Will smart guns transform the gun industry?

[Ninja'd]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f58-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html?hpid=z1

One of California’s largest firearm stores recently added a peculiar new gun to its shelves. It requires an accessory: a black waterproof watch.

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 the 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 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. But gun rights advocates are already balking, wondering what happens if the technology fails just as an intruder breaks in.

James Mitchell, the “extremely pro-gun” owner of the Oak Tree Gun Club, north of Los Angeles, 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.

The implications of the iP1’s introduction are potentially enormous, both politically and economically. (And culturally — the gun that reads James Bond’s palm print in “Skyfall ” is no longer a futuristic plot twist.)

Lawmakers around the country have been intrigued by the possibilities. New Jersey passed a hotly contested law in 2002 requiring that only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. A similar measure made it through the California Senate last year, and at the federal level, Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.) also has introduced a mandate.

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 Web site 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.

<snip>

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 — and 59 percent of gun owners — favored personalization of all new handguns. Gun rights advocates, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, cite a survey the group commissioned last year showing that only 14 percent of Americans would consider buying a smart gun.

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 Trigger*Smart, the Irish company using RFID chips. “There is no doubt that a lot of people would buy these guns if they are available.”

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

 

[R13...]

The only reason smart guns are out there is because no one wants the thing to fail when faced with someone with a good ol' special 38. Mechanical ftw! where personal (or other) weaponry in concerned.

 

[Fudzy]

Negative, no lefty liberal safety feature is going to come between the gun owners and his right to shoot himself or a loved one in the face.

 

[hellfire]

I think it's a reasonable idea, but a watch is not the best idea. One is always bound to wear the watch in order shoot - not great if one removes one's watch to sleep and hears a 'bump in the night' that warrants investigation.

Something more biometric (and mapping a firearm to multiple users) would be better (James Bond Skyfall style)

 

[DigitalSoldier]

Negative, no lefty liberal safety feature is going to come between the gun owners and his right to shoot himself or a loved one in the face.

Agreed.

We need to ban guns out right...

And while busy with that knives, glass, any sharp object, bats and all other objects that can bludgeon somebody to death.

Also need to get the Green Scorpions on this so we can outlaw rocks.

Sorry I forgot we also need to ban all matches, lighters et al that can cause start a fire we don't want people setting their loved ones on fire.

Then there are vehicles we need to ban them as well as a psychotic family member can use the vehicle to run over somebody.

Need to start banning pronto...

 

[Azbubu]

I thought it was a gun that updates your Facebook status each time you shoot someone.

 

[AstroTurf]

First thing that came to my mind is if they can use a gate remote to jam car remotes how long will it take them to figure out what frequency it will take to jam this gun's "remote"?

 

[STS]

Negative, no lefty liberal safety feature is going to come between the gun owners and his right to shoot himself or a loved one in the face.

it may help with the kids playing with their father's gun tho