Is a reliable handgun that can be fired only by the owner feasible with 2014 technology?

Factual Questions
61

But this has nothing to do with Smartgun technology. As you, yourself, point out:

You are somehow missing the point of Smartguns. The data in your cite is mostly about how having gun in the home is more dangerous than not having one because there are more suicides and instances of the owner using the gun against a family member or accidentally shooting someone while cleaning it or handling it irresponsibly. Or where a child gets ahold of the firearm and accidentally shoots himself or sibling.
There is technology available that prevents many of these instances. Gun locks, trigger locks, safes, etc. These would prevent a large number of such accidents. The only thing they wouldn’t prevent are the suicides by the actual owner or the intentional violence against family members. But, of course, Smartguns wouldn’t prevent that either.

The point of Smartgun technology is to prevent an assalaint from gaining control of someone’s firearm during a scuffle and then using that firearm against said someone. This is the only purpose for Smartgun technology that cannot be accomplished with other, simpler methods.
Because the number of instances where a firearm is wrestled away from the victim and then used against him are so low compared to instances where the owner fires it at someone, the failure rate that people are concerned with is the gun failing to fire when needed.
Smartgun technology is not for preventing your child from getting into your guns. Its to prevent the person you are already pulling a gun on from violently removing the gun from your hands and then shooting you with it. It is also to prevent someone from pulling a loaded weapon out of your holster during a scuffle and then turning it on you.
Are these instances so prevalent in society that Smargun technology actually makes any sense? If they do happen often enough to warrant the need for the technology, does the technology exist today to design a practical system that has close to a zero chance of failing to fire when the owner intends to fire it in defense of his/her own life.

62

Again - I think there is a misunderstanding here. The “non-madatory” point I’m making has nothing to do with mandatory firearm ownership. It is making the technology mandatory in new and/or existing firearm purchases. CA has done this. Does that make sense now? Your responses to this point have made it seem like I wasn’t clear enough but hopefully this is moreso.

Because when I’m awakened suddenly I don’t want to have to fumble with a device. Because not all devices would be condusive to all environments. Because an authorized user of the firearm may not have the device available. Because more devices means more points of failure.

No problem. This is more trying to head off the idea that existing guns would need to be retrofitted. If there are entirely new models, then the point is mooted. This is assuming both types of weapons would be available. What it would mean is that these weapons would not be purchased, which is fine with me.

63

By all means, don’t! Fumbling with a device when awakened suddenly could be disastrous. But if you’re not using your gun, then you obviously don’t need the ring.

64

I’m not sure if you’re being serious looking for actual discussion, or are trying to be cute. Let me know and I’ll respond accordingly.

I’ll reiterate to be more clear - Essentially if I have to access a firearm immeidately I want to do it with as little superfluous actions as posssible. An external device frustrates this goal. Therefore, requiring an external device is a deal breaker, for me. I understand you may disagree, but you asked me to elaborate, which I’ve done in good faith.

65

Data that is actually relevant:

According to the 2012 Uniformed Crime Report on police officers feloniously killed-
Out of 48 total killed on duty,
44 were killed by firearms
1 of those was the officer’s own pistol.

One.

66

My firearms have a 0% failure rate of being fired by unauthorized persons because when they are not physically in my hand they are trigger locked and kept in a safe. While in principal I’m not against a device that would prevent unauthorized use it would have to be proven to be 100% reliable before I would consider using one. Why? Because outside of the range if I need to use my firearm it is to defend my life or the lives of my family. I will not accept a failure rate of even one in ten thousand. Because I can’t afford for that failure to happen when my life is on the line.

Chances I’ll ever be in that situation are extremely slim, but if I am I need to know that my weapon will work, period.

And yes, there is a slim chance that my firearm could malfunction in its current state, adding another failure point doesn’t make sense.

67

And according to Politifact, similar data for civilians having their own guns used against them does not exist. The majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides. So politicians will say that a person is more likely to be killed by their own gun, which is obviously misleading. Smartguns would not prevent suicide.

68

How do you put the trigger lock back on when someone takes the gun from you?

69

**Chronos **- Can I take that as a “no” to the question if you are looking for actual discussion?

70

You don’t. That isn’t what they are for. A better question for you is "when does someone actually ever take the gun from someone and shoot them with it? Is that really such a problem that requires a solution? If it almost never, ever happens, what is the point in wasting time, money and resources to “prevent” it?

71

In 2011, there were 72 cops killed on duty. 3 of them were killed with their own gun.
In 2010, it was 7 out of 56.
2009: 2 in 48.
2008: 4 in 41.
2007: 2 in 57.
2006: 0 in 48.
2005: 0 in 55.
2004: 0 in 57.
2003: 0 in 52.
2002: 0 in 56.
2001 (Not including 9/11 deaths): 1 in 70.
2000: 0 in 51.
1999: 0 in 42.
1998: 0 in 61.
1997: 1 in 70.

I am not going to look up all of the data on how often police use their pistols, but I think we can agree that it is a huge number. Much bigger than the numbers above. In 2007, according to the USA Today citing FBI statistics, there were 391 justifiable police homicides. That is just when the victim died, and says nothing of how many were shot. 2 officers killed with their own gun, compared to 391 bad guys killed by cops.

