Hacker Cracks Smart Gun Security To Shoot It Without Approval (cnn.com) 501
An anonymous reader shares a CNN report:Smart guns are supposed to be safer than traditional weapons. They're designed to only fire when paired with a second piece of technology that identifies the shooter, like an electronic chip or a fingerprint. Supporters say they could stop accidental shootings or misfires. And they've been lauded by law enforcement to prevent criminals from using stolen or misplaced guns. However, like any technology, they're not unhackable. A hacker known by the pseudonym Plore doesn't want to put a stop to smart guns, but he wants the firearm industry that's increasingly manufacturing these devices to know that they can be hacked. The model Plore hacked is called the Armatix IPI. It pairs electronically with a smart watch so that only the person wearing the watch can fire it. The devices authenticate users via radio signals, electronically talking to each other within a small range. Plore broke the security features in three different ways, including jamming radio signals in the weapon and watch so the gun couldn't be fired, and shooting the gun with no watch nearby by placing strong magnets next to the weapon.
Surprise, surprise, surprise! (Score:2, Insightful)
Who didn't see that coming?
Oh yeah, fearful gun-grabbers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd not put it past them.
But man..."smart" guns IMHO are NOT a good thing to have.
I mean, having a firearm that my life may depend on in a home invasion, that may not fire if I'm not wearing a watch (I usually do not wear one), or if I"m we
Don't worry about burglars- toddlers will kill you (Score:4, Insightful)
But man..."smart" guns IMHO are NOT a good thing to have.
To the contrary, smart guns are a good thing to have, and the fact that they can be hacked is almost irrelevant.
The primary useful thing about smart guns is that they prevent your toddler from finding your gun and killing you, themselves, or each other. This happens all the time-- 1300 children get killed by firearms per year. [cnn.com] (alternate source [newsweek.com])(another story on the subject [cbsnews.com]).
Even, if as you say "I mean, having a firearm that my life may depend on in a home invasion, that may not fire if I'm not wearing a watch" -- that's actually a good thing, because the thing that you should most be worried about in a home invasion is getting killed by your own gun.
Worrying that a hacker is going to break into your home, hack your gun, and then kill you with it is pretty remote.
You really want a gun that only fires when you fire it. A gun that fires when you don't want it to is not a good thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How would a proximity control prevent a toddler [independent.co.uk] reaching in his mom's purse and shooting her point blank?
Re: (Score:2)
How would a proximity control prevent a toddler [independent.co.uk] reaching in his mom's purse and shooting her point blank?
Depends on the range that the proximity sensor is programmed for. I'd say that the optimal range would be about six inches,a bracelet or ring on the gun hand. This is an engineering trade-off, like any other.
In any case, though, the fact that it wouldn't stop every shooting doesn't mean it's not valuable in saving some lives.
Re:Don't worry about burglars- toddlers will kill (Score:4, Informative)
What value does a "smart gun" add that can't be had with a safety and/or trigger lock?
You're saying the optimal proximity range would be about six inches, which means the gun in purse could still be fired by (ex. by a toddler rooting around in there). The simple safety is enough to prevent that situation.
Six inches would also mean that you couldn't fire it with your other hand, should that be necessary, so I'd disagree with that proximity setting. Making it large enough to fire from either hand means 3 to 6 feet, which means the gun next to your bed could be fired by anyone walking in while you're sleeping.
Worse, if you need a watch/ring/bracelet, you're unlikely to be wearing it while you sleep. And where do you keep it when you take it off? ... probably right next to the weapon.
Smart guns are also said to prevent stolen weapons from being used, but this article debunks that. A couple magnets and it's easier for the would be criminal to use than for the owner.
There's also a significant cost difference. You can get a master lock combination trigger lock for $13 (ie. no need for a key), and keyed ones are even cheaper. FWIW, I'm not saying that trigger locks should be mandated, nor should they be used in all situations, but, for the cases where you need/want to make sure that it's not used by someone else accidentally, they work perfectly.
Smart guns may have a place in some special situations, but certainly not across the entire market.
Re: (Score:3)
What value does a "smart gun" add that can't be had with a safety and/or trigger lock?
*Anybody* can easily turn off the safety.
*Nobody* can use a gun with a trigger lock on it.
See the problem?
You're saying the optimal proximity range would be about six inches, which means the gun in purse could still be fired by (ex. by a toddler rooting around in there).
Why would that be within 6 inches of the enabler?
The simple safety is enough to prevent that situation.
err... no.
Six inches would also mean that you couldn't fire it with your other hand, should that be necessary, so I'd disagree with that proximity setting. Making it large enough to fire from either hand means 3 to 6 feet, which means the gun next to your bed could be fired by anyone walking in while you're sleeping.
