Smart Guns - a cautionary origin story

[Cameramonkey]

Anybody else notice that no matter how automated and fly by wire our cars are going, braking systems are still based on the old fashioned, manual master cylinders? (and things like ABS fight against the manual pressure) If technology is so safe and foolproof, why isnt my brake pedal electronic?

That right there should tell you why we shouldnt have smart guns.

 

[OakRiver]

Not to distract from the tech talk (thanks to all those with actual insight into the process) lets not forget the likely increased cost. This will drive up the price of firearms, effectively pricing them out of the hands of some of those who need them most (people living in inner city areas with crime). If the law mandated that all firearms must have this technology then it would act as a form of poll tax. Even more so in California which already has ammo taxes, licences to buy ammo, etc.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

On a practical note, how effective would this be anyway? I'm guessing they're not going to demand that all existing guns be retrofitted with smart gun technology. How many "new" smart guns would have to be produced and sold to even come close to equaling the number of existing "dumb" guns that are out there? And how many criminals carry the latest and greatest gun on the market? I am loathe to quote Hillary, but "At this point, what difference does it make?"

 

[Cameramonkey]

On a practical note, how effective would this be anyway? I'm guessing they're not going to demand that all existing guns be retrofitted with smart gun technology. How many "new" smart guns would have to be produced and sold to even come close to equaling the number of existing "dumb" guns that are out there? And how many criminals carry the latest and greatest gun on the market? I am loathe to quote Hillary, but "At this point, what difference does it make?"

According to NPR? approximately 357 million guns.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

According to NPR? approximately 357 million guns.

I wonder how many YEARS of production it would take to produce 357 million guns... and that's just to "catch up" so to speak.

 

[Plague421]

New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law

The name is just one step towards driving mandatory smart guns. Last year, legislators tried to make it mandatory for gun sellers to display at lest one. N.J. lawmakers act to put a 'smart gun' in every gun shop | NJ.com

That is amazing. Do these people expect to be trusted and taken seriously when they do things like that?
I had no idea that you could pass a law regulating something without knowing how it works, and that isn't being used/sold or manufactured yet. That is just astounding!
Then they turn around and say "well maybe that law is a bit too restrictive. We'll just go ahead and repeal it right quick and pass this new law. This one is better."
Way to demonstrate how easily you can manipulate legislation to fit your agenda. Are we supposed to believe that they wouldn't do the same thing with added restrictions later on once smart-guns become widely accepted?
What a joke....

Anybody else notice that no matter how automated and fly by wire our cars are going, braking systems are still based on the old fashioned, manual master cylinders? (and things like ABS fight against the manual pressure) If technology is so safe and foolproof, why isnt my brake pedal electronic?

That right there should tell you why we shouldnt have smart guns.

I see your point but I don't agree with your analogy. lol
A few manufacturers have that auto-braking thing that's supposed to prevent accidents. Wouldn't that require some form of electronic braking?

Regardless we are talking about 2 very different systems here. Braking isn't simply ON/OFF like the smart-guns are.
Varying amounts of pressure on the pedal equates to varying amounts of friction applied to the rotors. (obviously)
If braking in a car only needed a simple ON/OFF all or nothing application of friction to the rotors then quite likely they would have been electronically controlled a long time ago.

With that being said, even car manufacturers understand that there are circumstances in which automatic braking systems need to be disabled. This is a clip from the wiki on automatic braking:

Many vehicles are provided with the option of turning on or off the automatic system based on their surroundings.

It stands to reason that the same can be said about smart-guns. But we all know lawmakers won't see it that way.

---

In light of this new evidence that politicians are already abusing smart-gun legislation before any smart-guns are even being sold or manufactured.
I hereby officially rescind my previous opinions pertaining to smart-guns and all technology associated with them.

Don't want them, don't need them.

 

[pudly]

In light of this new evidence that politicians are already abusing smart-gun legislation before any smart-guns are even being sold or manufactured.
I hereby officially rescind my previous opinions pertaining to smart-guns and all technology associated with them.

Don't want them, don't need them.

Repped for being willing to take in the additional info and change your mind. In theory, smart guns would be part of the market already, but it isn't the NRA that is holding them back. It is the limitations of the technology itself and historically justified concerns about abuses by government that is keeping them from being much farther along.

 

[HoughMade]

Someday someone will make a so-called smart gun that will be as reliable as the old tech. The fight should never be against technology. It needs to be against government mandate

...and why do new cars still have dual cylinder hydraulic brakes? Government mandate.

 

[pudly]

Someday someone will make a so-called smart gun that will be as reliable as the old tech. The fight should never be against technology. It needs to be against government mandate

Never happen. Far too many versions of this tech have a designed-in "can be disabled by someone other than the owner" feature. That "feature" by definition makes it less reliably available when most needed.

