"Smart guns" show promise, but not readily available on U.S. market

[farminator3000]

http://news.yahoo.com/smart-guns-show-promise-not-readily-available-u-202657039.html

"The attitude is, ‘We understand this technology is coming down the track and we'll deal with it when we have to,'" he said. "They're concerned about the liability aspect. When you put it in one gun you'll have to put it in every gun."

the gun companies' argument is pretty lame. i'm sure the auto industry said the same thing about seatbeats, and the toaster industry about automatic shutoffs-

they are basically saying "we won't do it until it is law, because of our profits. sure, it is available, but it might make us lose money."

but if they had to put it in every gun, wouldn't they make money by charging a little more for the guns?
as if people won't pay an extra $50 for a gun?
obviously there is absolutely nothing that will stop people from buying them.

you'll pry my toaster from my cold dead hands? hello?

[Jamastiene]

1. I like that idea a lot. I like the other idea I have been mulling over too.

A smart gun that will lock up and will absolutely not fire within a mile of a school, mall, or other crowded place. Of course, not in government buildings either, but the police and military would have a specialized chip so that they could use their guns to defend the public in those areas. So, that would make the average gun owner unable to fire close to a school...if they had the new smart guns. I still don't see why old guns without the technology could not be altered to include the new technology as well. Make it mandatory or confiscate the gun if the owner is unwilling to make their guns safe. Use both of those concepts together, the chip that locks the guns within x distance o a school/mall/etc. AND the chip that only the owner can fire their gun at any other time would put a dent in any new guns bought being used for mass shootings. Of course, there are some flaws in the idea, but it is a new idea, to me, anyhow.

[farminator3000]

18. also a good idea

i was thinking 1000 feet, probably a little low. but a mile might be high.

it would be more expensive than the wrist chip, cause its GPS based, i'm guessing.

the old guns are the biggest problem- and confiscating would be a serious mess,
but there could be an exchange- trade in the old one for the exact same new one with the chip, for free.

i think both upgrading all new guns and keeping the existing ones without chips away from criminals by requiring license, registration, insurance, testing, and insurance (like cars) would go together well.

and explain that guns aren't necessary and good for all people, they are a privilege and dangerous.

[CTyankee]

22. We've come to a pretty pass when we're talking about machinery to keep us from

slaughtering each other. Who are the people advocating taking personal responsibility, now?

[farminator3000]

38. not the NRA?

i don't know. who are they?

[CTyankee]

40. I suppose if one lives in a dystopian world, this seems reasonable.

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this line of "reasoning" is absurd...

[farminator3000]

44. do you have a question? or a statement?

reponsibility? who is it?

line of reasoning meaning what, exactly?

this is absurd?-

Company summary

TriggerSmart has patented the first viable, childproof, Smart Gun using RFID technology. We also have the ability to remotely enable and disable childproof guns in restricted zones such as school, airports, etc. This is a gun safety against intruders at home or accidental discharge especially with children. Our target market is women seeking childproof guns.

see how this would stop a psycho from shooting his mother and 20 children?

[CTyankee]

46. I see the absurdity in a society that feels it necessary to do this to restrain its lunatics.

But if this is what it takes, by all means do it.

But I wonder why, when there are examples of other countries who manage not to have this problem, countries that are constitutional democracies just like ours, but who can protect their children without having to worry about the insanity of having guns so readily available.

That's my position. I don't know why that is so difficult to understand.

[farminator3000]

50. it's absurd that someone made a safe gun?

is a kid who shoots himself by accident a lunatic?

you wonder why other countries like us don't have this problem, countries who protect their children without having to worry about guns being everywhere....

and?
i can't understand it if you don't finish the sentence?

[CTyankee]

53. I am talking about countries where kids don't regularly shoot themselves by accident

as well as those who don't have lunatics feeling empowered with a "gun right." Isn't there a reason that they don't have to resort to the idea of a "safe gun"? Maybe it is because they properly control the guns they do have? Have we even CONSIDERED that option?

Look, I'm not putting you and your idea down per se so please don't take this personally. What I am saying is "why do we put up with a situation where we need a 'safe gun' in the first place?"

[shintao]

65. Now how do you get the looneys to buy that smart gun?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. It not nearly as ready as the guy who is going to make money off it claims.

