compare a criminal to an enemy? It ain't desert storm, yo!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:46 pm

callmeslick wrote:also, nothing in your answer, Spidey, speaks at all to why one can justify squashing development of the technology.

Was that question directed at me, sorry, I have no idea as to the answer.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:37 am

Ferno wrote:Arguing against biometrics on firearms is feeling a lot like an argument against safety features on cars when they were first being installed.

woodchip wrote:I think the common civilian would be fighting in a war?
No, you did. In that analogy of yours. Why else would you compare a criminal to an enemy? It ain't desert storm, yo!

Where did I compare a criminal to a enemy? And nice try at cutting out a piece of my sentence to try and prove your point.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:48 am

still haven't really had anyone answer my question.....why would the NRA pressure the manufacturers out of doing development work to actually have the option of Smart Guns in the marketplace?? My only conclusion is that they don't want a gun which is difficult to transfer and harder to steal and resell on the black market. But, why?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:53 am

Or the NRA can see the slippery slope of electronic guns being made inoperable by outside forces.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:31 am

Ok I don’t know the answer, but just for the hell of it I will speculate…yea, something like what Woody just posted, and the fact that electronic devices tend to be out of the control of the owners of those devices…do you know what is really going on inside your smart phone? Hell I bet most people don’t know what’s going on inside the simplest of devices these days.

My practical experience as an engineer says that a device should always be as simple as possible to reduce the possibility of failure, and a premise like this applied to something as important as a firearm is critical.

If I could see the benefits outweighing the negatives, I would be ok with smart guns, but there are way too many practical tools/laws to do the same thing. You can make a gun childproof in other ways, and if someone is going to steal a gun, well they will just steal a dumb one or hack the smart one.

So the only scenario we have left is taking the weapon from your person, and using it on the spot. Not enough validation in my opinion, perhaps for police and other professionals, but not the home owner.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:34 am

woodchip wrote:Or the NRA can see the slippery slope of electronic guns being made inoperable by outside forces.

but that wouldn't mean that EVERYONE had to have one. In fact, given the amount of older weapons in the system, the percentage of them overall would be miniscule.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:38 am

Spidey wrote:So the only scenario we have left is taking the weapon from your person, and using it on the spot. Not enough validation in my opinion, perhaps for police and other professionals, but not the home owner.

or, stealing it and not being able to resell or reuse it. Or, you kid not being able to pick it up and fire it, or the dog not firing it at you)(happened several times last year in the US), etc. The whole benefit is around safety of the end user, and I am SO sick of that bogus 'slippery slope' argument that gets used to justify or smokescreen the real reasoning. Bottom line is that the only common negative(I'm presuming the tech got developed to a reasonable low failure rate) is lack of black market resale. Kinda makes one wonder what the NRA's real interests are.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:44 am

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:Or the NRA can see the slippery slope of electronic guns being made inoperable by outside forces.
but that wouldn't mean that EVERYONE had to have one. In fact, given the amount of older weapons in the system, the percentage of them overall would be miniscule.

Except slick, biometric guns are already on the market. So stop dragging the scary NRA out of the closet:

http://www.intelligun.com/

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2453869,00.asp

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:41 am

oh,, so you'll simply ignore the fact that two major manufacturers(Colt and SW) got threatened with a boycott over merely suggesting they were actively performing R and D to perfect biometric(smart) tech?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:58 am

A smart gun is a great idea, but also a practical impossibility. The major problem with it is that guns are actually incredibly simple mechanical devices, so there are too many avenues for circumvention of any such system. A gun isn't some magic black box where cartridges come in one end and bullets come out the other, even a layman can quickly learn and understand the entire process about how one works. You can try to build a smart gun, but anyone with a screw driver and a 90 second youtube video guide will likely be able to permanently revert it to a plain old "dumb gun".

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:43 am

I grasp what you are saying, but I think we could both agree, Krom that a lot of 'impossible' technologies are part of our daily existence. All Colt was doing was announcing that they were in development. S and W merely suggested that they were considering developing a Smart Gun. Why was that seen as such a threat as to induce a boycott?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:22 pm

You're talking about a totally different type of "impossible" slick. The reason smart guns are impossible is because it is basically the same as trying to un-invent the wheel. It is the opposite end of the spectrum entirely from modern "impossible" gadgets that depend on physics so small and complex that you need specialized tools to even measure them.

You are talking about re-inventing the hammer so it can't hit your finger anymore, unfortunately it also won't be able to drive in nails either.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 pm

EMP is a big argument against smart guns, in my mind, even if they were subject to the owner's programming. Also I would lend to the argument that smart guns would basically be akin to anti-piracy measures in games--anything can be circumvented, all deterrents do is prevent the casual user from circumventing. And I don't believe child safety should even enter into the argument. Child safety is the responsibility of the parent, not society/technology.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:34 pm

Even with the 'steals weapon, watches youtube video to thwart biometric safety' scenario, I still think there's a solid use case for such a weapon. The simple 'assailant wrestles gun away' or 'unauthorized accidental shootings in home' angles. Those are possibly narrow angles, but they are still meaningful.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:47 pm

Yeah, I thought of that too, but then it occurred to me that it would be an additional excuse for idiots to leave loaded guns sitting around in places where they really shouldn't be.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:55 pm

So Vander, do you want to own a smart gun, or do you want me to own a smart gun?

Another statement I'll make is that if non-smart guns go the way of the incandescent light bulb I will have grounds to be opposed to the whole thing. If the market goes the way of smart guns, that's another matter. In the latter case there will always be non-smart, mechanically simple firearms available. Myself, I don't think the anti-gun lobby would tolerate the latter scenario, and I don't think this is something that will be dictated by the market, and as such I am still against it.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:56 pm

Heh, but now we're getting into the 'we can't make guns safer because they're dangerous' argument.'

*edit

So Vander, do you want to own a smart gun, or do you want me to own a smart gun?

I want anyone who would see a benefit to have the option.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:57 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:EMP is a big argument against smart guns, in my mind, even if they were subject to the owner's programming. Also I would lend to the argument that smart guns would basically be akin to anti-piracy measures in games--anything can be circumvented, all deterrents do is prevent the casual user from circumventing. And I don't believe child safety should even enter into the argument. Child safety is the responsibility of the parent, not society/technology.

Since the parents are largely complete dumbfucks, I'd say it's up to society to step in and protect the kids.