Finally: The “smart” gun

posted at 2:41 pm on February 19, 2014 by Allahpundit

The centerpiece of today’s WaPo story, the Armatix iP1, isn’t new but the fact that it’s now on sale in the U.S. — at a lone gun store in California — is.

Am I right in assuming that serious gun aficionados hate this concept?

The arrival of smart-gun technology comes amid a flurry of interest in the concept from investors who think the country — after the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and the brutal legislative battles that followed — is ready for new, innovative gun-control ideas. Last month, Ron Conway, a Silicon Valley titan and early investor in Google and Facebook, launched a $1 million X Prize-like contest for smart-gun technology

A variety of approaches are in development. Armatix, the German company behind the iP1, uses RFID chips, which can be found on anti-theft tags attached to expensive clothing. Trigger­Smart, an Irish company, also uses RFID chips, though with a ring instead of a watch. The company also has technology that would render guns inoperable if they approached electronic markers — for instance, near a school.

The New Jersey Institute of Technology is using sensors to recognize users’ grips and grasping behaviors. Kodiak Arms, a Utah company, is taking ­pre-orders for its Intelligun, which is unlocked with fingerprints. Other companies are using voice recognition. Yardarm, a California start-up, uses a smartphone app to notify gun owners of a weapon’s movement. Users can even remotely disable their weapons…

Teret and other smart-gun proponents point to a 1997 survey showing that 71 percent of Americans — and 59 percent of gun owners — favored personalization of all new handguns. Gun rights advocates, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, cite a survey the group commissioned last year showing that only 14 percent of Americans would consider buying a smart gun.

Here’s the webpage for the iP1, which not only won’t fire if it’s not paired with the accompanying smartwatch but can be programmed not to fire if you’re aiming away from a designated target. (The clip below, which is a few years old, shows what happens when you try to fire with the watch disabled and then enabled.) If you’re a parent who wants something for home protection and also wants to be 200 percent sure your kid can’t stumble upon your gun and have an accident — and if you also don’t mind sleeping with a watch on every night — then maybe this is for you. Or maybe not: The most obvious problem is that, if you ever did face a threat requiring you to pull, there’s a chance the signal from the watch would fail and you’d be dunzo. To paraphrase an old saying, when seconds count, a new smartwatch battery is just minutes away.

But that’s a practical problem. There are two theoretical problems for gun-rights advocates, I take it. One: The more mainstream smart guns become, the easier it’ll be for gun-grabbers to call for banning everything but smart guns as a “compromise” position. They’ve always had trouble selling the assault-weapons ban because the definition of “assault weapon” is hazy and assault weapons are used in only a small fraction of gun crimes. A ban on “dumb guns,” including handguns, would be clearer and more ambitious. If you want to protect your right to a “dumb gun,” maybe the smart guns need to be marginalized. Two: If the point of the Second Amendment is self-defense, including the right to defend yourself against a violently oppressive government, why would you want to embed a technology in your weapon that could probably be disabled remotely by the government? At the very least, seems like it’d be easy for the feds to create a gun registry if we stuck a tiny electronic beacon in every weapon. (That’d make it easier to solve gun crimes too, but then policing does tend to be easier in a police state.) Which is to say, all the privacy concerns about the “Internet of things” would apply to smart guns too, except in this case they might have life-and-death consequences.

Am I missing something? Gun-rights supporters might be more open to smart guns as a compromise if gun-control fans had the momentum on policy, but they don’t. Just the opposite.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

perfect, I mean, what could go wrong?

ledbylight on February 19, 2014 at 2:43 PM

I haz hiccups…

ladyingray on February 19, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Belated..

Bishop!

ledbylight on February 19, 2014 at 2:43 PM

if gun-control fans had the momentum on policy, but they don’t. Just the opposite.

Glorious!!!

Schadenfreude on February 19, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Am I right in assuming that serious gun aficionados hate this concept?

No, you are absolutely out of your mind.

oscarwilde on February 19, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Teret and other smart-gun proponents point to a 1997 survey showing that 71 percent of Americans — and 59 percent of gun owners — favored personalization of all new handguns.