[farminator3000]

3. how could you possibly know that?

got any evidence?

probably, the article is right and it is ready like he says, and the gun companies don't want to do it.

it works, the gun companies have to change the machines around and charge people more for guns,
and they don't want to.

if it became law January 1st, they'd be in the stores by July 4th. that's a big gun buying day, i bet.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Perhaps because I have been tracking it for some time

and because because I teach Computer Science and Electrical Engineering.

But if you want a basic test, see if the cops will use it. If it is good enough for law enforcement, then it would be good enough for the rest of us.

[-..__...]

8. Funny... isn't it?

Aww fuck it... it's easier to cut and paste a previous post of mine on the subject rather than post a new one...

"Smart Gun" technology as originally proposed/initiated, was with LEO firearms in mind (it was realized that a significant number of LEO's were killed/wounded with their own duty weapons after being relived of said weapons while wrestling with suspects), yet... whenever this marvel of "technology" is brought up as a solution to reducing firearms related deaths, LEO organizations scream the loudest, and are the most vocal against it.

As a consequence, the usual outcome is an exemption for police officers and their issued firearms.

As an example... the failed N.J. "Smart Gun" legislation...

New Jersey on Monday became the first state to enact "smart gun" legislation that would eventually require new handguns to contain a mechanism that allows only their owners to fire them.

The law will not go into effect immediately because the technology is still under development and it could be years before it becomes a reality. But supporters hailed it as an important milestone in the campaign to reduce handgun deaths.

"This is common-sense legislation. There are safety regulations on cars, on toys. It's clearly time we have safety regulations on handguns," Gov. James E. McGreevey said at Monday's bill signing ceremony.

The New Jersey Institute of Technology is developing a smart gun prototype that would use sensors on the pistol grip to identify a user.

The owner would have his grip programmed at a gun shop or police range by practice-firing the weapon. A microchip in the weapon would remember the grip and determine in an instant whether the authorized user was holding the weapon. If not, the gun would not fire.

Under the New Jersey law, the technology will be required in all new handguns sold three years after the state attorney general determines a smart gun prototype is safe and commercially available. Weapons used by law enforcement officers would be exempt.

Supporters say the law will help prevent accidental gun deaths and suicides.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73763,00.html

[farminator3000]

14. its easy to post a fox news article from 10 years ago

but hard to make a valid point when you do.

great, cops didn't like smart guns 10 years ago. so what?

plus, nobody even said anything about cops being forced to use them,

cops are trained not to murder or kill by accident with their guns,

there is NO REASON to make cops use them, we are talking about CITIZENS gun laws.

get it?

[farminator3000]

69. thanks!

anybody who wants a bigger gun than a cop, should have AT LEAST as much training. period.

did you ever hear about those guys in LA with flak jackets, ak-47s, and A TANK that robbed a bank? a fucking TANK???

they had to wait until the guy got it stuck on a jersey barrier, and then shot him thru the hatch.

wtf?

smart guns would stop lunatics like that, (smart tanks?) AND keep cops who get their guns grabbed in a fight safe...

[Mojorabbit]

23. How would identifying the user prevent accidents or is there more in the article.

Never mind. I think they are going for kids in house etc. It is way past my bedtime.

[farminator3000]

10. i said do you have any evidence?

if you are such a fancypants, maybe you can read what i typed? or the article?

By contrast, the radio frequency identification technology proposed by McNamara, implanted in everything from key cards to house pets, is essentially instantaneous and virtually fail-safe, according to RFID Journal founding editor Mark Roberti.

"These systems are very reliable," said Roberti, adding his car has never failed to start as a result of a fault in chips now standard in car keys.

you do have a car? that starts?

and it's more than 'will the cops use it'

the article is unbiased- it says the thing works, the gun makers won't comment, the guy has spoken to them, they are scared to be the first.

why could this be? they are a business, they are afraid to lose money by pissing off their customers (like you)

could you find any actual information about cops trying this guy's gun out for instance?

maybe there should be A LAW they makes them try them out. in a range. to do testing. because if it did work, great.

so what if you say "i know for a fact that it does not work on this day today"

it will work at some point in the future. could be two weeks from now. who are you to set the date?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Ou know who else is opposed to them?

