Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Smart Guns Are A Dumb Idea

This post is inspoired by this article:

I am amazed, in this age of product liability law, that any company is willing to sell this product. Take a look at this product from a different point of view. It is not that Armatix is promising that the gun is safe, rather, they are promising that the gun will ALWAYS fire if the owner needs the gun to fire, and they are also promising that the gun will never fire if the authorized owner is not holding the gun in proximity to the watch.

But we all know that electronic technology at consumer level prices is notoriously unreliable, or at least not reliable enough to make the claim that the gun WILL ALWAYS operate correctly. First, all electronics runs on batteries. Are the batteries rechargable? How long does a battery last? Does the gun notify you of a low battery condition? All electronics operate only within a certain temperature range. What is the allowed range for the gun? How does the electronics interact with the mechanics of the gun to prevent firing? Can this mechanical interlink be defeated, allowing the gun to be fired by anyone?

My guess is that the answer to my last question is "YES".

Hence, as I see it, this gun is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Perhaps this is real reason why we have not seen prototypes coming out from REAL gun companies like Smith & Wesson, Sturm & Ruger, or Colt. Perhaps they fear lawsuits marketing a product that truly is a solution in search of a problem.

I am not against this type of technology. But I am not going to pay a premium for a product that I believe would be cumbersome to use, unreliable, and is available only in .22LR, from a company that has no history of firearms design and manufacture. Check out their web site. They offer only one gun for sale, and they offer no literature that would help answer the questions I asked above. Sorry, no thanks.

If this technology is ever proven to work reliably, with electronic security that I can control (my own encryption keys and signature) and only adds about $50 to the price of the gun, then I might consider buying it. Afterall, cell phone lock technology is making cell phone theft a losing proposition. Perhaps the best result of this technology would be to make firearm theft a losing proposition as well. In terms of injuries due to accidental/negligent discharges I think gun safes and firearms safety training are cheaper and better solutions.

Now, as for laws mandating this technology, and eliminating legacy firearms? I'll fight them tooth and nail, but I fully expect this to be an added requirement to the DOJ Roster in California by our wise and benevolent legislators in Sacramento.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Why Gun Control Can't Gain Traction

Simply put, there are more shooters every year, people who know the truth about guns, people who reject the false logic of the gun grabbers.  People like target shooters:

"It's also a sport with more participants than the population of Australia. In 2011, target shooters spent more money doing on their hobby than all 32 teams in the National Football League took in."
Let that sink in: target shooting, not all shooting sports, but just target shooting, is bigger than NFL Football in the United States.

That is why the gun grabbers are losing.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

One Reason Why I Prefer a 1911

When I was researching for my first handgun purchase, I seriously considered a Glock pistol, but I heard of too many incidents like this one:
"On the day of the shooting, Counceller's hands were not on the trigger, but his fleece jacket's drawstring found its way into his holster.
"When pulling up on that jacket, this thing comes up, basically hits the safety and fired," he said.
Based on the store video, an internal police investigation concluded that the jacket's drawstring "caused the weapon to fire.""
This is clearly an incident in which a trained and experienced individual was let down by the design of the gun.  I am sure that the Chief did everything correctly, but somehow failed to notice the drawstring inside the trigger guard.

I elected to get a 1911 in part because it has an external thumb safety on the left side of the slide.  While this requires one to train to make disengaging the safety  an automatic act during presentation, there is the added benefit of having a tactile indication of the state of the gun: safe or ready to fire.  One must also train to engage the safety when coming off-target.

Not to bash Glocks, but the trigger safety used on Glocks, S&W M&P pistols, and others, simply gave me the willies, and I elected to go with a different gun.

In Other Words: Keep the Booger Hook off The Bang Switch!

A very good article about firearms accidents on Real Clear Policy.  Here is the money quote:

"Not only are gun accidents rare to begin with, but when they happen, they overwhelmingly happen because people were not following the rules. Someone who's careful doesn't need to panic about the idea of having a gun in the house -- they just need to keep being careful."
Follow the four rules, and you  will be all right.  Also, never let children have unsupervised access to firearms.

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Active Shooter Training Video

Here is an interesting active shooter training video, a collaborative product of the San Antonio PD and WOAI News 4. Note that among the advice given, is acknowledgement that armed citizens can be effective in stopping an active shooter. This is a concept that is to new to many  of us, but might be surprising, and unwelcome, to the anti-gun crowd.

Crimea: Here we Go Again

It is said that history does not repeat itself, but that is does rhyme.  We have been hearing a lot of rhyming this week from Russia attempting to justify its invasion of Ukraine.  In this article from Fox News we read:

"Putin has defied calls from the West to pull back his troops, insisting that Russia has a right to protect its interests and Russian-speakers in Crimea and elsewhere in Ukraine. However, there has been no sign of ethnic Russians facing attacks in Crimea or elsewhere in Ukraine."
This paragraph, especially the part about protecting "Russian-speakers" reminded me of another territorial dispute in Europe, from 76 years ago: the Sudetenland Crisis of 1938. During this episode, Adolf Hitler proclaimed himself the protector of German-speakers inside certain border regions of Czechoslovakia. Here is Hitlers demand

"I am asking neither that Germany be allowed to oppress three and a half million Frenchmen, nor am I asking that three and a half million Englishmen be placed at our mercy. Rather I am simply demanding that the oppression of three and a half million Germans in Czechoslovakia cease and that the inalienable right to self-determination take its place." - Adolf Hitler's speech at the NSDAP Congress 1938
 Of course, Hitler orchestrated the entire crisis in order to occupy the Sudetenland in order to gain territory at Czechoslovakia's expense. This indeed happened when the Western powers signed the Munich Agreement in which Great Britain and France pressured Czechoslovakia into accepting the loss of territory in order to avoid war. Make no mistake, Great Britain and France threw Czechoslovakia under the bus.

The similarities between Russia and Ukraine in 2014, and Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1938 are striking. I believe the goals are similar: grab territory from a weak neighbor supported by indecisive and irresolute partners, especially the United States. We should all keep out eyes open over the next few weeks for the bus trundling down the road, probably driven by President Obama, with Secretary Kerry acting as the conductor.

Consider also, that the main base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet was surrounded by the territory of a different sovereign nation, and we see a ready motive for Putins' aggression: he want to control the Crimea to protect and secure Sevastopol.  Russia intended to keep the Crimea. Further, Russia will attempt to grab and hold any other parts of Ukraine it can get. Barring enormous diplomatic pressure, I believe that these territorial changes will be permanent.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Another Win for Constitutional Rights

A Federal judge in Texas has ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage in that state to by unconstitutional. From the article:
“Regulation of marriage has traditionally been the province of the states and remains so today,” Garcia wrote in the 48-page ruling. “However, any state law involving marriage or any other protected interest must comply with the United States Constitution.”
AS with marriage, so to with firearms.  We live in good times to see the rights of the individual being broadened instead of limited. 

The ban is still in effect as the losing side is expected to appeal this ruling, so the judge granted a stay of his order overturning the law.  But this decision must increase the liklihood of the Supreme Court to weigh in on this issue.