A 1997 study that no one read or heard about with no link to that survey. Right……

Johnnyreb on February 19, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Am I right in assuming that serious gun aficionados hate this concept?

It’s a safe bet that serious antique gun collectors will hate it.

CurtZHP on February 19, 2014 at 2:46 PM

The company also has technology that would render guns inoperable if they approached electronic markers — for instance, near a school.

Dude busts down your door, you grab your liberal-approved I-Gun and start frantically pulling the trigger but no bang bang.

Mr. House Invader gives you a sly smile and holds out his black market “smart gun disabler” before advancing on you with his machete.

Good times in Utopia, good good times.

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 2:46 PM

I absolutely dislike this. What if my 20 year old is home by himself-not uncommon for a 20 year old-and someone decides to try to kick down the front door?
Right now-he could use either of my pistols to protect himself.
If those same pistols were ‘smart guns’-in that same scenario because I’d be the only one that could fire them-he’d likely be dead.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 19, 2014 at 2:46 PM

The centerpiece of today’s WaPo story, the Armatix iP1,

The I Pee One.

Yeah. Good name. That about sums it up.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 19, 2014 at 2:46 PM

A “Liberal Paradise” would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive healthcare, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities, and only Law Enforcement has guns.

And believe it or not, such a place does indeed exist . . . it’s called prison.

nonpartisan partisan hack wants only cops to have guns.

Schadenfreude on February 19, 2014 at 2:47 PM

The black market will just make something to bypass the safety lockouts.

The market always finds a way.

Like Radar Guns & Radar detectors.

portlandon on February 19, 2014 at 2:48 PM

That darn slippery slope…

Deckard BR on February 19, 2014 at 2:48 PM

You pretty much nailed the arguments.

I don’t want to rely on electronic technology when my life or the life of someone I care about is at stake. There are already enough things that can go wrong and prevent a defensive firearm from firing.

I also don’t want to make anything easier for the government. To your point, police work is easier in a police state, and I would like to avoid a full-blown police state. Though it seems the U.S. is trending toward a police state daily and in the name of security.

My firearms are there to prevent the government from getting to tyrannical first and home/self defense second. Don’t give them a way to track or disable our firearms. That’d be ripe pickings for a government that might target groups based on their political affiliation.

matthew26 on February 19, 2014 at 2:49 PM

perfect, I mean, what could go wrong?

ledbylight on February 19, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Just saw this. LOL

Fallon on February 19, 2014 at 2:49 PM

No, this is a smart gun!

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 19, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Finally: The “smart” gun

It sounds more like a retarded gun to me.

No one with a brain would want one of these things. I hope the company quickly goes bankrupt and all of its principals end up on the street … unarmed.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM

If the point of the Second Amendment is self-defense, including the right to defend yourself against a violently oppressive government, why would you want to embed a technology in your weapon that could probably be disabled remotely by the government?

Nailed it.

Kataklysmic on February 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM

If they have to tell you it’s “smart” then it probably isn’t.

Flange on February 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Hacking smart guns would become the next big thing for criminals to render them inoperable for their owners.

Bitter Clinger on February 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Am I right in assuming that serious gun aficionados hate this concept?

Hate?

How about RELIABILITY? You make a shoddy gun, word gets around. People don’t buy your gun. Except that liberal pols have a nasty habit of MANDATING usage “for your own good”.

Technology is great, except when it fails. But wait! Libs will tell you not to worry. NOTHING can go wrong!

Remember Murphy’s Law?

Weapons can misfire and jam mechanically right now. Why add another possible malfunction?

GarandFan on February 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Like Radar Guns & Radar detectors.

portlandon on February 19, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Except a radar detector does not disable the radar. Nor did they stop police forces from adopting laser speed guns.

CurtZHP on February 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM

The NSA decides when you get to shoot.

Cindy Munford on February 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Except a radar detector does not disable the radar. Nor did they stop police forces from adopting laser speed guns.

CurtZHP on February 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM

I wasn’t speaking in a technical sense.

More in that once something is created, somebody creates something to counteract it.

portlandon on February 19, 2014 at 2:52 PM

The “smartness” (or lack thereof) of any gun comes from its user.

