The US Gov't Could Become the Biggest Customer for Smart Guns (computerworld.com) 555
Lucas123 writes: Smart gun developers have faced pushback from opponents who fear adoption will lead to mandates. But this week, President Obama embraced the technology, creating the biggest customer of them all for smart guns: the federal government. He instructed several departments to "review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety." Joel Moshbacher, national co-chair of a gun safety advocacy group, said the move this week is "a game changer." Smart gun developers he's spoken with need only a few million to move their prototypes to market, so $20 million would be a windfall for several developers. Donald Sebastian, senior vice president for research and development at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), said federal dollars are the only way to advance the technology because of pushback by opposition groups. For example, when Armatix, a German startup, tried to introduce a smart handgun in the U.S. two years ago, it was met with vehement protests, including threats to burn down a Maryland store that was going to sell it. A second store in California that was carrying it also pulled it from its shelves citing pressure from those opposed to the tech.
Smart guns are a dumb idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I carry a "smart phone" and a "dumb pistol" every (Score:2)
My phone unlocks with a fingerprint using the best fingerprint tech available. I don't know how many times it takes 2, 3, or 4 times to unlock it. "Unrecognized - Enter backup password" or "Place finger over entire sensor" is all too common.
If, God forbid, I ever have to draw my weapon to defend myself or someone else, I don't want to make sure I have a perfectly lined up grip to trigger the smart technology. Someone attacking you doesn't lend for minor finger positioning nuances very much. I expect fing
Re:I carry a "smart phone" and a "dumb pistol" eve (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason why your phone can dial 911 without being unlocked....
Re: (Score:3)
Can you explain the apparent discord between your first comment and your second?
Your first accepts that emergency assistance cannot be relied upon: i.e., the state's emergency apparatus is imperfect.
The second assumes that self-help will be possible with "smart guns", i.e., the gun computer will be perfect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Smart guns are a dumb idea (Score:5, Insightful)
First, police already use level 2 or level 3 retention holsters. They should also have retention training. Yes, sometimes their guns still are grabbed, but it is it enough of a problem to mandate so-called smart guns for all? That's the end-game here as New Jersey's law has shown.
As for cars, you're mixing improved crash resilience and collision detection systems (while it makes sense that they help I've seen no actual data on it) with all sorts of entertainment electronics and sensor information merely being relayed to the driver.
As I said, there are plenty of ways to secure guns in place, even biometric locks. Once the gun is unlocked and holstered, though, I want it to fire every time I pull the trigger. Regardless of which hand I hold it with. Regardless of whether some accessory device is present and functional. Without the need for a battery.
People sell, trade, or make safe queens out of any gun that won't function reliably intended for defensive use. For some people one malfunction in 2000 trigger pulls is too much. It's unnecessary to add extra points of failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's the problem of police guns getting stolen
aka dirty cops selling firearms to their criminal buddies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Smart guns are a dumb idea (Score:4, Informative)
Expect to see pushback from the agencies saddled with these. It's a solution in search of a problem -- there are already myriad ways to secure guns. We don't need a bunch of extra points of failure built into the guns themselves.
If there's any way to have the GOP disagree with something, all it takes is for Obama to support it and they'll find a reason to hate and reject it.
So smart gun critics rejoice, by Obama adopting it expect all GOP to come out against them.
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason anyone from the NRA to the GOP disagree with smart gun technology is that there are States like NJ who already have laws on the books mandating all guns sold in the state must use smart tech once it becomes widely available.
If it was just a matter of having the choice between a 'smart' or regular gun no one would care; your purchase, your choice. But once you mandate that you must choose the 'smart' option if it's available you are going to force a lot of people to try and prevent it from
NJ's law is horrible. (Score:5, Interesting)
States like NJ who already have laws on the books mandating all guns sold in the state must use smart tech once it becomes widely available
NJ's law isn't even "widely available". It's "30 months after ONE model is available for sale". Police are completely exempted, of course. So let's say that I create a system that works, sort of. It's $2k for a .22lr pistol, and the pistol can't be anything stronger because the shock from firing calibers .380 and up is enough to destroy the electronics.
