I asked Kai Kloepfer of Biofire Technologies readers' tough questions on government mandates, reliability, privacy, gun-rights groups and his customer base
As someone who understands incrementalism I wouldn't have a smart gun if they went on sale at 2 for a quarter. It's only a matter of time before they're mandated. Shortly after that more "safety features" will be mandated, like the ability of police to render them inoperable, the ability to self report to the authorities; who knows what future enlightened minds will discover is necessary for "safety"? The direction of government is not towards freedom, and I refuse to play a part in that inexorable march.
First, excellent article and abridgment of a much longer conversation. If I had children, I might indeed consider this gun for my bedside table. But since I don’t, then it yields no benefit to me.
“Kloepfer: Laws like that do not have benefits for our business. And we have consistently lobbied against mandates or requirements of smart guns for any reason.“. He doth protest too much. Ima go out on a limb here and guess that the pitch deck to his VC’s has a little different take on mandates. Of course mandates, even the side-by-side version as currently the law in NJ benefit his business.
“I trained with SEALS” and I don’t want to get my gun snatched and used against me. Er, if your gun is out, you better be facing a credible deadly force or great bodily harm threat, and in that case, a lost firearm used against ranks way below a non-functioning one or the one the aggressor is pointing at me.
The suicide answer has the kernel of a good response, but “Hugh percentage?” Science! It’s actually something like 60/40 among teen males and 10/60 for females firearm/asphyxiation. The rates among <15 and 15-24 year olds are the lowest age cohorts in the USA. Of course making it more difficult for (mostly male) teens is a good thing, but it is in no way worth the sacrifice of law abiding people’s rights.
This product enables camel's nose to get under the tent with respect to gun control. He should know this or does and doesn’t care. He, his company, and his product should be shunned by anyone who understands that gun rights ARE civil rights.
I carry daily so given that, he says it is not really intended for that purpose. If the purpose is in the home only and the user does not have a lockbox or small safe with untrained children, then it 'may' be a viable option....although an expensive one. It would seem smarter to buy a multiple push button 12 gge steel lockbox like I used to have with small children. I'm not against the technology, but I have grandchildren who have all been taught firearm safety as well as the consequences, so I do not see a need for the tech. Train your kids early and grandkids how to safely shoot but also teach them the rules of handling a firearm. Also show them the consequences....preferably the gory pics of gunshot wounds online.
Having carried handguns for decades in law enforcement and the military, this is designed to FAIL. Imagine how useless the fingerprint reader is if the user is wearing gloves and a scarf/hat combination.
Next, imagine it in the snow, rain, mud- again, the "readers" can't possibly be reliable in poor weather or high humidity environments.
Would it work 100% of the time in a bedroom, living room or basement in a climate controlled situation? Maybe. Probably not. If I'm struggling with an intruder and drop it- my wife picks it up, and it becomes a $1500 hammer.
I like this gun, and may consider buying one someday. I do not want it to be my only gun, nor to be required nor to have other features that the questions indicated it does not have. For law enforcement use, additional features could be added such as tracking the individual and time of any shots fired, which would require USB access to retrieve the information; but I would probably not want one for myself, this would be for publicly owned guns only. Yes there are people who would mandate all control features for every gun, I am strong opposed to these anti-gun people in every event.
Thanks Emily for this interview, very interesting, he is in business to sell his product. I take is comments to agenda. You could not pay me to take the product, the gun could fail where a conventional firearm would not. Lock boxes and other means work as well at home. Yes they can fail. But training your children is a deterrent also in feeding their curiosity.
I don’t believe he is against mandatory laws to force the sale of these. Again he wants to make money. Items as these start one way them change to something such as the ability to transmit info to an outside group, to be able to make them inoperable, maybe not now but in the future.
I don’t trust mine or family safety to anyone but myself.
Well, he's pretty adept at saying the right things. :)
Honestly, there is a line to walk between "choice" and "mandate." If someone -wants- to trust his/her life to this technology, have at it. That said however...
