Smart guns vs. “dumb guns”

When one of California’s biggest gun stores compromises with the enemy, it makes me wonder who do they think their target audience is?

Let’s start with the price, which is the last thing Michael S. Rosenwald wrote in his article:

The cost is high. Amatrix’s iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, is $1,399 — plus $399 for the watch. A .40-caliber Glock handgun can be had for about $600.

Right, so are any of you eager to spend $1,800 + Tax for a .22 when you could get a nice Glock? And what happens if you leave your house and forgot to wear that silly watch? Will you be able to fire your gun? A hammer would be more powerful than your gun in that situation.

The watch’s primary purpose is not to provide accurate time, though it does. The watch makes the gun think. Electronic chips inside the gun and watch communicate with each other. If the watch is within close reach of the gun, a light on the grip turns green. Fire away. No watch means no green light. The gun becomes a paperweight.

A dream of gun-control advocates for decades, the Armatix iP1 is the country’s first smart gun. Its introduction is seen as a landmark event in efforts to reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings. Proponents compare smart guns to automobile air bags — a transformative add-on that gun owners will demand. Gun-rights advocates are already balking, wondering what happens if the technology fails just as an intruder breaks in.
Source: http://www.standard.net/stories/2014/02/17/we-need-iphone-guns-will-smart-guns-transform-gun-industry

Isn’t that exciting? Us NRA and GOA members are going to be buying the dream of our enemy, an enemy who by the way, has never supported ANY KIND of gun ownership. Show me one study from MAIG defending concealed carry, or one study form John Hopkins BLOOMBERG School of Public Health about why keeping a gun at home is good for you?

James Mitchell, the “extremely pro-gun” owner of the Oak Tree Gun Club, isn’t one of the skeptics. His club’s firearms shop is the only outlet in the country selling the iP1. “It could revolutionize the gun industry,” Mitchell declared.

Although National Rifle Association officials did not respond to requests for comment about smart-gun technology, the group fiercely opposes “government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire,” according to the website of its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. “And NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.”

Even so, smart guns are potentially more palatable than other technological mandates, such as placing GPS tracking chips in guns, a controversial concept floated this session in the Maryland General Assembly.

The NRA makes a great point, they understand we don’t get rid of paper books just because we can read books on a Kindle, we don’t get rid of typewriters just because we can use computers. It is the market that should pick the winners and losers, and if you remember what the green fanatics did to light-bulbs, you know the anti-gunners wouldn’t mind doing the same to our normal guns for the unproven smart guns.

The arrival of smart-gun technology also comes amid a flurry of interest in the concept from investors who think the country — following the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary 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.

“We need the iPhone of guns,” Conway said, noting how the new iPhone 5s can be unlocked quickly with a fingerprint. “The entrepreneur who does this right could be the Mark Zuckerberg of guns. Then the venture capitalists like me will dive in, give them capital, and we will build a multibillion-dollar gun company that makes safe, smart guns.”

Do these people think the gun industry was born yesterday? This is not Facebook 2003, we don’t need the money from venture capitalists, our gun companies trade in NYSE and NASDAQ, they have millions of dollars, they already invest fortunes on Research & Development. If you’re a 20-year-old with an idea, you need to speak with Colt, Beretta, Smith & Wesson, maybe a gun blogger. But Conway? Who the hell is he in our industry? Does he even own a gun?

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.

Great, so if a mass shooter enters a school with an illegal “dumb gun” and you’re the guy with the smart gun.  What do you think will happen? And this are the people we’re expected to do deal with? Gun makers that hate gun owners?

The New Jersey Institute of Technology is using sensors to recognize 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.

What about those of us who wear gloves in cold weather? Does voice recognition work when you have a cold? And what about the element of surprise? Sure, I love the gun Judge Dredd talks to, but that’s a movie, this is real life and the last thing I want to do is advertise my presence by making noise. Besides, if you have a cold the smart gun won’t recognize your voice, and if you have laryngitis then you’re dead meat. As for the smartphone app, OK, maybe it would be convenient to be at work and know my gun is being stolen, but seeing how hackers can invade smartphones then I think this would be a boon for gun thieves. Who doesn’t want to rob a house when you know exactly where the owner is hiding his gun? As for disabling their weapons, again, a hacker can fix that. Nothing is 100% secure, I don’t care if your password is iLoveGuns44$@&RX, a good hacker will find it.