The NRA.

[farminator3000]

34. that sounds interesting

what does it mean?

is there a gun law the NRA is NOT opposed to?

great! thanks!

move on, nothing to see here

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. I am all for it by the way

They are getting tested by a state police, right now.

It will increase officer safety, it also lessens to almost zero, the possibility of kids getting shot accidentally.

In this case, if Mary Lanza's guns were smart and only mated to her, Adam would have gotten lovely clubs.

[-..__...]

6. I like this part...

"These systems are very reliable," said Roberti, adding his car has never failed to start as a result of a fault in chips now standard in car keys.

Even if there was a small to miniscule failure rate, the ability to start ones car is not a matter of life or death.

And that's where the analogy fails.

I wonder if he'd be as confident if that same technology were paired with ones shoe/foot and gas pedal/brake pedal?

[farminator3000]

11. everything in many cars is computerized

not just the key. the engine. the brakes. the mirrors. the transmission. the fuel injection. pretty much everything but the actual spark itself that makes the gas explode.

how often does your phone or coffee maker fail when you touch the button? also chips.

so chips make the entire world run every hour of every day, but they won't work for guns?

also from the article-
essentially instantaneous and virtually fail-safe

you might have missed that. that could be where you failed.

[Aerows]

7. I really like the idea

that only the owner of a gun can fire it. It would cut down on women who own guns and get gunned down by husbands and boyfriends by their own weapons. It would certainly have prevented this tragedy.

Also, while you can't do anything about the guns that are already floating around, it could help put a damper on illegal weapons trading in the future.

[farminator3000]

13. the floaters are a problem.

you could have an exchange where registered owners have to turn in unchipped guns for chipped versions of the exact same gun for free. unless it was like an antique and impossible to do.

[Honeycombe8]

9. Doesn't sound very practical to me.

You have to have a 2nd part of a chip within an inch of the handle, in order for it fire? Like in a ring or bracelet?

People would be losing the ring/bracelet all the time. Also, your bracelet isn't that near a gun handle, even if you are wearing it.

It also wouldn't have stopped this tragedy, like the article claims it might have, because reports are that she and her son went target shooting together. So she gave him access. He would have had access to the ring/bracelet, as well. Or at the least, she probably would have kept them right next to the weapons.

A chip in the hand? That doesn't sound like a good idea. The hand is very complex, sensitive, delicate part of the body with lots of nerves and such. I can't imagine it's a good thing to start punching chips in the hand.

I don't see a law for that ever passing, or such a gun ever selling much. I also wonder if some couldn't figure out how to remove that chip in the handle, so that a black market would develop for unchipped guns (and it wouldn't be mom and pop who are buying those guns).

[farminator3000]

12. people wouldn't spend millions of $ studying it if it was not practical

People would be losing the ring/bracelet all the time. Also, your bracelet isn't that near a gun handle, even if you are wearing it.

if they can't keep track of it, maybe they might have the same problem with the gun, so shouldn't own one? and i think the designer has the distance thing worked out.

It also wouldn't have stopped this tragedy, like the article claims it might have, because reports are that she and her son went target shooting together. So she gave him access. He would have had access to the ring/bracelet, as well. Or at the least, she probably would have kept them right next to the weapons.

she might have taken a class that explained why you use these things, and perhaps been a bit more careful with a psychopath in the house.

A chip in the hand? That doesn't sound like a good idea. The hand is very complex, sensitive, delicate part of the body with lots of nerves and such. I can't imagine it's a good thing to start punching chips in the hand.

they just go under the skin- millions of pets have them and aren't bothered in the slightest

I also wonder if some couldn't figure out how to remove that chip in the handle, so that a black market would develop for unchipped guns (and it wouldn't be mom and pop who are buying those guns).

i think the designer probably though about that, too. and mom and pop don't generally shop on the black market for anything.

[Honeycombe8]

15. Pets don't have hands.

The human hand is unique. Primates come closest, but not quite the same.

A chip in the fleshy part of the shoulder? No problem. In the hand? Could be a problem.

As for losing chips being a good thing...nothing that makes a thing unuseable for its purpose will pass as a law, or get into the market even if not a law. If you want to ban all guns, be honest about it. But guns will not be banned overall.