It's axiomatic that the most reliable systems are also the simplest. These systems minimize points of failure to create a dependable and repeatable result. To my way of thinking, this firearm adds several points of failure that in my opinion makes it unsuitable for personal defense. I don't care if others disagree, just like I don't care if people drive electric cars or whatever. I won't, however, support any kind of requirements saying I must have or drive those things.
Besides - "I can't go to the range today because my gun's battery is dead" is not something I ever want to say.
I am impressed that the guy answered every question in a way that seemed thoughtful on his part. I won't be a customer - even saying "the data is encrypted" is enough to scare me - just the fact that it stores any kind of data makes it a security risk. If it was created by software, it can be cracked by software. Remember when Apple refused to unlock some "terrorists" phone and the FBI paid some Israeli guys several million dollars and - voila - the FBI has access to everyone's iPhone.
On a related note, a lawyer friend told me that you are not required to give your unlock code to the 'authorities', but if you have face ID turned on, they can take your phone, hold it up to your face and have access to everything. I said "I don't do anything I'm particularly worried about them seeing" and he said "if you were to use a gun in self-defense, and you have ANYTHING on your phone gun related, some smart prosecutor will use that to prove prior intent". that means pics, youtube history of watching ColionNoir or Hickock45, receipts from gun range. Apologies for a little digression, but my point is that if this gun uses facial ID as an unlock mechanism, someone could take it from you, hold it to your face and it will be operable again. seems like a pretty big flaw in the supposed 'security'.
On another point viv-a-vis suicide. I have seen research that while suicides make up a large part of gun related deaths, the gun used has been in the dead person's possession an average of ten years (sorry, I can't find the link). Going to Academy, buying a gun and shooting yourself in the next day or two is extremely rare. I'm no expert, but I think that an inanimate gun is inordinately blamed for suicide the same way that guns get blamed for homicide.
If I were to commit cervinicide, leporicide, ursinicide, porcinicide, or even lupinicide, that makes me a hunter, using my own skills and the appropriate tools. The gun didn't magically jump out of the truck and shoot (respectively) a deer, rabbit, bear, hog, or wolf all alone.
Not having guns for experts to test outside of the company's test ranges is not very helpful. That makes it too hard or restrictive to do things like a torture test on the gun itself to make sure it doesn't jam, etc. Also, it may take a lot of time to test the biometric interface in a wide range of circumstances and using the company's facilities are more than likely going to make such testing harder to do.
Did he mention exactly HOW the biometrics work? Was it fingerprints only? Is it fingerprints from the trigger finger? Would it be both trigger fingers? I’m just thinking of the “heat of the moment” when stuff is getting real. If the finger isn’t aligned perfectly, does that prevent it from firing? Guess we’ll have to wait for independent testing.
What about the "elephant in the room" ? Ten years ago the ATF said pistol braces were legal. Shazam ! A new POTUS and now pistol braces if they find one attached on your gun can land you in prison plus you'll be paying a LARGE fine AND be banned from owing guns the rest of your life. ALL this done by a non-elected, non-accountable, and gun hating group who despises private ownership ! The SCOTUS Bruen Ruling means NOTHING to Biden, democRATS and others etc.
For the first XX years the ATF says "Smart guns are NOT mandated." Shazam ! A new POTUS and the ATF says surrender ALL your non-Smart guns or you'll be arrested and spend XX years in Prison for each gun plus a million dollar fine ! Unless your last name is Biden ! Then you'll skate on all three charges after a 5 year investigation. . . . but I digress. As a former Detention Officer, no (Zero, None, Nada) guns were ever allowed in the JAIL anywhere !
Great comments everyone ! Thank you for taking the time to do this interview and ask your readers what questions, we'd like answers to. I posted my questions on Linkedin.
I'd ask the manufacturer to submit a trio of his "safe handguns" to a test team of Marines, Law enforcement officers and other veterans for testing in the real world. Give us 30 days to range proof his design - in the weather, mud, high humidity, and field usage.
I'd ask him "how many" users will it recognize. 5 users? 11 members of a squad? A family of 15?
Would it allow me to program it for use by my 5 year old, or 8 yr old, 11 or 17 year old kids?
I'd take it with an open mind, and allow his design to fail or succeed in situations matching what pistol users have actually handled with a 1911, a revolver, or a 40 year old Glock Gen 1.
As someone who understands incrementalism I wouldn't have a smart gun if they went on sale at 2 for a quarter. It's only a matter of time before they're mandated. Shortly after that more "safety features" will be mandated, like the ability of police to render them inoperable, the ability to self report to the authorities; who knows what future enlightened minds will discover is necessary for "safety"? The direction of government is not towards freedom, and I refuse to play a part in that inexorable march.
First, excellent article and abridgment of a much longer conversation. If I had children, I might indeed consider this gun for my bedside table. But since I don’t, then it yields no benefit to me.
“Kloepfer: Laws like that do not have benefits for our business. And we have consistently lobbied against mandates or requirements of smart guns for any reason.“. He doth protest too much. Ima go out on a limb here and guess that the pitch deck to his VC’s has a little different take on mandates. Of course mandates, even the side-by-side version as currently the law in NJ benefit his business.
“I trained with SEALS” and I don’t want to get my gun snatched and used against me. Er, if your gun is out, you better be facing a credible deadly force or great bodily harm threat, and in that case, a lost firearm used against ranks way below a non-functioning one or the one the aggressor is pointing at me.
The suicide answer has the kernel of a good response, but “Hugh percentage?” Science! It’s actually something like 60/40 among teen males and 10/60 for females firearm/asphyxiation. The rates among <15 and 15-24 year olds are the lowest age cohorts in the USA. Of course making it more difficult for (mostly male) teens is a good thing, but it is in no way worth the sacrifice of law abiding people’s rights.
This product enables camel's nose to get under the tent with respect to gun control. He should know this or does and doesn’t care. He, his company, and his product should be shunned by anyone who understands that gun rights ARE civil rights.
I carry daily so given that, he says it is not really intended for that purpose. If the purpose is in the home only and the user does not have a lockbox or small safe with untrained children, then it 'may' be a viable option....although an expensive one. It would seem smarter to buy a multiple push button 12 gge steel lockbox like I used to have with small children. I'm not against the technology, but I have grandchildren who have all been taught firearm safety as well as the consequences, so I do not see a need for the tech. Train your kids early and grandkids how to safely shoot but also teach them the rules of handling a firearm. Also show them the consequences....preferably the gory pics of gunshot wounds online.
Having carried handguns for decades in law enforcement and the military, this is designed to FAIL. Imagine how useless the fingerprint reader is if the user is wearing gloves and a scarf/hat combination.
Next, imagine it in the snow, rain, mud- again, the "readers" can't possibly be reliable in poor weather or high humidity environments.
Would it work 100% of the time in a bedroom, living room or basement in a climate controlled situation? Maybe. Probably not. If I'm struggling with an intruder and drop it- my wife picks it up, and it becomes a $1500 hammer.
Not for me.
I like this gun, and may consider buying one someday. I do not want it to be my only gun, nor to be required nor to have other features that the questions indicated it does not have. For law enforcement use, additional features could be added such as tracking the individual and time of any shots fired, which would require USB access to retrieve the information; but I would probably not want one for myself, this would be for publicly owned guns only. Yes there are people who would mandate all control features for every gun, I am strong opposed to these anti-gun people in every event.
Thanks Emily for this interview, very interesting, he is in business to sell his product. I take is comments to agenda. You could not pay me to take the product, the gun could fail where a conventional firearm would not. Lock boxes and other means work as well at home. Yes they can fail. But training your children is a deterrent also in feeding their curiosity.
I don’t believe he is against mandatory laws to force the sale of these. Again he wants to make money. Items as these start one way them change to something such as the ability to transmit info to an outside group, to be able to make them inoperable, maybe not now but in the future.
I don’t trust mine or family safety to anyone but myself.
Nicely done
Well, he's pretty adept at saying the right things. :)
Honestly, there is a line to walk between "choice" and "mandate." If someone -wants- to trust his/her life to this technology, have at it. That said however...
It's axiomatic that the most reliable systems are also the simplest. These systems minimize points of failure to create a dependable and repeatable result. To my way of thinking, this firearm adds several points of failure that in my opinion makes it unsuitable for personal defense. I don't care if others disagree, just like I don't care if people drive electric cars or whatever. I won't, however, support any kind of requirements saying I must have or drive those things.