Ok... now I'm curious what your handgun stance looks like?
https://www.pewpewtactical.com... [pewpewtactical.com]
Because it really shouldn't matter what hand you use when you are in anything resembling a proper stance...
https://assets.shootingillustr... [shootingillustrated.com]
Worse, if you need a watch/ring/bracelet, you're unlikely to be wearing it while you sleep. And where do you keep it when you take it off? ... probably right next to the weapon.
I'm unlikely to be shooting while i sleep too. And I'm not sure why i'd put the 'keys' right next to the weapon, wh
Re: (Score:3)
In an emergency, you may not be able to be in a "proper" stance.
Sure, you might need to fire a pistol one handed, offhanded, with your primary hand hand and one foot cuffed to a bedframe, because your home got invaded by armed theives while you were in the middle setting up some light BDSM with girlfriend.. could happen to anyone.
And because you are such an American hero type, you've been practicing that kind of shot too... so you might even hit what you are shooting at.
And there shouldn't be a law mandating seatbelts because you know of a guy who was safely thrown from
Re:Don't worry about burglars- toddlers will kill (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the home invasions I'm seeing reported, the criminals are bringing their own weapons to the party.
And at the very least, shouldn't it be MY decision to make?
And..what about those of us with no toddlers or all children grown and out of the house...or if your kids are older and responsible enough they too can have access to said guns?
One size does not fit all buddy.,
My parents took me and showed me our gun (we only had one early on)....I shot it with them, learned how to chamber a round, how to shoot, how to SAFELY handle a fire arm.
They showed me where it was kept, and I also had the fear of God put into me that I never, ever, ever had a reason to get it or touch it shy of someone breaking into our house or threatening me.
Most of my friends were raised this way too....none of us would even think about getting that gun out to play with or even look at without just cause.
It so happened, that one day while I was home and both parents were at work...I think I was in 9th grade or so....it was raining and some bum came to the front door knocking on it...asking for drink of water, etc.
I was scared, but didn't panic. I went back, got the gun, chambered a round, and waited near the front door...till this asshole went away about half an hour later.
After that, I took the gun back to my parent's room, removed the magazine, took the round out of the chamber and put the gun together and back where it was supposed to be.....and promptly called my Mom at work to tell what happened, she and my Dad were very happy with my behavior.
So, are all kids today just too stupid for such training....or is the problem we have too many stupid parents today who don't care to train their kids or discipline them on proper behavior (not just guns, but most anything in life)?
Toddlers and babies are one thing, but young kids can be trained and you only have to secure things as age appropriate....etc.
Right now, I"m not worried about any of that...and I do not need a 'smart' weapon adding a new potential level of failure when I may need to kill someone in my home.
Re:Don't worry about burglars- toddlers will kill (Score:4)
My parents took me and showed me our gun (we only had one early on)....I shot it with them, learned how to chamber a round, how to shoot, how to SAFELY handle a fire arm.
THIS.
The key to safety is knowledge, not fear.
Not fear, respect (Score:5, Insightful)
The key to safety is knowledge, not fear.
The key to safety is knowledge and a healthy respect for the dangers involved. One without the other leads to mistakes and, since we are humans, mistakes will always happen. This is one of the many reasons why most countries strictly control firearms. It's not fear of them but a healthy respect for the dangers they pose in the hands of random humans who are sometimes drunk, forgetful, distracted, insane etc. While it's fine for you to suffer from your own mistakes and actions when firearms are involved it is usually others who do the suffering.
So you get a choice: either to restrict access to firearms or you learn to live with mass shootings, a high murder rate and toddlers accidentally killing themselves. "Smart" guns are just one way to restrict access so if you prefer the deaths to restrictions on personal freedoms you should be opposed to them. Just don't fool yourself that guns are perfectly safe and pose no risks to anyone. They are designed to be lethal and are only safe when handled correctly which is never going to happen 100% of the time.
Re: Don't worry about burglars- toddlers will kill (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no desire to have a firearm ever present for safety. I just like to shoot.
And I shouldn't have to justify it, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you disagree with the New Jersey law that would have mandates after Smart Guns could be sold, they were the only types of guns that could be sold x days later?
Re:Should be your choice (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, admit it: Nobody wants "safe" guns because of the mandates stated above: that once on the market, even if decidedly buggy, would then force ALL guns to be illegal that weren't "safe" guns. The laws exist, it's not a matter of conjecture.
In the end, you're just hoping to use this as a run around to eliminate firearms altogether, because they simply make you nervous.
