Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Government United States Technology

The US Gov't Could Become the Biggest Customer for Smart Guns (computerworld.com) 555

Lucas123 writes: Smart gun developers have faced pushback from opponents who fear adoption will lead to mandates. But this week, President Obama embraced the technology, creating the biggest customer of them all for smart guns: the federal government. He instructed several departments to "review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety." Joel Moshbacher, national co-chair of a gun safety advocacy group, said the move this week is "a game changer." Smart gun developers he's spoken with need only a few million to move their prototypes to market, so $20 million would be a windfall for several developers. Donald Sebastian, senior vice president for research and development at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), said federal dollars are the only way to advance the technology because of pushback by opposition groups. For example, when Armatix, a German startup, tried to introduce a smart handgun in the U.S. two years ago, it was met with vehement protests, including threats to burn down a Maryland store that was going to sell it. A second store in California that was carrying it also pulled it from its shelves citing pressure from those opposed to the tech.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The US Gov't Could Become the Biggest Customer for Smart Guns

Comments Filter:
  • by hawkeyeMI ( 412577 ) <brock@nOSpaM.brocktice.com> on Friday January 08, 2016 @01:32PM (#51262943) Homepage
    Expect to see pushback from the agencies saddled with these. It's a solution in search of a problem -- there are already myriad ways to secure guns. We don't need a bunch of extra points of failure built into the guns themselves.
    • My phone unlocks with a fingerprint using the best fingerprint tech available. I don't know how many times it takes 2, 3, or 4 times to unlock it. "Unrecognized - Enter backup password" or "Place finger over entire sensor" is all too common.

      If, God forbid, I ever have to draw my weapon to defend myself or someone else, I don't want to make sure I have a perfectly lined up grip to trigger the smart technology. Someone attacking you doesn't lend for minor finger positioning nuances very much. I expect fing

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      Well there's the problem of police guns getting stolen and police guns being grabbed and used against the officers. Smart guns are a valid solution to that. Cars are much more complex (with extra points of failure), but modern smarter cars are much safer than older non-smart cars, no reason to believe the same wouldn't happen with guns.
      • by hawkeyeMI ( 412577 ) <brock@nOSpaM.brocktice.com> on Friday January 08, 2016 @01:52PM (#51263139) Homepage
        You're conflating a bunch of different issues.

        First, police already use level 2 or level 3 retention holsters. They should also have retention training. Yes, sometimes their guns still are grabbed, but it is it enough of a problem to mandate so-called smart guns for all? That's the end-game here as New Jersey's law has shown.

        As for cars, you're mixing improved crash resilience and collision detection systems (while it makes sense that they help I've seen no actual data on it) with all sorts of entertainment electronics and sensor information merely being relayed to the driver.

        As I said, there are plenty of ways to secure guns in place, even biometric locks. Once the gun is unlocked and holstered, though, I want it to fire every time I pull the trigger. Regardless of which hand I hold it with. Regardless of whether some accessory device is present and functional. Without the need for a battery.

        People sell, trade, or make safe queens out of any gun that won't function reliably intended for defensive use. For some people one malfunction in 2000 trigger pulls is too much. It's unnecessary to add extra points of failure.
      • by ksheff ( 2406 )

        Well there's the problem of police guns getting stolen

        aka dirty cops selling firearms to their criminal buddies.

      • Modern cars are safer, but not because of their computers. They are safer because of extra airbags, crumple zones and improved seat belts. Their computers just mean that when they fail you can't fix them yourself anymore.
    • by rsborg ( 111459 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @02:41PM (#51263505) Homepage

      Expect to see pushback from the agencies saddled with these. It's a solution in search of a problem -- there are already myriad ways to secure guns. We don't need a bunch of extra points of failure built into the guns themselves.

      If there's any way to have the GOP disagree with something, all it takes is for Obama to support it and they'll find a reason to hate and reject it.

      So smart gun critics rejoice, by Obama adopting it expect all GOP to come out against them.

