Apparently it's not, because everyone dies sometime.
Quiet, Almost too quiet
- Thread starter Paul in Saudi
- Start date
Apparently it's not, because everyone dies sometime.
Mass killings are down because Obama has taken our guns.
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
Yea when someone misses the life expectancy by roughly 70 years its a little different.
KMRblue1027
Deity
I really hope smart guns start taking over the market soon.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
You're toying with dangerous forces.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
They won't, for a multitude of reasons.
Why is that?
What? To make up for the owner?
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
A "smart gun" which incorporates biometric technology which would, in theory, only allow an authorized user to fire it. What are you guys thinking of? Skynet death turrets?
No I was completely aware of what smart gun technology is. I was just wondering why KMRblue1027 would think such technology would actually be a good idea.
From a military perspective smart guns are an especially horrible idea. What if you are out of ammo and need to use your dead buddy's weapon? What happens when the battery that powers the mini-computer dies and you are in a situation that doesn't allow you to recharge? What happens when the enemy hacks the weapon and makes it so you can't fire it? Biometrics are also extremely unreliable, especially when the user is under duress, which a soldier is likely to be if he/she is using their weapon.
So at least from a military/law enforcement perspective, smart guns are actually a very stupid idea.
Goodfella
Showing results for
Maybe your microchip implant or other proximity device is compatible with your dead buddy's gun?
Couldn't the enemy also be hacking other electronic systems like communication devices and planes/long range weapons? I don't see you arguing against the use of electronic communication devices.
So the enemy can capture or kill you or your buddy, rip out the microchip and start using your weapons?
Yes they could. The reason I don't argue against those devices though is because their tactical benefits vastly outweigh their tactical drawbacks. The same cannot be said for smart guns. In fact there is almost no tactical benefit to smart guns at all, yet there are many tactical drawbacks. For one, soldiers are expected to be able to keep their own equipment functional in the field. To do this with smart guns, every soldier would practically have to have a degree in computer science to be able to perform basic maintenance on their weapon. That is the same reason the OICW with the "guncam" was cancelled by the US military. It was considered too high tech for the average private to maintain in the field. When I was in the Army we were told that all of our basic equipment (weapons, body armor, radios, first aid kits) were designed to be operated and maintained by someone with a fifth grade education. Do you really think smart guns fit that criteria?
Another drawback is logistics. What happens when your are in the field and separated from your supply chain and your microchip goes bad or the computer breaks down or loses power? Without the ability to get replacement parts easily your smart gun becomes a useless hunk of metal and plastic. Also, how do you get the tech support out there to fix serious problems with the computer? Or the surgical staff to implant a new microchip? Not to mention the microchip would have to be implanted in a sterile environment, which is simply not happening in the field. And you can't keep pulling soldiers off the battlefield to send them to a sterile hospital to get a new microchip.
Another reason I don't argue against the use of high tech communications and other devices is because the military has back-up plans that allowed us to still operate efficiently without those devices. You just can't have those back-up plans with smart guns. If your weapon won't fire because the computer is broken, there's no way around that. Sure you can make it so the guns will still fire if the computer fails, but then what's the point of installing the computer in the first place then? Because then all the enemy has to do is break the computer and then he can use your weapon.
Guns already outsmart many a gun owner.
Goodfella
Showing results for
@Commodore: What you said before didn't seem like a real drawback to me but fair enough. Anyway back to this:
Aside from military or law enforcement, the supposed advantage would be to prevent gun theft, child-related gun accidents, or an Adam Lanza situation from occuring.
That's still a lot more work than simply picking up the weapon and firing. I mean, hackers can steal passwords, so does that mean we shouldn't have passwords?
And Goodfella lists several other reasons why parents might buy something like this. So long as firearms are legal, I can see a market for these guns.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Haven't you thought that gun owners, too, can go around and create yet another headline? I'm quite sure that most of the massacres are made from the gun owners themselves, and not someone else.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
There isn't any real market or niche for smart guns no matter what a developer's marketing dept. claims. The child safety/anti-theft niches are already served by safes. The only way public would buy smart guns is if it were mandated through some harebrained law.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Why would you need the weapon, is the ammo smart also?
But once the enemy has our microchips they can start replicating them and implanting them in their own soldiers so they will be able to just pick up our weapons and start firing. Also your analogy to computer passwords falls flat because there is no disadvantage to the user if they protect their information systems with a password. There are, however, many drawbacks for soldiers and law enforcement agents if they were to start using smart gun technology. It is just an added level of unnecessary complexity to our warfighters while conferring zero/marginal tactical advantage.
There are still a lot of problems with smart gun technology that need to be worked out before they will become a viable military option.
Understood. I was speaking from a purely military perspective though. I mean, this technology has existed since the late 1990s yet not a single military or law enforcement agency has adopted it yet. Why do you think that is? It is because they see the same problems with the tech that I do. So this might be a viable option for the civilian market (even that is dubious though, for the reasons Bugfatty has pointed out), but as of right now it has no place on the battlefield.
timtofly said:
Okay, perhaps running out of ammo wasn't a great example. But just switch that out with what if you lose your weapon or it becomes damaged to the point you cannot use it? And nobody has still addressed my point of what do you do when the power source for the computer in the weapon runs out of juice and you can't resupply? As I said before: Sure you can allow the weapon to fire if the computer fails, but then that defeats the whole purpose of putting the computer in the gun in the first place.
KMRblue1027
Deity
Unless you can find a large situation where someone needs to pick up others weapons for some contrived reason there's nowhere where smart guns wouldn't help (The whole invade other counties thing is kinda ending), especially for law enforcement. I need to find the study when it's not 3AM but something like 75% of gun related deaths are from guns that the shooter acquired second hand. This would have prevented Sandy Hook for just one off the top of my head. Also would prevent the multiple shootings where cops loose their own weapon (IIRC there's been ten such incidences in Philly alone over the past decade or so).
Also Biometrics, one is still a technology in its infancy that sadly has gotten little attention over the years and could improve massively with a some backing, two it's not even the only option. Radio based guns already exist for the consumer market, just literally no one in the US will sell them due to a law here in NJ that within 3 years every new gun sold has to be a smart weapon.
It's actually the other way around, the legal owner is the least likely to be the one, an extended family member is the most common than stolen weapons IIRC.
Similar threads
- Poll