 Smart guns, advocates say, will have huge appeal to buyers. “If you have two cars and one has and air bag and one doesn’t, are you going to buy the one without the air bag?” said Belinda Padilla, president of Armatix’s U.S. operation. “It’s your choice, but why would you do that?”

That question is not relevant to everybody. Some of us buy on price, others design, others on features, some on safety, etc. A huge SUV without an airbag is probably safer than some tiny car with an airbag anyway.

Personalizing handguns for safety is actually an old idea. In 1886, after D.B. Wesson, the co-founder of Smith & Wesson, heard about a child injured with a gun, the company introduced a revolver with a special lever that made the gun operational. The product became nothing more than a historical relic.

Which goes to show the average gun owner doesn’t care about safety. Don’t take me wrong, I practice the rules of gun safety, but I’ve never owned a gun with a safety feature. I always treat my gun like it’s loaded, I don’t want to shoot myself because I thought I had the safety on.

Over the years, the idea of making guns smart has waxed and waned until a serious effort began in the early 1990s. Stephen Teret, a public health expert at Johns Hopkins University, commissioned undergraduate engineering students to build what turned out to be a crude smart gun activated by a ring. Later in the 1990s, the federal government researched smart guns to protect police officers whose guns were taken in struggles.

In 2000, after Colt had quietly worked on smart-gun technology, Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening, D, tried and failed to pass legislation mandating smart guns in the state. His effort was lauded by then-President Bill Clinton, whose administration struck a deal with Smith & Wesson to research the technology. But the backlash by gun owners and the NRA against the company was brutal, and Smith & Wesson’s business tanked.

I remember those days, which is why the British sold it back to pro-gun Americans.

The debate then over whether the technology was ready and reliable and whether it would actually make a difference has crossed into the current burst of interest. Some of the sharpest criticism comes from an unlikely corner — the Violence Policy Center, a staunch advocate to reduce gun violence.

Policy Center officials argue that the new technology is unlikely to stem gun homicides, which often occur between people who know each other, and that personalization will have no effect on the more than 300 million guns in circulation. The organization also questions whether the technology would deter the nearly 350,000 incidents of firearm theft per year, though some of the proposed technologies are add-ons installed on existing guns.

And perhaps most importantly, the Violence Policy Center worries that smart guns will increase the number of gun owners, because marketing around safety could sway those previously opposed to guns to make their first purchase.

1. The VPC is a staunch advocate of gun control and gun bans, not reducing gun violence.
2. I’m not as obtuse as support something because the VPC opposes it.

The kind of people who embrace new technology are hipsters for the most part, these are not a gun-owning bunch. In fact, the smart gun is a pain in the ass, you have to worry a ring or a watch, only the most extreme gun collector would want to own it, and most of us are not that extreme. Even the guy who owns 200 guns has to see if he’s better off owning some new gun of little value vs. an antique gun of greater value. Remember, we’re talking about an $1,800 purchase. An AR-15 might cost you $3,000, and it’s a far better investment than some overpriced .22 with a watch.

“We are very skeptical of what this technology can accomplish,” said Josh Sugarmann, the organization’s executive director. “You’re really affecting a very small portion of the gun-buying public.”

Proponents of smart guns dispute the criticism. They point to studies that hint at potentially significant reductions in gun deaths, particularly high-profile ones among children. In 2010, children accounted for 9 percent of the 606 unintentional or accidental gun deaths in the United States. A smart gun, proponents say, could prevent those deaths.

In theory assuming that the gun doesn’t malfunction, that the early-adopter doesn’t forget to store his watch or ring in a different place than the gun. Furthermore, 606 unintentional gun deaths is statistically insignificant when 65 million of us own guns.

Even the liberals at Freakonomics admit the following: “It turns out that far more children die each year in swimming pool accidents than in gun incidents. ”
Source: http://freakonomics.com/2006/04/16/are-you-ready-for-swimming-pool-season/

Yet I doubt 65 million Americans own swimming pools. So where’s Mayors Against Illegal Pools?

As for school shootings, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study in 2003 analyzing firearms used by students in 323 shootings on school campuses found that 37 percent of the guns came from the shooter’s home and 23 percent from a friend or relative. A smart gun, proponents say, could prevent those deaths.