30 months after that, even if NOBODY else has released such a pistol, legally speaking, my firearm would be the only one legal to sell in NJ. Restricting everybody to a $2k .22.
Law Enforcement Doesn't want the Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Law Enforcement Doesn't want the Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Eat that herring! (Score:3, Insightful)
You are attempting to say a banana is the same as a grazing buffalo. How are you possibly able to equate someone making sure that a carpenter is on the job site and working with a mandate that he use a particular power tool where power may not be available? It's not rational, but you just tried it.
I'll give a courtesy agreement that many of the gun advocates arguments are slippery slopes. What you just answered was not one of them.
Re:Law Enforcement Doesn't want the Technology (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't want body-cams ...
Yet another blanket statement that is untrue. Most statements that begin with "they" and assume everyone in the category are identical are usually untrue. Most police want body cameras so they can prove that the suspect was in the wrong.
Re:Law Enforcement Doesn't want the Technology (Score:5, Informative)
Police and LE agencies are *always* exempted from gun legislation.
The California "safe guns list"? No applicable to LEOs or Agencies.
Post '86 machine guns? No applicable to LEOs/Agencies
Magazine restrictions? Again not applicable to LEO/Agencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Law Enforcement Doesn't want the Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
> Why would the civilian population want these same problems?
I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.
Or the abusive spouse problem:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/
Smart guns would prevent that.
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.
Or the abusive spouse problem:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/
Smart guns would prevent that.
So perhaps you should properly secure your firearms if there are others in your household at any time that may do something stupid with them. Safes were invented eons ago; there's no need to bring modern technology into the equation. Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem. There are already 300+ million regular guns in existence in this country alone. You'd have to somehow get rid of all of those, and then completely prevent some abuse asshole from getting his own smart gun. Good luck with
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you missed the part where that lady bought a gun to defend herself against her abusive husband who then took it out of her hands in a struggle and shot her with it. Would you care to explain how any of your snark addresses that?
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you missed the part where that lady bought a gun to defend herself against her abusive husband who then took it out of her hands in a struggle and shot her with it. Would you care to explain how any of your snark addresses that?
My comment was in general terms regarding domestic violence. Because this one woman was killed with her own weapon in no means smart gun technology would have saved her, or anyone else. Perhaps he comes back with his own weapon later, or merely beats her to death with her own smart gun. This woman is dead because a man wanted to kill her. If he had removed a smart gun from her, she would have been murdered just as easily by other means as she was equally as defenseless. This woman's purchase of a weapon, a
Re: (Score:3)
people SHOULD secure their firearms.
sadly multiple studies into this area show that roughly 66% of all gun owners leave their firearms unsecured, and roughly 50% leave them loaded.
I bet if you ask, most of those folks consider themselves "responsible gun owners".
and the NRA and its cronies routinely fight any legislation to bar such irresponsible practices.
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.
Or the abusive spouse problem:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/
Smart guns would prevent that.
So perhaps you should properly secure your firearms if there are others in your household at any time that may do something stupid with them. Safes were invented eons ago; there's no need to bring modern technology into the equation. Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem. There are already 300+ million regular guns in existence in this country alone. You'd have to somehow get rid of all of those, and then completely prevent some abuse asshole from getting his own smart gun. Good luck with that. More technological solutions for a societal problem.
Arguably, the fraction of firearm homicides most avoidable in the US is "crimes of passion" "temporary insanity" type stuff, including both suicides and domestic violence type (or friend violence) cases, often with substance abuse involved; where there is no plan to kill or to use a weapon for robbery or other purpose, but one person assaults another (or himself) on the spur of the moment with whatever is at hand; and the effectiveness of a firearm makes it lethal. The kind where the perpetrator is found st
Re: (Score:3)
Because there's a better ROI on the energy being spent on smart weapons? And as another user pointed out, here's an example splashed across the national news today:
"The alleged assailant was armed with a 9mm Glock 17 that was reported stolen from the home of a police officer in 2013."
