I control my weapon...it does not control me. Goodness!

they have to be kidding..

First, their are so many "legacy" weapons out there that this could only be a source of a false sense of security.

Second, it would serve to make those "legacy" weapons surprisingly valuable.. SO, probably a good thing for people with large collections of what would become "legacy" weapons.

Third, along with legacy weapons, pretty much anyone that knows howto operate a drill-press and lathe is going to be in a position to ignore the wifi..

Finally, who would be trust-able enough to manage the servers that pass out the 'you can shoot' tokens to the smart guns? Would we really want to trust the government with that? How then could we trust that they would not misuse that authority? How could we guarantee that some administration down the road would still be worthy of that trust?

Thanks for the link! I got the original paper and added it to my general criminology folder. This is good thinking. The protection of rights via policing is a proper function of government. I do not perceive these researchers as "looters looking for a grant" as FreedomForAll claims. In times gone by the federal government operated the Springfield Arsenal to make weapons. . "... in the 19th and 20th centuries became the site of numerous technological innovations of global importance, including interchangeable parts, the assembly line style of mass production, and modern business practices, such as hourly wages. Numerous firearm models produced at the Springfield Armory from 1794 to 1968 were referred to as "Springfield rifles". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield... Not all innovation can come from the government, of course. That should be accepted as axiomatic.

As I noted here in the Gulch, a late-model car can be seized from outside by a hacker. (http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/17...)
So, of course, a wireless gun also could be taken over. However, that is not essentially a new problem. Your gun always can be taken from you. That is a known risk. Also, the schematic provided in the original article shows sensors on the grip. In design, they can identify the biometric grip of the owner. That makes the gun even safer for the authorized user.

As for the intention, it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to consider ways to prevent aggression. If the government is to hold a monopoly on retaliatory force, then it is acceptable to prevent the introduction of unauthorized firearms in courtrooms, police stations, and other government offices.

Moreover, I would definitely want one of these wireless disablers protecting my own home to make sure that I have the only working gun in the house.

In case of loss of signal, the guns would have to be configured to fail in "safety", "ready", or last known state. If they're set to fail to "safety", a criminal could jam the signal to disable the guard's gun. If they fail "ready", the criminal could jam her own gun's signal. This system would only stop someone who went crazy and wasn't thinking it through. Anyone planning to commit a crime would work around the system.

I find it amazing that in every example in the drawings they show a security guard with the ability to shoot. If the system was going to solve the problem, why would there even be a a curity guard? Hypocrites!

Oh boy! This sounds like "Demolition Man". Stallone and Bullock.

The idea makes superficial sense until you consider law-abiding citizens would have their guns fitted with auto-safety devices. Criminals would disable the auto-safety and try to hack into the auto-safety devices of law-abiding citizens. It's just a high-tech version of the same old problem with banning guns.