Home » Cyber » Future Wars » ‘Smart Pistol’ Push May Shift to Police Market

‘Smart Pistol’ Push May Shift to Police Market

by Brendan McGarry on August 7, 2014

SmartSystem_iP1-Pistole_4

Marketing of the so-called smart pistol may shift to U.S. police departments and law enforcement agencies after a controversial roll-out to commercial stores, according to a news report.

Safety advocates want to sell the Smart System iP1 made by the German gun-maker Armatix GmbH to cops, according to an article by Michael Rosenwald in The Washington Post. As he writes:

“The idea: If the technology is good enough for police officers, it should be good enough for consumers. Armatix is developing a 9mm smart gun targeted at the law enforcement market. The company hopes to offer other controls besides a watch, including a version that responds to voices.”

The James Bond-style, .22-caliber pistol is designed to improve safety by only working when it’s in close proximity to a wristwatch.

When the RFID-equipped watch is activated by a PIN number and placed near the gun — like when a shooter grips the handle — it sends a signal to unlock the pistol, activating a green light on the back of the grip. Otherwise, the firearm stays locked and the light on the back remains red.

While the iP1 could revolutionize safety, gun-rights groups such as the National Rifle Association oppose it out of concern that the government will mandate for all firearms to be similarly equipped with the technology.

The outcry from gun owners was so fierce that the first store to sell the weapon, The Oak Tree Gun Club near Los Angeles, ended up pulling it from its shelves. Another outlet, Engage Armament near Washington, D.C., did the same after the owner received death threats.

The Washington Post article gives an interesting look at the man behind the high-tech weapon, 58-year-old German gun designer Ernst Mauch.

Ernst Mauch

The designer spent almost three decades at the gun-maker Heckler & Koch GmbH, where he helped create the HK416 assault rifle — the same weapon used by U.S. commandos in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, according to the article. After leaving the company several years ago, he joined a much smaller German gun manufacturer, Armatix GmbH, where he helped launch the Smart System iP1, it states.

The Metro Industrial Areas Foundation, a community group that advocates for gun safety, is working with Mauch to meet with U.S. police officials in September, according to the article.

Share |

{ 100 comments… read them below or add one }

Jeff August 7, 2014 at 12:20 pm

If a cartridge fails to fire you can clear it and move on, still able to defend. If this fails you are a police officer staring at at low-life with no compunction against killing you with nothing more useful in a gun fight than your pecker in your hand. What do you think the over/under is on how long before the first grieving police widow files a lawsuit?

I say let the secret service use them for ten years first, then release to the general public/law enforcement.

Reply

Bernard August 7, 2014 at 1:20 pm

Making something as simple as this reliable in 2014 is too easy. After all, we're posting our thoughts on this thing called the internet and it seems to work every day. Also, my RFID Metro Smart Card never failed in the many years that I used it back when I was in college. They've been using RFID to stop shop lifters for over a decade now. In fact, the first patent for RFID was filed in 1973.

Reply

platypusfriend August 7, 2014 at 2:04 pm

I think the point is that the electronics may be shock-sensitive enough to significantly reduce the reliability of the firearm; this is probably why it's a .22LR instead of a 9x19mm. RFID isn't the problem.

Reply

Bernard August 7, 2014 at 5:09 pm

We have solid state electronics that are shock resistant enough to be placed inside of artillery warheads. Electronic proximity fuses have been used in artillery shells since the late 1940's. It is 2014, we didn't just discover this stuff yesterday. The technology to make this 100% reliable has been available for some time now. If the RFID isn't shock resistant enough to handle the recoil of a hand gun then it's due to the cheapness of the parts, not the lack of available technology.

Reply

platypusfriend August 8, 2014 at 8:15 pm

True, but how large are the components in an artillery shell? I don't know the answer; however, I do know that gun electronics would end up getting filthy, oily, blasted with cleaner, oiled again, scrubbed, exposed to solvents, chilled and then heated rapidly. All this on top of being exposed to repeated shock. Not one large shock, repeated shocks.

navbm7 August 10, 2014 at 11:58 am

Yes we have solid state electronics in arty shells, but they only have to work ONCE, and how many fail? Unexploded 105 and 155 shells were used as IEDs in Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan.
So that technology is NOT 100% reliable and this is not either. What if the officer is rushed and forgets his watch at home? Badd time to remember when he has to draw his weapon.

Rich August 8, 2014 at 11:59 am

I don't know about you, but I've had my internet access drop many times over the years while at work and home.

Reply

Bernard August 8, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Trust me, while your access was down the internet was still there being used by millions of people. It doesn't all begin and end at your ISP.

