If judges can pontificate on questions of firearms engineering, then I can write legal decisions legalizing the possession of fully automatic firearms and rocket propelled grenades by the unorganized militia (ie, us). That’s fair, isn’t it?
It’s also just as likely to be faulty as the judge’s engineering efforts. This, of course, was his point.
What the judge and other “smart gun” advocates apparently don’t or can’t understand is that engineering against an intelligent adversary is dramatically different and more difficult than engineering devices to reduce the probability of accidents or the mitigate the effects of such an accident.
Turn signals and brake lights reduce the chance of accidents. Seatbelts mitigate the effects of accidents. There has been little need to significantly improve the technology of these in the last 50 years.
The technology of antitheft devices has seen dramatic improvement in the last 50 years. This is because in the case of the theft of a car the engineer has an intelligent adversary working against them. Both the thief and engineer attempting to protect the car innovate nearly constantly.
And even that analogy is weak because:
- Guns have the contradictory criteria of failing to fire if the thief removes or disables the power supply and being useable by the owner in an emergency situation if the battery or electronics have died.
- A inoperable gun is far more transportable than an inoperable car.
- A car has large and reliable power supply.
- A car can be disabled for many seconds or even, in extreme cases, a few minutes without serious consequences.
- A few pounds of anti-theft technology added to a car are not an obstacle to its use.
- Two way communication technology is common and relatively difficult to defeat in a car. Not so in a gun.
If you are going to pontificate on “Smart Guns” you should get the advice of an engineer with experience in security.—Joe]