# Why the opposition to "smart" guns? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867 "2013-01-31T01:44:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![shoe\_in97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ba0ec/32.png) [@shoe\_in97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shoe_in97)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/281 "2013-02-12T16:26:23Z")
They are being marketed as a safer alternative, to keep bad guys from using them, and not much is being said about, oh yeah, and we (whoever’s in power, or whoever has the tech to do so) can disable them whenever we want. I would consider that a major fuck up of my weapon. Depending on your outlook, you might consider our current government officials trustworthy, but who’s to say what’s coming down the line. “At the end of a century that has seen unspeakable horrors from the unbridled powers of governments, you would think that people would understand how important it is to keep federal powers from constantly expanding. Even in totalitarian countries, dictatorial powers did not suddenly appear overnight. The central government’s powers just kept steadily growing, using claims to be meeting some particular need or crisis – until, finally, freedom was all gone.” (Sowell, Thomas, Ignorance of freedom, Jewish World Review (May 19, 2000) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/282 "2013-02-12T23:48:58Z")
> [@shoe\_in97](#): > > They are being marketed as a safer alternative, to keep bad guys from using them, and not much is being said about, oh yeah, and we (whoever’s in power, or whoever has the tech to do so) can disable them whenever we want. I would consider that a major fuck up of my weapon. > Depending on your outlook, you might consider our current government officials trustworthy, but who’s to say what’s coming down the line. > “At the end of a century that has seen unspeakable horrors from the unbridled powers of governments, you would think that people would understand how important it is to keep federal powers from constantly expanding. Even in totalitarian countries, dictatorial powers did not suddenly appear overnight. The central government’s powers just kept steadily growing, using claims to be meeting some particular need or crisis – until, finally, freedom was all gone.” > (Sowell, Thomas, Ignorance of freedom, Jewish World Review (May 19, 2000) I don’t think they are being marketed at all. The only ones I’ve been able to find that are commercially available are magnetic and seem to work the same way that Tot-Loks do to keep kids out of cabinets and drawers. It might be a bit more personalized than that but I’m not sure how much you can personalize a magnet. I don’t think the government has the ability to fuck with the laws of electromagnetics yet. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2016, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/283 "2016-11-18T18:05:52Z")
Bumping this old thread because the [DOJ has just released its _ **baseline** _ specifications](https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250377.pdf) for what law enforcement would require for pistols with smartgun technology. Many folks in this thread previously stated that when law enforcement adopts the tech they would be more inclined to do so. Here are the requirements regarding the safety features: > [@](#): > > **4.18 Security devices** > 4.18.1 Pistols shall have an integrated “lock-out” security device as a permanent part of the pistol that disables the firing mechanism except when in the control of authorized individuals. > 4.18.2 The security device shall be understood to include any externally worn items, such as rings, wristbands, or tokens that perform functions associated with the security device > 4.18.3 The security device shall include a programmable authorization system that can be set to allow one or more operators to fire the pistol. > 4.18.4 The security device shall not inhibit the operator from firing in either hand, one-handed or two-handed, with and without gloves, in any orientation. > 4.18.5 The security device shall not alter the normal operation of grasping and firing the pistol as a pistol of the same design that is not equipped with the security device. > 4.18.6 The security device shall not increase the time required by the operator to grasp, draw from a holster, and fire the pistol as a pistol of the same design that is not equipped with the security device. > 4.18.7 The security device shall not emit audible sounds or visible signals. > 4.18.8 If the security device may be susceptible to electromagnetic interference, either intentional or unintentional, the device shall be equipped with countermeasure detection technology that permits the operator to fire the gun when an attempt to block the authorization process is detected. > 4.18.9 The security device shall covertly indicate when the pistol is ready to fire. > 4.18.10 If the security device uses batteries, the batteries can be rechargeble but shall be replaceable. > 4.18.11 Low power to the security device shall be indicated covertly with sufficient time to safely take action. > 4.18.12 If the security device malfunctions, it shall default to a state to allow the pistol to fire. > 4.18.13 The security device should be easy for an operator to quickly reset or disengage if there is a malfunction. Interesting to note is that the requirements state that if the security device malfunctions, it should default to allow the weapon to be fired. The security should also be easy for an operator to disengage upon malfunction. The ability to determine if the weapon is ready to fire should be covertly indicated, but not emit any audible sounds or visible signals. Not sure what is left - tactile? But the weapon also needs to be able to be used while wearing gloves. Hopefully the indication wont be by smell or taste. The batteries need to be removeable, and when they are removed since the default is to allow to fire then that doesn’t seem very effective. Here is the baseline standard for reliability: > [@](#): > > 5.2.1 Pistols shall exhibit a mean overall malfunction or failure rate of no greater than 1 in 2,000, or shall exhibit a mean rounds between failure of no less than 2,000. > 5.2.2 Pistols shall be durable and exhibit no failures due to wear or damage for a total of 10,000 rounds. Parts may be replaced in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification for regular preventative maintenance. The replacement of parts per the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule does not constitute a parts failure. This durability specification also applies to the security device on the pistol as well as any periphery devices that may be required to be used with the security device. So failure rate of 1 in 2000 is the minimum standard, or 0.05%. So as of today’s current technology - the acceptable baseline smart gun is magic. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2016, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/284 "2016-11-18T20:10:29Z")
