Read the final entry in this article on Cracked (No. 1).
“The Childproof Handgun Law of 2002 states that once smart guns are available on the market, within 30 months all handguns sold in New Jersey must also be smart guns. So, if a gun dealer in San Antonio sells a single smart rifle, sale of regular handguns in New Jersey are banned 30 months later. Stores in Maryland and California attempted to sell such a gun, but they received death threats for acting in a way that would activate the New Jersey law, and they promptly backed down. The law has become a symbol of suppression of gun rights to some, thus politicizing any action that could cause it to go into effect.”
Smart gun technology (i.e. guns with built-in fingerprint scanners and guns that can only be fired when in close proximity to a ring that contains an RFID) exists, and it has been blocked due to this obscure New Jersey law.
ETA: Here is an example of an actual smart gun that actually exists now.
I’m aware of New Jersey’s silly law. They should completely repeal it.
The backlash for the one in the article was real. But the reason for its unpopularity isn’t just for the reasons of the law, but by all accounts, it is a very mediocre pistol for a premium price.
IMO - the market want of these items at this stage is almost nil, politics aside. If you watch enough Lockpickinglawyer or other security channels, you know things locked with RFID chips and finger print scanners don’t always afford reliable security.
The gun in the article, Armatix iP1, was ruled to not quality as a “smart gun” per the New Jersey law, thus it is free to be sold with out triggering that law. (Source - Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia)
I can’t really find any info on how many of those were made, if it is still available, or what. I don think their website has been update in 5 years. Maybe our member in Germany @OTee can tell us if it is available there or not.
At any rate - people are still working on them. It’s mostly prototypes at this point, but people are throwing more money at it. If it becomes reliable, it might be a good fit for some people. But smart guns aren’t going to have any real impact any time soon. It is some ideal technocrat solution that doesn’t take into account peoples’ abilities to get around locks and barriers.
You’re making assumptions. They may not have shown any ill intent in training.
My point is, it is still “intentional misuse”.
Lets show a guy how to incapacity and knock out someone as quickly as possible. But the intention of training is that it is done in self defense or in a regulated sport. When someone uses those skills outside of those parameters, it is misuse.
Most cars are designed to and capable of going 120 mph. That doesn’t mean it isn’t intentional misuse when one does it anywhere except on a designated track. (Or possibly in an emergency.)
That would be very irresponsible, and likely has never happened.
You asked for this, and I gave it to you. Such technology would not prevent intentional misuse by the rightful owner of the gun, of course, but it would prevent intentional misuse by someone who is not the owner (including cohabitants).
The Buzzfeed article specifically states that this weapon is not available in the US.
“Meanwhile, the only all-in-one smart gun system on the market is the Armatix iP1 Pistol, a semiautomatic weapon developed by a German company that’s designed to fire only when it’s within a 10-inch range of a paired RFID watch. It’s only available for purchase abroad, and it’s pricey at $1,798 ($1,399 for gun and $399 for watch) compared to similar pistols, which typically cost between $250 and $1,000.”
The cost and effectiveness of these weapons is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not they exist. You keep saying that people are working on this technology, but they are not, in fact, working on it and this is exactly because of the New Jersey law.
You also say that there is no market for this, but we are talking about the regulatory environment. There might not have been a market for airbags to begin with, but all cars sold now feature airbags. That is not because the market changed; it is because the regulatory environment and liability environment changed, forcing the market’s hand. If you want to talk about what consumers will buy if given a choice, that is a discussion for another topic. We are talking about regulations and liability here.
Well I appreciate that, but that is “an” example. I am not sure if that is what he is talking about or not. Especially since it isn’t the manufactures or people buying patents (AFAIK) blocking smart guns.
Unless the cohabitants got a hold of the RFID watch.
It is a 3+ year old article. A lot can happen in that time. Did the heat die down and they found some distributors in the US? Is this company even in business? Is it having success in Europe, such as Germany where it was made? Or is it one of those “neat idea on paper, never got it commercially viable” things. Or are they still working on it?