      • by Straif ( 172656 )

        The only reason anyone from the NRA to the GOP disagree with smart gun technology is that there are States like NJ who already have laws on the books mandating all guns sold in the state must use smart tech once it becomes widely available.

        If it was just a matter of having the choice between a 'smart' or regular gun no one would care; your purchase, your choice. But once you mandate that you must choose the 'smart' option if it's available you are going to force a lot of people to try and prevent it from

        • by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @05:10PM (#51264763) Homepage Journal

          States like NJ who already have laws on the books mandating all guns sold in the state must use smart tech once it becomes widely available

          NJ's law isn't even "widely available". It's "30 months after ONE model is available for sale". Police are completely exempted, of course. So let's say that I create a system that works, sort of. It's $2k for a .22lr pistol, and the pistol can't be anything stronger because the shock from firing calibers .380 and up is enough to destroy the electronics.

          30 months after that, even if NOBODY else has released such a pistol, legally speaking, my firearm would be the only one legal to sell in NJ. Restricting everybody to a $2k .22.

  • by carnaby_fudge ( 2789633 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @01:34PM (#51262953)
    The police routinely ensure that they are excluded from smart gun mandates. First because they require maximum reliability from their weapons and so-called smart technology adds another failure path. Second, the technology results in significant increase in cost. Why would the civilian population want these same problems?
    • by krisbrowne42 ( 549049 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @01:37PM (#51262983)
      They don't want body-cams or any other kind of oversight either, that doesn't mean they're bad ideas.
      • Eat that herring! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by s.petry ( 762400 )

        You are attempting to say a banana is the same as a grazing buffalo. How are you possibly able to equate someone making sure that a carpenter is on the job site and working with a mandate that he use a particular power tool where power may not be available? It's not rational, but you just tried it.

        I'll give a courtesy agreement that many of the gun advocates arguments are slippery slopes. What you just answered was not one of them.

      • by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @02:57PM (#51263641)

        They don't want body-cams ...

        Yet another blanket statement that is untrue. Most statements that begin with "they" and assume everyone in the category are identical are usually untrue. Most police want body cameras so they can prove that the suspect was in the wrong.

    • by i.r.id10t ( 595143 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @01:45PM (#51263053)

      Police and LE agencies are *always* exempted from gun legislation.

      The California "safe guns list"? No applicable to LEOs or Agencies.

      Post '86 machine guns? No applicable to LEOs/Agencies

      Magazine restrictions? Again not applicable to LEO/Agencies.

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      Do you have any statistics about smart guns failing? I have some stats I pulled out of somewhere that say smart guns are 105% more reliable than normal guns so that's definitely something police would want.
    • by barc0001 ( 173002 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @01:58PM (#51263191)

      > Why would the civilian population want these same problems?

      I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.

      Or the abusive spouse problem:

      http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/

      Smart guns would prevent that.

      • I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.

        Or the abusive spouse problem:

        http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/

        Smart guns would prevent that.

        So perhaps you should properly secure your firearms if there are others in your household at any time that may do something stupid with them. Safes were invented eons ago; there's no need to bring modern technology into the equation. Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem. There are already 300+ million regular guns in existence in this country alone. You'd have to somehow get rid of all of those, and then completely prevent some abuse asshole from getting his own smart gun. Good luck with

        • I guess you missed the part where that lady bought a gun to defend herself against her abusive husband who then took it out of her hands in a struggle and shot her with it. Would you care to explain how any of your snark addresses that?

          • I guess you missed the part where that lady bought a gun to defend herself against her abusive husband who then took it out of her hands in a struggle and shot her with it. Would you care to explain how any of your snark addresses that?

            My comment was in general terms regarding domestic violence. Because this one woman was killed with her own weapon in no means smart gun technology would have saved her, or anyone else. Perhaps he comes back with his own weapon later, or merely beats her to death with her own smart gun. This woman is dead because a man wanted to kill her. If he had removed a smart gun from her, she would have been murdered just as easily by other means as she was equally as defenseless. This woman's purchase of a weapon, a

        • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

          people SHOULD secure their firearms.

          sadly multiple studies into this area show that roughly 66% of all gun owners leave their firearms unsecured, and roughly 50% leave them loaded.