> [@](#): > > 4.18.12 If the security device malfunctions, it shall default to a state to allow the pistol to fire. > 4.18.13 The security device should be easy for an operator to quickly reset or disengage if there is a malfunction. Doesn’t this automatically make it a _non_-security device? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/285 "2016-11-18T22:08:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Bumping this old thread because the [DOJ has just released its _ **baseline** _ specifications](https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250377.pdf) for what law enforcement would require for pistols with smartgun technology. Many folks in this thread previously stated that when law enforcement adopts the tech they would be more inclined to do so. > > Here are the requirements regarding the safety features: > Interesting to note is that the requirements state that if the security device malfunctions, it should default to allow the weapon to be fired. The security should also be easy for an operator to disengage upon malfunction. The ability to determine if the weapon is ready to fire should be covertly indicated, but not emit any audible sounds or visible signals. Not sure what is left - tactile? But the weapon also needs to be able to be used while wearing gloves. Hopefully the indication wont be by smell or taste. The batteries need to be removeable, and when they are removed since the default is to allow to fire then that doesn’t seem very effective. > > Here is the baseline standard for reliability: > So failure rate of 1 in 2000 is the minimum standard, or 0.05%. > > So as of today’s current technology - the acceptable baseline smart gun is magic. 1 in 2000? I don’t think we can get much better than 1 in 100 right now. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2016, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/286 "2016-11-18T23:47:20Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > If you read the stats from earlier in the thread, you’d see 850 accidental shooting deaths/year. If biometrics can prevent even 25% of those, then we save 200+ lives/year. Where did 25% come from? Was it a WAG, or did you read somewhere that 25% of accidental shootings are by unauthorized users? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2016, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/287 "2016-11-19T00:15:45Z")
> [@shoe\_in97](#): > > What about the chips in these smart guns that would enable the gun to be disabled when it comes within range of a sensor (schools, govt building, hosp) or whenever the govt feels like it… I’d never buy such a weapon with a disabling chip in it. I suspect those “sensors” (transmitters really) would be hot commodities for home invasion crews and criminals of all sorts (how fantastic would it be if you could put a gizmo like a radar detectors in your car and know that the police wouldn’t be able to shoot you because it would disable all the guns in the area. ETA: Also consider the implications of terrorists getting their hands on them. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/288 "2016-11-21T15:03:13Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > See above re: brandishing. > > As for the kill-rate, I’m quite certain it’s low. But the number of justified homicides was in the low hundreds; the kill rate would need to be 1% or 2% to get the number of shootings. I’ll freely admit to arguing largely from ignorance here, and I’ll defer to those with experience, but I’m certain that I, despite having fired a pistol 3 times in my life, have a better than 2% chance of killing someone I point a handgun at. > > Note also that I was lowballing the estimate of the percentage of accidental shootings that could be prevent. My understanding is that it’s physically impossible for a child to fire the gun if he gets his hands on it, which suggests the percentage of incidents prevented could be much higher. The “kill rate” is about 1 in 7 if you actually hit the guy. The chances of hitting the guy seem to be a bit better. Police officers hit their target about a fifth to a third of the time (soldiers fire about a quarter million bullets for each enemy combatant killed). So a weapons discharge has maybe a 1 in 20 to 1 in 35 chance of killing someone. There are about 60 accidental deaths per year of children under 14 that we can assume are unauthorized gun uses. the 15-19 group is looked at differently because the rate of “accidental” self inflicted fatal wound jumps at this age, and its not because these kids are more accident prone than 10 or 12 year olds. The number of justifiable homicides is estimated to be about 500 per year (if the recent focus on cops shooting black men has done anything it has shown us that justifiable homicide numbers were far higher than we suspected based on FBI reported data. There are some numbers for you. So can guess that weapons are discharged about 10000 to 20000 times in self defense every year. If the gunsafe technology fails 1% of the time, you have 100-200 instances where someone needed to their gun to go bang and it didn’t. On the other hand we have at about 60 kids who dies form accidental discharge every year, perhaps some of them at the hands of the authorized user. 1% is starting to look like its too high. A 1 in 20,000 failure rate supported by the Department of Justice would make it a no brainer for me but the other parameters (like being easily disabled) probably make it less useful for your purposes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867.md?page=14)