Tweet
There's a pretty lengthy debate going on about smart guns on another forum I'm on that leans liberal but has quite a few gun owners as well. One person is advocating for smart guns, but disagrees with most of CA's laws, and disagrees they should be mandated. I did some brief research and it looks like the author of the NJ bill mandating smart guns is looking to change the law so that rather than only smart guns being sold after one becomes available, stores must merely offer a smart gun option.
To me, I'm still against that, considering the only ones making one right now stand to benefit from a law-enforced monopoly, which sounds a lot like cronyism backroom dealing between Armatix and lawmakers.
Smart guns as a whole, on the other hand...what would it take for the gun community to, if not fully get behind the tech, at least not be fully against it either?
I'm thinking:
The reliability is the biggest problem aside from legal mandates to me. Currently there's several options from bracelets to rings to watches for proximity RFID, and biometrics for fingerprint readers (I've heard palm readers but they're very much still in development?). I see several issues with all of these:
1. Bracelets/Watches - not everyone likes wearing a watch. I don't wear one 90% of the time. But beyond that, let's get in the hypothetical "struggle for my weapon" where an attacker is trying to take it from me. This is one of the "problems" smart guns purport to solve right? Except, if someone grabs my gun, and I grab their hand/wrist, presumably the watch/bracelet would be in close enough proximity to still allow the gun to fire. So, no real benefit there.
2. Rings - I don't wear rings either. Most people I know don't wear rings aside from a wedding band. By necessity these would also have smaller batteries, weaker signals, and be more susceptible to interference. It would be more difficult if an attacker wrested my smart gun from me, but if I were fighting someone off and needed to shoot off-hand I wouldn't be able to. 2 handed grip or strong hand only. Removing options for shooting = net loss imo.
3. Biometrics - fingerprint readers primarily seem to be the suggested one here. So, what if you're wearing gloves (ie, live somewhere cold, like Colorado, New Yo- ah, who am I kidding, you won't be allowed to carry in NY anyway) the biometrics are useless and nobody is going to have time to pull off a glove to use their gun. Furthermore, even if you HAD time, if it's that cold out you risk even more personal injury and loss of dexterity, which could lead to a bad shoot and missing your target. Ok, so you live in a warm area and don't need gloves. What if your hands are dirty? The sensor gets dirty? What if, like me, you used to or currently work as a mechanic / electrician and have a mess of scars on your fingertips that make fingerprinting difficult and unreliable at best? What if, in a struggle for your gun, you get cut with a knife or something and there's blood on your finger? Can't fire it with an alternate finger.
All of these also raise the issue of battery life, though assuming it's at least something on par with a car key fob (~1-3 years) changing it wouldn't be too much of an issue (just thinking of it as regular maintenance like cleaning). But, nobody would want a battery to fail in an emergency and leave them defenseless, so that raises the issue of:
4. Default fail state - if the electronics fail, what happens? Does the gun revert to "dumb" status and allow firing like a normal gun? If so, then that defeats several of the arguments for having a smart gun in the first place. Anyone who steals it can simply remove or destroy the battery / electronics and have a perfectly functioning weapon. So the logical choice is to have a fail-lockout where the gun is disabled if the electronics are dead / not working / whatever. Except, oops - how often do electronics fail again? There's no backup mechanical solution in this case. If the ABS fails on your car, you can still downshift, use the e-brake, whatever. If the electronics fail on your smart gun when you need it, you're screwed. And the first case of a smart gun failing at an inopportune moment, costing someone their life or serious bodily injury, is sure to bring a massive lawsuit.
Still, despite all of this, the one advocate on the other forum believes it is inevitable and only a matter of time for the tech to be developed and pushed onto the market. I figure that won't happen until the military adopts it in a widespread manner first, followed by law enforcement, and THEN the civilian market, but what do you guys think? What would it take for you to actually want one?
To me, I'm still against that, considering the only ones making one right now stand to benefit from a law-enforced monopoly, which sounds a lot like cronyism backroom dealing between Armatix and lawmakers.
Smart guns as a whole, on the other hand...what would it take for the gun community to, if not fully get behind the tech, at least not be fully against it either?
I'm thinking:
- Durability with calibers up to .45 ACP (minimum. .44 mag would "prove" the tech to me a lot better than a .22 ya know?)
- Reliability on par with a Glock, Sig, or 1911
- NO laws mandating anything, anywhere. Not options, not sole option, no mandates
- Electronic reliability better than current phones, car keys, etc.
The reliability is the biggest problem aside from legal mandates to me. Currently there's several options from bracelets to rings to watches for proximity RFID, and biometrics for fingerprint readers (I've heard palm readers but they're very much still in development?). I see several issues with all of these:
1. Bracelets/Watches - not everyone likes wearing a watch. I don't wear one 90% of the time. But beyond that, let's get in the hypothetical "struggle for my weapon" where an attacker is trying to take it from me. This is one of the "problems" smart guns purport to solve right? Except, if someone grabs my gun, and I grab their hand/wrist, presumably the watch/bracelet would be in close enough proximity to still allow the gun to fire. So, no real benefit there.
2. Rings - I don't wear rings either. Most people I know don't wear rings aside from a wedding band. By necessity these would also have smaller batteries, weaker signals, and be more susceptible to interference. It would be more difficult if an attacker wrested my smart gun from me, but if I were fighting someone off and needed to shoot off-hand I wouldn't be able to. 2 handed grip or strong hand only. Removing options for shooting = net loss imo.
3. Biometrics - fingerprint readers primarily seem to be the suggested one here. So, what if you're wearing gloves (ie, live somewhere cold, like Colorado, New Yo- ah, who am I kidding, you won't be allowed to carry in NY anyway) the biometrics are useless and nobody is going to have time to pull off a glove to use their gun. Furthermore, even if you HAD time, if it's that cold out you risk even more personal injury and loss of dexterity, which could lead to a bad shoot and missing your target. Ok, so you live in a warm area and don't need gloves. What if your hands are dirty? The sensor gets dirty? What if, like me, you used to or currently work as a mechanic / electrician and have a mess of scars on your fingertips that make fingerprinting difficult and unreliable at best? What if, in a struggle for your gun, you get cut with a knife or something and there's blood on your finger? Can't fire it with an alternate finger.
All of these also raise the issue of battery life, though assuming it's at least something on par with a car key fob (~1-3 years) changing it wouldn't be too much of an issue (just thinking of it as regular maintenance like cleaning). But, nobody would want a battery to fail in an emergency and leave them defenseless, so that raises the issue of:
4. Default fail state - if the electronics fail, what happens? Does the gun revert to "dumb" status and allow firing like a normal gun? If so, then that defeats several of the arguments for having a smart gun in the first place. Anyone who steals it can simply remove or destroy the battery / electronics and have a perfectly functioning weapon. So the logical choice is to have a fail-lockout where the gun is disabled if the electronics are dead / not working / whatever. Except, oops - how often do electronics fail again? There's no backup mechanical solution in this case. If the ABS fails on your car, you can still downshift, use the e-brake, whatever. If the electronics fail on your smart gun when you need it, you're screwed. And the first case of a smart gun failing at an inopportune moment, costing someone their life or serious bodily injury, is sure to bring a massive lawsuit.
Still, despite all of this, the one advocate on the other forum believes it is inevitable and only a matter of time for the tech to be developed and pushed onto the market. I figure that won't happen until the military adopts it in a widespread manner first, followed by law enforcement, and THEN the civilian market, but what do you guys think? What would it take for you to actually want one?
Comment