No Guns, or Build "Smart Guns?"

In the latest Bond movie, 007's quartermaster passes him a 9 mm pistol coded to his palm print.

"Only you can fire it, it's less of a random killing machine. More of a personal statement."

NEW YORK (AP) — It sounds, at first, like a bold, next-generation solution: personalizing guns with technology that keeps them from firing if they ever get into the wrong hands.

Medications in the wrong little hands can be fatal, so put a childproof cap on the bottle and store them out of reach.
Guns in the wrong hands can be fatal so put a lock on them and store them in a gun locker.

Unfortunately, most fail miserably at taking that precaution of locking up their firearms. Primarily, (other than simply being lazy), it's because of the thought; "Well I can't grab-N-shoot in a hurry should I need to protect myself if I'm fumbling around for a key for the lock."

For 30 years, although moving at a glacial pace, the effort to push making guns safer by making them 'smarter'
is finally picking up steam after a very embattled past.

At first, having never entertained the thought, you might say, "Brilliant! No brainer, that's exactly what we need".

However, there are two sides to every coin.

But when the White House called for pushing ahead with such new technology as part of President Obama's plan to cut gun violence, the administration did not mention the concept's embattled past. As with so much else in the nation's long-running divisions over gun rights and regulation, what sounds like a futuristic vision is, in fact, an idea that has been kicked around for years, sidelined by intense suspicion, doubts about feasibility and pressure tactics.

The nation has a renewed sense of firearms following the Newtown school massacre, so now proponents of so-called personalized or "smart guns" are hoping it will kick start research and sale of safer weapons.

But despite the Obama administration's promise to "encourage the development of innovative gun safety technology," advocates have good reason to be wary.

These 'personalized weapons' have always occupied shaky ground, an idea criticized both by gun-rights groups and some gun control advocates.

How can any idea to make guns safer by making available the technology to make them smarter be criticized?

To the gun groups, the idea of using technology to control who can fire a gun smacks of a limitation on personal rights, particularly if it might be mandated by government. At the same time, some gun control advocates worry that such technology, by making guns appear falsely safe, would encourage Americans to stock up on even more weapons then they already have in their homes.

Appear falsely safe? I think that little switch on the side of most guns now, that says 'safe', well that's what makes them already appear falsely safe!

If you've never owned a gun, but now a 'smart gun' is available that can only be fired by you...would this make you go out and buy a gun if you normally would not have?
Or buy even more if you already own a gun?

There's no getting around the political BS of a worthy effort and the debate over personalized guns long ago strayed well beyond questions of whether the technology will work. ...

Those were the first questions asked in 1994 when the research arm of the Justice Department began studying prospects of making a police gun that a criminal would not be able to fire if he wrestled it away during a struggle. Scientists at Sandia National Laboratories examined available technology in 1996 and found it promising, but wanting.

Steven Teret, a former attorney and public health expert at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and who went on to found Hopkins' Center for Gun Policy and Research:

Teret began trying to get lawmakers and gun makers interested in the concept of personalized weapons. He convinced U.S. Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-Colorado, to earmark funding for the Justice study. And in the mid-1990s he voiced support for a project at Colt's Manufacturing Co., the legendary but beleaguered gun maker that saw an opportunity to sell safe guns to police officers and parents of young children. Colt's developed a gun equipped with a microchip that would prevent it from firing unless the user was wearing an enabling device located in a special wristband.

But gun rights advocates were skeptical....

because the government was funding research of the concept and because gun control advocates like Teret embraced it. At about the same time, New Jersey lawmakers began discussing a measure requiring all new handguns sold in the state to be personalized, three years after the technology came to market. The measure passed in 2002.

Colt's CEO Ronald Stewart wrote an editorial in American Firearms Industry magazine calling on fellow manufacturers to parry gun control efforts by backing a federal gun registry and developing personalized weapons. "While technology such as this should not be mandated it should be an option for the consumer," Stewart wrote. "If we can send a motorized computer to Mars, then certain we can advance our technology to be more childproof."

Soon after, the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen — a state affiliate of the National Rifle Association — began calling for a boycott of Colt's. It warned that personalized technology might make it difficult for gun owners to defend themselves and called the company's conduct "detrimental to American-style freedoms and liberties." Stewart was replaced as CEO of Colt's in 1998 and the company eventually abandoned development of a personalized gun.

Okay, way to go Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, you just got any progress on a great idea sidelined and a huge advocate canned in the process in 1998.
If the final technology works, 100%, how will it make it more difficult for one to defend themselves? Maybe the idea that they can't pass their gun over to their wife so she can have a go at shooting cans off the fence post for a while. They'll have to buy a separate one for her, unless the bracelet technology allows her to strap it on for a while.

