Smart guns carry technology that prevents a gun from firing unless the shooter's fingerprints match the gun owner's. It's not going to end all gun crimes, but it will certainly reduce them. It will stop accidental shootings when a child finds their parent's gun and fire it without knowing what they are doing. It will stop burglars from being able to fire a weapon they steal. It will also stop mentally unstable shooters from taking guns belonging to friends or family members and then using them in mass killings.
Smart guns, or guns that can only be fired by specific people, are the natural evolution of self-defense and a great innovation. By restricting when the gun fires and who can fire it, many accidents can be eliminated. For example, consider a family of five with children ranging from 2 to 17 years old. The gun could be programmed to allow mom, dad and the 17 year-old to fire it, while the 2 and 6 year-old would be unable to operate it under any circumstances.
People keep making the argument that if the gun malfunctions, then the gun's owner is screwed. This is an unfair argument because guns in themselves are a sort of technology, and guns themselves can misfire. It's not an issue when it's used properly. In the same vein, computerized guns might possibly malfunction, but obviously do not the vast majority of the time or else they would not be selling in the first place. It's a worry that has never actually been a problem, based on nothing but the fear of the unknown. If these guns have a record of unreliability, then this would be a valid argument--BUT THEY DON'T.
As a side note, besides gangsters and police officers, how many people have ACTUALLY woken up in the middle of the night and fired on an intruder? Honestly.
Smart Guns will soon be everywhere, they are already for sale around Europe and the US is next. The battery in these guns last a year so no need to panic and a light indicator lets you know when your battery is running out. Great advertisement for these guns on the new james bond movie - skyfall. These guns will be rolled out to law enforcement first and then to the general public, these guns will save lives and it is about time that the world wakes up and see's this tech.
This will not stop all crimes but it will help solve, and lessen the chances of having a crime committed. This will prevent strangers and children form using the guns that they aren't assigned to. This could stop some suicides also by them not being able to use the guns because of the finger ignition, which is all about how you grip the guns trigger when shooting. Regular guns should be banned because you have no idea who's shooting unless you find finger prints, or you can investigate and find out exactly who's gun it is, but this will not insure that it was the owners gun, just that it is theirs.
This is not a question of self defense, because if you are worried about your safety then by all means inform the police and sleep with a loaded pistol without a round in the chamber. This is a question of day to day life when your firearms are not in use. Lets assume some person breaks into your home and attempts to steal your firearm. They will not be able to fire such a weapon and as such will abandon it. Or what if a relative is visiting and is bullied to the point of suicide or murder. Such a safety device could save their and possibly other peoples lives too. I will admit that there is a chance of malfunction but i believe that the pros outweigh the cons.
Smart guns are a great idea. I happen to be a gun owner and like my guns. But say even if the smarts guns fail, we wouldn't be behind in evolution of guns. So I would love to have all my guns smart guns. Making me the only one to shoot it. Making guns safer and not letting anyone shoot the gun causing accidents and unneeded killing.
Smart guns are a logical solution for gun regulation. Smart gun technology is definitely not the end-all-be-all of gun crime, but it seems to be a viable solution. We know that criminals cannot buy guns legally, so they often get them on the black market. Most guns on the black market are stolen from law abiding citizens who purchased the guns legally or they are sold by a legal gun owner through gun running. A smart gun technology would prevent criminals from using stolen guns and thus limit the influx of new guns on the black market (nothing can really be done about the current guns in the black market other than trying to recover them from police raids/arrests). Again smart guns would just prevent newly manufactured guns from entering the mix. No matter how much encouragement you shove down law abiding citizens throats to lock up their guns, there is absolutely NO way to regulate this. Encouragement only goes so far and does not really seem to make an impact. Adam Lanza used the guns in the Sandy Hook murders by just taking them from his mother. She purchased them legally, but she failed to lock them in a safe. The neighbor of the San Bernadino shooters supplied 2 of the assault weapons used in the Inland Regional Center shooting. These guns were purchased legally. Smart guns would prevent anyone other than the legal purchaser from using the weapon. Consider accidental deaths from guns. How many stories have we heard of children being shot and killed because they were playing with a gun that was not properly locked. It is a tragedy for sure, and the parents are negligent but nonetheless an innocent young life is lost. Smart guns would reduce accidental gun deaths. Smart guns also do not violate the 2nd Amendment. Law abiding citizens would still be able to take advantage of their right to the 2nd amendment. Smart gun technology does not restrict any law abiding citizen from their right to buy and own a gun. I will admit that smart gun technology is not 100% full proof. But it seems better than doing absolutely nothing. Even gun supporters should see this as a reasonable solution that appears to satisfy both sides: Gun supporters get to take full advantage of the 2nd Amendment while simultaneously (1) keeping new guns out of the hands of criminals, (2) preventing individuals with severe mental illness from using guns, (3) reduces gun running and (4) reduces the number of accidental gun deaths.