“These guns are not going to rescue us from the 32,000 gun deaths a year,” Teret said, “but they are going to materially reduce gun deaths in the United States.”

Why don’t we look at the numbers of Americans who won’t be able to defend themselves because they couldn’t afford a smart gun?

The question is: How many people will buy smart guns?

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

What people say and what people do are two different things. My Gunshine State T-shirt had 1,100 Likes yet only 21 Sales. Why? Because liking things is free, buying things is not.

Statistics, of course, can be interpreted many ways, and at least one smart-gun entrepreneur saw the 14 percent as a positive sign. “I thought that was actually a huge number,” said Robert McNamara, co-founder of TriggerSmart, the Irish company using RFID chips. “There is no doubt that a lot of people would buy these guns if they are available.”

Then why not ask for a deposit? I’m not a fan of green vehicles, but people have made deposits to buy a Nissan Leaf, the Fisker, etc. Show me the money, McNamara! If people are so eager to buy a smart gun, let them start paying for them now.

The cost is high. Amatrix’s iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, is $1,399 — plus $399 for the watch. A .40-caliber Glock handgun can be had for about $600.

The chief concern for potential buyers is reliability, with 44 percent of those polled by the National Shooting Sports Foundation saying the technology would not be reliable. A commenter in an online Glock forum explained the concern this way: “They can’t even make a cellphone that works reliably when you need it, and some dumb (expletive) thinks he can make a reliable techno-gadget gun that is supposed to safeguard you in dire circumstances?”

Twenty minutes later someone responded: “You bet your life.”

Teret and others point to now-commonplace safety enhancements that Americans were skeptical about at first: air bags and smoke detectors. “They thought the air bag would kill them,” said Teret, who did early work on air-bag technology. “They thought it would shove them out the back window, that it would explode. It takes awhile to dispel these mythologies.”

This is another trick of the enemy, because they can’t answer the facts, they change the topics. Air bags by the way have killed people, an honest businessman introduces a product and proves its worth, they do not accuse us of having “mythologies” about something we haven’t even seen.

Some gun-rights champions are in surprising agreement with gun-control advocates on the technology’s future.

“We think the market should decide,” said Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Conway, out in Silicon Valley, said: “You let the free enterprise system take over. Just like everyone opted into the iPhone and abandoned the flip phone and BlackBerry, consumers will vote with their feet. We want gun owners to feel like they are dinosaurs if they aren’t using smart guns.”

Conway is full of crap, this guy is not about free enterprise, he wants a government-backed monopoly of smart guns. He doesn’t even respect his target audience. Feel like dinosaurs for not using smart guns? Some of us are still shooting black powder! There’s no such thing as the right gun for all gun owners. That would be like waking up in a world where every woman looks like Oprah, talk about a Nightmare on Every Street, LOL.

7 Things “Smart Gun” Companies Need to Do to Win Gun Owners

1. You must join the NRA Business Alliance. That’s our pro-gun Chamber of Commerce, any “smart” gun company that doesn’t pay tribute to the NRA is dead to me.

2. You must offer smart guns in popular calibers, not just .22 I fire two .9 weapons and today I had the pleasure of firing a .45. A .22 is better than nothing but I’d rather have something stronger. My gun is for self-defense after all.

3. You must partner with a respectable gun company like Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Taurus, H&K, etc. I’m not giving my money to some 22-year-old geek with an idea. This is a gun, it’s not a computer, it’s not an App. A gun is serious business and I don’t deal with liberals trying to make money with guns

4. Your prices must range between $300 to $600. People pay top dollar for an iPhone because it’s better than other phones, gun owners three times as much to fire a lower caliber. It’s just not worth it.

5. You must join the NRA or GOA and denounce gun control. We don’t do business with the enemy, period.

6. You will attend our gun shows, the SHOT show, and other pro-gun events.  If you want our market, you must become part of it, get to know us, demonstrate your products, attend our meetings, etc.

7. You must refuse any government subsidy or support. We’re not anti-government, but the government has not been a friend of gun owners and we refuse to do business with people who do business with the government with the exception of companies that sell weapons to the military. Outside of that, we don’t want another Solyndra or another GM, if you believe in the free market, you will survive based on the merits of your product and not corporate welfare.

Now who am I to make these demands? The most important person in the world, a customer, and I believe I speak for millions like me.