Why the opposition to "smart" guns?

Great Debates
1

I read the other day that the development of “smart” guns (guns that can only be fired by a particular user, or by a user wearing a matching key device (usually a ring or bracelet)) has been seriously hampered because any arms manufacturer that works on the idea gets boycotted by the NRA and other groups.

Why do gun owners object to these devices?

The article cited one group as saying they’d make the guns much less useful for self-defense (gun locked to wife does hubby no good, and vice versa, difficulty of finding a ring or bracelet in the middle of the night, etc.). Is that really all there is to it? I find it hard to believe so many people would value being able to shoot a burglar over keeping their firearms from falling into the wrong hands (child, burglar that visits when nobody’s home, etc).

2

I think the main objection is that the technology doesn’t work. I’ve seen some people insist these guns are right around the corner and they’ll solve a lot of the problems that stem from stolen guns, but it sounds like this idea has been out there for decades and the technology is still not reliable. I’d like to see real cites for the claim that gun rights advocates are somehow stopping gun manufacturers from exploring this idea.

3

Right now, the best still has a failure rate of 1%. Way too high to be acceptable for a defensive weapon.

4

Is 1% too high? I would expect most peoples guns to malfunction more than that.

5

Here’s the article that prompted this thread. http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2020226675_apuspersonalizingthegun.html. It includes the following paragraphs. (I didn’t bother to verify them with an independent source.)

6

Very interesting. And for that matter even if a 1% failure rate is unacceptable, it’s better than I understood it to be- and it’s hard to see how much better it will get if the research is actively discouraged.

7

I’ve personally put about 5,000 rounds through my Glock without a failure.

With a properly maintained(and sometimes not even that) gun, ammo failure is more likely and even that seems to be (WAG) 1 in many thousands of rounds.

8

You bring up an interesting discussion. I can’t say that I have given it much thought, but will weigh in with my initial opinions. Before I get to that I will take issue with the phrasing of the statement above. I apologize if I have become too sensitive or if I have mis-interpeted your intent. Do you really think that those of us who own firearms and have them in our home to defend our families dream of and wait for the day when we get to shoot an intruder? I ask this because of phrasing “value being able to shoot a burglar”. You didn’t say, “value the ability to be able to defend one’s self and family against attack” or something similiar. I can assure you that the vast majority of gun owners including myself hope that we will never have to use our weapons against another human being. I have had guns most of my life and I thankfully never had to use one to defend myself. I will have no problem doing so if the situation calls for it, but I hope that I will live out the remainder of my life without ever having to use my weapon for home defense. What troubles me is the attempt of those on the anti-gun side of this debate creating an image of gun owners salvitating at the thought of being able to play Dirty Harry and blowing some bad guy away. This is a figment of the left’s imagination, so please stop doing it. As I said, if that wasn’t what was intended, I apologize.

As far as the electronic “smart” gun device, I guess if it was demonstrated to work perfectly 100% of the time then I would think that it wouldn’t be a bad idea, providing it was programable to accept multiple users. The biggest drawbacks that I can think of off the top of my head is the following:

1: If it is electronic, it’s battery powered. If it’s battery powered that means that at the exact moment I might need that gun to keep harm from coming to my family it might not work becuase of a dead battery. That alone makes me think that I wouldn’t want one on my firearm. Firearms are mechanical. Provided they are clean and maintained properly they will work when you pull the trigger. This provides a huge weak link and takes the reliebility out of something that should be 100% reliable.

2: As you mentioned in your OP, if the braclet, ring or whatever cannot be programmed to allow multiple authorized users it would be a no go for me. I am not always at home, sometimes my wife is her either by herself or with the kids. Having a defense weapon that is useless to her because I had to go to the store is asinine. That alone would make me fight it tooth and nail.

3: If it has a fail rate of 1%, it is too high and rules out inclusion on a defensive weapon. If your and your family’s safety is a stake the method of defense has to be 100% every single time. Do guns jam? Yes, but rarely if you take the time to clean your weapon and use quality ammunition. The jamming rate of a clean, quality weapon using premium ammuntion is well below 1%. Like the poster above, I have fired thousands of rounds through my rifle and have experienced only one or two jams.