Guns being modified to remove the chip, maybe it can be made so that's not possible. But people can already modify guns substantially. There are those who are sophisticated about such things.

[farminator3000]

16. pet monkeys do!

A chip in the fleshy part of the shoulder? No problem. In the hand? Could be a problem.

i'm guessing you aren't a doctor, and the guy who invented the gun probably talked to a few doctors.

[Honeycombe8]

24. I've read a bit about the hand, when something happened to my hand....

something that was a possibility in the future was surgery. After reading up on hands, I determined it wasn't worth the risk to ever have surgery on teh hand, because surgery would almost certainly result in some loss of function and normality. The hand is complicated, full of nerves, not much flesh......nothing to fool around with. I'm guessing the creator of the this gizmo isn't a doctor and doesn't realize this. I mean, he thinks a BRACELET will be within an inch of a chip in the handle? He's obviously not a woman.

You lose.

[farminator3000]

30. you seem to have missed something i said

the chip just goes under your skin. it takes as much time as getting a flu shot.

the article said "inch or two". which is not supposed to serve as an exact measurement, but

the distance between MY wrist and the center of my palm is a hair over two inches, and since you are a woman, yours is probably closer.

do you really think someone would spend so much money to develop something and forget about something so simple?

that's like forgetting to make the barrel of the gun hollow.

you are one confused person. this is a technology that has been worked on for 30 years, with millions of dollars.

you've lost it.

[Honeycombe8]

49. There's about 4 inches between my wrist & mid palm. I'm a med ht woman with small hands, size 5

fingers. If you are male, there is probably 5 inches from your wrist to your mid palm area.

[farminator3000]

51. i don't believe you. post a picture with a ruler

do you mean centimeters?

[Progressive dog]

26. People do spend millions in research on things that are not practical

Even if successful, this would probably create a big market for underground chip removal.

[Robb]

27. Just like everyone ponying up to disable that seatbelt dinger, eh?

(facepalm)

[Progressive dog]

29. more like cold fusion

[farminator3000]

35. i can do that for you

but don't tell anybody!

[farminator3000]

31. that's because research money is intended to make things practical

you forgot the word YET. if you say 'things that are not practical yet.' it becomes true.

is there a big underground market for car door lock removal? fire detector battery removal?

what the crap is wrong with a bit of technology that works as it is supposed to and makes something safer?

[Progressive dog]

61. If you have a fire detector, you paid for that

Electronics is not some miracle cure. Most people who are forced to pay to make things safer, don't disable them. Fire detectors, air bags etc. are not in your way and you have already paid for them.
What about use of seat belts, had to make it mandatory to get people to use them. But police can see if they are in use. I guess we can just mandate an unproven technology and wait for another massacre.
What the crap is wrong with a technology that can and will be easily defeated? It is a distraction from the main issue which is gun regulation.
We can also make guns that have a limited life firing pin a lot cheaper and more reliably than electronic controls. If the firing pin is only designed for about ten rounds, then we could let the gun worshipers keep their high capacity clips.
Why not try to be realistic about what can be accomplished now.

[farminator3000]

63. i actually got my fire detector for free

[rrneck]

17. I like the idea.

It would be especially useful in homes with kids.

I don't know that it would help with people who purchase a gun with intent to do harm (like spree killers) or people have a gun stolen. An RFID chip would have to mechanically disable the fire control mechanism of the gun. Guns are pretty simple devices and either hacking the RFID or physically disabling it might not be all that hard.

Here are some of the problems with RFID technology.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Technology-Article.asp?ArtNum=20

Since, if I understand it correctly, an RFID is a transmitter, you will have a gun that is transmitting its presence to others. That's sort of like telling people the combination of your home safe. RFID readers are ubiquitous and cheap, so hacking or reader and tag collisions are always going to be an issue. That's probably why the cops don't like them. If someone can disable a gun at distance with a device in their pocket the technology won't be very popular.

[farminator3000]

37. i like the first 13 words

but the rest-

people with intent should not be allowed to buy guns at all- which is why you have waiting periods, background checks etc
how could a chip know what you are thinking when you pull the trigger?

your cell phone GPS- you can track it if stolen.