          I bet if you ask, most of those folks consider themselves "responsible gun owners".

          and the NRA and its cronies routinely fight any legislation to bar such irresponsible practices.

        • I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.

          Or the abusive spouse problem:

          http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/

          Smart guns would prevent that.

          So perhaps you should properly secure your firearms if there are others in your household at any time that may do something stupid with them. Safes were invented eons ago; there's no need to bring modern technology into the equation. Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem. There are already 300+ million regular guns in existence in this country alone. You'd have to somehow get rid of all of those, and then completely prevent some abuse asshole from getting his own smart gun. Good luck with that. More technological solutions for a societal problem.

          Arguably, the fraction of firearm homicides most avoidable in the US is "crimes of passion" "temporary insanity" type stuff, including both suicides and domestic violence type (or friend violence) cases, often with substance abuse involved; where there is no plan to kill or to use a weapon for robbery or other purpose, but one person assaults another (or himself) on the spur of the moment with whatever is at hand; and the effectiveness of a firearm makes it lethal. The kind where the perpetrator is found st

      • by b0bby ( 201198 )

        I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.

        Sure, but that's not the likely scenario. There's either going to be some biometric stuff, which won't be that reliable, or some sort of token which, unless you're super diligent and wear it all the time, will be available to a less responsible member of your household.

        It's widely known that having a gun in the house significantly increases your chances of being shot. The scenario of having the gun wrestled out of your hand is statistically unlikely; you're most likely to shoot yourself (suicide accounts fo

      • I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.

        In testing, the armatix iP1 failed more like 50% of the time. Would you buy a gun that costs between 3 and 5 times what a dumb handgun costs and fails that often? Also, it apparently requires 15 minutes before first bullet on boot up, are you willing to wait that long to defend yourself?

        http://www.americas1stfreedom.... [americas1stfreedom.org]

        No one is against smart guns. People are against unreliable, and expensive "smart" guns, and against state mandates for their use.

      • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

        case in point, this just happened: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/... [cnn.com]
        Officer shot with a stolen gun.

        Happens fairly often too, stolen guns being used in a crime.
        After all, as the gun lobby likes to remind us, "gun control doesn't work because criminals will just steal them or something".

        But stolen smart guns are just useless lumps of metal without the token.

  • I could care less if the federal government wants to use them, but will they try to mandate them like NJ?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dcbrianw ( 1154925 )
      The answer to your question is probably, "yes."

      I don't want this technology on any gun I own, certainly not in its current state, and maybe never. But neither do I object to to furthering R&D on something that may reach beyond the capabilities we foresee now. The reason I, and may other gun owners, don't want them in stores explicitly derives from the regulatory history of Washington, DC: today's "good idea" becomes tomorrow's requirement, and like many of the solar projects, far prematurely to the

  • I agree with the other commenter with regards to "expect pushback from the agencies saddled with it."

    Absolutely.

    But the only chance gun-owners are going to even come close to accepting this is if the kinks are so worked out of them that the people most at risk of going mano a mano with a perp who wants to take their gun are trusting their lives to a given tech. And that means agencies working those kinks out in the field and proving the validity of the tech under real world conditions.

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EmeraldBot ( 3513925 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @01:45PM (#51263059)
    I understand the practical reasons why peoppe object, as smart guns nowadays still have a long way to go before being as reliable as what we have now. But why do people object to the principle behind it? Does anyone here really intend on shooting at the police or the military, and do they think they would even stand a chance against a trained marine or FBI agent? They don't care about a criminal who is invading their house shooting them with their own gun, or their children blowing off their heads with it? Shooting ranges and collectables aren't even affected by them, so that's the three most popular uses of them gone right there. I don't even understand the objection to the principle of a gun with a smart lock, much less the extremely violent protests (ripping down displays, burning stores, and issuing death threats) that have come as a response to it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      But why do people object to the principle behind it?

