# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/101 "2013-01-31T17:13:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > OF those who say they need almost instant access to their weapon because time is of the essence in the case of a home break-in, how many wear contact lenses? Do they they stop in the bathroom to put the lenses in first? I can see well enough to see the person in the doorway 8 feet from my pillow. Although I will admit that the argument ‘it might be your husband/roomie’ sounds compelling, I know both of their movement sounds, and they both tend to do specific things when they come into the house, and I doubt the illegal entrant would announce themselves with a hearty Hey Honey or Hey Rue. I do have a switch by the bed that turns on the living room lights [the bedroom light is a touch lamp by the bed] I will also admit the last use [other than target shooting] of my gun was to shoot a dog harassing my sheep. I used what people would consider an assault weapon. :rolleyes: > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Let’s say “smart” guns are perfected so as to be more reliable than the gun itself, say 99.99%. Are there any _other_ objections to its use? Nope. Though I would prefer if the tweak fails it not brick the weapon and just let anybody shoot it. > [@Bricker](#): > > A person who wears contact lenses typically also has glasses, and in an emergency would presumably uses the glasses rather than dashing into the bathroom to get their contacts in. > ! Most contact wearers I know also have glasses, and the few that don’t use extended wear lenses they don’t take 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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/102 "2013-01-31T17:20:06Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Nope. Though I would prefer if the tweak fails it not brick the weapon and just let anybody shoot it. I’m torn between that outcome and thinking that a thief could easily disable the lock by hitting the electronics with a hard object. [/QUOTE] ---
**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:** [January 31, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/103 "2013-01-31T17:37:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not sure I know the answer – but since 1% is at least two orders of magnitude away from actual gun failure rates now, i don’t need to know what rate WOULD be acceptable to know that 1% is not acceptable. > > I’d say one-tenth of that rate – a failure rate of 0.1% – is in the ballpark. That tells me that 999 times out of a thousand, I’m OK. Maybe I mitigate that by having two guns in play, and life is good. > > I already accept some small failure rate by the fact that my bedside gun is in a biometric safe. Bricker - try a Titan Gun Vault. Quick access, no batteries, all mechanical. I opted for this because the failure rate of a biometric is not acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/104 "2013-01-31T18:05:23Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > Right now, the best still has a failure rate of 1%. Way too high to be acceptable for a defensive weapon. Nonsense. A 1% failure rate alone cannot possibly tell us whether this feature is acceptable. The proper calculus is: (Odds your or a family member will be killed in an accidental shooting) \* (Odds biometric safeties will prevent an accidental shooting death) - (Odds you will need to discharge a firearm to save a life in your family) \* (Odds your weapon will fail when you need to discharge it) If the result of this calculation is positive, then a gun with this feature is “more effective”–that is, on average you will die less often owning it than owning a regular weapon–regardless of whether it fails .1%, 1%, 0r 10% of the time. I found [851](http://www.policymic.com/articles/21002/gun-control-debate-6-chilling-facts-about-guns-in-the-u-s) accidental gun deaths in the US in 2011 (though my cite is, admittedly, not unbiased). If electronic safeties can prevent even half of those deaths, then you’d need 40,000 justified defensive shootings per year to claim that such safeties are “unacceptable.” ---
**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, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/105 "2013-01-31T18:11:22Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > Nonsense. A 1% failure rate alone cannot possibly tell us whether this feature is acceptable. > > If the result of this calculation is positive, then a gun with this feature is “more effective”–that is, on average you will die less often owning it than owning a regular weapon–regardless of whether it fails .1%, 1%, 0r 10% of the time. I found [851](http://www.policymic.com/articles/21002/gun-control-debate-6-chilling-facts-about-guns-in-the-u-s) accidental gun deaths in the US in 2011 (though my cite is, admittedly, not unbiased). If electronic safeties can prevent even half of those deaths, then you’d need 40,000 justified defensive shootings per year to claim that such safeties are “unacceptable.” If I were killed because my gun didn’t work due to faulty safe gun technology, it would at least be comforting to know that I was a statistical anomaly. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/106 "2013-01-31T18:46:16Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Bricker - try a Titan Gun Vault. Quick access, no batteries, all mechanical. I opted for this because the failure rate of a biometric is not acceptable. I have a backup key, artfully hidden, that mitigates the risk of an electronic failure. But I just watched a YouTube demo of the Titan, and I like it a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/107 "2013-01-31T18:52:48Z")
> [@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. I don’t disagree that it may be possible at some point – but not for the reasons you speculate. The engineering problems for a firearm differ in no small measure from the engineering problems associated with a gun safe. The physical footprint of the gun safe allows for a great deal of room, compared to that of a firearm. So – no. Merely because it’s possible to do with a gun safe does not compel the conclusion it will be possible to do with a gun. But I agree with the larger point: as technology continues to advance, it will become possible, simply because I expect technology to advance in ways that make all sorts of amazing things possible. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/108 "2013-01-31T18:54:19Z")
