You are here: Home What's Happening Legislation Voices In Opposition Do You Really Need a Smart Gun?
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
             

The Biomac Foundation

Do You Really Need a Smart Gun?

E-mail Print PDF
Smart guns sound great on paper. The basic concept is that a smart gun would be a firearm which can only be operated by its legal owner. As such the gun would be useless in the hands of anyone else where criminal, toddler, or others that might through happenstance or intent misuse the weapon. A few such weapons have been successfully marketed; these depend on magnetic rings or a wrist transmitter to engage and unlock a mechanical system on the gun. The idea has never met with great interest from the public, for the simple reason that there is actually little use for such devices. Too, most of us have had experience with electronic equipment that failed; who wants a firearm that is as reliable as Windows 3.1?
Police officers (who have in the past had a problem with being shot with their own guns after a criminal snatches them from a holster) have also seen the numbers of such shootings drop in recent years, in part due to better training and also due to the use of bullet-proof vests. (Even during the worst of times, there are only around 12 such shootings of policemen nationwide in the US during any given year, truly a tragedy, but hardly a problem of major proportions.)[1]

Another bogus reason occasionally given for the need for smart guns is that they will protect against "accidental discharge." Modern guns have a variety of safety devices, but automatic as well as manual, that make it impossible for a gun to fire if dropped or otherwise abused. With very rare exceptions they only fire when the trigger is pulled and never at any other time. Today’s guns are among the best designed mechanical tools ever seen in terms of safety. Accidental discharges for the most part are caused by a careless finger on a trigger, or the insertion of a pencil or other object inside the trigger guard. Smart gun technology will not prevent many of them; teaching proper gun safety will.

Another argument for smart guns is that they would prevent suicides. This is a noble goal, though the idea that if guns somehow couldn’t kill the person holding them would somehow bring an end to suicides is rather quaint. For example in cultures like Japan where gun ownership among citizens is rare, the suicide rate is even higher than in the US. If people don’t have access to firearms, they will still kill themselves (though perhaps not as painlessly).

Even so, there’s no mechanism in the smart gun to determine whether or not the user has it pointed at a criminal or the user’s temple. That a smart gun would somehow prevent the user from shooting himself is way beyond today’s technology or any in the near future. In the 22nd Century such devices equipped with artificial intelligence might be practical.

In the 21st Century it is a doubtful proposition. So like all the other "reasons" we need smart guns, this one is bogus as well.

Yet the anti-gun crowd continued to push for the adoption of smart guns. The culmination of this push was seen with Bill Clinton in 2000 when the then-President asked congress for $10 million to help test and develop smart guns (after seeking but failing to get $4 million for this project the year before).[2] Fortunately for the American public and gun owners in particular, these measures were never funded; and those politicians speaking in favor of gun control during the 2000 elections discovered themselves on the losing side of the ballot for the most part.

However it seems likely that with the next school shooting, rampage, or other criminal activity, like vultures circling the corpses on the playground, opportunist legislators will be trotting out anti-gun measures to pass into law during the hysteria. (The lengths congressmen will go to in order to stretch the truth in such circumstances is quite often nothing short of amazing. For example following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in which the criminals were armed with knives and box cutting tools, Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Charles Schumer trotted out an old anti-gun bill that would regulate gun shows — claiming the terrorist attacks mandated such an action, even though guns weren’t even involved in the hijacker and, indeed, might have been prevented had the captain, crew, or other passengers been armed.[3])

So if there is no real market for smart guns, they are not wanted by gun owners, and they present no safety pluses, why are there so many calls for smart guns? And why are so many anti-gunners so enthused about smart guns?

To read the full article, please click this link: http://duncanlong.com/science-fiction-fantasy-short-stories/smart-guns.html


Rita Lewis
Written on Saturday, 20 July 2002 00:00 by Rita Lewis

Viewed 235 times so far.
Like this? Tweet it to your followers!

Rate this article

(0 votes)

Latest articles from Rita Lewis

Latest 'tweets' from Jonas McCord


 


Related articles:


Please Contribute

Help finance the last three years of R&D needed to bring The Biomac Foundation's biometric access control technology to market.

Online donation system by ClickandPledge

Biomac Supports The 2nd Amendment

In the USA, The Biomac Foundation supports the 2nd Amendment of The Constitution and a citizen's right to bear arms… RESPONSIBLY!