      Because there are some state laws on the books that mandate 'smart gun' technology be provided on all weapons sold once it becomes 'available'. So that means (in the extreme) when one manufacturer offers a single weapon model with 'smart' technology, nobody may sell anything else. Offering one 'smart' target range plinking .22 could effectively shut down a state's retail market.

      Given the shortcomings of the technology, some people might want to wait a while until the bugs are ironed out and the reliability

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @03:01PM (#51263691)

        That is not an objection to smart guns but an objection to laws mandating smart guns before they are reliable/widely available. That is a huge difference.

        The problem is that many people are vehemently against researching the technology or offering current technology for sale. Due to that the reliability/availability issue will never be solved.

    • by mishehu ( 712452 )

      Ignoring the hypothetical scenarios, the question boils down to this: what do we actually gain from all the added complexity that this tech will add to the gun? Is the perceived increase in safety only nominal or is it substantial? Does DRM for a gun make the gun more or less useful? I'd say that that DRM for a gun always makes it less useful, EVEN if it stops a perp from stealing a gun and using it against the owner.

      Perhaps we should just start calling a spade a spade here. It's not "smart gun techno

      • A toddler took a gun from his mother's purse and shot her in the head killing her. With smart gun technology that would not have happened.

        • Had mom properly secured the weapon and had been watching the child it wouldn't have happened either...

          Like it or not, the trick with toddler's and gun safety is to provide monitoring of their activities and keep them out of their reach, just like you do with electrical receptacles, drain cleaner, medications, bathtubs, swimming pools and other household dangers. Do folks realize how many toddlers drown in the backyard pool or get run over by cars in their own driveways?

          Why do we willingly accept swimmin

          • Why do we willingly accept swimming pools, bathtubs and electrical outlets ...l

            There is a movement to put fences around swimming pools to prevent toddlers from falling in. Electrical plugs outlets have child safety plugs. We are OK with technology that restricts access to these things and that is very similar to smart guns.

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by friedmud ( 512466 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @02:07PM (#51263255)

      (Note: I'm not a gun owner, so I'm just speculating)

      I think one issue is a general "loss of control".

      Guns are about controlling your immediate environment. Being able to respond (with the most basic of responses: physical harm) to threats to yourself and your family.

      Anything that threatens to weaken that sense of control is going to have an uphill battle.

      What is the end game on "smart guns"? Right now, it's just being used to make sure that the owner is the one firing the gun. In the future? Could it be used to remotely disable the gun?

      For instance, many people are pushing for cars to feature a remote "kill switch"... where the police can remotely disable any car just by sending a wireless message to it. Could the same thing be coming to guns?

      If smart guns take hold... could you imagine legislation coming down that requires smart guns to be disabled on demand by the police/military? This sounds "great": police roll in to a hostage situation and disable the guns of the assailants and then storm in. However, this may also be a Constitutional violation: is it a restriction on our right to bear arms? Does it give the government the exact authority (to oppress the populace without their ability to stand up to the government with force) the Constitution was trying to protect against?

      Like I say: I'm not a gun owner... but that doesn't mean that I can't understand why gun owners would be against this. It's simply about control. Guns don't need to be "smart" to work... adding anything like this is opening the way toward more governmental control that possibly infringes our rights.

  • by kheldan ( 1460303 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @01:54PM (#51263151) Journal
    A firearm is, at it's heart, a mechanical device; there is no way around that, so no electronic means of preventing a gun from firing can be devised that someone else isn't going to find a way to defeat. A firearm has to be reliable, and the best way to accomplish that is to keep it as simple as possible. Adding a bunch of electronics to it that get in the way of the firearms' primary function is the antithesis of all that, and in the end will just make them less useful and less reliable for the law-abiding and law-enforcing people who need to use them. Also, do they really think that all this high-concept crap is going to prevent anyone outside the U.S. from producing 'traditional' firearms? Also, 3D printing technology is ramping up quickly, now with the capability of printing in metals; how long do you think it'll be before a 3D-printed handgun is equivalent to and virtually indistinguishable from a traditionally manufactured handgun?

