Skip to main content

Recently the "iP1" was released to the market.  One of the first handheld boomsticks to hold the term "Smart" with it.

In a nutshell, this gun won't fire unless the linked item is with it. (in this case a watch)

The idea is the person who owns the gun also owns the watch. If the watch is not with in X inches of the gun, the gun's locking system and safety won't let it fire.

If my memory is correct, the State of Maryland passed a law in 2002 that requires all new guns sold in Maryland to be "smart guns" not later than three years after the first model comes on the market…so the clock is ticking…maybe.

Sounds great, but there are some issues that need answers.  It is not the "magic bullet" (pun intended!) to end gun crime.

More after the squiggle.

People have thrown out the "Smart Gun" as a way to end gun violence and suicides. Like it is some amazing thing that would solve the problem.

It is not. At best it will be a small, little tool that will have some use in specific situations.

I don't think what i'm reading about on the iP1 is the amazing thing the marketing is making it.

Lets look at the new shinny and use it as an example of a good attempt with a lot of marketing hype.

The "Smart Gun - iP1"

The iP1 is a 22 LR calibre pistol with a 10 round magazine standard (so illegal in NYS), semi-automatic, with an electronic magazine disconnect and the unexplained "different operating modes". (single shot per trigger pull is the normal mode of civilian weapons, does this have three round burst or full auto? Or maybe dry fire mode for training?)

The gun also can have camera's attached as well as other tools (scopes, training target identifiers, etc)  It also meets the ATF standard for drop safety.

The Smart part of the gun is the (sold separately for some reason) iW1 RFID watch.  This is paired up with the gun with a "PIN code entry and PIN code management for weapon enablement" (assuming with no information that you put in a PIN to let the gun work, and that you can have more than one gun "attached" to the watch with a different PIN).

Of course the watch also has "charge level indicator for watch and weapon, time-controlled weapon deactivation, extensive watch functions, waterproof interchangeable straps, power supply for 5,000 rounds or a minimum of one year standby, depending on operation."

How this works

The gun, around $1,399 before taxes (a brand new .22lr pistol from Smith and Weston runs at the high end around $380), also requires the iW1 watch - $399.

You take the gun, program a PIN into it, then link up the watch (put in the PIN to the gun).  At that point, the gun won't fire unless the watch is turned on, has the PIN put in and is with in 10 inches of the gun.  It will also "shut down" (time controlled deactivation) after a preset time. So if you don't shoot in say 10 minutes the gun would shut down and you would need to re-activate it.

So, if you want to shoot the gun, you put on the watch, (maybe enter a PIN in the watch, maybe once it is in, it always works? not a lot of documentation yet on this but if it is always on, what is the time controlled deactivation thing?), draw the gun, and if you have the gun with in 10 inches of the watch, it will let you pull the trigger and make boom-stick go boom. (well pop, it is a 22)

Breaking down the information

We don't have all the fine details, but we can speculate on how this would work and where it would best fit in the gun owners world.  Which will also point out the current weakness in the system that will need a lot of tweaking before we can say it is a best solution.

Lets start with the big fear of gun owners: the gun won't go boom when I need it to. This could be valid, you have two batteries in this system.  The watch will last "5,000 rounds" - maybe, or the gun batteries will.  There has to be some mechanical locking system powered by an electronic activated command device.  That would take power to move the locking device on and off. (5,000 times is the apparent rated amount for the batteries)  Or one year of standby.  

Think of your cell phone, you have a battery in it, forget to plug it in over night and the next day your getting a ride with a friend to work so you don't have your charger. On the way home you see an accident grab your phone and…the battery is dead.  The gun owner worries about the same thing.  (pardon me rapist, I need to change the batteries, can you hold on for a bit?)

You have more moving parts too. What little there is about the iP1 implies that the gun will move something to block the chamber from accepting a round. The chamber is where the round sits when it is ready to fire.  Most gun owners who carry do so in "condition two" - round in the chamber, hammer down, full magazine, on safe. So all you have to do is take the gun off safe and depending on the gun cock the hammer or pull the trigger.  This would mean you would have to carry in "condition three" (no round in the chamber).  Or it could mean that the device would remove the round from the chamber when the watch got to far away or timed out, using more power.

Another fear is jamming: Both physically and electronically. Physically because of all the additional moving parts, but electronically because many who advocate Smart Gun tech then go on to talk about putting jammers at schools and malls.  What happens if a bad guy has a jammer?  Would the cops be unable to shoot him? This would be the ultimate hack target - something to block guns or unblock them.  We already have hackers stealing info from credit cards with RFID's in them, talk about a tempting target.

Another fear is losing/dropping/breaking the watch: Or the example I was given by a police officer on why they would never use Smart Guns - the need to shoot with the other hand.  This happens a lot.  I've been hunting with people and watched them have to shift to the other hand to shoot around an obstacle. In the military i've trained to shoot and reload with my off hand as though I was wounded.

This could be a problem, you only have 10 inches for the watch and gun to work together.  You have your gun out, watch on the right hand and need to get your door open. You have your keys in your front right pocket.  You move your gun to your left hand (disabling the gun) and dig your keys out.