So do tell me exactly how much effort and how far up the river we would have had to go to stop that from happening vs just making a stolen gun become a useless lump of metal? Because we can do the latter just as easily as we could limit cars from speeding. The problem isn't a technical one, it's a "but muh freedoms!!!!!11!" one.
ROI on a product that next to nobody actually wants? It seems to me the only people really pushing for smart guns are people who are against guns, don't understand guns, or are smart gun manufacturers/researchers. There are already smart guns on the market, and they are not selling well. So a cop doesn't properly secure his weapon and it's stolen? That has nothing to do with smart guns. Police aren't exactly pounding on the doors of manufacturers demanding they sell them smart guns for duty use, so the odds
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.
Sure, but that's not the likely scenario. There's either going to be some biometric stuff, which won't be that reliable, or some sort of token which, unless you're super diligent and wear it all the time, will be available to a less responsible member of your household.
It's widely known that having a gun in the house significantly increases your chances of being shot. The scenario of having the gun wrestled out of your hand is statistically unlikely; you're most likely to shoot yourself (suicide accounts fo
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.
In testing, the armatix iP1 failed more like 50% of the time. Would you buy a gun that costs between 3 and 5 times what a dumb handgun costs and fails that often? Also, it apparently requires 15 minutes before first bullet on boot up, are you willing to wait that long to defend yourself?
http://www.americas1stfreedom.... [americas1stfreedom.org]
No one is against smart guns. People are against unreliable, and expensive "smart" guns, and against state mandates for their use.
Re: (Score:3)
case in point, this just happened: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/... [cnn.com]
Officer shot with a stolen gun.
Happens fairly often too, stolen guns being used in a crime.
After all, as the gun lobby likes to remind us, "gun control doesn't work because criminals will just steal them or something".
But stolen smart guns are just useless lumps of metal without the token.
Mandate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want this technology on any gun I own, certainly not in its current state, and maybe never. But neither do I object to to furthering R&D on something that may reach beyond the capabilities we foresee now. The reason I, and may other gun owners, don't want them in stores explicitly derives from the regulatory history of Washington, DC: today's "good idea" becomes tomorrow's requirement, and like many of the solar projects, far prematurely to the
I'm OK With This (Score:2)
I agree with the other commenter with regards to "expect pushback from the agencies saddled with it."
Absolutely.
But the only chance gun-owners are going to even come close to accepting this is if the kinks are so worked out of them that the people most at risk of going mano a mano with a perp who wants to take their gun are trusting their lives to a given tech. And that means agencies working those kinks out in the field and proving the validity of the tech under real world conditions.
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But why do people object to the principle behind it?
Because there are some state laws on the books that mandate 'smart gun' technology be provided on all weapons sold once it becomes 'available'. So that means (in the extreme) when one manufacturer offers a single weapon model with 'smart' technology, nobody may sell anything else. Offering one 'smart' target range plinking .22 could effectively shut down a state's retail market.
Given the shortcomings of the technology, some people might want to wait a while until the bugs are ironed out and the reliability
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not an objection to smart guns but an objection to laws mandating smart guns before they are reliable/widely available. That is a huge difference.
The problem is that many people are vehemently against researching the technology or offering current technology for sale. Due to that the reliability/availability issue will never be solved.
Re: (Score:3)
The only law that "forces" smart guns is in New Jersey [wikipedia.org] and it has yet to come into effect. They have even offered to repeal it.
On May 2, 2014, New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg said she would introduce a bill repealing the 2002 law if the National Rifle Association would agree not to stand in the way of smart gun technology.
The issue is the opposition to the very existence of smart guns.
Re: (Score:3)
Ignoring the hypothetical scenarios, the question boils down to this: what do we actually gain from all the added complexity that this tech will add to the gun? Is the perceived increase in safety only nominal or is it substantial? Does DRM for a gun make the gun more or less useful? I'd say that that DRM for a gun always makes it less useful, EVEN if it stops a perp from stealing a gun and using it against the owner.