Bitter Clinger on February 19, 2014 at 2:53 PM

No thanks….will stick with my ruger LC 9

cmsinaz on February 19, 2014 at 2:53 PM

The company also has technology that would render guns inoperable if they approached electronic markers — for instance, near a school.

So if we got to the point that all law-abiding gun owners have this technology, then only the criminals will have the “dumb” guns.
And if gun free zones (like schools) have markers that disable the smart guns, the when a criminal starts shooting up a gun free zone with a dumb gun – NOBODY will be able to shoot back at the bad guy. Is that about right?

dentarthurdent on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Anyone up for a double barrel 1911?

Kataklysmic on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

The more mainstream smart guns become, the easier it’ll be for gun-grabbers to call for banning everything but smart guns as a “compromise” position.

CA wrote up this law last year. Passed one of the chambers, but didn’t make it to the governor.

El_Terrible on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Except a radar detector does not disable the radar. Nor did they stop police forces from adopting laser speed guns.

CurtZHP on February 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM

No, but many states did outlaw radar detectors. Legislation mandating the use of these “smart” weapons will result in exactly what portlandon is talking about. Dismantling and rendering ineffective whatever lock is used to make a weapon unusable will be rather easy.

NotCoach on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

The black market will just make something to bypass the safety lockouts.

The market always finds a way.

Like Radar Guns & Radar detectors.

portlandon on February 19, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Or worse , a jammer for the radio link so the gun is disabled.

Easy to make.

the_nile on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

but can be programmed not to fire if you’re aiming away from a designated target.

How does it know what your designated target is?

Wait…what? O_O

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

The company also has technology that would render guns inoperable if they approached electronic markers — for instance, near a school.

SO if I am walking past a school and a man grabs me or my child; I couldn’t use a gun for protection?

This is an idiotic idea, and NO ONE who purchases a pistol will buy one.

melle1228 on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

If the gun has an RFID tag, doesn’t that mean its ID could be “picked up” by any RFID reader, just like the sensor at the door picks up the RFID signal from that expensive piece of clothing? Not to mention the hand-held sensors…

IOW couldn’t RFID tagged guns be detected and tracked?

taznar on February 19, 2014 at 2:55 PM

With any of these personalized technologies, if I’m taking on bad guys and I get shot, my wife will NOT be able to pick up my gun and continue the battle – right?

dentarthurdent on February 19, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Great idea, creating guns that the government can remotely disable. Anyone who views this technology as something good is terribly short-sighted.

ThePainfulTruth on February 19, 2014 at 2:55 PM

The NSA decides when you get to shoot.

Cindy Munford on February 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Why would a totalitarian government do that?

the_nile on February 19, 2014 at 2:56 PM

That’s what I was thinking bishop @2:54

cmsinaz on February 19, 2014 at 2:56 PM

… and anyone with the right equipment could probably simply drive slowly by your house and know how many smart-guns you had on the premises – and as you say, potentially disable them as well.

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Automatically adjusts between wabbit season and duck season.

Shy Guy on February 19, 2014 at 2:57 PM

How does it know what your designated target is?

Wait…what? O_O

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

You ask your target to put on a special targeting bracelet.

Flange on February 19, 2014 at 2:57 PM

If a gun like this is mandated lets make sure all cops in CA have it issued before it goes to “the people”. If the cops like it and it works for them over a few years then sure, lets go!

richardb on February 19, 2014 at 2:58 PM

A terrible idea. Electronic technology fails. Just yesterday my cable went out and cable TV has been around for decades. Cars die, computers go kaput… I want to see how the gun industry wails the first time it is sued when one of these overly complicated “smart guns” fails to operate just when someone needs it and the owner is killed because his gun wouldn’t work to save his life.

Warner Todd Huston on February 19, 2014 at 2:58 PM

How does it know what your designated target is?

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

OPTIONAL GOOGLE GLASS NOT INCLUDED

Shy Guy on February 19, 2014 at 2:58 PM

dentarthurdent on February 19, 2014 at 2:55 PM

See my first comment.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 19, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Great idea, creating guns that the government can remotely disable. Anyone who views this technology as something good is terribly short-sighted.

