They had some pretty funny stuff in there. Especially the part where the author tried to sell the law as something intended to attract business. Unfortunately, when they attempt to mandate this technology while exempting law enforcement and military, it makes me a bit skeptical. I have read of some companies actually looking to market the technology to law enforcement,
"The Metro Industrial Areas Foundation, a group pushing manufacturers for better gun safety, recently met with Mauch in Germany and hope to bring him to the United States to persuade police chiefs to buy his company’s guns. The idea: If the technology is good enough for police officers, it should be good enough for consumers. Armatix is developing a 9mm smart gun targeted at the law enforcement market. The company hopes to offer other controls besides a watch, including a version that responds to voices. “The idea of a smart-gun maker who has lots of experience making guns is intriguing because he’s not just some fly-by-night guy trying to do this,” said Rabbi Joel Mosbacher, a member of the group that met with Mauch. “Law enforcement officials have been quietly saying that if he comes over, they’d be willing to meet with him.”
"Washington’s King County Sheriff John Urquhart said that smart handgun technology was not “ready for prime time.” “I’m probably the only person in this room who has zipped kids into bodybags,” Urquhart told attendees. “We pick up kids who have killed themselves with other people’s handguns. We don’t like that.” He mentioned that more than 500 American police officers were killed in the past decade with their own handguns by apprehended suspects. “Any tech to make that better is a good thing. That being said, (smart gun technology) is not ready for my officers yet. If it worked 110 percent of the time, I’d be interested,” He said."
"Several law enforcement departments are skeptical about smart gun technology. “With current guns, you can look at the parts. If we don’t clean them, they’ll go bad on us. But you can’t see electronics,” Urqhart said. He added that laser sights, the last major handgun innovation he could think of, remain uncommon across the country because police departments “don’t want officers to rely on such technology.” He added that if smart-gun technology proves to be reliable and comfortable for police officers, many police departments would likely support it. “If it was gonna save lives, and the lives of my officers, I’d spend that kind money, and the council would approve it.”
"That's a bit too strong, don't you think? Nothing works that well."
No, nothing works that well, however it speaks to the concern that is common to both civilians and law enforcement, to say nothing of the military. The best example that I can give that smart gun technology isn't reliable enough for serious defensive firearms is the exemption in the New Jersey law specifically exempting law enforcement and military. There might very well be a market for the technology, but mandating its use isn't the way to do it.
Well let's reframe the discussion, how reliable do you need something to be to stake your life on it? What failure rate are you willing to accept staking your life on? much as a failure of a seat belt or airbag at the critical moment can lead to a casualty this technology carries the same challenge, the critical difference being that the lethal threat remainss if a firearm fails to function at the critical moment.
A good indication that the reliability of the technology being something acceptable would be its widespread use by law enforcement and the military. Currently they won't touch it. And even if it becomes reliable enough, if shouldn't be mandated.
My view is that options and innovations are a good thing but reliability is a concern, the print Id on my iPhone only works about 35% of the time and a malfunction there is only a minor annoyance. With my duty weapon any time I tune it or replace a part I don't carry it until it handles at least 200 malfunction free rounds on the range even if I only replied a guide rod or spring. Issues with smart gun technology include reliability, susceptibility to electronic interference whether by accident or design, fragility of the hardware. A big concern is fails safes. As ssg mentioned many departments are hesitant on laser sights and those are only enhancements and supplements to basic techniques. If all the technology fails you can still shoot. What do you have with smart guns? If they fail and you cannot use the fire arm they are dangerous and have no business on a duty/self defense/range weapon, if they fail and you can still use the firearm normally they are pointless and have no business on a duty/self defense/range weapon. Any new piece of technology that enhances ability is a good thing, as long as you have the basics to fall back on should that texhnolgy fail, any technology that doesn't offer a functional fail safe should be avoided
Of course, no one seems to ever bring up the other failure mode. That one being where the gun fires without the electronic code. Wonder how long it would be before someone is claiming it isn't their fault the gun wasn't properly secured, it's a smart gun.
Another big concern is the potential for it to be hacked resulting in unauthorized/unplanned functions. With anthing computer operated or electronic it's only a matter of time until people figure out ways of hacking it. With the function being electronically controlled the potentiall of reprogramming it or other electronic interference is a real problem
They had some pretty funny stuff in there. Especially the part where the author tried to sell the law as something intended to attract business. Unfortunately, when they attempt to mandate this technology while exempting law enforcement and military, it makes me a bit skeptical.