This is precisely why “the objections to the idea seem to all be failures that prevent firing by the owner, and not failures that allow firing by someone not authorised” as Francis Vaughan noted upthread so perplexingly.

I can only find one article where a victim is killed by his own firearm (that isn’t a suicide, of course). That was from earlier this year. If there are tons more, I welcome people to find them, please. As it stands, I don’t believe that it happens often enough among private citizens to justify the need, and especially not the added risk of failure involved.
I have provided the numbers for the law enforcement side of the house. It definitely is not warranted based on these numbers when considering the additional risk of the pistol not firing when the officer needs it to.

72

This is about the worst idea expressed so far. In a combat situation, fine motor control goes out the window and this is about the worst notion for a retention system.

Again, the largest and most obvious market for this type of device would be law enforcement agencies, and in particular peace officers (i.e. patrol and protective duty officers) who carry weapons openly on a duty belt, have to confront potentially hostile perpetrators on a regular basis, and are most subject to attempts to take their duty weapon. If anyone were pressing to develop a firearm that prevented unauthorized usage, it would be law enforcement organizations. That there is not a widespread effort to develop this technology indicates that there is the perception that it would be insufficiently reliable or would cost too much to develop.

Stranger

73

I think we are simply using our very large, very smart, brains. If you can’t follow the logic, don’t worry about it, we didn’t expect you to.

74

LOL

75

Moderator Note

Let’s avoid the personal comments in GQ. No warning issued.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

76

While I’m not going to argue it’s a great idea, as I was pondering it, I was thinking about home recreational users and how to avoid accidental discharge or having the weapon used against the person.

77

No technology exists that could prevent an accidental discharge except mechanical safeties, and those only work when used by competent, sober gun owners. And only if they are actually used. Mechanical safeties of all types already exist and are as close to the 100% effective goal as you could even possibly get.
A smartgun would not prevent an accidental discharge, because once the person was holding the gun while wearing the ring or bracelet or whatever, that person would be required to handle the weapon with the same level of responsibility as a normal gun. The smartgun can only know if the owner is holding it. It won’t know if the owner is being irresponsible bafoon. It also won’t know that the owner is about to commit suicide, which is the manner in which most guns are used against the owner. They are used by the owner, against himself.

As for the second part: Technology may exist that could be capable of this. However, that is a solution without a problem. Guns are not often wrestled away from the owner and used against him. It hardly ever happens. More people die from roller coasters than from that scenario.

78

As far as the question in the OP,

I’m surprised the announcement a week back of a 17-yr-old getting a $50k grant for his research ’ integrating a biometric sensor into a firearm that requires an authorized user’s fingerprint to discharge’
Kai Kloepfer, a high school student from Boulder, Colorado, is the first benefactor of the $1 million Smart Tech for Firearms Challenge, which will award grants to a total of 15 innovators “who are working to improve firearm safety by developing personalization features in firearms, locking devices, and ammunition systems,” the foundation said in a release.
Right Wing

I disapprove, because if I wrastled a pistol away from some sneaking varmint and plunged the trigger as fast as possible the last thing I would want to find out was that it’s firing depended on his fingerprints.

Obviously one would with superhuman strength twist his arms, impel the gun into his reluctant fist and force him to shoot himself dead, but it’s all overhead.

I dunno, a few hours ago pace the Pistorius case ( about which I have no opinion ) I googled for accidental gun deaths usa mistaken intruder, which went as well as Google now searches, and there seem to be a number.

My eye was caught by this snippet:

When children unintentionally shoot themselves or other people, media reports typically follow. A three-year-old boy is playing with a gun and shoots himself in the face. A four-year-old girl discovers a gun and shoots her four-year-old cousin, killing him. A three-year-old boy shoots himself in the head. A five-year-old accidentally shoots a three-year-old girl. A five-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills himself. A four-year-old boy accidentally shoots himself. A two-year-old boy shoots and kills his 11-year-old sister. It goes on like this, story after story of unintentional shootings involving children that lead to injuries or deaths. (Many unintentional shootings of children occur when they are with people of similar ages, Vernick said, though many also involve children by themselves.)
Washington Post How often do children in the U.S. unintentionally shoot and kill people? We don’t know.

In that extract links are given for each case.
I kinda disapprove of two-yr-olds and four-yr-olds playing alone with loaded handguns. My parents never allowed me to pack heat until I was at least six.

79

If shots are not fired, the reliability of the smartgun tech is virtually irrelevant (as long as the tech does not broadcast an authorization failure in an obvious way). The technology merely has to be good enough to be a credible risk–even 50% would be sufficient.

80

Um - how would an ownership transfer be handled?

If it is a wearable, no problem. If it is something as smart as a fingerprint reader, it could maybe be re-programmed. And there is the problem.
One of the biggest reasons for such a system is to keep a stolen weapon from being used.
If the thing can be re-programmed, just how would you go about that? Only the dealer of original sale? No. I want to be able to move and still be able to sell the thing. Send to manufacturer with old and new prints? Yeah, they’re going to be wild about that one.
Anything easier, and the bad guys will take all of a week to duplicate the process.

An imbedded chip could be duplicated - only the manufacturer should know the key - a secured conversation would not be an unreasonable demand on the mfg’s time. At least that would require a month or two to find the right worker to bribe or extort (nice kid - want her to see her next birthday?).