ThePainfulTruth on February 19, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Anyone who can jam the signal from the beacon to the gun can disable it.

the_nile on February 19, 2014 at 2:58 PM

NotCoach on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Look on any ad for radar detectors, only Virginia and D.C. (same difference) outlaws them.

Cindy Munford on February 19, 2014 at 2:59 PM

The company also has technology that would render guns inoperable if they approached electronic markers — for instance, near a school.

Dude busts down your door, you grab your liberal-approved I-Gun and start frantically pulling the trigger but no bang bang.

Mr. House Invader gives you a sly smile and holds out his black market “smart gun disabler” before advancing on you with his machete.

Good times in Utopia, good good times.

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 2:46 PM

That right there cuts to the heart of this debate. Who controls when a smart gum will operate and under what circumstances. Most serious gun owners understand that there are people whom they do not want having access to their firearms. Hence the existence of Gun Safes.

On the other hand and equally valid, is the twerp’s position, that most serious gun owners do not want their firearms locked excursively to a single individual. Or, as you point out in your amusing antidote, someone other than the firearm owner themselves having the capacity to disable the weapon.

Would I like to have a gun that only I, or those whom I specifically designate are capable of firing, damned right I would, providing that absolutely no one other than myself can disable it, and that it is 100 percent functional and not prone to any kind of failure or hacking.

oscarwilde on February 19, 2014 at 2:59 PM

So much for conceal-carry while wearing a short sleeve shirt with that big honking watch on your wrist, everyone and their sister will know who’s packing heat.

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Oh, goody. Now the stupidest people in gummint will be able to dictate what kind of ‘personalized’ firearms we can own. Before you are able to fire your weapon, you’ll have to contact Fire Control in DC, which will gather your entire life’s history, send it to the FBI and ATF for verification, pass it along to the IRS, which will, after verification, require that you fax your bank acct numbers for their, ahem, personal use. Automatically, you will be informed that you are in possession of an ‘illegal weapon’, which after a signal has been sent by the NSA, will explode, killing your entire family. Problem solved….

vnvet on February 19, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Great idea, creating guns that the government can remotely disable. Anyone who views this technology as something good is terribly short-sighted.

ThePainfulTruth on February 19, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Or they think that the notion of the government being able to remotely disable them is a feature, not a bug.

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 3:00 PM

The only way this gun would ever sell more than 100 units is if they were the only kind allowed on the market.

tommyboy on February 19, 2014 at 3:00 PM

We have to realize, of course, that the people pushing this idea don’t care if the gun fails when you need it. They want firearms to become paperweights.

El_Terrible on February 19, 2014 at 3:00 PM

With any of these personalized technologies, if I’m taking on bad guys and I get shot, my wife will NOT be able to pick up my gun and continue the battle – right?

dentarthurdent on February 19, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Well, not without removing your wristwatch and putting on it, first, no. But after that, she’d be good to… oh, never mind, she’s been shot long before that, too.

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Of course, I’m pretty sure that it wouldn’t be overly difficult to jail break these firearms and make them normal.

El_Terrible on February 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Or worse , a jammer for the radio link so the gun is disabled.

Easy to make.

the_nile on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Very simple to make and mass produce. People are using cell phone jammers on trains and streets in NYC already. And every criminal will have one and use it rendering all of these weapons useless. And you know some knuckleheaded Cities and States will mandate that their police have these *smart* technology weapons, because it is “for the children”.

As they say….pure pandemonium ensues.

Johnnyreb on February 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Dude busts down your door, you grab your liberal-approved I-Gun and start frantically pulling the trigger but no bang bang.

Mr. House Invader gives you a sly smile and holds out his black market “smart gun disabler” before advancing on you with his machete.

Good times in Utopia, good good times.

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Yup.

the_nile on February 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Am I right in assuming that serious gun aficionados hate this concept?

Hate is too mild a word.

rbj on February 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Aiming down range:

*click* No bang.

*click click* Still no bang.

Wait for a few seconds…

*click* Nope, no bang.

Start unloading and disassembly process to see what the hell is wrong.

BANG!

Yeah, great idea.

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Look on any ad for radar detectors, only Virginia and D.C. (same difference) outlaws them.

