Have you honestly never heard of an accidental shooting occurring? Heck, it seems like at least once or twice a year we hear about a parent being shot by their own toddler...
Trigger locks and smart guns are specifically intended to prevent these types of accidents.
To which the inevitable reply is: If I put my gun in a safe place, it won't be where I need it when I need it. A similar argument is frequently used as an objection to manual trigger locks, which have also been around for a very long time.
An effective smart gun eliminates that objection by allowing a firearm to be stored somewhere accessible while still preventing accidental discharge.
I understand there are enormous technical challenges to achieve that goal, and I'm not claiming the current generation of technology is effective, or heck, even that an effective solution is possible.
But I think it's absolutely disingenuous to claim that all firearm discharges are done under deliberate, life-threatening circumstances, or that this kind of technology does not have the potential to save lives while still providing an effective tool for self-defense.
Source: Once was a toddler.
I have yet to test this but I believe the grip safety of a 1911 or the standard safety lever on a modern pistol would thwart a toddler as well. Teenager not so much.
Again, this is a solution in search of a problem.
Counting on either of those alone to stop a toddler would be grossly irresponsible.
See, there is a reason why a dead man's switch is as simple as possible and completely not remote. Anything remote can and will fail sometimes.
If it would be a local switch it would be way more trustworthy in my eyes.
The technology absolutely has the potential to save lives. Well, an even stronger statement is true -- this technology will save lives. That's not the objection though -- it's will the technology cost lives?!
[0] https://lowes.com/pd/Barska-Compact-0-36-cu-ft-Electronic-Ch... [1] https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/biometric-gun-safes
To your point about toddlers - safe storage and safe methods of carry solves that, and they work with every gun in circulation already.
1) Lock up your gun if it's not directly under your control (i.e., in a holster).
2) Carry your gun in a proper holster, on your person. Not in your purse in the shopping cart, but on your hip.
These two, together, would prevent every case where a toddler shoots somebody.
It's not appreciated outside gun circles, and sadly even in gun circles a lot of people don't get it, but good holsters are the most important investment you can make. A huge fraction of gun accidents trace back to cheap holsters.
1) Lock up your gun if it's not directly under your control (i.e., in a holster).
"But then it's not available when someone breaks into my home!"
2) Carry your gun in a proper holster, on your person. Not in your purse in the shopping cart, but on your hip.
"How does that help me when I'm in bed and someone breaks in in the middle of the night?"
I'm going to be blunt: while I recognize my own reply is somewhat simplistic and idealistic, yours is no better. There is simply no technology, today, that makes gun ownership in the home both safe and is perceived as 100% effective in circumstances where a weapon is needed for self-defense in an emergency situation.
This type of technology is a search for a solution to that problem. Is it the solution? Or a perfect solution? Clearly not.
But to imply there is no solution, or that it's a solution in search of a problem, belies a profound cynicism.
This is Hacker News. Folks, here, believe technology can solve everything, from world hunger to poverty.
But for some reason, apparently it's impossible to improve on the firearm.
it's baffling.
To your counter-examples. Carry your gun at home if you're worried about break-ins. Put your gun in a quick-access safe when you sleep. Problems solved
I'm trying to understand if the objections are rational, or religious.
I honestly can't tell.
This would be unacceptable for most gun owners if it happened even every thousand rounds.
It's rational.
How is that rational?
That's not a rational argument. It's an appeal to emotion, and a bit of a dog whistle.
See, the original gun safeties are designed to prevent misfire by accidental trigger pull and/or during maintenance.
My point, which seems to be getting misunderstood, is that exploring additional safety features is not "blaming" guns or somehow diverting attention away from societal issues.
Mandating seatbelts, smoke detectors in residential homes, safety features on power tools, etc, etc... there's countless examples where technology has been used to increase safety, not as an excuse to avoid solving societal issues, but as a complementary tool in addition to education.
So the following statement:
The only people touting "smart guns" as a solution are people who seem to think that firearms are the actual problem.
Is just not an honest argument or debating tactic. It's an appeal to emotion, an ad hominem attack on those who disagree, and I maintain a dog whistle for those who think it's just Big Government yadda yadda yadda.
Of course, given the maturity of the technology, mandating it now is likely the wrong move. I get that government wants to pressure industry to push this technology forward, but there are alternative ways to incentivize that without government regulation.
Still, IMO, having government pushing for this kind of technology makes plenty of sense. And believe that does not require thinking that "firearms are the actual problem".
Failure is not an option. 5 9's isn't good enough, and we can't manage that in software with redundant systems. Beating that, in the meager amount of free space a gun offers, is a pretty tall order.
I'm not being religious, I'm being realistic about just far away "good enough" is for a smart gun.
I totally agree with you. It's an extremely difficult ask, and I'd never claim that the current iteration of this technology is anywhere near workable.
Another commenter, here, used the analogy of self-driving cars, and I think it's an apt (if imperfect... the problem spaces are profoundly different) one, though perhaps not the way they were intending.
In both cases, the technology problems are enormous, and the failure modes could result in the loss of human life. So it better be pretty damn foolproof if it's to gain any kind of widespread adoption. Yet, you don't get the same level of negativity levelled at efforts to build self-driving cars... that it's impossible and car companies should have never tried.
The original question was: "Are there any gun- and tech-literate people who actually think smart guns like this are a good idea?"
I think the nuanced answer, here, is: Not yet. But perhaps some day.
It seems we might agree on at that!
1) fails to unlock: "wild animal or another human killed me first"
2) too easy to unlock: "a child undid the lock and shot another child"
Just like self-driving cars, even if you get a 10x or 100x net reduction in deaths, the first time someone dies because your "smart gun" failed, there will be a huge press cycle and mass hysteria. And probably lawsuits.
There are holsters for bed.
Even then, a proper retention holster that covers the trigger would solve that problem in 99% of cases. Sure, a particularly strong and determined toddler might be able to figure out the release after a few minutes of trying but nobody leaves their child completely unsupervised (not even taking a glance at what they're up to) for several minutes at a time.
Besides, the device in question won't help in the cases you mentioned, as the parent with the watch would still be within the range of the transceiver, and the gun would fire anyway.