Smart Guns Could Be Coming

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

The Carrie Nation of the Gun Prohibitionist Movement lies to America. Again. Still.

Shannon R. Watts, the highly-paid Democrat public relations consultant turned “grassroots” citizen control cultist for Michael Bloomberg, took to the pages of USA Today to lie to the American people about violence and her “solution,” so-called “smart guns.”

Let’s go a-fisking:

Gun violence is a public health crisis in America. Each day, 33 Americans are murdered with guns – including eight children or teens. From mass shootings to more everyday incidents, our eyes are now wide open to this national epidemic. And as Americans, we owe it to each other to stop its spread by implementing solutions like safer gun laws and fostering innovative technologies – including personalized guns.

Gun violence is not a public health crisis. It never has been. Gun violence is a criminal justice and law enforcement matter. It always has been. Arguing otherwise is simply duplicitous politics.

The biographies of the 33 Americans killed everyday with firearms (not all are murdered, some are killed by citizens in lawful self-defense) show that most have extensive criminal records, and are involved in the drug trade and/or violent crime. The “eight children or teens” are gang-bangers 17-19 years old involved in violent crime.

For Watts—who in November re-defined every cartridge-firing firearm as an assault weapon—”safer gun laws” means a total prohibition on all modern firearms. “Personalized guns” far too expensive for anyone by her fellow limousine liberals to own are just the latest talking point.

Back to Watts:

The technology already exists to ensure a gun is used only by the actual authorized user of a weapon, and if widely disseminated, it would be a game-changer for keeping guns out of the hands of children and criminals.

A personalized — or “smart” — gun is a firearm that aims to reduce misuse through the use of an RFID chip or other proximity device, fingerprint recognition, or magnetic ring that allows only authorized persons to use the weapon. This technology could help reduce or eliminate “accidental” shootings or suicides by children and teens, and render a gun useless if it is stolen from its owner.

As we discussed in great detail yesterday, the “best of breed” of smart gun technology is the Aramatix iP1, a 22.LR-chambered pistol with uses RFID signals between a $399 watch and the $1,399 gun to communicate and enable it to fire.

When it fires.

The Aramtix iP1 fails to work 10-percent of the time, meaning that the failure rate approaches 100% every single 10-round magazine. Because the watch only has a 10″ range, the authorized shooter can only fire it using the watch hand. If the shooter has to switch hands for any reason—say to defend himself against a knife—the gun fails to fire 100% of the time.

How “safe” are these “smart” guns? Kyle Mizokami explains:

Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario. You live in a rough neighborhood and you recently bought a smart pistol for home defense. You’re lying in bed reading a good book when suddenly there’s a terrible crash downstairs.

Startled, afraid, adrenaline pumping, you drop your book and spring into action. Your hand instinctively goes to the nightstand drawer to retrieve your smart pistol.

But where is your smart watch? To your horror, you realize that you took a shower just before bed and removed the watch out of habit. You left it on the bathroom sink!

You slink quietly out of bed and creep into the bathroom, just as you hear boots crunching on broken glass downstairs. Your hands fumble across the sink counter, feeling for the watch. You find it and put the gun down to secure the watch on your wrist.

Now you need to punch your code into the watch. Do you remember it? Were the last two digits 11 or 32? Or was it 13?

You wince as you turn on the bedroom light. The light will give you away, but you need it to enter your code—or your weapon won’t work.

You put down the gun to type and discover that in the darkness you accidentally put the watch on upside down. You take it off and put it back on again. Fingers trembling, it takes you a few tries, but you finally type the code correctly.

The guy downstairs is rifling through your desk, making quite a racket. It’s only a matter of time until he comes upstairs.

A light on the gun’s backstrap glows red. You’re pretty sure that means the gun is locked, and the light turns green when unlocked. Or is it the other way around? Your mind is racing and it’s difficult to remember. Green could mean “go,” but red could mean “danger, the gun is armed.”

Which is it?

Up ’til now you’ve done everything right, but the gun is still glowing red. It dawns on you that your carpal tunnel has been acting up so you started wearing the smart watch on your left wrist. You’re holding the weapon with your right—and now your hands are far enough apart that the RFID chip doesn’t register.

