Gun Control & RKBA

It was written in white ink in on Casper the friendly ghost in a blizzard, that's why I didn't see it.



I pointed out the issues with RFID, namely that the fob/ring/bracelet can be stolen along with the gun. I also pointed out that your gun can still be used against you if the perp is close enough. Biometrics is more secure in that there is no RDID device that can be stolen and a grabbed gun can't be used against you, but rapid, reliable, and accurate detection of biometric information is problematic.



Whatever.

It's not a bad idea. I'm not against the technology emerging into the marketplace but at this point I am against it being mandated. Once the cops start using it, you'll see it trickling into the marketplace.

What's probably going to happen is one of the big gun makers will buy up some smart-gun startup company for their technology and then develop and market a smart gun for police use. One ongoing point of concern that cops have is their guns being taken from them and used against them. I understand that the police spend a decent amount of time on weapon retention in hand-to-hand combat, and that they use holsters that lock their handguns in unless drawn in a specific way to help prevent an attacker from yanking the gun out during a struggle.

So, you make a pistol that has the ergonomics, simplicity, reliability, and accuracy of a Glock, but with biometric or RFID smart technology, and get a major police department to buy it. I'm not a Glock fanboy but I think they have the largest share of the police market as well as a substantial civilian following. Other guns are equally as ergonomic, simple, reliable, and accurate, but Glock has a lot of inertia behind it.

Yeah, it will cost more but the police can make the argument it that it will pay for itself by avoiding the legal, financial, and medical costs of having their officers safer.

A big gun company will have the resources to fill large orders, provide long-term support, and also supply civilian demand. Heck, a big company can even sell the guns at or below cost for the purposes of getting a foothold in the market.

A big gun company can also sponsor a professional shooting team. If this RFID/biometric gun can compete sucessfully against "dumb guns" in IDPA competitions, for example, that's proof of viability.

But if the smart gun can't compete, if the technology causes delays or failures that prevent the shooting team from winning, then this is an opportunity for the gun maker to work with the shooting team to resolve problems. The stakes are high in competition but lives are not on the line.

Many of the gun makers have professional shooting teams, and lessons learned in competition flow down to regular production guns. Get the smart guns working in competition, and they will make waves and drive interest from many directions.

Get Armatix into the IDPA or other, similar pistol-shooting competitions if they want to get market share.