If you really wanted to end gun violence, you'd address the root causes: gangs, drugs-such as the opioid epidemic, criminal culture, etc. You'd address gun safety training instead of barring it as a bogeyman in schools.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary useful thing about smart guns is that they prevent your toddler from finding your gun and killing you, themselves, or each other.
That's what safes are for.
I have children and guns. I keep my guns locked up.
LK
malfunctioning safety (Score:3)
Good for you, but most gun owners don't. They say "I need a gun for self defense! A gun isn't any good if it takes me more than a few seconds to get to!"
Besides-- what if your safe malfunctions? This whole thread is saying "if my safety device malfunctions, I'm going to DIE!" So: safes can malfunction. You trust mechanisms on safes, but not on guns?
Re: (Score:2)
But man..."smart" guns IMHO are NOT a good thing to have.
To the contrary, smart guns are a good thing to have, and the fact that they can be hacked is almost irrelevant.
The primary useful thing about smart guns is that they prevent your toddler from finding your gun and killing you, themselves, or each other.
The fact that I, like many adult, gun-owning Americans, have no children, makes this point moot.
Also, pretty sure the "more likely to be killed with your own gun" myth has been debunked, or at least, proven inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
That statistic is misleading. From another article talking about the same study: 53% are homicides and 38% are suicides, meaning 9% (aka ~117 kids) die from accidental handling.
That's not to say homicides and suicides aren't a problem, nor that 117 kids dying accidentally is okay, but it's a small fraction of the ([VERY] roughly) estimated 22,260 kids that die each year, whether or not you include the homicides & suicides.
My gut says taking all the money put into SmartGuns and directing it towards child
Re: (Score:3)
Who was talking about "laws"?
The story in question was about guns that incorporate safety features.
Who was talking about "laws"?
The story in question was about cars that incorporate safety features. Nobody is going to force you to wear a seatbelt, dude. Nobody is going to make it illegal to disable an airbag. You're just paranoid, man.
Re: (Score:2)
I like to keep my guns loaded, chambered and hidden throughout the house...where I'm never but a few steps away from any weapon that I can grab, and pull the trigger on (some do have safety on, but the glocks do not).
Yikes, do you live in Detroit or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Detroit, Chicago, LA, St Louis, Kansas City, Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans.....
Re:Surprise, surprise, surprise! (Score:5, Funny)
"I like to keep my guns loaded, chambered and hidden throughout the house...where I'm never but a few steps away from any weapon that I can grab, and pull the trigger on"
Not that your a paranoid nutjob or anything. What are you expecting, a home invasion by Chuck Norris?
Re:Surprise, surprise, surprise! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it paranoid to have multiple fire extinguishers throughout the home, ready to go?
Better to have it and not need it...
Guns and Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweet Jesus, are you that paranoid that someone wants to come take your shit? What is going on with you mentally that you have multiple guns, cocked and loaded all over your house? What is wrong with you, why are you so scared of everything?
Stopping it from firing is the issue. (Score:2)
Some elaborate hack or something that requires you to put magnets on the gun isn't really that big of a deal. But being able to wear e.g. a different watch that jams all these guns is of course a much larger issue.
I find the whole idea of smart guns mostly silly. Even plain old guns, brand new designs or designs that have been tweaked and fine tuned for 100+ years, misfire sometimes. Adding another level of failure is pretty absurd.
I can see them making sense in special circumstances, though. One that l
Re: (Score:2)
I can see them making sense in special circumstances, though. One that leaps to mind is prison guards.
I feel like the guard would disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually foresee an exception to this for most ALL LEO's.....
And frankly, what is good for LEO's weapons wise...is good enough for me. I tend to buy the same arms they have with the exception of full-auto which I don't have the ATF licensing for.....(yet).
But if they don't want it on their guns, I don't want it on mine.
Re: (Score:3)
But being able to wear e.g. a different watch that jams all these guns is of course a much larger issue.
Issue? I would love to have a gun jammer in my car. Seems that these days, that would be a prudent safeguard.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be assuming that the police will use smartgun technology. Ain't gonna happen! Cops want reliable firearms, not something that might not work when the time comes that you really, really need a gun....
Re: (Score:2)
And then you get mugged by a criminal who doesn't give a shit about the law and has a gun without a smart lock, then your gun jammer prevents a CCL holder or LEO with a smart gun from defending you.
A modern day chickenshit lawman would not care about defending me - he'd care about pumping the robber full of lead to minimize any risk to his own precious self, and if he shoots me too, aw shucks.
A robber won't shoot you if you give them what they want. Their goal is to obtain valuables - shooting people is generally bad for business.
But gang members and police (but, I repeat myself) is a different story. They are in it for the brutality, not the money.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that they have a smart gun pointed at your head.
I am in the process of making my house "smarter" so forgive the bad joke
"Echo, fire gun"
"Sorry, I could not find gum."