    I'm not even a gun owner, and even I say that all this that Obama and others are trying to do to further limit firearm ownership and to create more roadblocks to firearm ownership will do nothing but make life more difficult (and dangerous) for peaceful, law-abiding people. Enforce the current set of laws better, and do a better job identifying people with mental illnesses and criminal intent before they get their hands on weapons and go around shooting people.
  • Clippy (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08, 2016 @01:54PM (#51263155)

    It looks like you want to shoot a person of colour. Would you like help with that?

  • by Quila ( 201335 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @01:58PM (#51263187)

    People don't oppose the technology in theory, they oppose the fact that New Jersey had a law mandating the sale of only smart guns after one goes on sale anywhere in the country. This is basically a huge gun ban in disguise, which is why it was opposed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bfpierce ( 4312717 )

      Honestly that sounds like New Jersey's problem, so why should I care.

      They went and instituted a moronic law, they can deal with the fallout.

  • by xtal ( 49134 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @02:15PM (#51263311)

    The problem is your constitution's second amendment.

    Instead of working an end run around what is meant to be a fundamental right to bear arms, what you should actually be discussing is how you amend the constitution. The framers of that document put in place specific mechanisms recognizing the need may arise to do so in the future.

    This has been done in the past, even the recent past. (e.g. prohibition).

    Why can't it be done now?

    If the amendment is not possible, then you will have a discussion about weapons, and as a nation, accept the consequences of those actions - it may will be that the defense of liberty is such that the collateral damage is acceptable to many. This seems fundamentally more honest than the approaches being put forth by the executive branch.

    I haven't heard this in the discussion, and it's puzzling.

    $0.02 cdn.

    • We can barely get annual spending budgets passed every year, because the Dems and Repubs have to appear to be at each others throats so that they can keep getting re-elected. Passing a constitutional amendment is far harder to do. I put the odds of them coming together to pass a constitutional amendment on one of the most divisive political issues at .0000000001%.
    • Bar bar for modifying the constitution is prohibitively high, by design. The Equal Rights Amendment, which just wanted the constitution to say that women have the exact same rights as men (sounds pretty straight forward, doesn't it?)... failed. No issues as divisive as gun control could possibly pass muster for a constitutional amendment. The only good thing to come from Obama's Executive Action on this is that congress might get off their collective butts and set clear and unambiguous rules as to exactly w
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dbc ( 135354 )

      That is extremely logical. Which in and of itself is enough to keep the US left from ever doing that. But the real reason the left is not trying to amend away the 2A is because they can count votes. And because of what it takes to get an amendment past the house and subsequently ratified, it would never pass. The votes aren't there for either step.

      Also consider this: if the left ever proposed an amendment to replace the 2A, it is an admission that the 2A means what it says, instead of what they *wish* i

  • Adding all this "smart gun" tech makes an already dependable firearm:

    A: Less dependable.
    B: More expensive.
    C: Higher maintenance.

    As such, gun owners (and prospective gun owners) have voted with their dollars NOT to invest in said technologies.

    As such, it's a solution in search of a problem.

    Now we have a problem. The government handing out taxpayer money to keep these smartgun companies in business.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bravo369 ( 853579 )
      I would disagree with that. You can't know A B and C until you have actually tried it and used it. You are assuming. and gun owners have NOT voted with their dollars because smart guns are not sold anywhere. Any store that tried to stock them was threatened and intimidated.
  • Consider the new federal mandate that new cars have backup cameras (that's in place, coming soon to all cars, and their price tags). Imagine that new mandate meant that with the new feature of a backup camera, the government decided that for your own safety, you were no longer allowed to roll down your windows or more your head out of some restraint that would take your eyes off of the forward view. Whatever. Point being: imagine a mandate for a new layer of technology that makes the previous simpler method
    • Imagine the government mandated safety regulations, even though they cost money. It would be horrific. Kids wouldn't be allowed to ride around in the back of pickup trucks. Lead paint wouldn't be sold in stores. Radium would no longer light up our watch faces. Seat belts would be mandatory. Slashdot, we CAN'T let this happen!