Cindy Munford on February 19, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Times have changed. They were outlawed in Michigan at one time as well. They are also not allowed in commercial vehicles under federal law.

NotCoach on February 19, 2014 at 3:02 PM

tommyboy on February 19, 2014 at 3:00 PM

I don’t know, there are a lot of liberals out there that are this stupid.

Cindy Munford on February 19, 2014 at 3:03 PM

The concept is great – not sure about this vehicle.

Crooks will be chopping off hands.

I like the concepts of the ‘Smart Weapon’

Keep working on it

jake-the-goose on February 19, 2014 at 3:04 PM

I would NEVER own one of those things. If it can be disabled by “my” smartphone, it can surely be disabled by the government through a built in back door.

mbecker908 on February 19, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Hacking smart guns would become the next big thing for criminals to render them inoperable for their owners.

Bitter Clinger on February 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM

RF jamming.

Jeff Weimer on February 19, 2014 at 3:05 PM

Great idea, creating guns that the government can remotely disable. Anyone who views this technology as something good is terribly short-sighted.

ThePainfulTruth on February 19, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Good point !!!!

jake-the-goose on February 19, 2014 at 3:05 PM

How does it know what your designated target is?

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Google powered autoGPS menu would handle it nicely.

Weapon: You’ve picked a threat target to engage with your handgun. Before discharging the weapon, would you like to notify local law enforcement within … “NINE MILES” … of your shared location. Pick one for yes, two for no.

No!

Weapon: Sorry I didn’t understand your command, Pick one for yes, two for no.

TWO!!!

Weapon: You picked two for no. Pick one if this is correct, pick two for other options.

hawkdriver on February 19, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Will law enforcement be required to use these? Obviously not if there are ‘areas’ that have some emitter to render them inoperable (eg: schools, per the article).

Whatever reason there is for LE to be exempt is reason enough for citizens to not be required to use them as well.

Say when worse comes to worse, and the LE or ‘the man’ is coming to drag you evil conservatives from your home – wont they simply *carry* a mobile emitter/immobilizer?

Couldn’t organized crime simply equip themselves with similar devices to make sure they aren’t bothered when robbing banks, or whatever?

Meh.

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 3:06 PM

At the very least, seems like it’d be easy for the feds to create a gun registry if we stuck a tiny electronic beacon in every weapon. (That’d make it easier to solve gun crimes too

So would implanting an ID chip in every newborn American.

I’ll think about a smart gun … as soon as all the police, sheriffs, and federal agents in California are required to have one.

Socratease on February 19, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Weapon: You picked two for no. Pick one if this is correct, pick two for other options.

hawkdriver on February 19, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Best laugh I have had today – I thank you for that. Great stuff…

jake-the-goose on February 19, 2014 at 3:08 PM

If the point of the Second Amendment is self-defense, including the right to defend yourself against a violently oppressive government,

You had to go there. The thirsty tree of liberty must be paid lip service.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2014 at 3:09 PM

ledbylight on February 19, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Just saw this. LOL

Fallon on February 19, 2014 at 2:49 PM

….that is funny!

KOOLAID2 on February 19, 2014 at 3:09 PM

As long as they don’t make a “smart” Samurai sword.

WhatSlushfund on February 19, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Teret and other smart-gun proponents point to a 1997 survey showing that 71 percent of Americans — and 59 percent of gun owners — favored personalization of all new handguns.

‘Personalization’? Like putting their initials on them, or adding a laser sight, or getting a pink one? ;)

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 3:09 PM

And you know some knuckleheaded Cities and States will mandate that their police have these *smart* technology weapons

Are you kidding? The police unions own the Governor of California and most of its legislators.

Socratease on February 19, 2014 at 3:09 PM

You had to go there. The thirsty tree of liberty must be paid lip service.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2014 at 3:09 PM

The hope is always that lip service is all that winds up being paid.