Reply

someguy August 8, 2014 at 2:51 pm

That's not his point. What he is saying is that despite all the engineering that goes into making something modern an complicated like the internet work, it will not work 100% of the time for 100% of people. This is acceptable for the internet because for most home users it is not a time critical service, rather it is a source of entertainment, leisure, learning, etc.

With a firearm, saying something like 'while your pistol wasn't working, millions of others were in perfect shape' is far less acceptable.

No matter how you look at it there are massive drawbacks to introducing an electrical component to a firearm, that is, the more complicated it is the more likely it is to fail.

Guest August 7, 2014 at 9:06 pm

I agree, let the secret service be the guinea pigs(not that i want any harm done to them), let the body guards for the anti-gun actors and actresses carry these as an experiment, let Michael Bloomberg’s body guard carry one. Yeah right

Reply

Kevin Smithwick August 8, 2014 at 1:56 pm

They're not ready for the field, although they will probably end up at a few Police academies. Armartix will likely lobby for it, they lost large amounts of money in the iP1 debacale. People should leave their political fantasies out of this and allow the markets decide, preferably without intervention from special interest.

Reply

RichP August 8, 2014 at 8:49 am

Easy enough to build a jammer for it and disable all within what ever the range of the jammer is. Don't think I like the idea of someone having an off button.

Reply

blight_asdf August 7, 2014 at 12:31 pm

I'm not sure what the point of this is.

It is unlikely a suspect with gain control of a LEO's gun: I suspect the number of incidents where this has happened is astronomically low, and does not justify the expense of a "smart" gun.

The "smart" gun was originally devised as a way to ensure unauthorized users could not fire the weapon (e.g people who steal a gun by breaking and entering into a home, or kids accidentally stumbling upon a gun and shooting themselves or others).

The issues with Law enforcement and firearms are often that they are too quick to escalate to deadly force, and this is something a "smart" gun cannot do anything about.

Reply

Ben August 7, 2014 at 12:48 pm

Exactly!

Reply

Bernard August 7, 2014 at 1:30 pm

Just from a quick Google search I found results like "‘Lackadaisical’ U.S. Park Police lose hundreds of guns, watchdog group says," "LAPD Officer Shot with Own Gun, City News Service," "New York Officer Disarmed and Killed During Disturbance." Sure it's not an epidemic, but it does happen.

Reply

blight_asdf August 7, 2014 at 2:03 pm

"LAPD Officer Shot with Own Gun" http://lapd.com/news/headlines/lapd_officer_shot_
followed by http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.ph

"Remember the Off-Duty LAPD Officer that was "shot with his own gun during an attempted car jacking by two thugs" out side his Lakeview Tarrace home??

Here is the real story……..He is now comming clean. Disgusting.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-officer8-

Ex-LAPD officer gets a year in jail for fabricating story

A former Los Angeles police officer was sentenced to a year in County Jail on Tuesday after pleading guilty to insurance fraud and falsely reporting to authorities that assailants shot him outside his home when he actually wounded himself.

Anthony Razo, 49, avoided eye contact with some of his former Los Angeles Police Department colleagues as he pleaded guilty in Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Norm Shapiro's courtroom. Razo was immediately sentenced to a year in jail and three years' probation.

As part of a plea agreement, Razo, a 14-year LAPD veteran, admitted that he made up the story that two young Latino males with shaved heads had attacked him outside his City Terrace home, grabbed his department-issued handgun and shot him in the shoulder. Razo told the judge that he was alone when he was wounded and that the men did not exist.
"

Reply

blight_asdf August 7, 2014 at 2:05 pm

As for the third article…yep. It does happen.

"Authorities said 43-year-old James Clark, an MRI technician at Southern Tier Imaging, struggled with Smith before grabbing the officer's gun and firing at him. Smith, an 18-year veteran of the force, was hit three times and died at the scene."

It does happen, but does it happen enough to justify a electronically activated handgun? Mining the numbers would be interesting…

Reply

guest August 7, 2014 at 8:03 pm

They made it, they found no willing civilian market for it, and now they're trying to stick contract-buy groups like law enforcement with this albatross.

Reply

ColdWarVet August 8, 2014 at 10:40 am

There are many officers that are killed with their own firearm. This I can atest to being a LEO officer for 25 years. Stats show most police gun battles are within 5', last 2-3 shots. More police officers are shot because of hesitation. There is the hesitation about taking a life even if justified. This is from being brought up with a regard for human life. Second, subconciously they are concerned about being criminally prosecuted, sued, and other things than come with an officer involved shooting. They also have to worry about bystanders. So your horses petut comment about too quick to escalate to deadly force is a comment an uniformed moron would make.