Perhaps we should just start calling a spade a spade here. It's not "smart gun techno
Re: (Score:3)
A toddler took a gun from his mother's purse and shot her in the head killing her. With smart gun technology that would not have happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Had mom properly secured the weapon and had been watching the child it wouldn't have happened either...
Like it or not, the trick with toddler's and gun safety is to provide monitoring of their activities and keep them out of their reach, just like you do with electrical receptacles, drain cleaner, medications, bathtubs, swimming pools and other household dangers. Do folks realize how many toddlers drown in the backyard pool or get run over by cars in their own driveways?
Why do we willingly accept swimmin
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we willingly accept swimming pools, bathtubs and electrical outlets ...l
There is a movement to put fences around swimming pools to prevent toddlers from falling in. Electrical plugs outlets have child safety plugs. We are OK with technology that restricts access to these things and that is very similar to smart guns.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Note: I'm not a gun owner, so I'm just speculating)
I think one issue is a general "loss of control".
Guns are about controlling your immediate environment. Being able to respond (with the most basic of responses: physical harm) to threats to yourself and your family.
Anything that threatens to weaken that sense of control is going to have an uphill battle.
What is the end game on "smart guns"? Right now, it's just being used to make sure that the owner is the one firing the gun. In the future? Could it be used to remotely disable the gun?
For instance, many people are pushing for cars to feature a remote "kill switch"... where the police can remotely disable any car just by sending a wireless message to it. Could the same thing be coming to guns?
If smart guns take hold... could you imagine legislation coming down that requires smart guns to be disabled on demand by the police/military? This sounds "great": police roll in to a hostage situation and disable the guns of the assailants and then storm in. However, this may also be a Constitutional violation: is it a restriction on our right to bear arms? Does it give the government the exact authority (to oppress the populace without their ability to stand up to the government with force) the Constitution was trying to protect against?
Like I say: I'm not a gun owner... but that doesn't mean that I can't understand why gun owners would be against this. It's simply about control. Guns don't need to be "smart" to work... adding anything like this is opening the way toward more governmental control that possibly infringes our rights.
The problem with so-called 'smart guns' (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not even a gun owner, and even I say that all this that Obama and others are trying to do to further limit firearm ownership and to create more roadblocks to firearm ownership will do nothing but make life more difficult (and dangerous) for peaceful, law-abiding people. Enforce the current set of laws better, and do a better job identifying people with mental illnesses and criminal intent before they get their hands on weapons and go around shooting people.
Re: (Score:3)
Clippy (Score:5, Funny)
It looks like you want to shoot a person of colour. Would you like help with that?
Not the reason for opposition (Score:4, Informative)
People don't oppose the technology in theory, they oppose the fact that New Jersey had a law mandating the sale of only smart guns after one goes on sale anywhere in the country. This is basically a huge gun ban in disguise, which is why it was opposed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly that sounds like New Jersey's problem, so why should I care.
They went and instituted a moronic law, they can deal with the fallout.
Humble obervation from an external viewer.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is your constitution's second amendment.
Instead of working an end run around what is meant to be a fundamental right to bear arms, what you should actually be discussing is how you amend the constitution. The framers of that document put in place specific mechanisms recognizing the need may arise to do so in the future.
This has been done in the past, even the recent past. (e.g. prohibition).
Why can't it be done now?
If the amendment is not possible, then you will have a discussion about weapons, and as a nation, accept the consequences of those actions - it may will be that the defense of liberty is such that the collateral damage is acceptable to many. This seems fundamentally more honest than the approaches being put forth by the executive branch.
I haven't heard this in the discussion, and it's puzzling.
$0.02 cdn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is extremely logical. Which in and of itself is enough to keep the US left from ever doing that. But the real reason the left is not trying to amend away the 2A is because they can count votes. And because of what it takes to get an amendment past the house and subsequently ratified, it would never pass. The votes aren't there for either step.