> [@obbn](#): > > 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. Is 99.9% good enough? 99.99%? 99.999%? (presumably, because you haven’t given up on guns completely, yet you’ve had at least one failure in 100,000.) In any case, if you don’t want one, don’t buy it. The arguments you presented don’t apply to (a) research or (b) availability of this technology. So, it must be based on the idea that if it becomes possible, it will become mandated. Since that’s the only argument that makes sense, it would be best to just come out with it rather than dancing around irrelevancies. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/109 "2013-01-31T18:59:26Z")
Well, Czarcasm, have the poll results with respect to contact lenses changed your mind at all? ---
**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, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/110 "2013-01-31T19:14:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, Czarcasm, have the poll results with respect to contact lenses changed your mind at all? Of course they have. Apparently the subset of people I know are an statistical abberation. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/111 "2013-01-31T19:18:49Z")
I’d be for requiring biometric locks once the technology has a failure rate much less than a bullet or the mechanical action of the gun. Of course some black helicopter types aren’t going to like the idea of their palm print being in their gun’s memory. ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/112 "2013-01-31T19:20:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I just watched a YouTube demo of the Titan, and I like it a lot. I just watched the video. Very awesome. It’s expensive at $350, though. Especially since I already have a battery powered one that I paid $150 for that I’d have to sell. This thread is probably going to end up costing me some money… ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/113 "2013-01-31T19:27:25Z")
Wow, there’s some very well thought out responses here. I think Senor Beef answered my question the best, even addressing some underlying assumptions I’d made, with this line: > [@SenorBeef](#): > > If I ever shoot someone, it will because it was absolutely necessary to protect life. … 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. Reyemile also had a good point about the risk comparison, though there are a few subtle (i.e. muddying) factors missing. And I now understand the backlash against S&W for their cooperation with the Clinton proposal. There’re quite a few ridiculous requirements in there that wouldn’t be conceivable for any other industry, like: > [@](#): > > "Authorized dealers cannot sell at gun shows unless every seller at the gun show conducts background checks. ", "No sales will be made to dealers who do not implement a security plan to prevent gun theft. ", " All purchasers of multiple handguns can only take one handgun from the day of sale, the remainder 14 days later. ", and " ballistics fingerprints will be provided for all new firearms to ATF/FBI ". For some of the haters posting here (both for and against guns), try to open your mind a bit and understand why the other folks feel that way. You can still disagree or disapprove, but understanding your counterparts viewpoint makes persuasion and compromise a LOT easier. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/114 "2013-01-31T19:37:58Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > OF those who say they need almost instant access to their weapon because time is of the essence in the case of a home break-in, how many wear contact lenses? Do they they stop in the bathroom to put the lenses in first? > > I can see well enough to see the person in the doorway 8 feet from my pillow. :rolleyes: Ah, the Responsible Gun Owner we hear so much about in action, shooting half-blind. “Sorry honey, I thought you were someone else.” > [@JXJohns](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Nonsense. A 1% failure rate alone cannot possibly tell us whether this feature is acceptable. > > > > If the result of this calculation is positive, then a gun with this feature is “more effective”–that is, on average you will die less often owning it than owning a regular weapon–regardless of whether it fails .1%, 1%, 0r 10% of the time. I found 851 accidental gun deaths in the US in 2011 (though my cite is, admittedly, not unbiased). If electronic safeties can prevent even half of those deaths, then you’d need 40,000 justified defensive shootings per year to claim that such safeties are “unacceptable.” > > If I were killed because my gun didn’t work due to faulty safe gun technology, it would at least be comforting to know that I was a statistical anomaly. You do realize your sarcastic comment applies just as much to the accidental killing part of the equation? This is typical; gun owners as a group simply don’t care about the danger they put their family in by having a gun. They hyperventilate about the miniscule chance that a safety system will fail at the same moment they are in the highly unlikely situation where they are using it to defend themselves. But if somebody gets killed just because the gun is there? Too bad kid, family is expendable; guns are important. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/115 "2013-01-31T19:41:23Z")