An RFID chip would have to mechanically disable the fire control mechanism of the gun
Guns are pretty simple devices and either hacking the RFID or physically disabling it might not be all that hard.

i would guess this has been incorporated into the design?
as well as everything listed on the link, and after it, up to:

That's probably why the cops don't like them.

that is guessing about something which is not true. there are plenty of cops who would love to have a working system this this.
if somebody grabs your gun, they can't shoot you with it

If someone can disable a gun at distance with a device in their pocket the technology won't be very popular.

you have a car key. you can't use it on any car in the parking lot. nobody goes around pressing a jammer button to break into cars.

[rrneck]

55. Well, lets have a look.

people with intent should not be allowed to buy guns at all-

How do you know who has intent? There is a delicious irony in that statement. One member who suggested a registry of mentally ill people has already been banned, and Wayne LaPierre of NRA fame has suggested the same thing. If you want to control who buys guns based on intent, you will have to create exactly that.

your cell phone GPS- you can track it if stolen.

Rfid chips are not powerful enough to run a GPS. And if a gun is stolen, it would be a simple matter to disable if it could.

i would guess this has been incorporated into the design?

It's a simple matter to disassemble a gun to expose the fire control group. That is if you don't have a ten year old kid to simply hack the RFID for you.

How do you feel about corporations? I mean, you are aware that most corporations won't hesitate to design and market something that won't work and lie about for money. And the only way you will know whether they are lying or not is to stop guessing and do some research.

An RFID is a radio transmitter. Anything that disrupts the radio signal can render the firearm unworkable. This is from the link I gave you.

RFID systems can be easily disrupted
Since RFID systems make use of the electromagnetic spectrum (like WiFi networks or cellphones), they are relatively easy to jam using energy at the right frequency. Although this would only be an inconvenience for consumers in stores (longer waits at the checkout), it could be disastrous in other environments where RFID is increasingly used, like hospitals or in the military in the field.

Every bad guy out there would love to make a cops gun inoperative at a distance.

Here's some more info on RFID car security:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/automotive/rfid-ignition-system2.htm
The fact is, people steal cars equipped with RFID security. It's especially common in Europe, where RFID has been used in cars for longer than in the United States. To prove the weaknesses of the system, researchers at Johns Hopkins went about breaking in. What they found was startling.

If you equip a laptop computer with a microreader, a device that can capture radio signals, you can capture the transmissions sent out by an RFID immobilizer key. Positioned within a few feet of the RFID transponder -- say, sitting next to the car owner in a restaurant -- the laptop sends out signals that activate the chip. When the key begins broadcasting, the reader grabs the code, and the computer begins decrypting it. Within 20 minutes, you've got the code that'll tell the car to start. (Once you have a good database of codes stored in your laptop, the time gets much shorter.) Pair that code with a copy of the physical key or a hotwire job, and you're on your way. In the case of the passive ignition system, the process is similar, but you need only stand next to the car, not the person carrying the key.

So here's how I think it would work. RFID won't work for somebody who buys a gun to go kill a bunch of kids. The technology is easily disabled in a stolen gun. The only applicaiton where RFID has any hope of working is if the gun is taken from the owner for some reason. Have you ever tried to take a gun away from somebody? If you try, they will have a tendency to shoot you with it. BUT- what if you could turn his gun off first? Think about it.

And here's something else to think about. Would you trust a fire extinguisher, life raft, heart resuscitation kit, emergency radio, or any other safety equipment to RFID technology? Especially if there were somebody out there actively trying to defeat it to kill you?

[farminator3000]

56. i hope you type quickly, because you are overdoing it

you-
If someone can disable a gun at distance with a device in their pocket the technology won't be very popular.

me-
you have a car key. you can't use it on any car in the parking lot. nobody goes around pressing a jammer button to break into cars.
***
you-
So here's how I think it would work. RFID won't work

me-
i don't want to hear it
***
you-
I don't know that it would help with people who purchase a gun with intent to do harm (like spree killers) or people have a gun stolen.

me-
people with intent should not be allowed to buy guns at all-(the part you pasted)
which is why you have waiting periods, background checks etc
how could a chip know what you are thinking when you pull the trigger? (the rest of my answer that you didn't paste. on purpose?)

