Murphy Was An Optimist

In the James Bond thriller Skyfall Bond is issued a smart gun instead of his trusty Walther PPK. At an appropriate moment in the film, Bond loses control of his weapon, and is about to be terminated by an attacker who picks it up. But, the gun works as promised and will not fire for the attacker. Just before the attacker pulls the trigger, Bond utters "Good luck with that."

 For those who believe in the power of electronic technology, the film is a ringing endorsement of the so called "smart gun."  Our former Vice President, Joe Biden, appears to be one of these.  What Biden, and apparently a lot of people do not understand is that the "Bond" films are scripted by Hollywood writers who also believe in the smart gun idea.  These scripts are just wishful thinking, and so are smart guns.  The smart gun is pure Hollywood fiction.  Murphy's law, which states that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, at the worst possible moment, is a more accurate assessment.  And Murphy was an optimist.

Today, at Townhall.com John Lott has an article explaining all this entitled Democrats Keep Pushing Smart Guns.

These “smart” guns use a fingerprint or palm reader — something akin to what is available on smart phones. Or they can utilize a radio signal from a wristwatch worn by the owner.

...snip...

Imagine police arriving on a crime scene and finding that their guns can’t fire, because of interference with the radio signals. The German-made Armatix iP1 has been jammed with radio waves and hasn’t proved useful in preventing theft as it was hacked with $15 worth of magnets. Should police rely on fingerprint technology instead? The iPhone supposedly has state-of-the-art finger print scanners, but anyone who uses the device knows that the technology is far from 100% reliable. The phone won't unlock if your finger is positioned in the wrong way, or if it is slightly damp or dirty. For police, a few second delay may mean the difference between life and death.

In a life and death struggle, and that is the only time a potentially lethal weapon should be drawn, one is unlikely to be given the chance to go wash his or her hands.  Frankly, one is also very likely to not be able to get a firm firing grip on the gun.  Imagine that you are already on the ground, being pounded by a man bigger, stronger, and more youthful than you are.  You begin to realize that if you don't get this guy off of you, he is going to kill you.  But he is stronger than you are, and you can't.  You reach back and manage to draw your gun, turn it towards your attacker and fire, twice, three times.  He finally relents, as it dawns on him he has been shot.  Now, while he is distracted, you can push him aside and get up.  For the first time you can take a firm firing grip and proper aim, but of course, if your attacker has not reinitiated his attack, you do not shoot.

But what if your weapon was one of these so called "smart guns?"  Would you have been able to use it?  Murphy, remember, was an optimist.