Smart Guns on 60 Minutes

[NotRPB]

Excuse me while I run to the Radio Shack for a new battery for my smart gun's Bluetooth radio ... oh? that store closed ... hmmm

[bmwrdr]

Excuse me while I run to the Radio Shack for a new battery for my smart gun's Bluetooth radio ... oh? that store closed ... hmmm

Right, given the scenario you are in a situation where you can either say why didn't I have a BUG or you could say why did I even have one.

[jason812]

In general mechanical problems are much more likely to fail than electronic component ones. Next time you drive your car think about what some little microprocessor is doing for you. Everything! Try finding a car that doesn't have one.

I've replaced more electrical devices (sensors and what not) then mechanical parts on my cars in the last 10 years. My friends have had the same experience. Hard parts on cars are not failing as much as the electronics.

[JALLEN]

What is the claimed improvement, supposedly?

Supposedly renders it unable to fire without being paired via BlueTooth or some similar technology to a bracelet, or key fob, or whatever they sell along with the gun. The bracelet/fob must be paired to the gun so that the gun can fire. So if your gun is stolen, it can't be fired because you have the "electronic key" that enables firing. Here's what I know. I wear a FitBit everyday. It will resist sweat, but not immersion. You can't wear it in the shower. Water fries it, rendering it ineffective, AND preventing it from communicating with the FitBit app on my mobile device. Now, imagine that the FitBit is the bracelet you have to wear to enable the gun, and you get robbed or assaulted during a heavy downpour, or thrown in a creek during an assault, or you simply accidentally whack the bracelet against a door frame as you walk through it. Imagine that it can then no longer pair with the gun, and the gun can therefore no longer be fired.

IF......and that is a BIG if....... somebody gets to mass-producing this kind of nonsense, the Secret Service's presidential detail should be required to be the first to beta-test it in an operational environment, before the testing program gets passed on to the Capitol police for further testing, BEFORE congress ever passes any legislation mandating this crap.

IOW, a difference without distinction, another step in making guns so cumbersome and ineffective for their purpose, and expensive, that no one will want to use them, another bite of the elephant, without infringement.

[txpilot]

Additionally, if you carry a BUG, that means you need TWO of the RFID/bracelet/ring things just in case your primary fails. I can't see having to say "wait while I put on my other bracelet for my BUG". Another point for me would be that if only I can fire it, what happens if your wife needs to grab your weapon to use for some reason.

One of the systems they showed involved a ring that would unlock the weapon when it was near the trigger. Great! But what happens if I suddenly need to shoot weak-handed and the ring is on my strong hand?

It just seems that the technology just isn't ready for prime time, and probably won't be for many years. There are just too many obstacles/scenarios that will need to be addressed.

As someone else said, it may be feasible for range use, but I sure wouldn't want it on my EDC which I may have to depend on to save my life or my loved one's life.

[The Annoyed Man]

What is the claimed improvement, supposedly?

Supposedly renders it unable to fire without being paired via BlueTooth or some similar technology to a bracelet, or key fob, or whatever they sell along with the gun. The bracelet/fob must be paired to the gun so that the gun can fire. So if your gun is stolen, it can't be fired because you have the "electronic key" that enables firing. Here's what I know. I wear a FitBit everyday. It will resist sweat, but not immersion. You can't wear it in the shower. Water fries it, rendering it ineffective, AND preventing it from communicating with the FitBit app on my mobile device. Now, imagine that the FitBit is the bracelet you have to wear to enable the gun, and you get robbed or assaulted during a heavy downpour, or thrown in a creek during an assault, or you simply accidentally whack the bracelet against a door frame as you walk through it. Imagine that it can then no longer pair with the gun, and the gun can therefore no longer be fired.

IF......and that is a BIG if....... somebody gets to mass-producing this kind of nonsense, the Secret Service's presidential detail should be required to be the first to beta-test it in an operational environment, before the testing program gets passed on to the Capitol police for further testing, BEFORE congress ever passes any legislation mandating this crap.