Reply

Ben August 8, 2014 at 3:04 pm

I see stories in the news almost every day about some cop on a power trip using excessive force and killing a person or a harmless family pet. It happens all the damn time, and usually there's no meaningful consequences to the officer.

There are a lot of good cops out there, but there are also a lot of bad ones. More than your average patriotic american is willing to admit.

Reply

ColdWarVet August 8, 2014 at 4:26 pm

Approx 120,000 full time police officers in the US. This doesn’t include reserve, part time or auxiliary. So your claim of seeing one a day ( which I doubt) comes down to .3%.

Reply

Ben August 14, 2014 at 12:00 am

Are you following what's happening in Missouri?

Case. In. Point.

ColdWarVet August 8, 2014 at 4:26 pm

Approx 120,000 full time police officers in the US. This doesn’t include reserve, part time or auxiliary. So your claim of seeing one a day (which I doubt) comes down to .3%.

Reply

Tiger August 9, 2014 at 7:15 am

Sorry Blight. Cops being killed by their own gun happens enough folks developed retention holsters.

Reply

Juramentado August 7, 2014 at 12:39 pm

First generation anything is typically buggy. But if anyone can make it happen, Mauch is probably the guy who will. I get why he wants to do it, but at the end of the day, it will take a lot longer than he thinks.

Reliability isn't just one of the showstoppers, it's the whole concept of bio-tagged weapons. What happens at unit level when the guy next to you falls, and your weapon's down? Will you be able to pick up his and continue the fight? What about someone at home who needs access to the weapon (like a family member in danger), and you happened to forget leaving the token because it doubles as your wristwatch? I'm sure there are ways around this, but Version 1.0 of the gun isn't a production ready item; it's really more a Proof-of-Concept. What he hasn't drawn at a larger level is the use cases, and without that, you can't overcome the market resistance.

Reply

blight_asdf August 7, 2014 at 2:06 pm

On the plus side, it means "family packs" of guns because each person can only use one gun.

Family packs available at your nearest Costco…

Reply

Juramentado August 7, 2014 at 12:41 pm

For heaven's sake – someone fix the damn content filter – the offensive term had letters before and after it. Jeeper's crow.

Reply

Mitch S. August 7, 2014 at 3:39 pm

You have to be careful.
If you bring a w*r*i*s*t*w*a*t*c*h to the c*o*c*k*p*i*t someone might get pregnant!

Reply

Rob C. August 7, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Its not a bad idea as long any problems or loop holes in the technology are worked out. But i don't think they should force everyone to the things though. I don't know alot details on how they handle if the weapon is stolen and if there could be a method for the blackmarkers to disable the security lock out. Or if the clunky watch of theirs batteries die or in the gun at bad moment when user desperately needs it.

The consumers should decide if this is what they want.

Reply

Joe August 12, 2014 at 11:51 am

Just steal the arm band along with the gun.

Consumers did decide, they don't want it.

Reply

DougieR August 7, 2014 at 1:06 pm

It might seem counter-intuitive, but firearms are actually extremely simple devices really…just look on google for all the illegal ones in Brazil and Australia made by basement machinists. Their mechanical nature also provides a level of reliability that we just haven't reached yet with electronic systems either, and don't even get me started on the "internet of things" and the Pandora's box of troubles that opens.

Although it might happen in the future, there are some things that really don't need a digital revolution. For the time being, firearms are one of them.

Reply

Bernard August 7, 2014 at 1:37 pm

"Their mechanical nature also provides a level of reliability that we just haven't reached yet with electronic systems either,"
This is untrue. Solid state electronics are far more reliable than mechanical systems. That's the very reason behind switching most things over to solid state electronics. The Navy stopped using mechanical fire control computers for a reason and no it was not about accuracy. Solid state electronics are mostly immune to environmental conditions which is what makes them more reliable in real world use.

Reply

A.g. August 10, 2014 at 4:59 pm

Yes but they need energy. Mechanics don't depend anything. They work's by they own.

Reply

Bernard August 11, 2014 at 4:15 pm

That's not true, the mechanics of the gun operate on the energy of the round's cartridge. Regardless, "Passive RFID systems use tags that are powered by the electromagnetic energy transmitted from an RFID reader." As long as the watch has power the gun will work. If the watch is solar power then it should work for decades.

