Why Childproof “Smart Guns” are a Bad Idea

Published by the LearnAboutGuns.com Author on September 18, 2008 at 12:29 am
LearnAboutGuns.com > Pro Gun Rights Articles > Why Childproof “Smart Guns” are a Bad Idea

For quite a while, there has talk about developing and then mandating so-called “smart guns”; that is guns that use an electronic system to prevent anyone but their owner from firing them. This idea is touted as a way to prevent criminals or children from misusing firearms, but in reality it will result in guns that are less reliable for self defense, and considerably more expensive.

How so-called “smart guns” would work in theory
The goal of so-called smart guns is to have a gun that only the owner can fire. One idea is to have a very short ranged radio transmitter worn by the user, and a gun that would only fire when this transmitter is closely behind the gun. Another idea is to have the gun recognize the user’s grip, and only fire when that user is gripping the gun.

Why so-called smart guns are a bad idea
Guns are the most effective self defense tool, and a good part of that effectiveness comes from their reliability. When a person pulls the trigger of a loaded gun, it is virtually certain that the gun will fire, as it was designed to do. That certainty is why police officers are willing to trust their lives to their guns, and why home owners who own a gun have a special peace of mind.
This cherished reliability comes from the fact that guns are mechanically simple devices, with few moving parts and no reliance upon electronics and computers.  Introducing an electronic system whose whole purpose is to prevent the gun from firing is one of the worst I’ve heard in a while, as reliability is guaranteed to suffer.  Batteries could drain, circuits could break, sensors could fail, etc.  If faced with a violent home invader, I would hate to have my gun crash the way my computer or web server could crash.
Furthermore, even if reliability were not an issue, the sensor systems used by such “smart guns” would require that the user wear a radio transmitter or grip the gun in a similar fashion each time it is fired.  That is not realistic, given the fact that guns used in self defense may be fired by someone who has just woken up and has no time to get their radio-transmitter-watch onto their wrist.  Also, people firing guns under stress often fail to grip their gun in the same way that they would under ideal conditions at the firing range.   Other people like to wear gloves while shooting. Finally, a 3rd party (such as a friend who is in the home) may need to fire the gun during such a home invasion emergency, and a “smart gun” would prevent this person from defending themselves or the gun’s owner.

ALSO READ:  The Most Biased Anti Gun Rights Interview I've Ever Seen

Conclusion
The proper remedy for children misusing guns or criminals stealing guns is not to try and childproof/criminal proof a gun.  During so will result in guns that are less reliable for self defense, and completely useless in some self defense situations.  Instead, gun owners should practice safe and responsible gun storage.

Tags for this article: , , , ,


  • noone

    In this, you're not totally right.

    A kind of "smart gun" exist from a long time (I think since 1980), and is the magna trigger sistem, which can be installed on some Smith & Wesson (and Ruger) revolver.

    The magna trigger is a magnetic system that prevents the trigger of the handgun from being pulled unless the user of the gun wears a special magnetic ring that short circuits the magnetic cut-off of the trigger.

    The only thing to remember is to always wear two rings, one on each hand, and the system will work flawlessy.

    To give the idea of how safe this system is, it was Massad Ayoob's choice for a self defence handgun when his daughters were small.

    • http://www.learnaboutguns.com The LearnAboutGuns.c

      No matter how reliable that magnetic system may seem, it still adds complexity and additional points of failure. An ordinary gun without that "safety" feature will still be more reliable, as no mechanical/electrical/magnetic/whatever system is 100% reliable.

      Also, even if it were truly 100% reliable, that system will still inadvertently prevent a spouse or other 3rd party from firing the gun in self defense, should they not have that magnetic ring on their finger.

      • Herrbaggs

        I think you are getting to deep into the philosophy of human kind. Stupid people should be allowed to shoot them selves. I would help reduce the unemployment roles and keep them off the highways.

  • noone

    Yes, I understand all the problems inherent to the magna trigger system, and my reply was not a shrine for smart guns (even it looked like it).

    Still, the magna trigger is simpler and therefore safer than any electric system: if I must, by law, use a smart gun, that would be my choice.

    I told "The only thing to rememeber is to always wear two rings…" this is, of course, mandatory for every person which could use the handgun. It will still stop a third party from using the gun in self defence, but if the other choice is, by law, to keep the handgun locked up or with a trigger lock…

  • hicusdicus

    Why not use the Obama lock. That is when you weld the barrel shut but leave a live round in the gun. This ploy will help reduce the conservative base.