Potential problem: Watches are phasing out, people don\'t like to wear them any more.
1st February, 2010 @ 11:09 a.m. (California Time)
Hmmm, Where I live, everybody has wrist watches. In fact, those who do NOT have a wrist watch are somewhat looked down upon as being bohemian.
1st February, 2010 @ 3:41 p.m. (California Time)
@Gruph. I\'m sure watches will be around for awhile... especially if you\'re part of a unit that requires them to fire your weapon....
Rare situation though: if the officer/soldier injured their dominant shooting hand with the watch, and had to fire the weapon with their injured hand... would it work? Is there a short radius for firing? Or the shooter just be trained to hold the injured wrist near the weapon as the opposite hand fired the weapon?
1st February, 2010 @ 8 p.m. (California Time)
I say watches are eternal... or at least my Casio G-Shock solar-powered watch is, anyway. When the bombs drop, they\'ll be nothing left but little cockroaches wearing little G-Shocks.
Since this product is more intended for those who employ a gun in their line of work, I don\'t think mandating wearing the watch will be a problem.
The problem I see is this, however... all this tech sounds so dang cool now I want to go out and buy some weapons! I\'m barely able to resist adding one of those Metal Storm virtual minefields to my Amazon Wish List. Let your dogs walk on my lawn will ya? KA-BOOM!
1st February, 2010 @ 10:10 p.m. (California Time)
Seems like an electronic ring enabler, worn on the shooting hand, would be effective.
2nd February, 2010 @ 6:40 a.m. (California Time)
Curious...how does the system address a situation where a cop has to switch hands to fire the pistol? That is...during a struggle, or if his strong side is wounded?
2nd February, 2010 @ 10:59 a.m. (California Time)
Why bother making the gun with a calibre of .22? Surely that size is only used for target practice? I thought of a gun which falls to pieces if it is snatched from your hand. A locking pin in the butt holds it together. The pin is attached to your wrist.
2nd February, 2010 @ 12:53 p.m. (California Time)
Cool idea, but what happens when someone attacks me in my house? Do I ask them to wait while I go put on my watch, enable the watch and then load the weapon? OK, so I wear the watch all the time \"just in case\". How long does it take to enable the watch?
OK, so maybe I should not have a weapon. Fare enough. But what happens when an officer needs to access his shotgun in a hurry? Anything that slows down access by an officer in an emergency is not a help.
2nd February, 2010 @ 4:19 p.m. (California Time)
Another dumb idea destined to the garbage bin of history - and if not for Gimags motto of \"Sensationalise and Sell\" it would be reaching there even sooner.
2nd February, 2010 @ 9:23 p.m. (California Time)
\"SMart guns\" seem to be predicated on the idea that only police or the rich should have guns.
As others have pointed out:
what happens if the user, whether officer or not, needs to use his off hand?
what happens if someone kicks in my door in the middle of the night?
what happens if I am not home and my wife needs to defend herself from someone who kicks in the door?
what happens if the officer\'s partner needs to pick up his gun and use it?
What happens if the officer needs to transition to his backup gun?
What happens if the watch breaks? or there is Electromagnetic interference?
WHat will the increase in cost involved in conversion to a \"smart gun\"?
I believe the real reason behind the push for smart guns is that the anti-gunners will use their existence in the marketplace to push for a ban on all guns that are NOT \"smart.\"
The combination of banning the pre-existing guns and dramatically increasing the cost of the legal guns will effectively disarm the poor and (possibly)middle class, leaving only the wealthy and the government armed. Now, I realize that some people believe that is the way it should be, but I disagree.
3rd February, 2010 @ 2:01 p.m. (California Time)
I know if I was head of an organised crime gang I would get an expert to work on a device to disable the signal from the watch to the gun. Thereby disabling the laws chances of shooting your foot soldiers in a fire fight. ANY radio signal can be blocked with a high enough powered signal.
Imagine how uneasy this would/could make the police forces, wondering if the criminal is going to beat you to the first shot because your gun is disabled.
What about faults etc. When it comes time to fire the gun, it may take an extra few fractions of a second one day to ID the wearers watch signal. Everyone knows there is NOTHING in this world that is infallible about electronics.
3rd February, 2010 @ 8:44 p.m. (California Time)
I think everybody has seen an instance where an officer was assisted by a citizen coming onto a seen. So what happens when this citizen can\'t fire the officers weapon and both the officer and citizen are killed due to this technology. Citizens all over will start refusing to help because they \"will get killed in action\". This is just another dumb use for technology.
2nd June, 2010 @ 7:33 a.m. (California Time)
This is such obvious BS, for such a huge variety of reasons, it is hard to know where to begin.
FIRST, as clearly demonstrated on MythBusters more than once, fingerprint scanners are a joke. A bad joke at that; not funny at all. Even the expensive ones are ridiculously easy to spoof. As "authentication" for a deadly weapon, I would judge even considering this idea to be a complete waste of brain time.
Second, as someone else mentioned here, jamming the signal would seem to be a feasible prospect.
Third, and more importantly, there are too many ACCIDENTAL ways that such a system can fail, like being lost or forgotten somewhere, or having the batteries fail, etc.
When it comes to self-defense, I want my weapon to be 99.999% reliable, at ALL times. This system is specifically designed to make sure that it is NOT reliable, at least some of the time (the prescribed operating times, for example).
There is no way in hell I would trust my life to such a device. I would not consider it even for a moment. BAD IDEA.
12th April, 2012 @ 1:55 p.m. (California Time)
The NRA would lobby against this with both barrels loaded :)
25th January, 2013 @ 6:29 a.m. (California Time)
Don't watches run on batteries? what if the watch dies? or if the watch gets lost or drowns?
9th November, 2013 @ 9:28 a.m. (California Time)