Reply

A.g. August 13, 2014 at 6:18 am

"As long the watch has power the gun will work."
Exactly the failure point
You are insincere. I don't talk about mechanical energy who cycle the process of the gun. I mean energy to power the RFID reader. And you can never ensure that. That's wrong.
Did you see how many "If " you should have to have your gun ready ?
If the watch is on wrist.
If the watch if not broken.
If the electronics is well made in factory.
If the watch is not unpowered.
If the chipset on the gun is well made on factory.
If the chipset is not altered by use/cleaning/schocks/heat…
If the radio wave is not perturbed/jammed.
It's seems to me than a security system should be the more simple possible to reduce the probability of faillure of one of the part of the system. And you rely on this stuff with all this condition to save your life ?
Sorry but for this task, a Colt .45 build in 1936 don't need all this parameters to works fine immediatly and i'm sur it will perform many more "decades" than any electronics parts, as good would they be made on this era.
I will take it more than this "smart" gun for "dumb" politics.

blight_asdf August 7, 2014 at 2:07 pm

I suppose the most "electronic" part of some guns is the use of solenoids to fire them (used on tank co-ax machineguns and door guns on helicopters).

Reply

Nick August 7, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Trivial to create/buy a jammer for it. First time one of those things fails to fire they all get tossed.

Reply

platypusfriend August 7, 2014 at 2:08 pm

A microwave beam might do it— I noticed (yes, they're pretty reckless) the Demolition Ranch guys using unshielded microwave ovens on YouTube, and they zapped their GoPro by accident. If you rig-up a portable magnetron to a waveguide and a battery, maybe you could accomplish the same effect to a "smart pistol".

Reply

Mitch S. August 7, 2014 at 3:47 pm

Car anti-theft "immobilizer systems use an RFID chip in the key.
There are a few blocks around the Empire State Building in NYC where parked cars sometimes won't start because the RF from the building's antennas interferes with the RFID signal. I also know someone with a Cadillac that would not start when he went to a gas station that was under some high tension leads.
And the chip in the key is within a couple of inches of the antenna (surrounds the key cylinder under the trim cover).

I can easily see a jammer being effective.

Reply

Kevin Smithwick August 7, 2014 at 6:25 pm

It's not practical to create a jammer, even less when the weapon themselves will be so rare. I agree that Law Enforcement is the worst area to test this weapon and is not worth the risk. On the flip-side it seems like there's a bunch of insecure NRA guys acting like the Democrats will demand ever weapon must be RFID-compatible overnight. I say this as gun enthusiast from Texas and a member of a Law Enforcement family.

Anyone who honestly thinks a man that made his career in a predominant firearms company is part of left-wing conspiracy is either ignorant or deluded. As for the death threats those individual should be hunted down and charged with conspiracy to murder. We must have order is this country and not tolerate such blatant attempts to undermine civility. Furthermore I have doubts this product will be adopted by any self-respecting Law Enforcement Agency, unless the 9mm concept model is radical different than the iP1.

Reply

Squawk August 7, 2014 at 9:54 pm

You may be surprised at how "practical" it is. It doesn't need to be elegent or FCC compliant, just needs to force "no-go" mode. Making an "unlocker" wouldn't be that practical.

Reply

Kevin Smithwick August 8, 2014 at 2:38 am

Impractical when you consider that first you would need to acquire the said "Jammer", then anticipate that they even have "Smart Pistols", and then hope the "Jammer" even worked. It's really alot of trouble to go through, especially considering you would essentially be planing to be shot at in the first place. Again I doubt that most Law Enforcement Agencies will adopt the this, at least in a RFID configuration.

In reality the RFID-model is a stepping stone for more reliable models, the 9mm Model is a gimmick to fund their R&D program. They may lobby to sell them to Police academies in an effort to recuperate the money they lost on the iP1 concept.

Reply

Nadnerbus August 8, 2014 at 12:47 am

If and when they think they can vote to require this technology, the antis will do so in a heartbeat. You are too secure in your Texas stronghold if you think otherwise. Come over to California, where they are constantly adding new garbage to the gun laws, microstamping among them. Right now there is a mail order ammo ban up for debate, along with a yearly registration in order to be "allowed" to buy ammo at a brick and mortar.

I actually don't have anything against the technology per se, as long as it is voluntary. But I know gun politics too well and I am certain they will not be as soon as the Feinsteins of the nation can get away with it.

*edit* my bad, its already law in this god forsaken state:

"SB 293, authored by Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, would ban all guns without owner-authorized technology from retail sale in California 18 months after the state attorney general deems such technology to be readily available."

Reply

Kevin Smithwick August 8, 2014 at 3:17 am

I would consider myself too secure, nor do care much about registering a firearm. Although a mail-order ammo ban would be an minor inconvenience, I would just drive 10 miles buy it. Although I honestly got all the ammo I need already, I use it in a practical manner and don't needlessly waste it.

Which reminds me of all these political drones that hear a rumour on TV then buy excessive amounts of ammo, causing shortages and price inflation. As for the politicians I not worried they currently can't even run a coherent government, much less enforce the existing laws they're obligated to uphold.