  • First up... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superdave80 ( 1226592 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @02:38PM (#51263485)
    If Obama really thinks this tech will make things safer, and is reasonably reliable, he should first instruct the secret service members that guard him and his family to adopt these smart guns. Then we'll talk.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08, 2016 @02:44PM (#51263523)

    Aside from the possibility of auto-banning non-smart guns, pricing the plebes out of the gun market, starting a de facto gun registry, and other items mentioned above, the 'reasons' why this regulation is being pushed is unadulterated propaganda.

    If you look at Obama's press releases the first thing mentioned is a list of mass shootings. Most of which weren't stopped because current law was poorly executed - mainly the fact that mentally ill people gained access to guns because NICS didn't know they were mentally ill. The rest weren't stopped because there was no record of them being mentally ill OR we would have to define people who have extremist views as being mentally ill.

    He knows this yet promulgates this 'save the children' shit anyway. Even worse, while he uses all these big scary numbers he misrepresents them. 30,000 gun deaths a year![1] More people die of gun violence that cars![2] 1,800 children gunned down in 2014![3]

    [1] 2/3 of these are suicides. Firearm homicides were 0.43% of all deaths in the US last year. About 10% of those were (justified or not) police killing citizens.
    [2] Since the late 60's there has been a steady and dramatic decline in not just rates of automobile deaths, but ACTUAL numbers of deaths all the while miles driven has steadily increased in the same time. Gun violence has also been declining in the last couple of decades, just AT A SLOWER RATE.
    [3] THINK OF THE child... Fuck you and your appeal to emotion. And thanks for not mentioning how many are gang related (with illegally obtained guns), suicides, or accidents. Because that would give us the whole picture, right? Fortunately for Obama, the CDC hasn't released 2014 death stats yet so I couldn't look this one up.

  • Step forward (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @02:47PM (#51263559)
    If they are actually reliable, I'd see any technology that would remove the cop's standard excuse of "I thought he was trying to grab my gun and shoot me with it, so I shot him!" as a big win. Probably something that should be mandated for law enforcement, but again, only if it really works.
  • by xxkd ( 4292359 ) on Friday January 08, 2016 @04:04PM (#51264225)
    I'm seeing two main arguments put forward from those who are against smart tech: weapon reliability and the 2nd amendment. To the first, it is insufficient to argue that a weapon is not worth having if there is some (additional) probability of the weapon failing due to the tech. One major safety concern is children getting their hands on guns. Some argue that safes are a sufficient solution but if one truly wants a gun as a means of defense, I doubt keeping it locked away will allow it to provide much protection and reflecting that children do get their hands on them. Now, suppose the probability a child gets their hands on a loaded weapon resulting in death is 10% and the probability of the tech causes the gun to fail when needed for defense is 1%, then the benefits of the tech outweigh the cost. These numbers are arbitrary to make the point that an increased chance of failure is only part of the equation. It's like saying sometimes an airbag deploys in such a way as to cause extreme harm to the driver that otherwise wouldn't happen so we should remove all airbags from cars. Relatedly I would guess that there are many different kinds of smart tech incorporating very different levels of functionality and control of the weapon meaning that the rate of failure will also vary. Product variety is good and there will be those who want more tech, those that want some, but less, and those that do not want any. The second concern is about the 2nd amendment but that's why we have the courts. If smart tech were to be mandated and it is indeed unconstitutional, as many argue, then guess what, the mandate will not be allowed and there is nothing to be worried about. I'm guessing NJ's law has not been tested because nobody has standing yet as there is no smart tech to mandate. Unfortunately, the law in NJ is still in place because it allows for this kind of divisiveness against developing the tech in the first place.

"I'm growing older, but not up." -- Jimmy Buffett

Working...