In 1999, New Jersey's lawmakers approved a grant to researchers at New Jersey Institute of Technology to study personalized gun technology. Those efforts focused on adding transducers to a gun's handle to detect the grasp of an authorized user. Meanwhile, the Justice Department offered a challenge grant to gun makers and although two responded, they made limited headway by the time $7 million in funding ran out.

I don't know who is clogging up the check-out line more on this, the gun advocates or the gun control groups.

Work on personalized weapons suffered another setback after gun rights' groups boycotted Smith & Wesson over a 2000 agreement it signed with the Clinton administration in which the manufacturer made numerous promises, including one to develop smart guns.

Meanwhile, the New Jersey school, funded by Congressional earmarks, tried repeatedly to find a commercial partner for its work. But even as NJIT bolstered the reliability of its prototype, which now has a recognition rate of about 97 percent, it found it a hard sell. Talks with a Florida gun maker at first seemed productive until industry activists pressured the company to back away, said Donald Sebastian, NJIT's senior vice president for research and development

reply to post by Lonewulph

Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents gun manufacturers, said questions remain about whether the technology has been improved enough to assure police officers and civilians a personalized weapon would fire when they need protection.

But there are also concerns "about individual consumers' ability to choose the firearm that they think is best for them," Bazinet said. But gun makers and owners have not been the only critics. Activists from the Violence Policy Center, an outspoken gun control group, also spoke against personalized weapons. "If a smart gun did exist what would its effect be, taking into consideration the nature of gun violence in this country?" said Josh Sugarmann, the group's executive director.

"Would you place families at risk or people at risk by giving this impression that this is a safe gun? You know, people who wouldn't normally buy a gun, would they buy one now?"

In some ways I can understand from either perspective some of the arguments among the politicians and special groups.
But thank goodness for the Germans and other European companies who know how to pick up a fumble and run with it:

Meanwhile, two European companies working on personalized gun technology have their eyes on the U.S. market. One of those firms, TriggerSmart Ltd. of Limerick, Ireland, has developed a system using Radio Frequency Identification that would be built into the handle of a gun and triggered by a device the size of a grain of rice inside a user's ring or bracelet. Co-founder Robert McNamara said he is seeking to license the technology to a U.S. manufacturer, but is looking at the possibility of producing kits for retrofitting existing guns. Another venture, Armatix GmbH of Unterfoehring, Germany, says it has developed a personalized gun, with settings based on radio frequency technology and biometrics, that was approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in late 2011. Armatix said it hopes to begin selling the gun as well as accompanying safety and locking systems in the U.S. this year, but would not provide details.

Teret, who long ago launched the campaign for personalized guns, acknowledged much has to happen before they become a reality. But the White House has promised to issue a report on the technology and award prizes to companies that come up with innovative and cost-effective personalized guns, and its interest has rejuvenated hopes that the gun of the future may actually have one. "For 30 years, at best we've been inching forward at a glacial pace," he said. "And now this puts it up to warp speed."

So here's the full article
Take a look, and if you're still left scratching you head on this one don't feel like the lone ranger.

Its an old idea, 2000AD has it where a judges gun was matched to their DNA and also put some of the judges DNA on each bullet fired, in fact a gun that is locked to one person could stop a lot of trouble as who's going to rob a bank etc when 5 mins later the police will turn up

First thing that comes to my mind is the necessity for electronics to be put within these guns to make them "personalized". That opens the door to a host of problems.

What happens if you pass through an intense magnetic field? Your "personalized" information is being stored somewhere with bits that can be dislocated.

What happens if gun cleaner or oil gets into the electronics? That stuff needs to stay dry at all times.

What if everyone of these "personalized" guns also is equipped with a remotely activatable "off" switch, so the "authorities" can turn it off when the please, for "your own personal safety", of course? Anyone think that wouldnt be abused?

To answer the thread title question, neither. "Dumb" guns are just fine in the hands of smart people. Only dumb people need "smart" tools to compensate for their own lack of intelligence.

I have long been a proponent of police carrying gun cameras that only the armorer could retrieve or delete the images from. It would prevent police abuse of power and make the population safer from the real problem in this nation. Out of control police officers killing people and then the blue wall goes up and the cop skates on what should have been a murder charge.

reply to post by Lonewulph


The problem I have with the "smart gun" technology, as a gun owner, is the reliability. Even if they improved the technology to a degree of 99.9% reliability, that still means it will fail 1 out of 1,000 tries. Those still aren't good enough odds for me when it comes to the protection of my family.