I don't buy the argument that criminals are very intelligent. The average thug or gang-member on the street are not very intelligent individuals. Most are high school drop outs. I would not expect the average criminal from being able to hack a biometric reader. Could it occur? Absolutely. I will admit that, but smart gun technology would likely lead to a significant reduction in gun crimes and gun violence.
If you use a smart gun, you're probably going to end up dead because the gun can malfunction and shoot you instead of the enemy or it can stop working and you get shot by your enemy. What would you do then? Smart guns ain't so smart after all! Period.
Smart guns may be okay in principle, but what if someone breaks in and the guns computer malfuntions, you are dead. What is the computer goes bad. The gun is useless. I have a twelve year old brother who is capable of shooting anyone who breaks into our house. In other words, guns are not dangerous in the hands of children, but in the hands of those who do not understand them.
They are not a good idea because:
The computer may mess up.
The owner may not hold the gun just right for it to fire and will not be able to defend oneself.
Any time there is a computer in a gun, the government can track it to take it away. This is also not good. Keep the guns that we already have.
Smart guns present too many situations that will take away one's right to defend themself. Smart guns will require a power source aka batteries...Pin numbers will be difficult to enter under duress, finger prints might be rendered useless from sweat or blood, technology might just hickup occasionally like my laptop, ipad, iphone.
This is a good option for people who want an added safety device on sporting guns, but as far as self defense weapons it is not practical for many reasons. My top concerns would be realiability and limiting ones ability to adapt to a situation.
1. Realiability- this is simple, the more components you add, the more can go wrong. 2. Adapting to a situation- this is a fight, anything can happen. You could be shot in the arm in a way that nerves are severed and you lose function of your hand and need to use the other. You could be protecting someone (or they could be protecting you) and you go down. Now this persons only chance of suvival is to pick up a functional weapon and save themselves.
Also, as far as crime goes, Many criminals are very intelligent. How hard would it be to get around this system. I can't Imagine it would be difficult.
In terms of firearms, the less that can go wrong, the better. In theory, a computer controlled safety may seem like the answer to preventing negligent discharges, but in reality it only increases a firearm's chance of failure. I personally think that adhering to basic gun safety rules and having a manual safety is enough to prevent negligent discharges. If a gun is fired on accident, it is a problem of user stupidity rather than the gun itself being unsafe.
Any electronic device can be disabled or bypassed with a limited education in electronics.Also require power supplies that are not maintained are prone to failure and could happen when a person needs to defend them selfs.I have an way to put serial #s on a gun in a way that cannot be removed or seen without special equipment .This should not raise the cost of the gun a lot.I would like to hear responses to my idea
A firearm is meant to be reliable and the people who responsibly and legally own them maintain that reliability by frequently practicing and cleaning their firearms. They can completely disassemble an reassemble their firearm blindfolded within minutes, and yes the weapon would be operational, because one of the hallmarks of a nice, reliable firearm is it's simplicity. Everything in firearms technology has sought to simplify the firearm, example:
* the reliable cartridge instead of having to use a bullet, gun powder, a ram rod, more gun powder as a primer, and a match
* the firing pin and spring as opposed to the flint lock, match lock, or manual match system
* the trigger mechanism instead of the manual match system
* the magazine system (some people incorrectly call them clips) and the cylinder of a revolver in lieu of constantly having to reload after single shots - on this one, think pirates...They just carried a bunch of pistols cause they were single shot pistols - oh and think of the blunderbuss (yup, that's an ole timey firearm designed to shot everything you could put in it - aka nails)
Finally that makes guns sensitive to an EMP (electromagnetic impulse), that are not SCI-FI devices. Also someone can easily destroy your gun with a single felt pen streak! That's not funny at all...
Even a gun "secured" by a radiobased wristband protection system can be disabled by simply using a radio jamming device.
Allowing only one person the ability to use a firearm has many issues other than just the ones listed above. One is that you could not go to a range with anyone and teach them how to shoot unless they bought their own gun. Second, only the people who have purchased their own gun would be able to defend themselves in a home invasion. I own several guns, but my wife owns none. If I am not home and something happens, she (or even my future children) should be able to defend herself using my guns without having to go buy her own. Even if she did buy her own, she would have to search for her own and make sure she didn't accidentally grab the wrong one in a high pressure scenario where any extra time counts.
1. Reliability issues- Computer or battery failures could take the gun away when it's needed.
2. Price issues- Most smart guns cost much more than regular firearms
3. Small selection- There are very few smart guns currently available, and most of them are handguns. This makes things like hunting impossible.
4. Government control- The computers in smart guns could be tracked and conceivably turned off.