The alternative is the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM

The alternative is a ridiculous right wing fantasy. It isn’t just the left who indulge in risible flights of fancy.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Blowing down a door is a legal means of serving a warrant, and occupants who shoot cops dead upon entry should expect to be shot dead themselves.
Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 1:05 PM
This technology solves that little problem of innocent people shooting cops who commit home invasions in the middle of the night….
Now the SWAT team can just disable your guns before they bust in.
I’m sure that power won’t ever be abused…..

dentarthurdent on February 19, 2014 at 3:15 PM

A pistol is there to protect me while I get to a rifle. Am I expected to sort through a box of watches to find the one which fits whichever gun I might grab, and then quick throw it on my wrist?

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 3:21 PM

The alternative is a ridiculous right wing fantasy. It isn’t just the left who indulge in risible flights of fancy.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2014 at 3:15 PM

The course of human history as evidence to the contrary, of course.

Say, did you catch the video of the weenie roasts in Ukraine and the kegger their throwing down in Venezuela by any chance?

Good times, good times. A find flight of fancy, indeed.

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM

If the gun has an RFID tag, doesn’t that mean its ID could be “picked up” by any RFID reader, just like the sensor at the door picks up the RFID signal from that expensive piece of clothing? Not to mention the hand-held sensors…

IOW couldn’t RFID tagged guns be detected and tracked?

taznar on February 19, 2014 at 2:55 PM

.
If the gun and watch have an RFID tag based interaction, hacking it would be relatively straightforward – “hack” watches (wallets, key fobs, etc) would allow someone to fire the “smart” gun.

Just to liven up the discussion, make it illegal for anyone who votes Democratic to own/possess a gun – it aligns the “Democratic Party platform” with their voter base:

“No guns for YOU!

This would apply to people who reigister as a Democrat or vote for a Democratic nominee or initiative at any level.

Win – Win

Gun violence will continue to drop.

Democratic Party support will evaporate like a snowball in hell.

PolAgnostic on February 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Yardarm, a California start-up, uses a smartphone app to notify gun owners of a weapon’s movement. Users can even remotely disable their weapons…

Angry Birds now labeled as racists!

UnstChem on February 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM

What the hell is a “designated target”? How does the gun determine whether a home intruder fits the definition?

Steven Den Beste on February 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Can easily switch to non lethal skeet mode…

anuts on February 19, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Just to liven up the discussion, make it illegal for anyone who votes Democratic to own/possess a gun – it aligns the “Democratic Party platform” with their voter base:

“No guns for YOU!“

This would apply to people who reigister as a Democrat or vote for a Democratic nominee or initiative at any level.

Win – Win

Gun violence will continue to drop.

Democratic Party support will evaporate like a snowball in hell.

PolAgnostic on February 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM

I like it; surely no self-respecting, honest liberal gun-control advocate would object. Heck, they’d probably even be happy to put an official ‘gun free zone’ sign in their front yard.

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Teret and other smart-gun proponents point to a 1997 survey showing that 71 percent of Americans — and 59 percent of gun owners — favored personalization of all new handguns.

And another study showed that 100% of Americans have give BS answers to silly surveys to get off the phone as rapidly as possible.

Doc Holliday on February 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM

What the hell is a “designated target”? How does the gun determine whether a home intruder fits the definition?

Steven Den Beste on February 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM

It checks voter registration databases. Thugs who are registered democrats are bulletproof.

CurtZHP on February 19, 2014 at 3:25 PM

A pistol is there to protect me while I get to a rifle. Am I expected to sort through a box of watches to find the one which fits whichever gun I might grab, and then quick throw it on my wrist?

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 3:21 PM

You shouldn’t be using a gun to defend youself at home in the middle of the night anyway – the home invaders MIGHT be cops erroneously (well for YOU maybe not erroneous…) kicking in your door. And you really don’t want to shoot them…. stoic patriot says so….

dentarthurdent on February 19, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Yeah, and life is tough in N Korea too. Lock and load tough guy.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Picture a country like Switzerland, armed to the teeth with small arms – all incorporating electronics required for operation.

One large EMP (electromagnetic pulse) blast would not only take out most of the infrastructure, but also all of the small arms.

You’d not only be defenseless; you’d also be unable to hunt. Yeah, you’d still have knives I guess. Bringing knives to gunfights…

Marcola on February 19, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Basic problem as described: nobody wears their wristwatch on their shooting hand. Might work if the sending unit is ‘de-watched’ and simply put on a wrist strap to be worn on the shooting hand’s wrist.