Also consider this: if the left ever proposed an amendment to replace the 2A, it is an admission that the 2A means what it says, instead of what they *wish* i
Most gun owners already weighed in on this (Score:2, Insightful)
Adding all this "smart gun" tech makes an already dependable firearm:
A: Less dependable.
B: More expensive.
C: Higher maintenance.
As such, gun owners (and prospective gun owners) have voted with their dollars NOT to invest in said technologies.
As such, it's a solution in search of a problem.
Now we have a problem. The government handing out taxpayer money to keep these smartgun companies in business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Car Analogy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine the government mandated safety regulations, even though they cost money. It would be horrific. Kids wouldn't be allowed to ride around in the back of pickup trucks. Lead paint wouldn't be sold in stores. Radium would no longer light up our watch faces. Seat belts would be mandatory. Slashdot, we CAN'T let this happen!
First up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Untrustworthy Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from the possibility of auto-banning non-smart guns, pricing the plebes out of the gun market, starting a de facto gun registry, and other items mentioned above, the 'reasons' why this regulation is being pushed is unadulterated propaganda.
If you look at Obama's press releases the first thing mentioned is a list of mass shootings. Most of which weren't stopped because current law was poorly executed - mainly the fact that mentally ill people gained access to guns because NICS didn't know they were mentally ill. The rest weren't stopped because there was no record of them being mentally ill OR we would have to define people who have extremist views as being mentally ill.
He knows this yet promulgates this 'save the children' shit anyway. Even worse, while he uses all these big scary numbers he misrepresents them. 30,000 gun deaths a year![1] More people die of gun violence that cars![2] 1,800 children gunned down in 2014![3]
[1] 2/3 of these are suicides. Firearm homicides were 0.43% of all deaths in the US last year. About 10% of those were (justified or not) police killing citizens.
[2] Since the late 60's there has been a steady and dramatic decline in not just rates of automobile deaths, but ACTUAL numbers of deaths all the while miles driven has steadily increased in the same time. Gun violence has also been declining in the last couple of decades, just AT A SLOWER RATE.
[3] THINK OF THE child... Fuck you and your appeal to emotion. And thanks for not mentioning how many are gang related (with illegally obtained guns), suicides, or accidents. Because that would give us the whole picture, right? Fortunately for Obama, the CDC hasn't released 2014 death stats yet so I couldn't look this one up.
Step forward (Score:3, Insightful)
The arguments against smart tech are incomplete (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What is a Smart Gun?
It's a gun that will fire every single time you need it to fire. Which currently disqualifies the current "smart gun" technology.
Finger prints? Don't work on your car or paint the living room.
Special ring? So much for swimming, showering, or any other activity you don't want to expose electronic to.
One thing you can count on computers for. They will never work correctly 100% of the time when you really need them to.
Re:There is only one goal (Score:5, Insightful)
> Special ring? So much for swimming, showering, or any other activity you don't want to expose electronic to.
I know, it's horrible that 70% of the Earth's surface is a zone where electronics can't be used at all. Those poor bastards sailing the seas with their handheld sextants, mapping out courses with a compass and paper. If only there was some way to seal electronics in some sort of waterproof enclosure that was still permeable to radio waves. Maybe even have those same electronics energized by the device in question, like some sort of Radio Frequency IDentification tag that has no internal power source.
Naaah. That's crazy talk.
Re:There is only one goal (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to reply to this earlier, but got the Blue Screen of Death. Good thing my life didn't depend on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There is only one goal (Score:5, Interesting)
I had GM rental few years back, going around a highway turn at 60 mph in North Carolina the Chevy shutoff. Power steering locked solid as result. I applied breaks, but road straighten before car completely stopped. I ended up in a corn field about 15 feet off side of road. My wife and I were lucky, produce not so much. Turns out that was the problem GM hid that killed other people. Thanks for example proving how dumb smart guns are.
PS - I wrote this while open carrying an extremely reliable S&W in Texas. God Bless.
Re: There is only one goal (Score:5, Funny)
get attacked often while typing then?