I live in Southern Texas despite the government best efforts they can't even eliminate the drug trade. This area is covered by huge expanses of Mesquite forest and arid/rocky terrain. Even with aerial reconnaissance and the National Guard it's difficult to police this area beyond the town and cities. Now imagine how difficult it would be in addition to hunting drugs caravan to find weapons in remote areas. On top of that there is a large amount of heirloom weapons which have never been registered. Basically would it be like registering weapons in eastern Afghanistan, it would be extremely impractical.

Reply

Kim August 7, 2014 at 1:23 pm

One important question: Who will dare sell it in the US, if it results in death threats? Or worse yet; death threats becoming reality?

Reply

Will August 14, 2014 at 11:09 pm

Let's all hope that it dies the death of all bad ideas.

Reply

lance August 7, 2014 at 1:55 pm

They cant make this crap work well now the push is not by Cops or Solders but by fascist gun banners who want to make guns so expensive and with computers in them unreliable no one will buy them. There time when you may need a weapon from a fallen comrade and with this tech you cannot do that. There times when the computer will fail and you wont have a working weapon. Sorry the author here seems to want to make liberals happy, reality its not working.

Reply

Bob August 7, 2014 at 2:00 pm

I think that the real concern about this technology is that it's existence is being used in states such as California as a political weapon to ban or restrict the sale of regular firearms. If that were not the case, everyone would be content to allow it to succeed or fail in the market based on its own merits. Personally, I would never bet my life on a firearm dependent upon electronics and a battery.

Reply

Tiger August 9, 2014 at 7:17 am

NJ already has a law on the books about smart guns. Once shown proven, sales of dumb guns will be banned.

Reply

SMSgt Mac August 7, 2014 at 2:40 pm

About that so-called ‘safety organization’, the Industrial Areas Foundation:

"The IAF was founded in 1940 by the late Saul Alinsky [1909-1972], who created 'People's Organizations'… The modern IAF has taken Alinsky's original vision, refined it and created a sophisticated national network of citizens' organizations" IAF: Fifty Years Organizing for Change, IAF Publication, 1990, p.7.

Yeah ‘Safety’! "Propagandize" much?

Reply

Dickie Cockpit August 7, 2014 at 2:44 pm

A gun's job is to fire when the trigger is pulled. Smart guns are a leftist's wet dream weapon. CA is prepared to require this technology on all gun sales as soon as two models are offered for sale. If you care about 2nd amendment rights fight this with all you are worth.
Mauch has turned into a big wristwatch.

Reply

Electrical tech August 11, 2014 at 12:44 pm

Ooooops, stop, wait a minute, hold your fire, I gotta reboot my pistol.

Reply

Joe August 7, 2014 at 2:49 pm

Only outlaws need fear the law abiding.

Reply

CDS August 7, 2014 at 5:05 pm

Heck, what happens if the officer finds it's necessary to draw the pistol after getting in a scuffle with the suspect and the watch was ripped off and is lying in the grass 10 yards away or is damaged, itself?

What if the battery fails part way through your shift and someone decides to pull a knife on you at the end of your shift?

The internet takes a dump, and we can get by. Productivity may be impacted, but nobody's going to get hurt. Your Metro Smart Card fails, you can just go get another one. RFID inside your video game cartridge fails, the store loses an item **IF** the one where the RFID tech has failed is ALSO the same one someone tries to shoplift.

If a cop's gun fails for any reason, the cop is likely going to DIE, along with anyone he or she happens to be trying to protect.

Reply

rtsy August 7, 2014 at 7:13 pm

I'm surprised there's so much controversy over this system. It basically personalizes the gun to the owner. I'd imagine people would be happy about that instead of crying about an additional feature.

It could be a lot worse when you're talking about putting electronics into a firearm. It could be a gun with a GPS chip and a camera pointed at the shooter.

Imagine the selfies.

Reply

CDS August 7, 2014 at 11:00 pm

One of the issues (at least, the new that comes to may mind, first) is the potential for injecting a new opportunity for something to not work. This may work fine for recreational shooters or those worried about leaving the firearm unattended where someone else may access it. If they can't find the watch or if the watch malfunctions, they just font go to the range until it's found or fixed.

But for people like police, soldiers, and those thinking about self-defense, they're thinking about less predictable and more demanding situations. They don't know when they'll need it, and it's not likely that the threats they face will allow them a time out so they can find the watch or change / charge batteries.

Reply

CDS August 7, 2014 at 11:02 pm

Make that "don't go to the range"… Accidentally fat-fingered that one.

Reply

rtsy August 8, 2014 at 12:04 am

I think some other people here have made really good arguments about the reliability of RFID chips. A lot of these systems don't even need batteries, or can run for a decade without having to change one.