you-

How do you know who has intent? There is a delicious irony in that statement.

me-
no there isn't. i already told you some ways to know (and predict) who has intent, and you didn't comprehend it.
like, if someone has a history of robbing banks, they don't get a gun? get it?
or if someone says 'i'm gonna shoot my wife' in a bar the cops could take his gun away.

also, you do not know what irony means.

so, you didn't paste my answer completely, and instead decided that your BS (mental health registry) was the only answer
One member who suggested a registry of mentally ill people has already been banned, and Wayne LaPierre of NRA fame has suggested the same thing. If you want to control who buys guns based on intent, you will have to create exactly that.

*********

look just stop, really. you say rfids won't work. you know it is a fact. ok. i don't care.

if you look in the article about the guns we are talking about, the PEOPLE WHO MAKE GUNS say

‘We understand this technology is coming down the track and we'll deal with it when we have to,'

if you think you know more than people who make and invent guns by looking up random links, you are wrong.

just remember this thread when they hit the shelves in 2013!

it seems like you just go with every thought that crosses your mind-

thinking a thought doesn't make it true

[rrneck]

57. You haven't proven me wrong either.

If the technology works, I will have been proven wrong. But I'm not having this discussion with gun manufacturers. I'm talking to you. And it is indeed a one way conversation. But I'm learning a lot, whether you realize it or not.

[farminator3000]

59. it is one way- the right way

again-
just remember this thread when they hit the shelves in 2013!

[RomneyLies]

19. then again, the ONLY answer is to clasify semiautomatic weapons identically to automatic weapons.

The progun lobby has been clear, you cannot regulate semiautomatic weapons under legal instruments like the Assault Weapons Ban.

since the National Firearms Act has been wildly successful since 1934, the only choice left ot us is to treat semiautomatic weapons identically to automatic weapons.

[farminator3000]

20. is there really a difference?

on one side, you pull once and shoot 30 bullets in 10 seconds

on the other, you pull 30 times in 20 seconds.

really, you could say semis are MORE dangerous- more accurate. one by one. if you spray bullets, a few will miss.

[Glassunion]

21. You have that wrong.

"you'll pry my toaster from my cold dead hands?"

Don't you mean "you can pry my toaster from my toasty warm hands?"

[farminator3000]

32. righto!

nice one!

[farminator3000]

33. hee hee

how about "keeping your fly unzipped being necessary to a well-regulated populace, the right to BARE your johnson shall not be infringed?"

[backscatter712]

43. The toasters pried themselves from the Colonials' dead hands...

[Taitertots]

25. It isn't available because the vast majority of firearms owners don't want it

And it jacks up the price and makes guns unreliable.

[Robb]

28. Again, what drivers wanted seatbelts?

What drivers demanded a little bell go off when you weren't wearing it?

Which market forces drive OSHA?

This is a public safety issue.

[farminator3000]

36. did you browse the article? beyond disagreeing with the title?

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:58 PM - Edit history (1)

because it didn't say anything at all about that.

you made three statements, but so what. can you find ONE CURRENT article that supports these fallacies?

[Taitertots]

39. How about directly from the mouth of the executive director of the VPC in the article

"If smart guns were viable, he says, gun makers would welcome the opportunity to expand their shrinking customer base."

Or directly from the article
"But gun advocates and some in law enforcement officials say the institute's success rate is not good enough."

[farminator3000]

42. try to read better

"Law-abiding, responsible gun owners who choose to have a gun to protect their families would rather have a gun that was safer," Lowy said.

it is an unbiased article, so there are many people who say different things.

"Some gun control advocates, such as Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center "

this is the opinion of one man, who has his own agenda, which you probably don't know. does he have any info regarding this new gun? i doubt it. maybe you should ask him for some help here.

why would the gov't spend millions of dollars to develop something which will never work?