At this point those are really the only two objections that I would have, but I have only given the subject limited thought. I agree that we should do all we can to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of people that shouldn’t have them. A problem that was so tragically highlighted during the Sandy Hook school shootings. Why on Earth Lanza’s mother didn’t have her guns secure is beyond me. She knew that her son was having mental issues, it was her responsibility to secure those weapons so he, nor anyone else couldn’t have access to them.

I, like most gun owners I know, am a responsible owner. We have children in our house and I will do everything I can to prevent them from having access to my firearms. All of my weapons are either trigger or cable locked, preventing them from firing. On top of that each one is kept lock securely inside a safe designed specifically for guns. This would keep a burglar from stealing my firearms if he should gain access to my home. Does this measure of safety impede my getting acess to my guns during an emergency. Yes, slightly. However it is something I have weighed in my mind and decided that the slight delay in gaining access to my guns is worth the piece of mind. Granted, in my case I don’t really think it would make much difference. Anyone attempting to gain acess to my home will be detected by Gunner the Great Dane and Carson the German Shepard. Their early warning system will allow me the time to retrieve my weapon, long before entry is made. And quite honestly, if someone is willing to enter my home despite the sound of two very large dogs they are certainly a “clear and present danger”. If they make the decision to come through my doorway or through my window knowing those dogs are there, then I have to assume that they mean myself and my family harm. I will not hesitate nor feel any remorse for unloading into their center of mass. They were warned, they choose to cross the line, they will pay the price.

But once again, I hope that this scenario is something I never have to encounter. In a perfect world we wouldn’t be having this discussion because we would never have to be concerned that another person would be willing to harm us. Sadly, we don’t live in that world. It is up to each and everyone of us to take measures to protect themselves and their families. Hope you never have to use your firearm, but don’t hesitate if the time comes and you have to.

9

Once you’ve got a stolen gun at home to work on, couldn’t you disable the locking mechanism?

10

So some gun owners would find the device acceptable, but only if it worked 100% of the time?
I don’t suppose any of you who agree with this apply this standard to all other devices you use?

11

Well, parachutes . . .

12

I’d be pulling numbers out of my ass, but I’d expect a good gun with good ammunition, especially a combination you’ve tested together before, to fail maybe once out of every 10-20 thousand attempts to fire on average. The best guns less. So yeah, 1% is several orders of magnitude greater than the expected failure rate of the gun.

If I ever shoot someone, it will because it was absolutely necesary to protect life. I’m not looking to shoot at phantom noises I hear in the middle of the night, or for that matter a guy who’s just robbing my house but has no hostile intent. So a failure for the gun to fire when I actually pull the trigger will occur in the most extreme and most dangerous situation I can face. Whereas only a fraction of stolen guns will ever result in a lost life. As such, having a gun fire when you pull the trigger outweighs the more diffuse threat that a stolen gun in circulation presents.

If my laundry machine or blender fails, the situation is usually less urgent and dire.

13

Only to devices that I may use to save my life.

14

Here is the press release that announced the sellout by S&W. The reason for the boycott was for many other reasons than the development of smart gun technology.

LINK

15

Like seat belts, bike helmets, safety rails, airbags in vehicles…if I tried to list all the safety devices we have in our society that aren’t perfectly effective but are in use by you and me it would take all day.

16

Are those items less than perfectly effective because they’ve deliberately added a mechanism to them which reduces their effectiveness? Was the public asked if they approved of such a mechanism to be added, and the public collectively decided that it was okay? Then we might have an analogy.

17

Not including guns, then.

18

And if you DO have a failure, 90% of the time it can be rapidly fixed by simply racking the slide. I suspect the sort of failure the smart gun exhibits that 1% of the time when it doesn’t fire isn’t as easily dealt with.

19

Pretty much this. The only really useful application of a “smart gun” would be a concealed carry piece, or a police duty weapon, where there is some possibility that in an altercation the gun might fall into the wrong hands, and all the device has to do is prevent the gun from being fired right now.

20

No, I don’t. But I don’t rely on my iPod to potentially save my life. But like someone else said, guns, parachutes, car brakes and the like require 100% reliability. Nothing else is acceptable, suggesting otherwise is a ridiculous assertion.