If they don't have the watch they wouldn't have the gun either. Its a system, why would you even have one without the other if you were concerned about self defense in the first place?

For people like police and soldiers the watch would be part of the uniform, or probably an implanted chip (we do it with pets I'm sure thats enough justification for the military).

The fear of these systems seems more like NRA nonsense than any actual threat to firearms users.

Reply

CDS August 9, 2014 at 4:23 am

Well, as an example, I don't always keep my regular watch on all the time during the day. Sometimes it collects sweat, so I take it off. Sometimes, if my hands get soiled or I expect them to, I'll take it off. As a result, there have been times where I've looked down and seen that I don't have my watch on because it's on my desk at work, by the soap dish in my bathroom, or even in the upholder of my car.

So if I leave the house, yes, I will have the gun and the watch. But there could come a point in the day where I've left the watch behind but still have the gun. The problem is that I might not know that the gun is non-functional due to the absence of the watch until I pull it out and try to use it. And that's where the big problem is for me: I go about my business as a soldier or as a cop, and I'm thinking "okay, I've got my gun if I need it" and then when I do need it, it's a useless piece of scrap because I forgot the watch, I took the watch off, the watch fell off, or it broke or ran out of power.

The odds may be very small, but if I'm in that "oh s*#t" moment and fighting for my life, I'd like to minimize the number of variables involved.

Some of that could be mitigated in other ways, such as one concept that used a fingerprint scanner built into the grip. While it still adds new potential points of failure, it does at least eliminate the risk of having only one of the two separate items needed for the gun to fire.

Reply

rtsy August 9, 2014 at 1:34 pm

That would make you a poorly trained or just a very bad cop, not having the very equipment you would need to operate your firearm. It would be drilled into the heads of every officer that they go together.

It would be an addition to gun culture, not the end of it.

Will August 14, 2014 at 10:50 pm

Those of us that live in the US know that our government has gone to great lengths to illegally spy on citizens without probable cause. This fact makes us unsure of our governments motivation. Combine that with the fact that the same 'theys' have assembled a standing army and have made militarization of local police forces a priority, and it is easily seen that most of the resistance to the idea stems from a lack of trust that there won't be a circuit that allows gov't thugs to turn off all weapons in a area of their choosing, rendering citizens essentially unarmed against the standing army. It's a lack of trust that was fomented by untrustworthy, unelected bureaucrats, and untrustworthy elected officials. If it can be turned off remotely, it isn't a defensive weapon.

Reply

Tiger August 9, 2014 at 7:24 am

The point you miss is that so called dumb guns would be outlawed for sale. Big brother could in theory have a override device for such arms. Making the threat of a armed populous mute. No more Concord or Lexington. Just flick a off button……

Reply

rtsy August 12, 2014 at 3:27 am

Fear mongering and conspiracy theories.

I wonder, are you as suspicious of the NSA programs monitoring your phonecalls, emails, and responses to posts like this one?

Reply

Will August 14, 2014 at 10:57 pm

Anyone who doesn't suspect foul play from a spy group who have repeatedly lied to the congressional sub-committee charged with protecting citizens from necessarily secret, security agency's actions, has a faithful but unfounded trust of a potentially very destructive groups actions. I envy your ability to sleep well at night, but think you're trust is extremely mis-guided.

Reply

Joe August 12, 2014 at 11:58 am

It is not an "additional feature", it is adulteration of the function. It does two things: It reduces the reliability and it triggers extreme gun control laws in New Jersey. NJ has a law that says if any "smart" gun is sold anywhere in the US, then that becomes the only kind of gun sold in NJ (paraphrasing).

The only reason this gun exists is because of politics in certain states that are encouraging it and the maker wants to cash in on that, the heck with everyone else.

Reply

ohno August 7, 2014 at 8:34 pm

If anyone wanna makes police pistol useless… They will drop an EMP grenade. So it will fry the pistol circuits?

Reply

Muttling August 7, 2014 at 10:13 pm

EMP grenade????? Care to provide a reference to a REAL weapon that you are referring to instead of some Hollywood make believe weapon?

Reply

Nadnerbus August 8, 2014 at 12:55 am

Too much Black Ops 2

Reply

Kevin Smithwick August 8, 2014 at 3:21 am

Can you tell me where and how I can get EMP grenades.

Reply

Tiger August 9, 2014 at 7:25 am

Will you kids stop carping about EMP?

Reply

hibeam August 7, 2014 at 9:49 pm

What we need are smarter people. Then they could find jobs. Start by getting Big Government out of the education business.

Reply

rtsy August 8, 2014 at 12:12 am

Alright, I'll bite.