> [@obbn](#): > > 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. Bad comparisons. We use brakes frequently, and require that they work. Not having breakes at all is ridiculous. Safety belts are a better analogy: what failure rate would we accept on an “improvement” in safety belts that somehow saves lives in non-accident cases? > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Would you fly on an airline with a 99% safety record? Again, meaningless analogy. > [@runner pat](#): > > What do you think would happen to an automobile manufacturer who’s brakes failed 1% of the time? Or seat belts? What if it were a crapshoot on your lights working?(Lucas, Prince of Darkness) Would you like a 1% chance of your tires blowing out for no reason? When we cite bad analogies, we reveal weaknesses in our logic. > [@artemis](#): > > 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. Good point. > [@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. Yikes. OK, now I understand the objections. > [@Reyemile](#): > > Nonsense. A 1% failure rate alone cannot possibly tell us whether this feature is acceptable. > > The proper calculus is: (Odds your or a family member will be killed in an accidental shooting) \* (Odds biometric safeties will prevent an accidental shooting death) - (Odds you will need to discharge a firearm to save a life in your family) \* (Odds your weapon will fail when you need to discharge it) > > If the result of this calculation is positive, then a gun with this feature is “more effective”–that is, on average you will die less often owning it than owning a regular weapon–regardless of whether it fails .1%, 1%, 0r 10% of the time. I found [851](http://www.policymic.com/articles/21002/gun-control-debate-6-chilling-facts-about-guns-in-the-u-s) accidental gun deaths in the US in 2011 (though my cite is, admittedly, not unbiased). If electronic safeties can prevent even half of those deaths, then you’d need 40,000 justified defensive shootings per year to claim that such safeties are “unacceptable.” Finally, someone who can do the math! (It should be divide, not subtract, but since it’s a yes/no decision, subtracting yields the same answer.) The problem with this argument is that it would be useless against a Libertarian, who doesn’t accept government control to reduce overall deaths, where personal responsibility would avoid personal deaths (at least, hopefully … not so much for the gun advocate lady cited above who got shot by her husband!) To convince the Libertarian, you’d have to recast that in personal terms: how likely HIS children might be killed, etc. Even then they’d say “Well, that applies to the average guy, which I’m not.” Yes, i’m arguing on both sides of the fence here. That’s because I’m not arguing for what I want, but trying to clear the air so we can arrive at a rational answer. I’m neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. I grew up hunting; took years of NRA classes at the Y, and got an NRA Distinguised Expert in riflery. I don’t currently own a gun, but wouldn’t turn down an offer to visit the range or go on a hunt. I question whether laws to restrict guns in the US would help avoid the use of guns in volient crimes, but I think it behooves us to carefully examine all reasonable options. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/116 "2013-01-31T19:44:13Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I just watched the video. Very awesome. > > It’s expensive at $350, though. Especially since I already have a battery powered one that I paid $150 for that I’d have to sell. > > This thread is probably going to end up costing me some money… Man, prices have gone up. I paid $180 for mine. I see from the same vendor it is now $300. Look at [safehomeconsulting.com](http://safehomeconsulting.com). As to the topic at hand, I have no issue with smart guns, if people want to use them. I would oppose any effort to mandate them. I believe my state has a law on the books already mandating them should the technology come to pass. Stupid CA. ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/117 "2013-01-31T19:46:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > This is typical; gun owners as a group simply don’t care about the danger they put their family in by having a gun. They hyperventilate about the miniscule chance that a safety system will fail at the same moment they are in the highly unlikely situation where they are using it to defend themselves. But if somebody gets killed just because the gun is there? Too bad kid, family is expendable; guns are important. Got a cite for that? When is the last time someone was killed because a gun was just there? ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/118 "2013-01-31T19:49:20Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Man, prices have gone up. I paid $180 for mine. I see from the same vendor it is now $300. Look at [safehomeconsulting.com](http://safehomeconsulting.com). Mine is the Gun Vault 1000. It’s price hasn’t changed in the years since I bought it. They are about $125-150 depending on where you look. It’s been reliable and I recommend it. But it is battery powered. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/119 "2013-01-31T19:51:32Z")
I meant that the Titan I got was 180, at the vendor I mentioned. If you’re interested in buying it that is. I have an aversion to electronic lock systems for guns, especially since there are alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867/120 "2013-01-31T20:15:54Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Got a cite for that? When is the last time someone was killed because a gun was just there? [All the time.](http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx) > [@](#): > > Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder. > > The most common cause of deaths occurring at homes where guns are present, by far, is suicide. Many of these self-inflicted gunshot wounds appear to be impulsive acts by people without previous evidence of mental illness. Guns in the home are also associated with a fivefold increase in the rate of intimate partner homicide, as well as an increased risk of injuries and death to children. Really, this is well known and keeps getting brought up in these threads. The pro-gun side clearly _simply doesn’t care_ that they are endangering people. They care much more about their guns than they care about any human being, including their family. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-opposition-to-smart-guns/648867.md?page=7)