IOW, a difference without distinction, another step in making guns so cumbersome and ineffective for their purpose, and expensive, that no one will want to use them, another bite of the elephant, without infringement.

Exactly. And I would add this:

IF..... again a big "IF"...... gov't then wanted to actually come take your guns, how difficult would it be for them to send a jamming signal which would un-pair the control device from the gun, thereby rendering it inoperable? Not at all difficult, that's how difficult. And THAT is probably the biggest reason why these systems should never be mandated. In effect, they negate the 2nd Amendment.......and that's why liberals love them so.

[dale blanker]

Excuse me while I run to the Radio Shack for a new battery for my smart gun's Bluetooth radio ... oh? that store closed ... hmmm

No, a battery replacement will not be needed so long as you turn the little crank every day. Oops, forgot to crank today... oh well, just call a timeout and start cranking.

[treadlightly]

Pretty much every time politics and engineering are mixed it's a bad thing.

The problem is the momentum behind smart guns, if there actually is any, is from people who wish to use the force of government, violently if need be, to compel simple, mechanical guns to disappear. It's not from people wanting to save lives, even if they insist that's all they are after, it's about a movement that is looking to increase government oversight by any means necessary.

I have no objection to smart guns at the retail counter as long as I can move right on past them to good ol' Series 70's. Or Glock safe triggers, or revolvers, or whatever.

But the problem is that in New Jersey if a smart gun sells anywhere, non-smartypants guns will no longer be legal to sell. That isn't exactly a free-market decision, or the right way for a product to evolve.

[NotRPB]

I do not want a "smart gun," I'd love to have "smart bullets"
US military develops self-guided 'smart bullet' https://www.google.com/search?q=smart+b ... 8&oe=utf-8

[MeMelYup]

I'll get a smart gun when the FBI, Secret Servuce, IRS and all police departments change to carrying only Smart Guns.

[Chemist45]

Dale asked :

It's not clear why there is strong objection having them for sale. Caveat Emptor?

The objection comes from a New Jersey law passed in 2002.
From NRA-ILA:
New Jersey’s “Smart Gun” law, enacted in 2002, seeks to mandate the sale and manufacture of only “smart gun” technology in the Garden State. When such technology, as defined by the law, is made commercially available in any state, this law is triggered and “smart guns” will be the only handguns allowed for retail sale in New Jersey.

So once someone makes one of these available anywhere in the country, you will only be able to buy "smart guns" in the state of NJ.
I'm sure that CA and NY will follow directly.

I'm all for technology and freedom of choice, but this mandate is stupid. And as long as politicians keep pushing stupid mandates like this, people will be against the technology.

[Dave2]

Until my tv works in a storm, no way I would consider this.

While it's outside, too.

[jrs_diesel]

I am an Electronics Tech in the Coast Guard, and I would never have anything to do with a "smart" gun. Electronics fail. If they did not, then I would not have a job fixing them. Well designed circuits and systems work much better than poorly designed ones, but they can still break.

Heck, my truck was down this weekend to a failure. The power wire that went to my fuel pump chafed through and separated, starving my engine of fuel. That was one wire. That's all it takes, one small thing and the whole system will not work. (I did patch the wire and fix the pump).

I think it will be a very long time before the technology is good enough for this idea to work 100%.

[Wes]

I'm wondering if a smart gun might be worthwhile for OC(?). Then if the OCer were overcome and their gun was grabbed, at least it could not be used against them. Better yet how about one that backfires if the owner was not firing it? (kidding)

Apparently the smart gun is mainly intended for those who are not comfortable with owning a gun. It's not clear why there is strong objection having them for sale. Caveat Emptor?

Except it would not prevent someone from firing it as long as they were within range of your bracelet, and in your scenario they are likely to be within range still.

Smart gun = dumb gun IMO. Maybe in 20-30 years the tech might be there and in some other form than a band. For now, I'll pass.

[TexasJohnBoy]

My thought on smart guns...

No. Just no.