"But gun advocates and some in law enforcement officials say the institute's success rate is not good enough."

they aren't talking about the new one the article is about, that quote means the new jersey place (99% sucess rate), not ireland.

the point of the article is that the new one may be better, and what i take from it as a whole is-
there is a guy who has a smart gun thats works, but gun companies are dragging their feet.

if you want to say the guns are no good, provide some info

Company summary

TriggerSmart has patented the first viable, childproof, Smart Gun using RFID technology. We also have the ability to remotely enable and disable childproof guns in restricted zones such as school, airports, etc. This is a gun safety against intruders at home or accidental discharge especially with children. Our target market is women seeking childproof guns.

if you have a problem with that, go somewhere else and complain

[Taitertots]

45. Basically you just want to ignore anyone who disagrees with what you want to hear from the article.

So called "smart guns" are nothing but unpopular, unreliable, vaporware BS. Despite what people who are trying to market their devices claim and despite what people ideologically opposed to firearms ownership claim.

From the VPC website:
"The very existence and feasibility of the smart gun is speculative at best. The Violence Policy Center is aware of no working, reliable model of a personalized gun such as its advocates envision."
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/smartgun.htm

[farminator3000]

48. no, you just want to disagree, but you aren't very good at it

All contents � 1998 Violence Policy Center

14 years ago

how can someone ideologically opposed to firearms be in favor of bringing out a new gun?

get it? if ideologically opposed to firearms people are saying a gun is good, it must be pretty f'ing good?

there are 8 people quoted, 4 pro and 4 con. so this guy is the only one who knows?

i mean, his statistics are 14 years old!

[Taitertots]

54. You just want to disagree with anyone who isn't telling you what you want to hear

Smart guns remain unpopular, unreliable, expensive, vaporware BS that has been rejected by gun owners.

Oh boo hoo, the VPC doesn't update their website. I will take their continued use of the webpage to indicate that they still support the opinions contained in the website. And they never said they were good, they exist, are affordable, or reliable. They just oppose them because they don't want people buying more guns because they are marketed as "smart guns".

[farminator3000]

60. you have made some vapor post BS

Oh boo hoo, the VPC doesn't update their website. I will take their continued use of the webpage to indicate that they still support the opinions contained in the website.

gotcha. i doubt there have been any advances in the last 14 years.

[Xithras]

58. It would suffer from the same problem as trigger lock regulations.

I personally like the idea, and would propose that the technology be further expanded to respond to a secondary radio signal that shuts the gun down to prevent it from shooting. A corresponding transmitter could then be placed on every school campus and in every police car in the country.

Of course, as nice as the idea is, it would never work. And any gun owner can tell you why.

Nine states have laws requiring trigger locks, and mandate that they be sold with firearms. While you can mandate that the device be put on the gun, you're powerless to enforce that law once that gun gets into a home. Every gun owner, even the lowlife criminals, knows that you have to clean your gun, and disassembly is a fairly standard part of a thorough cleaning. I can't think of a single lockout design that couldn't be easily removed from the firearm during the course of a regular cleaning. If not with a regular screwdriver, then with a $15 Harbor Freight angle grinder.

I can pull the shotgun from my closet, disassemble it, fully clean it, and put it back together again in under 20 minutes. If someone really wanted to use their firearm to do harm, and a lockout was stopping them from doing so, what would prevent them from just leaving that part out or removing it? Making it illegal isn't going to mean a thing to someone hellbent on murder.

An invention can be novel, fascinating, and completely useless. That's how I've always looked at this particular technology.

[Initech]

47. Smart guns??? Do they have Android 4.0 built in?

[backscatter712]

52. The tobacco industry discovered they could create safer cigarettes.

IIRC, they discovered that if they added trace amounts of platinum to their smokes, it would break down a lot of the carcinogens, and lower the cancer risk significantly.

They buried that research, and made damned sure that these low-cancer cigarettes never made it to store shelves.

Because if they started selling Safe cigarettes, what would that do to the sales of the other cigarettes?

Can't let safety get in the way of revenue...

I suspect the same dynamic is at work with the gun industry and their lobbying group the NRA - can't make safer guns - what does that say about the other guns? So they're quietly killing any efforts to improve gun safety though technology such as RFID interlocks.

[CJCRANE]

62. It'll take longer than expected

but will happen sooner than we think (and by the time it happens it'll seem like an obvious feature).

[farminator3000]

64. right, nobody has a rotary dial phone anymore..

but 30 years ago everybody did

i wouldn't be surprised if it happened next year.