ReplyDeleteI have read of some companies actually looking to market the technology to law enforcement,
"The Metro Industrial Areas Foundation, a group pushing manufacturers for better gun safety, recently met with Mauch in Germany and hope to bring him to the United States to persuade police chiefs to buy his company’s guns. The idea: If the technology is good enough for police officers, it should be good enough for consumers. Armatix is developing a 9mm smart gun targeted at the law enforcement market. The company hopes to offer other controls besides a watch, including a version that responds to voices.
“The idea of a smart-gun maker who has lots of experience making guns is intriguing because he’s not just some fly-by-night guy trying to do this,” said Rabbi Joel Mosbacher, a member of the group that met with Mauch. “Law enforcement officials have been quietly saying that if he comes over, they’d be willing to meet with him.”
http://gunssavelives.net/gun-industry/smart-gun-to-be-marketed-to-us-law-enforcement-market-after-consumer-market-backlash/
"What's Happening with the Smart Gun Technology?"...Dont really care I would not own one under any circumstance
ReplyDeleteIs politics stifling innovation in smart gun technology?
ReplyDeleteOf course. If the threat of mandatory "smart" guns were removed, opposition to the development and marketing of it would melt away, as well.
"Washington’s King County Sheriff John Urquhart said that smart handgun technology was not “ready for prime time.” “I’m probably the only person in this room who has zipped kids into bodybags,” Urquhart told attendees. “We pick up kids who have killed themselves with other people’s handguns. We don’t like that.” He mentioned that more than 500 American police officers were killed in the past decade with their own handguns by apprehended suspects. “Any tech to make that better is a good thing. That being said, (smart gun technology) is not ready for my officers yet. If it worked 110 percent of the time, I’d be interested,” He said."
ReplyDelete"Several law enforcement departments are skeptical about smart gun technology. “With current guns, you can look at the parts. If we don’t clean them, they’ll go bad on us. But you can’t see electronics,” Urqhart said. He added that laser sights, the last major handgun innovation he could think of, remain uncommon across the country because police departments “don’t want officers to rely on such technology.” He added that if smart-gun technology proves to be reliable and comfortable for police officers, many police departments would likely support it. “If it was gonna save lives, and the lives of my officers, I’d spend that kind money, and the council would approve it.”
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20150202-smartgun-technology-faces-many-hurdles
" If it worked 110 percent of the time, I’d be interested."
DeleteThat's a bit too strong, don't you think? Nothing works that well.
"That's a bit too strong, don't you think? Nothing works that well."
DeleteNo, nothing works that well, however it speaks to the concern that is common to both civilians and law enforcement, to say nothing of the military.
The best example that I can give that smart gun technology isn't reliable enough for serious defensive firearms is the exemption in the New Jersey law specifically exempting law enforcement and military.
There might very well be a market for the technology, but mandating its use isn't the way to do it.
Well let's reframe the discussion, how reliable do you need something to be to stake your life on it? What failure rate are you willing to accept staking your life on? much as a failure of a seat belt or airbag at the critical moment can lead to a casualty this technology carries the same challenge, the critical difference being that the lethal threat remainss if a firearm fails to function at the critical moment.
DeleteA good indication that the reliability of the technology being something acceptable would be its widespread use by law enforcement and the military. Currently they won't touch it.
DeleteAnd even if it becomes reliable enough, if shouldn't be mandated.
My view is that options and innovations are a good thing but reliability is a concern, the print Id on my iPhone only works about 35% of the time and a malfunction there is only a minor annoyance. With my duty weapon any time I tune it or replace a part I don't carry it until it handles at least 200 malfunction free rounds on the range even if I only replied a guide rod or spring. Issues with smart gun technology include reliability, susceptibility to electronic interference whether by accident or design, fragility of the hardware. A big concern is fails safes. As ssg mentioned many departments are hesitant on laser sights and those are only enhancements and supplements to basic techniques. If all the technology fails you can still shoot. What do you have with smart guns? If they fail and you cannot use the fire arm they are dangerous and have no business on a duty/self defense/range weapon, if they fail and you can still use the firearm normally they are pointless and have no business on a duty/self defense/range weapon. Any new piece of technology that enhances ability is a good thing, as long as you have the basics to fall back on should that texhnolgy fail, any technology that doesn't offer a functional fail safe should be avoided
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOf course, no one seems to ever bring up the other failure mode. That one being where the gun fires without the electronic code. Wonder how long it would be before someone is claiming it isn't their fault the gun wasn't properly secured, it's a smart gun.
ReplyDeleteAnother big concern is the potential for it to be hacked resulting in unauthorized/unplanned functions. With anthing computer operated or electronic it's only a matter of time until people figure out ways of hacking it. With the function being electronically controlled the potentiall of reprogramming it or other electronic interference is a real problem
Delete