Your logic is that government is involved with the education system, which leads to a lesser educated populace, which is why people can't find jobs, and…. I can't see how any of that links back to cops being given these guns.

At all.

Reply

Muttling August 7, 2014 at 10:09 pm

This is silliness. Police are trained in sidearm retention and most use holsters which prevent the weapon from being pulled out at an off angle, as a result it is extremely rare for an officer to be shot by his/her own sidearm.

This is just a sales pitch by an industry that is only interested in making money.

Reply

Kevin Smithwick August 8, 2014 at 3:34 am

Officers rarely discharge their weapon, in the 25 years my father has been in Law Enforcement he has never fired on a suspect. I say this as someone from Southern Texas even with the drug cartels and human smugglers killing people gun battles are rare.

Reply

blight_asdf August 11, 2014 at 4:47 pm

Which makes you wonder how often a "smart pistol" would be required by law enforcement. Retention holster seems to mitigate it pretty well without requiring doodads, though I'm sure people asked questions about whether or not a retention holster might delay the officer being able to pull out his weapon in a timely fashion.

Hell, having to draw a gun from a holster imposes a delay of a second or more when it comes to officer safety.

Reply

amauyong August 7, 2014 at 10:22 pm

Actually this idea/application has merit…

Can someone suggest implementing it on hellfire missiles, surface to air missles etc…mandatory for all the worlds military…

Thus when a terrorist manage to get a surface to air missile…it jus won't fire cos it is a "smart" weopon which will only activate for its own actual miltary owner.

zzzz

Reply

moondawg August 8, 2014 at 4:01 am

One recalls that in Judge Dred, the Judges had pistols like this. A bad guy capured a Judge's pistol and was going to shoot her with it. When he pulled the trigger, the pistol exploded and blew his hand off.

Reply

Jo Byden August 10, 2014 at 12:06 am

Charles, stop with your nonsense!

Reply

xpoqx August 8, 2014 at 8:08 am

Idk if it had come up yet but what happens when the watch runs out of batteries and dies, what happens if it broken in the line of duty during a shootout? What happens if an EMP fries it? Normal guns don’t have these problems.

Reply

ttt August 8, 2014 at 8:39 am

These things make for good sound bites until YOU are the one it fails to work for that one time you need it. If you include batteries dying at any point when you least expect it, rain, extreme cold/heat, shock, vibration and inconsistent maintenance…few who actually count on a weapon in an instant would likely trust this. I wouldn't buy it, except for my enemy.

Reply

Tiger August 9, 2014 at 7:39 am

You may not have a choice……… Laws mandating such tech have been floating for a while. Thus outlawing so called dumb guns for sale.

Reply

Leo Johnson August 8, 2014 at 11:44 am

Yesterday when I first read this article I began wondering about the battery in the watch.If the battery in the watch "Dies" without the rearer of the watch knowing that it had "Died" would the gun still work.Knowing what I know about battery powered watches when they "[Die" theyre Dead.

Reply

BlackOwl18E August 8, 2014 at 3:51 pm

Sounds like it's just leaving the door open for some criminal hacker to see if they can disable these guns by remote, leaving our officers defenseless.

Reply

Tiger August 9, 2014 at 7:43 am

Worry more about big brother having the off switch……..
Same way On Star can shut down your car. THe government could turn off the guns of the people.

Reply

BlackOwl18E August 9, 2014 at 11:29 am

That was the next thing I was going to hint at. Police departments haven't gone after this gun because they know it's a farce. It adds a crucial weakness, not a strength. This gun is much more a political weapon than an actual weapon.

Reply

Bob August 8, 2014 at 6:54 pm

What happens when criminals begin to understand that by smashing your watch they just disabled your firearm? And what about the Government? What happens when they figure out how to send out a signal that disables EVERYONE'S firearm? There's a better solution to this. Guns can now be made that are matched to the owner's palm print. No palm print match, no firing of the weapon by a criminal who wrestles the gun away from you. Wouldn't that be the ultimate safety check?

Reply

blight_asdf August 11, 2014 at 4:46 pm

I'm skeptical of fingerprint systems. If you're in a fistfight and get blood or grit on your hands, a palm or fingerprint scanner may not work under less than ideal conditions. And then you die.

Reply

Dec August 9, 2014 at 10:02 am

I suppose all you need to do to disable the gun is (1) find out the frequency of the signal used, and (2) create a device to mimic or overpower or otherwise interfere with the signal. That way, you can choose to disable it when it's in the police hand, and enable it when you are holding it.

Got to do something to counter the police state under Obama and GW Bush.

Reply

spurr August 14, 2014 at 12:54 am

Make sure the device comes with a scanner and programmable frequency selection so that it won't become obsolete when the maker changes the frequency.