It isn’t irrelevant. If it either doesn’t work very well, or is priced to the point of being impractical, then it isn’t much of a safety device. A safety device is one that is used. Doesn’t work/too expensive = not used.
The BuzzFeed article you pointed to, showed at least 3 examples of people working on various smart gun projects. There will always be engineers who think they are one idea away from making their mark on the world. I am confident there are still people working on this sort of technology, even if it isn’t one of the larger companies. There are tech incubators for all kinds of things, and many of them never see market.
I would argue there was a market for airbags, but not everyone could afford or wanted the extra cost. But yes, eventually the market and the regulation met to make at least some air bags standard.
But as the articles pointed out - the regulatory aspect is a black mark on smart guns because it will force people to buy them. Personally, I think a smart gun could be a useful tool for some people. I think it is absurd to suggest all guns should be like that or to say that is the only kind you can buy.
However, you don’t need a high tech, expensive smart gun to limit access to your firearm, especially a cohabitant. Almost all new Smith and Wesson revolvers come with an internal lock that blocks the hammer from moving and works with a small key. Aside from that, there are a plethora of safes out there that will allow quick access but also secure it against youngsters and casual theft. (Some of them with fingerprint scanners or RFID access, like a smart gun). The safety technology for restricting access is widely available today in all 50 states. It does the same job as any smart gun in that respect.
OH hey - glad I did one quick google to see if there are any new smart guns in the works - there are.
And hey - good news, " Lawmakers changed course in 2019. Now state statute only requires sellers to stock smart guns once they meet “performance standards.”"
OH and - it looks like Armatix fell into bankruptcy. But there are more tech start ups working on it. Just like I said.
This seems a lot more significant than you let on. Imagine if only startup car manufacturers offered airbags because the larger ones had no appetite for it and weren’t required to offer them.
That works too. Why not require this? Does S&W have a patent on this kind of thing?
And it is absurd to suggest that all cars should have airbags and that you can only buy cars that feature airbags, but here we are.
ETA: I am not advocating for this specific gun from this now-defunct German manufacturer. I am pointing out that this technology exists and that there is no good reason not to require its adoption, or at least the adoption of something similar (like the Smith & Wesson locks that you mentioned). No safety feature is perfect (not even airbags), but safety features are better than no safety features.
Ummm, “buyable” != “accessible” or "“available”, unless there’s some equivalence in German that I’m not aware of (perhaps something similar led you to earlier equate an automobile with a firearm).
Also, from the DW article (relevant bit bolded for you):
In Germany it is illegal to possess or use any war weapons. These include all fully automatic or semi-automatic rifles, machine guns (unless antiques from World War II or earlier), or barrels or breeches for such weapons.
Does your rifle automatically load a cartridge from a magazine into the chamber each time it fires with no further action on your part such that you it can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger? Is some action required to chamber the next round after it fires?
It does indeed appear that the DW article is incorrect or outdated. Via Wikipedia:
“Members of registered gun clubs who the club attest have been practising at least once a month for at least a year can apply for a green license. These holders may purchase two handguns and three semi-automatic rifles compliant with the club rules. All firearms purchased must be pre-approved beforehand.”
ETA: I think it is great that Germany has such strict rules for gun ownership (though not as strict as Japan). I can respect that you went through a lot to be able to purchase your gun, and I only wish that America would follow Germany’s (or perhaps Japan’s) lead in this area.
You don’t have to tell me, @gracchus needs to be convinced to drop outdated references.
I shoot since years and own besides my personal allowance the license as “shooting supervisor” (lack of better translation) I’m allowed to supervise other shooters, trainings, events according to the BDS (https://www.bdsnet.de/)
If you don’t mind my asking, are you happy with the laws in Germany?
In America, gun laws vary depending on the state. In some states, anyone can just walk into a store and buy a gun any time. Some states require a simple background check (only for serious crimes) and/or make you wait a few days before you can buy a gun, but generally anyone can buy one without trouble.
I think we can all agree that the German system is better?
Thanks for the clarification and correction from a reputable source. For reference, the DW article was from Feb of 2020. Clearly someone might have to write a stern letter to them in between stints at the range.