Re: (Score:3)
PS - I wrote this while open carrying an extremely reliable S&W in Texas. God Bless.
The fact that you feel the need to openly carry a reliable S&W while typing on a computer for your safety speaks volumes about Texas and your belief that God is looking out for you.
PS - I wrote this without carrying a gun. I survi
Re:There is only one goal (Score:5, Insightful)
If "working" means "starting" you're probably right.
However to those of us with an IQ greater than the largest number on the gear lever it includes functions like "turning" and "stopping" which can be invaluable in certain circumstances.
Re:There is only one goal (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
it includes functions like "turning" and "stopping" which can be invaluable in certain circumstances.
Which is a wonderful point, except that those functions are not regulated by a computer and have manual backups.
Re: (Score:3)
Guess you haven't heard of steer by wire, sure today it's limited to luxury brands that want to remove the mechanical linkage between wheel and drivetrain to improve cabin sound deadening but soon it will spread to more vehicles as a way to save weight (and possibly cost since many cars already include everything needed for steer by wire which makes the mechanical linkage redundant and therefore expendable).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However to those of us with an IQ greater than the largest number on the gear lever it includes functions like "turning" and "stopping" which can be invaluable in certain circumstances.
Braking is a mechanical system, sometimes with additional electronic features. Steering is more likely to have electronic components in the system, but they do not inhibit operation of the steering wheel when they fail. And yes, that's WHEN, not IF. These electronic features are known to be prone to failure, so the systems are designed to function, even in a degraded state, when they fail.
Now, if we're talking about self-driving cars with no manual controls, that's a different story. But I wouldn't trust on
Re: (Score:2)
You might think differently depending where you live.. I'd want BOTH my cars to start AND my weapons to fire, EVERY time.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There is only one goal (Score:4, Informative)
While I haven't researched this specifically, I have been industrially certified to design and install RFID systems. And I am also quite familiar with magnets and electronics. Something you don't seem to have that much knowledge on or you'd know that a magnetic ring isn't going to do anything to your computer or your handheld device. In fact many handheld devices and tablets have cases with strong magnets in them to allow the screen to be turned on or off depending on the proximity of the case cover. I have a Nexus 7 with such a cover sitting right next to me. And how strong do you think the permanent magnets inside your laptop's hard drive are? You'd probably be quite surprised to find out, and those magnets are sitting a few millimeters from the platters all day long.
Computers having problems with magnets was largely a floppy disk and magnetic tape era problem. Though you still had the occasional clod who screwed up their CRT with one. But then again many of those monitors had a degauss button that put out a hell of a magnetic field all on its own - while it was sitting right next to your tower PC....
Re: (Score:2)
What about the electronics meant to read that RFID tag inside the gun? I guarantee it reduces the environments in which the weapon is expected to function. Those 'sealed' electronics on ships often fail, too, just less often than unsealed electronics. Needless complexity creates needless failure rate. There's a reason ships still keep paper charts sealed in plastic. Charts don't break.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the fact that devices that are absolutely essential are incredibly expensive.
Making stuff that has to work 100% the time costs lots of money.
Re:There is only one goal (Score:4, Informative)
Even regular guns don't work correctly 100% of the time... plenty of soldiers died on the battlefield clutching a jammed rifle.
Re: (Score:2)
Even regular guns don't work correctly 100% of the time... plenty of soldiers died on the battlefield clutching a jammed rifle.
That's why for centuries gun owners have regularly checked and maintained their guns, but checking and maintaining a simple electronic part is one step too far!
Re: (Score:3)
I can inspect and replace mechanical parts if they look fatigued or damaged. They're also essential to the operation of the firearm. A 'smart gun' is a lot of extra parts that *can* fail, and they're NOT essential for a gun doing it's core task - setting off a bullet and sending it down the barrel. Inspecting electronics is not something that a standard user can do. Also, if you make the electronics easy to swap out, you're also making them easy to bypass.