 

[HoughMade]

Never happen. Far too many versions of this tech have a designed-in "can be disabled by someone other than the owner" feature. That "feature" by definition makes it less reliably available when most needed.

When it comes to technological problems "never" isn't a smart bet.

 

[pudly]

When it comes to technological problems "never" isn't a smart bet.

I'd have absolutely no problem laying that bet. I'm relying on the fact that technology is not the only factor involved. Current experience shows that even when you have good technological solutions (like encryption), then government will push to dictate weakening or finding ways around the technology using any means possible.

 

[Plague421]

Repped for being willing to take in the additional info and change your mind. In theory, smart guns would be part of the market already, but it isn't the NRA that is holding them back. It is the limitations of the technology itself and historically justified concerns about abuses by government that is keeping them from being much farther along.

I try to keep an open mind and discuss things objectively.
I'm never afraid to admit being wrong or changing my opinion, especially when there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Before I read those links I was under the impression that the "mandatory smart-gun laws" were just a likely prediction.
I had no idea they were making them already. Which I think is absurd.

Passing laws with blind conviction making unproven technology mandatory is reckless.
With all the "real world" testing that hasn't been done, and just blindly assuming they are going to work, no reasonable person would support these laws.
3 years is not a long enough testing period, I would say absolute minimum would be 5 years, 10 years would probably be best.
That should provide ample time to gather enough statistical data and draw an informed conclusion on smart-gun effectiveness.

 

[88E30M50]

As cars get smarter, drivers become dumber. It's the law of human nature to put as little energy into producing an outcome as possible. The idea that smarter cars allows people to become better drivers is unfortunately wrong. Instead of being able to focus on improving situational awareness and increasing driver skill, smart cars have allowed more texting, eating, reading the newspaper and putting makeup on. The smarter the car, the dumber the driver behind its wheel.

The same thing will happen with guns. Make a smart gun and you will also create dumb shooters. You will have jackwads trying to demonstrate how smart the gun is by pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger. All sense of responsibility for gun safety will be dumped on the smart gun manufacturers as idiots buy the things thinking they don't need those silly old 4 rules, if they had even heard of them in the first place.

If you want safe gun owners, you need to teach gun safety. It should start in elementary school and be a part of the curriculum right through high school. If you want to really have fantastic gun safety, put public service messages on TV talking about the 4 rules just as they exist today regarding texting while driving. You don't get safety through a gadget, you get it through training to be safe.

 

[OakRiver]

I had no idea that you could pass a law regulating something without knowing how it works

At least they are consistent. They keep passing firearm legislation without understanding how they work, or the existing legal landscape (the shoulder thing that goes up, the ghost guns of DeLeon, the claim that any gun bought online bypasses background checks, etc.)

 

[Cameramonkey]

I see your point but I don't agree with your analogy. lol
A few manufacturers have that auto-braking thing that's supposed to prevent accidents. Wouldn't that require some form of electronic braking?

Regardless we are talking about 2 very different systems here. Braking isn't simply ON/OFF like the smart-guns are.
Varying amounts of pressure on the pedal equates to varying amounts of friction applied to the rotors. (obviously)
If braking in a car only needed a simple ON/OFF all or nothing application of friction to the rotors then quite likely they would have been electronically controlled a long time ago.

With that being said, even car manufacturers understand that there are circumstances in which automatic braking systems need to be disabled. This is a clip from the wiki on automatic braking:

My overall point is that braking systems are designed to default to safe*: Hydraulic systems rely on simple mechanical forces not prone to failure to work. (just like a gun 's trigger, connector, etc) Electronic emergency braking systems wont cause the car to not stop if they fail because they arent required for the braking system to operate. (normal stops, not computer initiated crash avoidance)

Smart gun tech however is designed to do the opposite: NOT work as the default condition. If I lose electrical power in a smart gun, it wont work. The most basic mechanical vs. electronic aspect of core brake operations was my point. They wouldnt make braking systems rely on electronics/electricity to work so making guns operate on the same principle is also a bad idea.

Besides, the more complex you make something, the more likely it is to fail.

*I consider the gun working to save my life as a default state of "safe".

 

[Frosty]

My overall point is that braking systems are designed to default to safe*".

I think a better example is air brakes. If you lose enough air pressure your emergency brakes are applied stopping the vehicle. If something in the hydraulic brake system fails your SOL unless your emergency brake works and your calm enough to use it correctly. Regardless, I see the point your making, and my thinking is if they are so safe let's give them to our police officers first, cause I really don't see that going over well!