More than one user: most gun owners have more than one person who uses the guns. (we have three in our home, and the fourth is about a year away).  Do they need to buy several watches?

Can the gun be used by more than one watch?  If yes, what stops someone from linking their watch to your gun?  If no, how does the spouse use the gun when the other one with the watch is out and about?  Do they leave the watch near/with the gun? or what if it gets lost? (I've lost my cell phone for three days and I use that often, when would you notice the watch was missing?)

Why this is not the "magic bullet" to gun deaths.

Some of the marketing and news hype states that this watch/gun combo will be "a landmark event in efforts to reduce gun violence, suicides, and accidental shootings."

Uh, no. That is just marketing.  Gun violence - nothing stops the gun from being used by a person with both parts.  The high cost would have greater result in it rarely being used in crimes. If the watch can be linked to any gun, hacking the gun would happen.  As long as you can change the PIN, there is a way to change the link. (We "Jail-break" any gun or phone)

Suicides - maybe a little.  When someone commits suicide with a firearm, it is often one they have legally and have access to.  If they have access to the gun, the watch is likely to be near by.  If the gun owner family member thinks "hey this is a smart gun, I don't' need to lock it up any more" the young depressed family member just has to steal the watch with the gun rather than find the keys for the safe, the keys for the trigger lock, the combination for the fire safe storing the ammo.

Accidental (Negligent) shootings - some.  It would stop the little kid finding the gun kind of tragic shooting, assuming the watch was not left with the gun.  But the much more common Negligent (not accidental, negligent!) shooting is the gun owner shooting the gun.  One would expect the gun owner would also have the watch with them. (and I can see idiots "forgetting" they had the watch on while playing with the gun they did not unload because "I don't have the watch on it won't work")

Also, this is one model of gun.  Even assuming that every new gun made next year had this Smart gun tech, there are still 350 million guns in civilian hands that do not have this and likely can't be retrofitted.  A gun will last over 100 years if cared for.  I have a 1898 rifle that we still shoot regularly.

So is "Smart Guns" just a cool idea that has no use?

No, it is a great idea.  As time goes by, the price should come down. Reliably should go up. However it is not going to appeal to the normal gun owner, even if the price came down to the cost of non-tech guns.  Mostly for the reasons above.

Where these guns would be best is for police and military.  These are people most likely to face having their gun taken away from them by assailants.  They also are the ones that have a support system to keep the batteries up to date, maintain and test regularly.  They are also the most likely to need to switch hands when shooting.

If the guns are reliably enough for the police to be using as issued weapons, then the average gun owner will be more likely to consider buying one if it is a reasonable price. But until the Smart Gun tech is reliable enough for police and military use, there will not be much civilian support for it.  

Here is the link to the iPx

Originally posted to Drill Sgt K on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:01 AM PST.

Also republished by Firearms Law and Policy.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

    by DrillSgtK on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:01:14 AM PST

  •  It's a gimmick. Smith & Wesson made Safety (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, LilithGardener

    Hammerless Revolvers in the late 19th century...a design for small size and small caliber, pocket revolvers that required a strong hand to grip the gun's handle in order to allow it to fire. It was called the New Departure series, and was designed to end accidental shootings, especially by children. It was an interesting idea, and they were successful in that the design was popular and continued to be made till WWII. Many were used for carry and home defense guns, with the idea that they were safer than a standard revolver. I have no idea if they prevented any accidental shootings, and I have no idea how that would even be determined.

    IMO, for these guns to have a real effect on society, all other guns would have to be removed from private possession, which is highly unlikely to say the least.

    The US has ALWAYS been a violent country, with a lot of extremist -  sometimes wacky - opinions, beliefs, religions and politics. This has been promoted and glorified in our culture and literature since we began having out own literature...Think Poe and Cooper. I believe if these guns are ever produced and sold, they will someday be collectables, like those old Smith revolvers.

    FEMINISM encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians...Pat Robertson, failed lawyer, worth over $100 million.

    by old mark on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:35:05 AM PST

    •  One of the reasons this did not take off (0+ / 0-)

      was that it needed a strong grip, many women and older people were unable to squeeze it hard enough.

      Many of the complaints about the 1911 goes with that issue too. Small hands, weak grips, arthritis, etc.

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 03:23:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Some of the problems you mentioned (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    could be solved by a timer , if the watch unlocks the gun and the gun go into a usable mode and stays usable for 10 minutes before switching back to a locked mode .

    If you are right handed and you wear the watch on the left ,
    you would move the watch to the gun and the gun would stay on for ten minutes , then switch off if the watch was not brought close to the gun again .
    If you switched the gun to the left hand , it would stay on .

    If someone takes the gun from you while its on , they could fire it while the 10 minutes are running down .
    If they did take the gun from you , they could demand the watch to go with it . Or they could fire the gun close to the watch on your wrist .