Test by issuing to the police first, of course.

PersonFromPorlock on February 19, 2014 at 3:27 PM

perfect, I mean, what could go wrong?

The most obvious problem is that, if you ever did face a threat requiring you to pull, there’s a chance the signal from the watch would fail and you’d be dunzo.

An interesting thing about new technologies that impact life and death is that people tend to emphasize what can go wrong with the new technology rather than what can go wrong with the one it replaces. Simpler, older technologies give the illusion of control. That’s why people feel safer in cars than in planes, and why automated cars seem so scary. If the new technology lowers the chance of a innocent being killed, it’s a good one to have. I think that, for many people, the risks of this technology outweigh the rewards. Otherwise, no one would even consider this a feasible business opportunity — or even a political one.

That is, of course, a personal choice. AP’s got a valid point about the long-time viability of a gun as defense from government, though I think non-governmental hackers would be a greater concern. But if you’ve got kids that you think might be smart enough to figure out how to get to your gun — but not smart enough to hack the software — this seems like a good option to have. (You can also replace “kids” with “burglars” if that’s a greater concern.)

calbear on February 19, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Marcola on February 19, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Like I said in the Headlines version of this discussion….

Never mind the fact that all an enemy force would need to disarm the populace is a well placed EMP weapon.

Don’t forget the other reason for the 2nd Amendment, the fact that we haven’t seen a full scale invasion since around 1812.

CurtZHP on February 19, 2014 at 2:30 PM

CurtZHP on February 19, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Stupid. What if my teenagers are home alone and some thug tries to break in? O snap dad isn’t home so we can’t defend ourselves. No thanks.

mumbojumbo on February 19, 2014 at 3:29 PM

You had to go there. The thirsty tree of liberty must be paid lip service.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2014 at 3:09 PM

“A free people ought to be armed.”
- George Washington

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”
- John Adams

“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”
- George Mason

“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.”
- Noah Webster

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
- Noah Webster

“A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace.”
- James Madison

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
- James Madison

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
- William Pitt

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
- Richard Henry Lee

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
- St. George Tucker

“… arms … discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property…. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.”
- Thomas Paine

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
- Samuel Adams

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
- Joseph Story

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

” … for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
- Alexander Hamilton

NotCoach on February 19, 2014 at 3:29 PM

In addition to the above arguments, let’s also recall that defense experts have for a long time been warning of the threat of EMP weapons use against our country. Just think, someone hits the US with an EMP, knocks out all vehicles, communications, electronics…and your gun. Just when you are made incapable of calling the police, and the police are incapable of responding anyway since their cars no longer work. Great idea.

quikstrike98 on February 19, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Am I right in assuming that serious gun aficionados hate this concept?

I’m sure there is a situation where this technology might be useful.

Can’t think of one offhand, but I’m sure there is one. At least one. Somewhere.

novaculus on February 19, 2014 at 3:30 PM

And another study showed that 100% of Americans have give BS answers to silly surveys to get off the phone as rapidly as possible.

Doc Holliday on February 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Our local newspaper made it mandatory to answer random survey questions on their web site before you can see articles.
My wife has been having a ball with that.
She mentioned last night that she suddenly hasn’t seen any survey questions pop up lately – how odd…..

dentarthurdent on February 19, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Just to liven up the discussion, make it illegal for anyone who votes Democratic to own/possess a gun – it aligns the “Democratic Party platform” with their voter base:
“No guns for YOU!“
This would apply to people who reigister as a Democrat or vote for a Democratic nominee or initiative at any level.
Win – Win
Gun violence will continue to drop.
Democratic Party support will evaporate like a snowball in hell.
PolAgnostic on February 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM

I guess all Dem politician bodyguards (and Secret Service) would have to be Republicans or independents – heh heh.

Marcola on February 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM

0b00ba donor to get huge govt grant to produce these things.

Akzed on February 19, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Yeah, and life is tough in N Korea too. Lock and load tough guy.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2014 at 3:26 PM

LOL

You always a pantywaisted douchebag, or just on Wednesdays?

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3