# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**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:** [January 31, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/81 "2013-01-31T16:23:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Assuming proper maintenance – which includes battery changes at prescribed intervals – less than 0.1%. Then for consistancy’s sake I can see why you would want a biometric gun to have the same failure rate. The fact that they can get your safe down to that failure rate indicates that it is possible to get gun biometrics down to that level too, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/82 "2013-01-31T16:27:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Then for consistancy’s sake I can see why you would want a biometric gun to have the same failure rate. The fact that they can get your safe down to that failure rate indicates that it is possible to get gun biometrics down to that level too, in my opinion. And when they do, the world will beat a path to their door, led by police departments. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/83 "2013-01-31T16:29:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Then for consistancy’s sake I can see why you would want a biometric gun to have the same failure rate. The fact that they can get your safe down to that failure rate indicates that it is possible to get gun biometrics down to that level too, in my opinion. Gun safes don’t have to deal with recoil forces, gunpowder residue and violently moving parts. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/84 "2013-01-31T16:30:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I know a lot of people that have contacts but not glasses-the fact that you find the possibility surprising surprises me. It surprises me very, very much. Do these people you know also have a gun for self defense? Why don’t you ask THEM what they do. I always had a pair of glasses, until I just switched over to the contacts that I can sleep in which is very common now. (I also ended up getting lasic). ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/85 "2013-01-31T16:30:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The fact that they can get your safe down to that failure rate indicates that it is possible to get gun biometrics down to that level too, in my opinion. Great. Why don’t you go ahead and do it then. You’ll be a millionaire when all the police departments start buying your technology. Biometric safes to guns is like mainframe computers to smartphones. In addition to being much larger, you don’t do any of the following things with your safe that you do with your gun: Carry it around with you. Get it wet. Shoot bullets out of it. Sorry but I don’t think I’ll be investing in your new company. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/86 "2013-01-31T16:32:40Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > And when they do, the world will beat a path to their door, led by police departments. Would a 1 in a thousand failure rate be acceptable to you? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/87 "2013-01-31T16:33:41Z")
Damn. Beaten to the punch by two people. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/88 "2013-01-31T16:34:27Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > “smart guns” do not exist. It is a scam to attract investment and research grant $$. . I disagree that it’s a scam. I think it’s simpler than that: it’s a desirable technology that’s very, very hard to implement. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we have reliable smart guns at some point in the future. But we don’t have them now, because now the available technology’s just not up to the job. We’ll know smart guns are ready for prime time when the police start using them. Once the police are ready to trust their lives to smart gun technology, I’ll follow in their footsteps. But not before. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/89 "2013-01-31T16:37:46Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > It surprises me very, very much. Do these people you know also have a gun for self defense? Why don’t you ask THEM what they do. > > I always had a pair of glasses, until I just switched over to the contacts that I can sleep in which is very common now. (I also ended up getting lasic). That’s your personal experience…but I only have _my_ personal experience, and since I ask questions to find answers, and not to reaffirm an already held opinion, I started a poll in IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/90 "2013-01-31T16:45:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Would a 1 in a thousand failure rate be acceptable to you? Once the technology had been vetted and implemented across the board by a majority of law enforcement agencies, it would be good enough for me. I’m not going to go out and retrofit all of my guns or anything however. I would also insist on a few million hours usage in the field as well. Lab testing just wont cut it. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/91 "2013-01-31T16:46:17Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That’s your personal experience…but I only have _my_ personal experience, and since I ask questions to find answers, and not to reaffirm an already held opinion, I started a poll in IMHO. So far, six people in my office wear contacts, they all have glasses too. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/92 "2013-01-31T16:47:34Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > And when they do, the world will beat a path to their door, led by police departments. I hate to interrupt the latest endless gun thread, but I think the OP was asking about why gun manufacturers have been boycotted for pursuing this technology. If that’s the case (and I haven’t researched it), then the technology won’t be pursued. Can we agree that boycotts of gun manufacturers will delay rather than expedite the development of smart guns? I’d love to hear a discussion of why such boycotts make sense. Is it the fear that, if working reliable smart guns are developed, they will be mandated? ---