    I'm thinking a key system might work better .
    Like a key for a car . Without the key in the lock , turned to the run position , the gun doesn't work .
    Removing the key locks the gun .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:51:06 AM PST

    •  A timer kind of defeats the reason for the watch. (0+ / 0-)

      Like you point out, if a bad guy takes the gun from you, (more than 10 inches) and you have a timer, they shoot you and take your watch.

      This gun has a timer that if you don't shoot it in a per-set time, it disarms.

      Taurus makes a "safety" system for their revolvers that uses a key system.  Most owners leave the gun unlocked for quick use. (and because they lose the key).  I have never used it on my .44 because it is a pain to lock/unlock and either have the gun in my holster or in the gun safe.  I don't leave it laying around or under a pillow.

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 03:29:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Had a Related Idea (0+ / 0-)

    To combat workplace violence, equip and train some number of employees with "smart guns" that work only when two or more of them are activated.

    Suppose a guy walks into a store or business and starts shooting. The people with smart guns access their weapons, the weapons signal to see if other smart guns are active and, if so, the weapons will now fire.


  •  Id rather have smarter gun users (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, DrillSgtK, WakeUpNeo

    There seems to be a real dearth of those round some parts.
    But its interesting information, thanks.

  •  The Smart Gun would be cheaper than an (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    anyone gun stored in The Gun Box The safe storage for a loaded gun on the bedside stand. RFID and biometric lock and GPS for missing boxes.  It would probably be about the same hand gun $500 + $500 Gun Box.

    Yes, like seat-belts, gun storage has a long way to come. And the manufacture and sales of gun safety equipment will easily employ all the workers no longer needed for producing guns.

    Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

    by 88kathy on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 07:50:19 AM PST

    •  The first offer of the Smart Gun is $1,399 (0+ / 0-)

      for a .22 lr. You can find regular 22's for under $150 in some places.

      The Gun Box is only for one gun (most gun owes have more than one) and looks easy to open/steal. But i've not put my hands on it.  (aluminum vs crowbar, crowbar wins)

      My safe is a bit stronger (and made in the US not just assembled in the US - Liberty Safe dot com)

      The biggest problem is storage cost more than most guns.

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 03:39:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Trigger locks are just as effective (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    with a lot less cost - unless mandated - no one will buy these except some collectors who will store them away to sell them once they have stopped making them.  

    Plus, I don't think too many people with criminal intent will be signing up either.......

    But - as a gadget freak - it's kind of cool from that perspective.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 07:51:13 AM PST

  •  If there is an investment opportunity in the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jessical, KVoimakas, LilithGardener

    commercial success of this product, I'll take the short position.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:15:19 AM PST

  •  Why do you state this gun is illegal in NYS? (0+ / 0-)

    What is your source for the claim?

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:08:27 AM PST

    •  NYS law prohibits having more than 7 bullets (0+ / 0-)

      in a gun.

      It is part of the SAFE act.

      Now the gun is not illegal in an official sense, for now. You can have a gun that holds more than 7 bullets, you just can't put 8 in them.  Though Cuomo is pushing to amend the SAFE act to lower the limit to 5, and ban magazines that hold more than 5. (others are working on banning detachable mags.)

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 03:43:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please correct the diary to remove the false claim (0+ / 0-)

        A reality based community deserves better than your false claim here that the gun is illegal in NYS and here that the 10 round magazine limit was struck down published here.

        The 7 bullet limit was suspended indefinitely last March as unenforceable. I live in NY and was not aware that policy had changed, so if you have a link, please post it.

        Info from the NY Safe Act Decision in Federal Court:

        The 7 bullet limit was struck down on Dec 31st in the Western District of NY as being unsupported in the case record, but the 10 round magazine limit was upheld as constitutional, joining recent District and Appeals Court opinions in Connecticut and DC.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 04:10:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  interesting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I don't think people are especially motivated to purchase technology that impairs the intended use of the device.   Who would want one?  And how much would it cost to have it disabled?  It is possible of course to make guns so unpleasant and difficult to fire easily that they are no longer considered useful.  But short of sneaking in a ban that way, I agree with your caveats.

    On the other hand, we're already starting to see guns -- albeit very expensive rifles -- that do much of the work of targeting.  When we're selling guns with computers that do everything but the physical act of moving to the best aiming position, adding a function to lock the computer will seem natural -- and why not lock the trigger as well?  And if the standard in technology is that much higher, old style guns will go out of fashion.  

    In the meantime, there's a great quote from Bjorne Stroustrup, the fellow who originally create C++ -- don't adopt technological solutions to sociological problems.  The technology will just keep getting slicker, and controls will come with that -- but until Americans get out of this Hobbesian all-against-all mindset, we will continue to collect tools to kill each other like cattle, and feel virtuous about it.

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:45:01 AM PST

  •  Not Maryland (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    If my memory is correct, the State of Maryland passed a law in 2002 that requires all new guns sold in Maryland to be "smart guns" not later than three years after the first model comes on the market…so the clock is ticking…maybe.
    This is a New Jersey law.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. —John Kenneth Galbraith

    by windje on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:19:11 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site