It doesn’t change the fact that (per your earlier question) semi-automatic weapons are not available and accessible to anyone and everyone in Germany. Anyone with the money may be able to buy an AR-15, but there are also strict rules on licensing, storage, and use cases that basically narrow the number of people actually possessing these semi-automatic rifles to a very small part of the German population relative to the free-for-all situation of the U.S.
Definitely. Fortunately, the NRA’s collection of false equivalencies, goalpost-moving, slippery-slope, distracting technical wankery, and other fallacious arguments and tactics didn’t survive far beyond the borders of Idiot America.
While I’m sure Germany has its share of obsessive weapons collectors and those who tie up an unhealthy degree of their self-image in the firearms they own, the German gun control system reflects a saner culture where people don’t (and can’t plausibly) claim that they need semi-automatic weapons for home defense or to protect them from a tyrannical government (especially since the history there demonstrates that “moar gunz” in civilian hands is not a realistic counter to an authoritarian regime, and more likely helps it achieve power).
For comparison/reference, gun laws here in Japan are extremely strict. Semiautomatic weapons and handguns are out of the question. Even police officers are not allowed to own handguns; they are issued a gun (usually a revolver that holds five rounds) and exactly five bullets only when on duty, and every bullet must be accounted for and returned (or, if not returned, explained in an incident report) on finishing duty.
People can own shotguns or rifles for hunting or sport shooting, but the license and registration process has everything that Germany’s has plus a mental health evaluation for the owner and background checks on their family members as well. People can only have so many bullets at a time (you have to turn in used cartridges to buy new bullets). And you have to repeat the whole licensing process every three years.
No I’m not !
I want some parts stricter, other more loose.
Currently there is hysteria about ‘technicalities’, “we need to forbid semi auto” “We need to forbid magazines with a certain capacity”
All this misses the point! Talk to a trained shooter and ask him how much this would actually deter or hinder him. It’s a symbolical thing aiming at voters who have fear but no clue. You reload even a revolver in 2sek and keep going, so what does it help to reduce a rifle mag to 10?
On the other hand we have still to few regulations on the shooters themselves that are having an effect ‘Post allowance’.
I have seen shooters on a range that are totally unfit to shoot, they lack either coordination, are old and senile or to young and don’t follow rules.
THESE are the ones I would like to get away from guns, I would personally vouch for their licenses being removed. Also the national securoty agency just checks you once initially, if you radicalize yourself later on, nobody would notice.
Also people become member of a club but when they passed all the hurdles and have their license, never come back. So technically they are no longer ‘sports shooters’ and should loose their allowance.
And there are currently to few mechanisms in place to identify those people and/or incentivize gun clubs to report them.
If you are a club owner and see one of your members being a hazard and report him, chances are high that the agencies responsible will turn your club upside down! The club will have to fear backlash, so it is better to ignore this.
I would like to have mandatory participation of every shooter at a public tournament in regular intervals held by the larger shooting associations and having to pass there some bars so they have to “show up”, proove themselves, be visible.
I would like to have more ‘social control’ on the actual shooters and less on inanimate guns!
Similar safety for firearms would be more akin to designs that prevent use by other than the owner, designed to it be unable to be altered to go outside of regulation (can’t be made automatic etc), requiring insurance and a yearly inspection of the weapon and the owners status.
Industry self regulation standards on manufacturing doesn’t cut it. Fox guarding the henhouse.
The family checks and the limit on ammo sounds good to me.
Technically in Germany you are responsible to prevent any unlawful access to the guns. I am forbidden to tell the safe combination to my wife. If it is a safe with a key, you are not allowed to store the key accessible to anybody (like desk drawer). If you store the key in another safe (Maybe you own a second one for your papers and a bit of money) then this other safe has to be of a equal or higher certification than the gun safe, otherwise it is considered only as ‘secure’ as the weakest storage vessel and you are bummed again.
German government officials can check the correct custody at any time. If you are not at home when they show up at your door they sometimes ask spouses they meet if they then can show the correct storage “Lets get this behind us for everyone” if they follow suit then you can get in trouble. Because those people should be unable to comply.