Why Smart Guns Aren't Smart

Thanks to President Obama’s recent push for more gun control by suggesting that “smart guns” are the answer to all gun related woes, the technology so commonly referred to as “smart guns” is back in the headlines. Now, you might ask why I keep putting quotation marks around “smart guns.” Doesn’t that imply that it’s just a term and not actually applicable? Yes; yes it does. Please read all of this blog before you decide I’m an idiot, get angry and walk away from your computer calling me names.

Almost two years ago now, I was invited by representatives from Armatix. I had the opportunity to examine their only handgun (at that time), a semi-automatic .22lr weapon. They told me it was equipped with their technology but the truth is that it was designed around their technology. The “smart gun” tech is a device that unlocks the weapon so that it may be fired if it’s within a certain minimum distance from the wristband that the shooter must wear. At least, that’s the idea.

Don’t get me wrong. As demonstrated, it worked. I fired the weapon while wearing the wristband (right handed shooter wearing the wristband on my right wrist). I also tried to fire the weapon without the wristband and it wouldn’t shoot. That was how it was designed. As the Armatix representative said, this is a great solution for all those times when a gun owner leaves his or her handgun unsecured and a child or bad guy gets hold of it. Without the wristband, the gun won’t fire so lives get saved; accidental discharges are prevented; the number of unintended gun deaths gets reduced. That’s all good, right?

Well, yes… yes it is. My problem is multi-layered with the solution to incorrect gun handling.

First, why would a responsible gun owner leave a gun laying around where a child could pick it up? That’s not accidental; that’s negligent. Failing to properly secure your weapon is unacceptable. If it’s not on your person or under your positive control, it should securely locked away. If it is secured properly, children can’t get to it, bad guys have to work VERY hard to get to it and unintended deaths don’t occur.

So, picture this scenario in favor of having a “smart gun:” You’re a single mom, at home, doing chores, and you want to have your gun available because you live in a bad neighborhood. As you clean up the kitchen, the “smart gun” is on the counter next to the sink and you’re wearing the wrist band. Your three year old comes running in, because that’s what three year olds do, and he sees the gun, grabbing it before you can get close enough to stop him. Still, being a parent, you do what comes natural: you go to take the weapon away from him… and in the process, you put the wristband you’re wearing within the specified distance of the weapon so when he pulls the trigger the “smart gun” works… and fires, potentially hitting either you or him. Did the “smart gun” work as it should? Yep. Did it prevent a tragedy? Nope. Why? Because the mom was an irresponsible gun owner. No technology in the world can change that.

Here’s a different scenario: Same mom, same kitchen, same gun placement but the three year old is sleeping when a bad guy comes in through the open back door. He sees the gun and gets to it before the mom can. Before she can run away – leaving her child and home under control of a bad guy with obviously evil intent – he closes on her and threatens her with her own gun. When he grabs her by the shirt she reaches up to defend herself and puts the wristband in proximity to the handgun – which will now fire if the bad guy pulls the trigger. Another great solution enacted, right?

When I met with the Armatix representatives at the range, they told me that a 9mm and a .40S&W caliber version of their weapon was under development and that they expected it out soon. That was two years ago. As of this typing, on their website there is still only a .22lr version available. But let’s just assume for a moment that they came out with a 9mm version last year. This 9mm version, being such a huge liability management tool, since it can only be fired by the owner with a matching wristband, right? (See two scenarios above for how well that works.) How many police agencies would buy into such a liability limiting tool?

So, here we have agency XYZ who bought one such pistol for every officer and here’s officer John Doe working the street with his “smart gun” securely holstered and the appropriate wristband on his strong side wrist. There are two potentially very ugly scenarios that I can foresee:

One is that the officer gets in a fight and a bad guy gets his gun, and with the gun still in proximity to the wristband, it will fire when the bad guy pulls the trigger at point-blank range to execute the officer. The other is that the officer gets injured in such a way that his strong arm is disabled and although he can draw the weapon with his support hand, there’s no wristband on it to “unlock” the gun… so the gun won’t work.

Finally, let’s consider this: if someone is pulling out a handgun to defend themselves, they need it to work RIGHT THEN without fail… ever. Agencies and officers spend a lot of time and invest a lot of money to find the most reliable weapon they can. The absolute biggest downfall I can see with the “smart gun” technology is that it requires batteries and batteries can die; connections can come loose; things break. If the “smart gun” were truly smart, then the default “broken” condition would unlock the gun so that it worked if the battery died, if a connection was broken or if the wristband failed to sync. If you’re nodding your head in agreement then understand this too: That means that the “smart gun” would have to be smart enough to work like… a regular gun.

So what’s the point of the tech? The point isn’t safety. The point is another attempt to force a solution onto us for a problem that is one of training and personal responsibility. No technology in the world is smart enough to fix stupid.

“Smart guns” aren’t smart… period.