I'm not going to say that it can't be done, but
Re: (Score:2)
So lets throw whole other level of complication into the mix. That's a real good idea!
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. Overcomplexity like electronic locks increases the chance of failure to fire.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that you do not want a gun that requires any type of battery to function. You can practically guarantee that it will die at a time when your life depends on it.
Re: (Score:3)
My iPhone almost never reads my finger print after a shower or a swim or sometimes even hockey and often not on the first try. It works pretty well but I sure woudln't by a gun that was this reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
The goal is to shove this down the throats of all gun owners
It will work for a while, until they find peace officers dead from gun shot wounds and they go and check the Li-ion battery installed in the gun still in the officers hand that powers this so called smart gun tech and find it dead as well.
Re: (Score:3)
The goal is to shove this down the throats of all gun owners
It will work for a while, until they find peace officers dead from gun shot wounds and they go and check the Li-ion battery installed in the gun still in the officers hand that powers this so called smart gun tech and find it dead as well.
Put the battery in the magazine? Most handguns that I am familiar with have magazines with some kind of base plate that serves as part of the grip. You could have a slightly thicker base plate that holds something like a watch battery (even better would be a small rechargeable battery). Put a connector in the grip so that when the magazine is in the gun is powered. When the gun is not being carried the magazines can be stored in a rack that also acts as a charger for the batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The goal is to shove this down the throats of all gun owners
I wonder how they would make my Mosin Nagant "smart"? Or the millions of other antique, collectable, and still perfectly functioning 19-20th century military weapons? I know I wouldn't want to do it to my gun and it's barely worth $200 at most. Imagine how someone with a working MP-41, a pristine M1 Garand, or a working Colt Navy, all of which would be worth at least 10x my rifle, would react. If they ever do mandate all firearms have smart technology, there are a lot of firearms that will lose signific
Re:There is only one goal (Score:4, Insightful)
It most likely wouldn't apply, or you'd end up with a grandfathered in clause. (which is good cause I like my Mosin)
And they honestly aren't worried about those rifles in the least, hardly anybody goes out and does a mass shooting (or commit any other crime) with an M1, and honestly that's not what this law is even about preventing.
This is all about preventing current military grade weapons used by the federal government being stolen and used. We're not really talking about small time people either, this is likely about organized crime.
Re: (Score:3)
It's got nothing to do with guns being stolen from the government, it's just an attempt to make owning guns more expensive so that less people choose to do it. Same a
They'll do what they did to machine guns. (Score:3)
I wonder how they would make my Mosin Nagant "smart"? Or the millions of other antique, collectable, and still perfectly functioning 19-20th century military weapons?
They'll do what they did to machine guns: ...
- Ban sales of new production to civilians. That limits the supply to what's currently out there (and registered), minus any that wear out, are lost, stolen, confiscated, rust out through poor storage, are damaged by fire,
- Put draconian rules (disguised as tax paperwork) in the way
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Because I'm pretty sure the guns I own today will still function perfectly fine after these so-called smart guns hit the market. I can only hope that some would-be attacker would be using one of these pieces of shit, and it would fail to fire, allowing someone with a tried-and-true Smith and Wesson J-frame to take care of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
just like they 86'd every other technology that came along and failed at one point or another.
that's why my local PD sticks that old reliable: cap and ball muskets.
oh dang, the powder got wet.
well, time to switch the force back to swords.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...how about a gun that stores a photo of what it shoots. Then classify all those images and make a decision about smart guns?
I don't want the government watching who I murder!
Re: (Score:2)
Two types of Error (Score:5, Insightful)
"Smart" gun means two things:
(1) it will fire when it is supposed to fire
(2) it will not fire when it is not supposed to fire.
These are the classic types of errors, type-1 error and type-2 error. The lock on your door, for example, has two failure modes: not opening when it is supposed to, or opening when it's not supposed to.
As is always true, you can make the rate of one type of error arbitrarily close to zero by making the other type of error higher. You can lower the failure rate of your door not opening when you want it to, for example, by removing the lock entirely. That increases the failure mode "will open when it's not supposed to," since it now opens to anybody who wants to enter, whether you want them to or not.