**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:** [January 31, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/93 "2013-01-31T16:48:31Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > So far, six people in my office wear contacts, they all have glasses too. Same pattern in the poll so far. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/94 "2013-01-31T16:50:22Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I hate to interrupt the latest endless gun thread, but I think the OP was asking about why gun manufacturers have been boycotted for pursuing this technology. If that’s the case (and I haven’t researched it), then the technology won’t be pursued. > > Can we agree that boycotts of gun manufacturers will delay rather than expedite the development of smart guns? > > I’d love to hear a discussion of why such boycotts make sense. Is it the fear that, if working reliable smart guns are developed, they will be mandated? That’s pretty much it. California already has a law on the books that only allows the sale of smart guns once the tech hits the market. I believe the law does expire by a certain date if no such guns exist. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/95 "2013-01-31T16:51:13Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > I would agree that it would have to have the ability to program in multiple validated users. It might also be good to have an “override code” that would allow the smart gun to be temporarily turned into a dumb gun. That would take care of the “I want to take my friend to the range and introduce him to shooting” situation, and would also allow police officers to fire each others’ guns in an emergency. (The police department could change to override code on a regular basis to keep the criminals from figuring it out.) ---
**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:** [January 31, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/96 "2013-01-31T16:58:21Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > It might also be good to have an “override code” that would allow the smart gun to be temporarily turned into a dumb gun. That would take care of the “I want to take my friend to the range and introduce him to shooting” situation, and would also allow police officers to fire each others’ guns in an emergency. (The police department could change to override code on a regular basis to keep the criminals from figuring it out.) Sounds like a good idea for those who choose to share their weapon. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/97 "2013-01-31T16:58:47Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > That’s pretty much it. California already has a law on the books that only allows the sale of smart guns once the tech hits the market. That’s too bad, since the unintended effect of such laws is to keep the early-stage tech from hitting the market at all, where it could gradually be improved. I’m sure some recreational shooters would be interested in experimenting with “smart gun” technology (since it doesn’t matter quite as much if the gun jams while at the shooting range, and there are definite benefits to having a gun your kids can’t fire if they somehow get their hands on it); let them work out the bugs in the technology over time, and it might eventually get reliable enough to satisfy pretty much everybody (including the police). ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/98 "2013-01-31T16:59:13Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > That’s pretty much it. California already has a law on the books that only allows the sale of smart guns once the tech hits the market. I believe the law does expire by a certain date if no such guns exist. Thanks. With such a law in place, I could understand why gun owners could be leery of that kind of development and be worried about proper testing and workarounds. Those kinds of laws, if they ever make sense, should only be passed once the proper technology exists and has been proven reliable and workable. There do seem to be some use for a well-designed and reliable smart gun system, and it’s a shame that this kind of law may be encouraging boycotts of any gun manufacturer that pursues that technology. I agree that law enforcement agencies would find the technology (reliable, etc.) useful. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/99 "2013-01-31T17:05:13Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I hate to interrupt the latest endless gun thread, but I think the OP was asking about why gun manufacturers have been boycotted for pursuing this technology. If that’s the case (and I haven’t researched it), then the technology won’t be pursued. Well the last major boycott against S&W was due to a whole host of issues, not just smart gun tech. They were owned by a British company who chose to sell out to the Clinton Administration in order to keep in the running for government contracts. I linked a post earlier in this thread. Colt decided to tell the civilian market to go fuck themselves so people naturally started moving away from their products. Their look into safe tech also was only one of many issues. > [@](#): > > Can we agree that boycotts of gun manufacturers will delay rather than expedite the development of smart guns? Perhaps, but I see minimal advantage to smart guns. I wouldn’t boycott a company for pursuing it, but I am not going to go buy it until it is proven. > [@](#): > > I’d love to hear a discussion of why such boycotts make sense. Is it the fear that, if working reliable smart guns are developed, they will be mandated? I stated earlier, the boycotts that I am familiar with with over many issues not just smart guns. The concern is that the tech will be mandated without thorough testing and reliability standards in place. It is clear in this thread alone that those who may use firearms to defend themselves are not content with current reliability results while those who are not gun owners couldn’t care less. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/100 "2013-01-31T17:06:48Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Thanks. With such a law in place, I could understand why gun owners could be leery of that kind of development and be worried about proper testing and workarounds. Those kinds of laws, if they ever make sense, should only be passed once the proper technology exists and has been proven reliable and workable. There was also an attempt a few years ago to only allow guns that could “microstamp” each bullet so it could be later matched to the gun. This ignored the fact that microstamping in gun was impossible and didn’t exist. Plus the fact that a bullet is often mangled when hitting a target. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867.md?page=6)