I worked one job where a hand scanner was used to clock you in and out. If that specific hand was injured, HR had to jump thru the hoop where the back of the left hand had to be used and a new scan made. It was thumb directional.
They went to that length because shop foreman were clocking in their buddies even if they were late, etc.
So, adding any sort of control and then proofing it by field testing it means those who would be the guinea pigs will experience what failure means in that system. If the gun locks up at the wrong time, then people can and will be killed who shouldn't be. It then goes to whether the vendor can prove it will not experience any more failures than the norm, in order to sidestep liability.
Which LEO or military Department is going to be first in line for that? No, what we will likely see is foreign testing on their soil, not the loss of American lives until proven foolproof. And by foolproof, it must be immersion proof in any solution that men might find in a working environment.
Guns get dropped into toilets, buckets of chemicals, whatever. We spray some pretty noxious solvents on them, too, just cleaning them. The lockout unit has to be absolute proof against them all. More than the cartridges, which, as we know, aren't.
There are physical limits to what mechanisms and electronics can endure. If we won't market the water resistant cell phone, why then expect a diesel fuel proof smart gun?
If it IS offered, at what cost? In strictly financial terms, what are we getting for the money? All it has as a selling point is that you can't be shot by your own gun, but that is only if it's taken from you, and why bother? If you have one, just use it, not the one somebody else has.
It's a low probability issue with a high cost for the individual. So, the real point of the exercise isn't protecting the owner - we already have that basis with dumb guns. And securing them prevents unauthorized use, which already happens to a high degree, and is getting better.
No, all that is the smoke and mirrors of the agenda, what the anti gunners want it the ability to keep you from firing your gun. If they can get that, then you simply don't have one when you need to use it, like, during unauthorized searches to remove it from your possession.
If they already existed, would the governments of NY and CT have much less disincentive to confiscate them? As it is, they can't. Accepting smart guns into the mix, they can, and will, be able to take them away as they see fit.
But, some say, that would never happen. And yet, some of us remember, there was no idea that an AWB would pass in Congress, or that NY and CT would outlaw AR15's and require their turn in or destruction.
It's what sometimes amazes me, that some would find it acceptable and be willing to pay more for the "privilege" to own one. Others of us find that mindset unacceptable. It very much is class warfare on that point, I have one, you don't, because you can't afford it.
Same agenda was used demonizing "Saturday Night" specials, when the reality is that most criminals prefer whatever duty handgun the professionals are using. If they can't buy it, they steal it. It's why police cruisers are no longer left unattended because the word is out, there's a full auto M16 in the trunk.
So, how do we retrofit all the existing millions of guns, and who pays the bill? Smart guns won't be viable unless they all are, and if you are surcharged hundreds of dollars a gun to render them legal, don't expect your local government or Uncle Sam to do it. And that conversion will have to be done by a certified compliant gun smith, to ensure no monkey business is going on, and the unit will need to be "sealed" same as gasoline pumps or a warranted product to show if it was tampered with. And that will require periodic inspections to prove it. Just like sniff testing your car is in compliance with emissions laws.
Miss the date and you are now in possession of an illegal firearm, with a warrant out for your arrest on sight. When they bust you, they confiscate ALL the other guns and whatever else you were in possession of at the time of the crime, including your motor vehicle, and good luck getting that all back in the next few years, the current working standard.
"I'll buy that!" doesn't even begin to cover it. We can't even get the TSA to follow their own rules on traveling with human sourced milk, but we don't see any problems with smart guns?