The question for "smart" guns is, can you improve the option "won't fire when it's not supposed to" without seriously increasing the probability of it failing to fire when it is supposed to?
The failure mode "gun fires when it isn't supposed to" covers cases such cases as, your 4-year old finds it and shoots somebody [washingtonpost.com], or somebody grabs your gun [policemag.com] and shoots you [foxnews.com], or even you drop the gun [nydailynews.com] and it fires [cbs5az.com].
Right now, the recommended solution to the failure mode "make sure the gun doesn't fire when it's not supposed to" is "keep the gun in a locked gun safe", and, if you want to make it even safer against that failure, "store the ammunition somewhere else." This does have the problem that when you do want to make the gun fire, you have to unlock the gun safe, take out the gun, and then go to the separate location to load the gun. This solution is so cumbersome that--surprise--a lot of people don't implement it.
Re:Obama, Champion of the Firearms Industry (Score:5, Interesting)
Not just cops, when the Secret Service detail who protects Obama after he leaves office starts carrying only 'smart guns' at his request... I still won't consider it, but at least then we will know he's not the sort of total hypocrite he is today.
Re:Obama, Champion of the Firearms Industry (Score:4, Interesting)
There's an insurance classification for swimming pools and other things that attract outside attention, it's called "attractive nuisance." Homeowners with swimming pools are forced to pay extra for their insurance because of the insurance companies' position that a property with a swimming pool will attract unauthorized use, and that this unauthorized use will open-up the property owner to liability, and thus the insurance premium needs to cover that liability. The homeowner can do things like install fences and covers, or if wealthy, to have an indoor pool, as means to reduce the attractiveness of the pool and to reduce liability, but they cannot completely get rid of that liability so long as there's a pool.
I would not be surprised if, some day, liability for firearms had an attractive-nuisance provision associated with it, and that the legitimate owner of the firearm would have to maintain insurance on that firearm that covered the liability of that firearm's misuse until that firearm were legally transferred to a new owner or until that firearm were documented as destroyed. Firearms owners could reduce the liability by having a proper safe and by taking firearms safety courses, but they could never absolve themselves of it. And worse for the firearm owner, if that firearm is stolen, unlike vehicles that are generally stolen to be disassembled for parts, the liability of the firearm would probably never go away and if they discontinued insurance then they would still have a degree of liability for what transpired for a firearm that they let get out of their possession.
The biggest problem is the lack of personal responsibiltiy at every stage of the process, right up to the legitimate owner. Absoutely there are owners that are quite responsible, but on the other hand we routinely hear of incidents where children have shot people, be it a young friend, young sibling, a parent, or in extreme cases a firearms instructor with an UZI, because firearms have been left out where people too young to understand their usage manage to get ahold of them. We routinely hear of people's homes being broken into and their firearms stolen. We routinuely hear of spousal shootings. We routinely hear of gun-cleaning accidents where someone didn't clear the chamber after removing the magazine. That we have all of these incidents among legal firearms owners is shameful, and that's before we even get to the issue of firearms used publicly for violence.
Re: (Score:3)
I would not be surprised if, some day, liability for firearms had an attractive-nuisance provision associated with it, and that the legitimate owner of the firearm would have to maintain insurance on that firearm that covered the liability of that firearm's misuse until that firearm were legally transferred to a new owner or until that firearm were documented as destroyed.
An attractive nuisance is defined as anything that could be considered to attract children onto someones property, for example pools or fountains. Unless firearms owners are storing their weapons by strewing them about in the back yard or have a sign up saying "Guns are here" I doubt a case could be made that it is an attractive nuisance.
And worse for the firearm owner, if that firearm is stolen, unlike vehicles that are generally stolen to be disassembled for parts, the liability of the firearm would probably never go away and if they discontinued insurance then they would still have a degree of liability for what transpired for a firearm that they let get out of their possession.
What you think will happen here is tant