S&F on the thread. Nice presentation.

reply to post by exitusstatuquo


I see they have them on Tasers now (cameras), probably wont see them on guns, but a live shoulder-cam recorded remotely would be cool, and dash cams are becoming more mandatory.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Lonewulph

 

The problem I have with the "smart gun" technology, as a gun owner, is the reliability. Even if they improved the technology to a degree of 99.9% reliability, that still means it will fail 1 out of 1,000 tries. Those still aren't good enough odds for me when it comes to the protection of my family.

S&F on the thread. Nice presentation.

I'm 100% with you on that. It would simply have to be infallible, completely reliant (if that's even possible), before I would trust it with my life, and because of what I do, there's just nothing less acceptable. That one 'click' of a fail would be the loudest click in the world at the wrong time.

reply to post by Lonewulph


This is the same reason I won't buy a smart safe. There are enough variables against me if I'm awakened in the middle of the night by an armed intruder. I certainly don't need more variables.

I have 2 young kids so I have to be creative in how I store my guns (especially my home gun). I can assure you, even without smart tech, my kids will never get their hands on my guns without my knowledge.

All the technology in the world isn't going to make someone a responsible gun owner.

reply to post by Lonewulph


All good until some Hacker decides to circumvent the technology.

Who stands to gain from all this? What politician has stock in this?

Many Questions.....

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Lonewulph

 

All the technology in the world isn't going to make someone a responsible gun owner.

Isn't that the truth?
You can't fix stupid, even with technology.

Perhaps if you wont give up the guns you can make it so that you have the time to reach them safely....better security on the doors. tough glass that can take a few blows, lights that turn on in areas thieves don't want you prowling etc, all those things will give you time to wake up, blow the sleep out of your eyes and then go and blow the thief 5 barrels into the after life once you have made sure its not your drunken cousin looking for a place to sleep due to him getting caught out with another woman on cheaters

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Lonewulph

 

All good until some Hacker decides to circumvent the technology.

Who stands to gain from all this? What politician has stock in this?

Many Questions.....

That's a good point too, one that I pondered when authoring the thread.
I'm assuming technology would have to be incorporated that renders the weapon useless upon tamper detect.
Maybe one day tech that can be disabled remotely from one's iphone right?
Many questions indeed.

U.S. government offered up a competition grant of $7 million to stimulate gun makers to get a prototype in the works but only two signed up and ultimately back-burnered when the money ran out and they had little result.

Presently it looks more like a few European companies are positioning themselves to gain by the models they are producing.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Lonewulph

 

All good until some Hacker decides to circumvent the technology.

Who stands to gain from all this? What politician has stock in this?

Many Questions.....

That thought never crossed my mind. That's a scary thought.

Something goes down, some jack wagon at DHS flips a switch and BAMM...everyone's smart gun is disabled.

No thanks!!

reply to post by seabag


Feinstein adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":

Goals for 2010
Reduce violent crime rates another 25 percent.
Cut the rate of repeat offenses in half.
Develop and require “smart gun” technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons and implement sensible gun control measures.
Ban racial profiling by police but encourage criminal targeting through better information on actual suspects.
Require in-prison and post-prison drug testing and treatment of all drug offenders.

Dianne Feinstein on Gun Control


I see where this is going.........

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by seabag

 

Feinstein adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":

Goals for 2010
Reduce violent crime rates another 25 percent.
Cut the rate of repeat offenses in half.
Develop and require “smart gun” technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons and implement sensible gun control measures.
Ban racial profiling by police but encourage criminal targeting through better information on actual suspects.
Require in-prison and post-prison drug testing and treatment of all drug offenders.

Also on that page:

Technology can help in many areas: giving police more information on criminal suspects so they do not rely on slipshod, random stop-and-search methods; allowing lower-cost supervision of people on probation or parole; and making it possible to disable and/or trace guns used by unauthorized persons.

reply to post by Lonewulph


Yeah.......

I don't trust this technology, one bit.

reply to post by Lonewulph


IMHO the safest method to personalize a gun is to password protect it.
Rather than expensing resources on palm ID, it would be a simpler process to identify the owner with an encrypted password, much like a debit card, possibly with a 8 - 12 digit code.
That's only my opinion of course.

Originally posted by Cynic
reply to post by Lonewulph

 

IMHO the safest method to personalize a gun is to password protect it.
Rather than expensing resources on palm ID, it would be a simpler process to identify the owner with an encrypted password, much like a debit card, possibly with a 8 - 12 digit code.
That's only my opinion of course.

Um......

How quick would it take to unlock it, in an emergency?

Double

Post