Pew Poll Shows "Smart" Guns Could Cost Thousands of Lives

Gun Watch ^ | 20 July, 2018 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Among those who wish a disarmed population, any measure that makes firearms harder to access, possess, and use, is considered a positive thing.

Thus guns with complex electronic circuitry, that only allow certain users, possibly at certain times and certain places, to fire the gun, are being promoted as items that can save lives. From Bloomberg the spark:

Bloomberg follows 21-year-old inventor and entrepreneur Kai Kloepfer, who's created a "smart" handgun that could save thousands of lives.

This is a one sided argument that pointedly ignores the other side of the equation. "Smart" guns can easily cost lives.

According to a Pew poll published in June of 2016, one percent of people who say they have never owned a gun, have used one for defensive purposes. Seventeen percent of current gun owners say they have used a gun for defensive purposes, and nine percent of people who owned guns in the past have used one for defensive purposes, as defined in the Pew poll question.

Pew found 30 percent of adults in the United States admit to owning a gun. Forty-nine % of the remaining 70% say they never owned a gun.

In 2016, there were about 246 million adults in the United States. One percent of those who say they never owned a gun is 246 million x .7 X .49 X .01.

That is 840 thousand adults who have never owned a gun, who say they have used one for defensive purposes.

How many of those adults would have been prevented from using that firearm for defensive purposes if the use were limited by "smart" gun technology?

The claim that thousands of lives would be saved with smart gun technology rests on the assumption that many illegitimate uses of guns would be prevented by the wide adoption of "smart" guns, but that legitimate uses of guns would be unimpaired.

Very few suicides would be prevented. Smart gun technology would not stop gun owners from shooting themselves. The vast majority of suicides are committed with a gun owned by the person committing suicide. If a person cannot access a gun, many other methods are readily available for suicide. In Australia, when access to guns was made more difficult, single vehicle crashes and suicide by hanging increased to make up the decrease in suicide done with guns.

Very few murders would be prevented. Most murders are committed by people with a long history of violent, irresponsible behavior. Murders are deliberate acts. Very few murders are committed with guns that are accessed only moments before the murder, and not before.

Very few accidents would be prevented. There are only about 450 fatal firearm accidents a year in the United States. Most of them occur with adults who have access to firearms, but who are irresponsible in their actions. Electronics do not stop irresponsible behavior.

Very few murders involve criminals who take guns from the hands of police or armed victims. The number of police shot with their own gun used to be higher, around 20%. Retention holsters and retention training has significantly reduced those numbers.  In the last 10 years, the number of officers who have been killed with their own weapons has averaged 2.2 per year.  2.2 per year is a little more than 4%. It is very far from thousands a year.

Complicated electronics installed on firearms would cost lives through a higher failure rate. Guns are a safety tool for life and death situations. No one is suggesting putting complicated electronics that limit who can use fire extinguishers.

Smart guns are inherently more expensive than regular, time tested designs. More expensive guns means fewer poor people will be able to afford guns.

At the heart of the issue is a divide on whether guns are a net benefit or a
net detriment in society.

Those who have made the decision to be armed, do not want "smart" guns. They see them as unnecessarily complicated electronics that can fail, and which do not accomplish any significantly useful purpose.  They are wary of complicated electronics that might have bugs or "back doors" allowing the gun to be rendered useless by an opponent. They do not wish to trust their life to potential battery failures.

Those who have made the decision to be unarmed see "smart" guns as another way to prevent guns from being used. They do not intend to use guns themselves. They do not see any downside to preventing other people from using them.

The Pew numbers show hundreds of thousands of people who have never owned guns who used them for defensive purposes.

Many of them would have been prevented from doing so if the guns had the electronic circuitry in place to severely limit who could fire the gun.

"Smart" guns are more likely to cost lives than to save them.


©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

[marktwain]

"Smart" guns could cost far more lives than they save.

[I want the USA back]

Same “smart” technology that that lets you log on with your face. First, it is not smart. It’s driven by a program that has no intelligence, but a set of stored values that it compares to the way you look.

Suppose you’re a cop. The gun in your hand may or may not let you shoot the guy shooting at you, who has a gun without “smart” technology. The attacker doesn’t care, and you’re dead.

This is just a sophisticated way for the left to do what they have always wanted to do: take guns from honest, non-violent citizens and deliberately leave them in the hands of violent criminals.

Don’t doubt me.

[from occupied ga]

Actually I think forcing cops to use them is a good thing. It will quickly and factually document how truly monumentally stupid the idea is.

[PAR35]

The simplest and cheapest ‘smart’ technology would be to adapt what high end cars use. Put a RFID chip in a wrist band and a chip in the handgun with a range of about a foot. Gun works fine in the wristband wearers hand. Bad guy gets control of the gun, put your arm behind your back and it won’t work for him.

[NewHampshireDuo]

Didn’t one firearms manufacturer have some sort of electronic trigger/firing mechanism? Haven’t heard about that in years.

[Blue Jays]

"...put an RFID chip..."

---

No thanks. I prefer my firearms mechanical and reliable.

[Quality_Not_Quantity]

Shouldn’t this poll have been taken by Pew-Pew-Pew Research?

[reg45]

However, the police would be denied the use of their alternate hands to fire the weapon, nor could they share weapons - bad idea.

[BuffaloJack]

I have an electronic homr alarm system.

All the sensors on the windows, doors and the control FOB need small batteries. I really hate it when I push the button to disarm the system only to find that the battery in the FOB is dead and I have to hear the siren when I open the door to get to the control box to turn it off.

If I had a freaking smart gun, I’m pretty sure the battery would be 3 years old and dead when I needed to investigate a noise that sounded like a break-in.

I already got stabbed by a burglar 24 years ago while investigating a noise in the kitchen at 2AM in the morning because I left my shotgun in the closet. I don’t want that to happen again.

There is nothing Smart about a Smart Gun. It is a colossally stupid concept conceived by complete morons.

[IgnaciKat]

Here’s a scenario for a smart gun preventing a suicide:

Nutcase grabs gun and points at self. Facial recognition kicks in to examine the nature of the target.

Gun measures pulse rate to determine levelheadedness.

Gun calls 911 to see if a case has been opened; if not, it makes one.

Gun looks up on internet any social media posts deemed iffy.

Gun consults a panel of experts such as Facebook engineers and Snopes writers to vote whether a trigger pull is warranted.

Gun measures battery voltage and determines it’s too low to continue, since it has not been changed recently.

Gun shuts off; a life has been saved. Score one for the history books.

[The Pack Knight]

No thanks. People wisely go out of their ways to buy older Smith & Wesson revolvers without the trigger lock, just on the off chance that the trigger lock will engage when it isn’t supposed to. I don’t even want to think about what Señor Murphy will do with a “smart gun” when I need it.

[Pollster1]

“Smart Guns” are a politicized stunt. If they were intended simply as an option for people who prefer unreliable weapons, I would not mind. Since they are being developed as a mandatory step toward disarming normal, decent Americans, I object strongly.

I hope potential manufacturers and dealers know where shooters stand regarding this product. I will permanently boycott any manufacturer that offers a “smart gun”, and the same for any online or brick-and-mortar store that offers to sell them.

[BuffaloJack]

Your smart gun will have a dead battery when you need it the most for the same reason your flashlight is dead after a storm and the electric is out. Nobody replaces batteries unless they are dead. If the battery in your smart gun is dead then you’ll be dead too.

[bgill]

I refuse to have one.

[Studebaker Hawk]

Don’t forget GPS and Kill-switch technology controlled by...
(fill in the blank) for are own good.