Do you move your watch to your right hand, or do you hold the gun with your left hand? You’ve never shot the gun with your left hand! Isn’t it funny that you never used your left—

The burglar is coming up your staircase! You must decide!

You grip the gun with your left hand. The light on the backstrap of the handgun suddenly turns green.

That was easy, wasn’t it?

The manual of operation for a conventional handgun is a bit easier.

Open the gun safe.

Pick up the loaded handgun up.

Aim it at the bad guy attempting to destroy your family.

Pull the trigger until he ceases to be a threat.

Watts is right about one thing, however.

After you’ve been killed still attempting to get your defective watch and gun to work, it might take a little while before the burglar—now your murderer—is able to hack it, if he bothers to pick up the expensive malfunctioning piece of junk at all.

Now, where was Watts in her op-ed? Right here.

Unfortunately, the gun lobby has stood in the way of progress in personalization technology, claiming that it infringes on the rights of gun owners. We cannot allow a few extreme voices to stand in the way of a technology that could save lives and in no way infringes on Second Amendment rights. As a country, we must do everything in our power and use all the tools at our disposal to help treat this out-of-control epidemic.

Actually, there has been “no progess” in the needless over-complication of handguns for a far simpler reason: there is ZERO market demand for it. None at all.

The military doesn’t want this sort of technology. It’s too fragile, too expensive, and can cost the lives of soldiers in combat.

No law enforcement agency wants this technology, and in the few states that have tried to pass laws mandating it, police unions have lobbied fiercely until they were specifically exempted, because they know this technology will get their officers killed.

Just as obviously, no commercial market exists for a gun that fails more than it functions and costs almost three times as much as a proven design.

Buying a smart gun would be like passing on the opportunity to buy a new BMW or Mercedes for $30,000 in favor of purchasing a ’78 Yugo with a bad starter for $120,000.

That is the reason Watts and her ilk want to force upon you a law that mandates that the only gun you can buy is a “smart gun.” If you aren’t a rich public relations executive like Watts, and don’t have a half-dozen bodyguards like her billionaire boss… well, that’s too bad.

There is no epidemic of gun violence in this nation. Violent crime committed with firearms and firearm accidents have been a a steady decline going back more than four decades, even as gun ownership has become far more popular, and shooting sports have achieved record growth, especially among women, the young, and urban shooters.

The only people calling for smart guns are those prohibitionists that would rather read about a young mother murdered while completely unarmed or holding a defective smart gun, than read about her as one of many survivors in the Guns Saving Lives section of BearingArms.com.

Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Guns aren’t remotely interested in saving lives… but they are incredibly interested in disarming the civilian population.

Do anyone else ever wonder why that is?

http://bearingarms.com/the-carrie-nation-of-the-gun-prohibitionist-movement-lies-to-america-again-still/

[lostinblue 1,989]

Gun control is about control........ not guns

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A gun aficionado blog going bezerk over sensible efforts to end gun insanity. How original.

[Karee 4,190]

Odd data that the nationmaster site presents. Makes little sense. They say that less than 40% of homicides in the US are committed with firearms. The FBI, the CDC and any other reputable sources have consistently put that figure closer to 70%. All of them. According to the Nationmaster data, we had 9,369 murders with firearms in the US in 2002. And they say that 39.56% of murders are committed with firearms. given these two data points, we would have had 9,369 / 0.3956 = 23,683 homicides in the US in 2002. The reality is that we had about 16,000 homicides that year. The nationmaster data presentation simply doesn't add up.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime

% homicides with firearms: 39.5604

Murders with firearms: 9,369

Homicides and Murders are two different things. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Homicides and Murders are two different things. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders.

That's right. Which may be one of the reasons the numbers presented by Nationmaster make little sense. They appear to be comparing apples to oranges and then appear to arrive at the conclusion that the majority of homicides are not committed with a firearm. That's false, of course. The FBI and CDC data are more concise. And both consistently have the rate of firearm homicides close to 70% of the total.