Reply

Andy August 10, 2014 at 12:05 am

All cops should be equipped with bio-enhanced, single-shot, .22 short muskets.

Reply

Martin August 11, 2014 at 12:23 am

This is not a new idea. Anybody remember the magnetic ring that went on the gun hand
to release the sear when fired. No ring no shot. That was a big bust.

Reply

Brian August 12, 2014 at 2:37 am

Math is wonderful, if applied properly, but you are using the wrong algorithm.

Here’s the “math” from another perspective – 10 inches, 25 cm. An aggressor takes a wild swing with a blade, and you reflexively use your strong hand, and get badly slashed. Assuming that you have already entered the PIN on the watch, you must use your weapon in your off hand, and may well be unable to keep the weapon in close enough proximity to the weapon for it to arm, and get it into a usable position.

Next mathematical application of a 10″ measurement – instead of your strong hand, you used your weak hand, and cannot enter the PIN at all. You now have a small club against a blade.

One more mathematical scenario, the other individual has your weapon, raises it toward you, and you reflexively hold up your hands to shield yourself, bringing the watch within 10″.

For many people, the gun is a way to protect oneself against those stronger, faster, and more aggressive than themselves. At this time, this not-so-smart technology does not favor those who may already be on the losing end of surprise and/or conflict. Other proposed systems have no real benefit, except to introduce more points of possible failure in an encounter or engagement.

Reply

Joe August 12, 2014 at 12:02 pm

There isn't a policeman on the beat anywhere in the country who would carry this gun. When he draws, it might not fire, and if it does, it is a .22LR.

If Bloomberg were smart, he would pay someone to become a licensed dealer, import these, then sell one to Bloomberg himself in order to trigger the law.

Reply

how to get rid of social anxiety August 25, 2014 at 8:45 pm

This way you can immediately understand the wise messages of the unconscious mind, which always have a
protective character. You can get these medications with the
right assessment and prescription from a doctor. He exhibits signs of an obsessive-compulsive disorder, with his mind fixated on the death of his parents.

Reply

Bernard August 8, 2014 at 4:31 pm

Now you miss my point. The internet consists of systems vastly more complex than the RFID chip in this gun and yet failures of the internet are so rare that we make a phone call every time it happens. An Intel Core 2 Duo from 2008 has 230 million transistors, a typical microcontroller (which is enough to make an RFID chip) only has 100,000. So just to connect your PC to the internet no fewer than 3 (your's, the DNS, and the host) computers and a router are involved, so that's at least 690 million transistors (ignoring other IC's involved). That's if you only visit one website, more realistically they will be hundreds of computers involved in your everyday usage of the internet. That's 2.3 billion transistors, compared to the 100,000 in an RFID chip for a ratio of 230,000 to 1.

Now take however often your internet fails, and reduce that by 230,000 times. How inconvenienced are you? Even if you were calling your ISP five times a day 365 days a year for downed internet access. That would still mean you'll have to wait 126 years before you had a single failure with one RFID chip. Now which gun can you go shooting with every single day for 126 years, without it jamming at least once?

Reply

Bernard August 8, 2014 at 4:35 pm

Slight correction "2.3 billion transistors" should be 23 billion. The rest is correct.

Reply

Bernard August 11, 2014 at 3:53 pm

This is where you need to do your math first.

Muzzle energy is calculated by taking the mass of the round (15.1 kg) times velocity squared (709 m/s) divided by two thousand.

The muzzle energy of a 105 howitzer is 3.8 million joules.

The muzzle energy a 9mm is only 519, an M16 is 1,325, and a 50 call is only 11,091 joules.

Anything that can survive 3.8 million joules even 50% of the time will have no trouble with 519 joules 99.99% of the time (you can verify that mathematically). That's like watching a tank cross a bridge and then getting nervous because your Smart car has to cross that same bridge every day. If it can handle a tank, it can handle a Smart car.

If the people making this gun know what they are doing and they do it with high quality, then the final product should be just as reliable as any other pistol you can buy off the shelves. There would be no statistically relevant difference.

Reply

Bernard August 13, 2014 at 9:25 am

The same things apply to the gun. Your gun could blow up in your hand if it's defective. It can jam if you don't clean it. What you are doing is called cherry picking.

"If the radio wave is not perturbed/jammed"
Now that's just silly. If you are that afraid of the world then a gun isn't going to help you. Maybe therapy, but certainly not a gun.

Reply

A.g. August 13, 2014 at 6:08 pm

I se the link.
Therapy and infaible electronics are the same king of embezzlement.
Works fine with those who do not use them everyday but making high profit with it.

Reply

Bernard August 14, 2014 at 10:09 am

If you don't trust electronics then why are you on the internet?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: