007 Sucks At His Job, And Some Other Stuff

(NOTE: This was originally published by me back in Feb 2013 on FB. I just wanted to reproduce it outside FB so others could read it as well.)

So the wife and I have managed to make it half way through the latest Bond film Skyfall. I have to admit, that's one of the best opening songs they've had in a while. So far it's pretty entertaining. That being said, I have some thoughts...

After the opening scene fades to the introduction credits, several things ran through my head. "What happened to his P99? Why is he carrying an old PPK? After bailing from the vehicle, why didn't he grab the carbine? So, you were serving as backup for, I guess it was a sting operation, and all you brought were two magazines? That other guy is some kind of super spy/assassin, and yet he just blows all his ammo while accomplishing nothing by transforming rounds into noise? Is that the black girl that was in that terrible movie 'Wing Commander'?"

After viewing more, yeah, I get it: The PPK is the classic 'Bond gun'. They're trying to keep with the classic setup. At the same time, they're trying to make it 'grittier' and more 'realistic' and 'up to date'. Ok, fine. BUT... In the time that the Bond franchise first started, early 1960s, if you wanted a compact handgun you were pretty much stuck with something like a snub .38 revolver or a .25 or .32 semi of some type. There wasn't that much variety either and, from what I gather, the PPK was one of the better versions available. So really the Sean Connery Bond was getting some of the best firearms in that class at the time.

But, we're in 2013. The number of compact and subcompact pistols on the market now is legion. Is the PPK still a viable CCW piece? Sure, but it's at the bottom end. Its most modern incarnation is a low capacity, .380 ACP blowback. Yeah, a .380 is better than nothing, but it doesn't 'hit like a brick through a plate glass window', a phrase that has always irked me from "Dr. No". In that case it was only a .32, but I digress. The point is would Bond, as a professional, really want a PPK as a primary duty arm? Emergency backup, ok fine, but knowingly going into a running firefight packing only a low capacity .380, particularly when more powerful, higher capacity, extremely reliable pistols have been available for many years? Somehow I think Bond is with me on this one, particularly his expression of disgust when throwing down said PPK on the train. Of course, this was right after he wasted his ammunition shooting at, well, nothing, so maybe part of that disgust was aimed at himself for acting like such a tool. He was also probably kicking himself for not taking that black girl's carbine instead of leaving it to her to use this short barreled carbine to try to hit a moving target at long range. Had he taken the carbine, the movie would only have been 13 minutes long.

So, when handed the little box from Q, had I written the script, I would have had Bond say something like the following: "Oh, another PPK. Scraping the bottom of the barrel in performance on purpose are we, or are the budget cuts just that deep? Oh, and look, your idea of 'innovation' was to add a complex electronic feature that adds zero in performance and serves only as yet another point of failure on what WAS a totally reliable, simple device which also prevents me from being able to use the weapon if I wear gloves. Because God knows a secret agent never has to wear gloves on a mission, right? Tell you what. You keep the electronic bitch pistol and I'll just pop off to the Scotland Yard armory and acquire what I need on my own, alright?

Yes, I see some of you jumping up and down going "Oh yeah? Well it's a good thing he HAD it, because, you know, of that scene in the lizard pit!" To which I say 'no'. That scene happened because Bond sucks at his job so much that he failed a simple test of weapon retention, techniques that are practiced constantly by police at all levels to prevent anyone from getting their firearms from them. They only added that scene because they had to find a way to use the little gimmick that Q gave him. Might come up later, I don't know. We're only half way through the movie.

Which brings me to my main point, gun control.

Recently a well-known apologist I have great respect for decided that, instead of navigating skillfully down the highway of religious and theological discussion, the proper thing to do was to throw the wheel over, skid across the median and slam head-on into the post Sandy Hook firearm debate, apparently hoping that his totally unrelated knowledge, belligerent personality and the sheer weight of his pack of fan boys would carry him safely through. The result was actually a spectacular wreck which everyone, with the exception of he and his fan boys, were both amused and annoyed at in equal parts. Seriously, I haven't seen a train wreck that bad since Bill O'Reilly derided an Afgan war vet just back from multiple tours of duty on air for daring to disagree with him regarding fighting conditions in that country.

There are few things sadder than watching someone stamp their feet and demand to be taken seriously on a topic they admit they have no real knowledge of.

Anyway, the primary thing I wanted to talk about was one of his 'suggestions', which is how this all ties back in with James Bond (and I'm pretty sure that's where he got the idea in the first place.) The idea? Demand all modern firearms be manufactured with technology that prevents anyone but the person they are keyed to from firing them. Basically, make any new firearm made be exactly like Bond's Walther. We have electronic security on cell phones, why not guns? And anyone who disagreed on this point was called out as being 'actively passive', whatever that means, and insulting America's "Can-Do!" attitude.

Sounds like a good idea, right? It would prevent mass shootings, or something, right? What's wrong with the idea? Well, a lot as it turns out.

Let's start with just basic operating principles.

On a cell phone, you can have multiple locks that prevent someone from using it other than you. Theoretically, there is nothing to prevent you from having a security measure that executes an NSA wipe on the entire phone on a certain number of failed attempts if you want to be REALLY secure.

On a firearm, short of having a powerful enough explosive charge inside be activated that would cause serious enough damage to the steel internals on a failed security check, such a thing is impossible.

Here's the thing. Aside from more complicated systems like the minigun, a firearm is not really complex at all. In fact, if you want to get right down to it, there hasn't been an actual big step forward in innovation for almost 100 years, and the main principles are much, much older than that. In the end, a firearm (assuming a semi-auto here, as other versions are even more simple) is nothing more than a very basic machine that pushes a cylinder into a tube, hits the back of it, and then uses the return force to pull the cylinder back out again. Comparing technologies, a firearm is less like a cell phone, or even a modern car engine (which is overrun with electronics) and more like a rowboat.

Take a look at the rowboats they have these days, particularly for racing. Sleek, composites, ultra lite components, precision engineering, the works! But, look again. Yeah, they're pretty slick, but it's still just a rowboat, it's still a floating container that is propelled by exerting force on a rod or beam that is transferred by a single (or in some cases now, multiple) pivot. When it comes down to it, the most modern rowboat is basically the same as one used for fishing 100+ years ago.

This base level of simplicity compared with actual high tech items is also why you can't get a bunch of raw, electronic scrap and manufacture a fully functional IPhone in your garage using only hand tools, but you CAN manufacture a fully functional machine pistol out of raw, metal scrap in your garage using only hand tools.



Anyway, after being taken to task on these points, he comes up with a link to 'Intelligun'. You can look it up on YouTube. It's a fingerprint reader that is a drop in modification you can use currently on 1911 style firearms. This kind of firearm security is not actually new at all. It's been around in several versions since the 90s in fact. There was a version even tested by law enforcement in the 2000s. Street law enforcement of course has a VERY keen desire for keeping people from grabbing their duty firearm and using it against them. They have entire drills to practice for this (as I pointed out above), holsters specially designed to retain their firearms, etc. But guess what? They decided against using this tech. But this individual still think this is a great idea to force people to use it.

So why is it not a good idea? Well, let's see, there's the idea of violating people's rights which I don't think registered with these people, that's kinda primary. But there's also very much a practical angle.

Think about it: With my current sidearm I can fire right handed, left handed, loose grip, hard grip, odd angle, with any finger on either hand manipulating the trigger. I can wear gloves, no gloves, dirty hands, clean, wet, bloody, shaking, steady, etc. My wife can use the weapon in all the same situations I have described as well. Add this drop in technology and what happens? All of that goes away. Now, I can only hold the weapon 'normally' which means fingers aligned in a way so the reader can correctly read the print. If my hands are dirty or greasy, it's cold and I'm wearing gloves, my hands don't have a complete 'normal' grip, I'm having to use my off hand, etc, well, I'm screwed. The weapon is also now useless to my wife as well. You're introducing an extra level of high complexity to what is right now a VERY simple and ULTRA reliable system. This is also made sillier when you consider that the most popular weapons for self-defense out there, like mine, have ZERO safety mechanisms of any kind. Usually nothing but a stiff trigger pull. It limits what can go wrong.

So what is the tradeoff for this degradation of utility? Well, let's examine what ends could possibly be the motivating factor.

KEEP CHILDREN SAFE!

OK, first of all, if you actually keep your weapons secure and away from children (whatever isn't on your person, of course) and they still manage to dig out and get ahold of your pistol, you have bigger problems. You either DON'T keep them secure, or you don't take care as a parent to teach your kids correctly, assuming VERY young kids here. Kids that are teenagers will be more than smart enough to disable said security if they wish (see below).

PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE SANDY HOOK!

No, this wouldn't prevent anything. First of all, nothing like this will ever sell, EVER, without a mechanical override. Looking at the website, oh, look at that, they DO provide one. So, said psycho simply disables the mechanism using the override or he simply removes the mechanism totally through field stripping the firearm.

PREVENT STOLEN FIREARMS FROM BEING USED IN CRIME!

See above.

PREVENT THE GUN BEING TAKEN AWAY AND USED ON YOU!

This is transparently retarded to anyone who has two brain cells to rub together. In a situation where you would have a weapon drawn and pointed at an aggressor several things would be in play. First, in a home invasion scenario, someone has attacked your home and forced entry. This is not a burglar, who go out of their way to avoid detection, it is a very special type of psychopath who has chosen to break in while you are there. That means he's probably looking for loot, and to inflict pain. He is also either already armed himself, or he is strong enough to not necessarily even need a weapon. It means you DIDN'T pull the trigger. If you are in public and you are a law abiding person, it means that you are in a situation where you are in genuine fear of your life (as you have drawn your weapon, say). It also means you DIDN'T pull the trigger. The real problem in both cases is not the firearm, it is YOU and your inability to pull the trigger when it matters. At that point, him using YOUR firearm against you is the LEAST of your concerns.

So, no, I will never use this kind of tech. Period. There are better ways to protect the innocent. If the police are against using it, instead of trying to make everyone else buy it, perhaps people should consider that just maybe the cops are on to something there.