Besides - "I can't go to the range today because my gun's battery is dead" is not something I ever want to say.
I am impressed that the guy answered every question in a way that seemed thoughtful on his part. I won't be a customer - even saying "the data is encrypted" is enough to scare me - just the fact that it stores any kind of data makes it a security risk. If it was created by software, it can be cracked by software. Remember when Apple refused to unlock some "terrorists" phone and the FBI paid some Israeli guys several million dollars and - voila - the FBI has access to everyone's iPhone.
On a related note, a lawyer friend told me that you are not required to give your unlock code to the 'authorities', but if you have face ID turned on, they can take your phone, hold it up to your face and have access to everything. I said "I don't do anything I'm particularly worried about them seeing" and he said "if you were to use a gun in self-defense, and you have ANYTHING on your phone gun related, some smart prosecutor will use that to prove prior intent". that means pics, youtube history of watching ColionNoir or Hickock45, receipts from gun range. Apologies for a little digression, but my point is that if this gun uses facial ID as an unlock mechanism, someone could take it from you, hold it to your face and it will be operable again. seems like a pretty big flaw in the supposed 'security'.
On another point viv-a-vis suicide. I have seen research that while suicides make up a large part of gun related deaths, the gun used has been in the dead person's possession an average of ten years (sorry, I can't find the link). Going to Academy, buying a gun and shooting yourself in the next day or two is extremely rare. I'm no expert, but I think that an inanimate gun is inordinately blamed for suicide the same way that guns get blamed for homicide.
If I were to commit cervinicide, leporicide, ursinicide, porcinicide, or even lupinicide, that makes me a hunter, using my own skills and the appropriate tools. The gun didn't magically jump out of the truck and shoot (respectively) a deer, rabbit, bear, hog, or wolf all alone.
Not having guns for experts to test outside of the company's test ranges is not very helpful. That makes it too hard or restrictive to do things like a torture test on the gun itself to make sure it doesn't jam, etc. Also, it may take a lot of time to test the biometric interface in a wide range of circumstances and using the company's facilities are more than likely going to make such testing harder to do.
Did he mention exactly HOW the biometrics work? Was it fingerprints only? Is it fingerprints from the trigger finger? Would it be both trigger fingers? I’m just thinking of the “heat of the moment” when stuff is getting real. If the finger isn’t aligned perfectly, does that prevent it from firing? Guess we’ll have to wait for independent testing.
What about the "elephant in the room" ? Ten years ago the ATF said pistol braces were legal. Shazam ! A new POTUS and now pistol braces if they find one attached on your gun can land you in prison plus you'll be paying a LARGE fine AND be banned from owing guns the rest of your life. ALL this done by a non-elected, non-accountable, and gun hating group who despises private ownership ! The SCOTUS Bruen Ruling means NOTHING to Biden, democRATS and others etc.
For the first XX years the ATF says "Smart guns are NOT mandated." Shazam ! A new POTUS and the ATF says surrender ALL your non-Smart guns or you'll be arrested and spend XX years in Prison for each gun plus a million dollar fine ! Unless your last name is Biden ! Then you'll skate on all three charges after a 5 year investigation. . . . but I digress. As a former Detention Officer, no (Zero, None, Nada) guns were ever allowed in the JAIL anywhere !
Great comments everyone ! Thank you for taking the time to do this interview and ask your readers what questions, we'd like answers to. I posted my questions on Linkedin.
I'd ask the manufacturer to submit a trio of his "safe handguns" to a test team of Marines, Law enforcement officers and other veterans for testing in the real world. Give us 30 days to range proof his design - in the weather, mud, high humidity, and field usage.
I'd ask him "how many" users will it recognize. 5 users? 11 members of a squad? A family of 15?
Would it allow me to program it for use by my 5 year old, or 8 yr old, 11 or 17 year old kids?
I'd take it with an open mind, and allow his design to fail or succeed in situations matching what pistol users have actually handled with a 1911, a revolver, or a 40 year old Glock Gen 1.