Re: (Score:2)
Your gun jammer is bypassed by a dumb-magnet
Or by not using a smart gun
Types of errors (Score:3)
I find the whole idea of smart guns mostly silly. Even plain old guns, brand new designs or designs that have been tweaked and fine tuned for 100+ years, misfire sometimes. Adding another level of failure is pretty absurd.
It's useful to have a background in error analysis. You should think about Type I errors versus Type II errors. A Type-I error, here, will mean the gun not firing when you want it to. A Type-II error is the gun firing when you do NOT want it to. For this particular safety mechanism, the type-II error can be considered to consist of the case "the gun fires when somebody else has it", and the worst-case type II error is "the gun fires when somebody else has it and is pointing it at you or your family".
It
Re: (Score:2)
There just aren't that many home invasions that are solved by the homeowner shooting the burglar, outside of Hollywood.
Out of sheer curiosity, do you have any actual numbers or studies on that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we have such things at holsters, scabbards and slings....easier to carry more artillery.
Good enough for practical situations (Score:2)
Supporters say they could stop accidental shootings or misfires.
It sounds like they still will.
Re:Good enough for practical situations (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to read very closely, but unintended fatal shootings in the US from 2005-2010 resulted in 3800 deaths, or roughly 760 per year. As a frame of reference, approximately 250,000 people die from medical mistakes at hospitals every year, yet there aren't any politicians trying to ban hospitals or regulate doctors.
Smart guns are a dumb idea trying to fix a problem that is much more effectively mitigated by proper education, training and proper storage of firearms (as evidenced by the fact that gun ownership is at an all time high, but accidental shootings are at nearly the lowest they have been ever). Smart guns tamper with and make less reliable the most effective self defense tool on the planet, potentially endangering the thousands of lives that are saved daily (every day hundreds of citizens use their concealed carry to protect themselves or others, and police officers do the same).
As with any tool in this imperfect world, there are accidents, misuse and abuse, but we must weigh the cost vs benefit of guns, something that the fascist progressives and Dims refuse to do (and have prevented the FBI from collecting statistics on; there is a very cynical reason that you can't find statistics on incidents where citizens save lives or property using their lawfully owned firearm, you can only find "gun deaths").
Re:Good enough for practical situations (Score:4, Insightful)
And the fact that they lump in suicides with the larger gun death numbers.
Those should be weeded out, as that this person wants to off themselves, and would do it by most any means. It isn't an unintended death, the gun is working properly, but the method doesn't matter, it is what the person wanted to do.
I believe if someone wants to end their own life, well, sad as it is..that should be their choice.
If nothing else, it should be separated out as it's own number and not a wrongful death number.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to read very closely, but unintended fatal shootings in the US from 2005-2010 resulted in 3800 deaths, or roughly 760 per year. As a frame of reference, approximately 250,000 people die from medical mistakes at hospitals every year, yet there aren't any politicians trying to ban hospitals or regulate doctors.
But this discussion isn't about "banning" guns (nor doctors). It's about implementing a technology to reduce the number of unintentional deaths. Implementing technologies to reduce the number of unintentional deaths is something hospitals do all the time.
So your analogy fails.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
yet there aren't any politicians trying to ban hospitals or regulate doctors
Ban hospitals, well, not in a blanket sense, but politicians do very often block hospitals from expanding, or acquiring / merging with other hospitals. And getting the zoning to build a hospital is a non-trivial and highly politicized task. Ban specific hospitals? Yes, that happens. Take political action against things like pharmacies (OK, not precisely a hospital, but bear with me)? Remember the New England Compounding Center that caused many dozens of deaths across the US about five years ago? No lo
Re: Good enough for practical situations (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure physicians are pretty heavily regulated. Not that it detracts from your point, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Smart guns & communism (Score:4, Insightful)
I've long thought the two rather similar.
In theory, both are great ideas... in reality, no one can ever seem to get it right.
Don't worry though... THIS time, THIS time will be different! All of those previous attempts... those weren't real smart guns/communism!
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, both are great ideas... in reality, no one can ever seem to get it right.
Communism was never a great idea; it is probably one of the worst ideas ever.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, both are great ideas... in reality, no one can ever seem to get it right.
I don't think smart guns are impossible (unlike successful large-scale communism by average humans). I do think that ensuring the smart locking system does not reduce the reliability of a possibly life-saving tool is really, really hard.
Personally, I trust the police to validate the reliability of their firearms quite well, so I'll be happy to buy and use smart guns as soon as I see all of the police departments switch to using them. Police officers are not infrequently shot with their own guns, so they s
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I'd want my significant other and kids (when old enough and trustworthy) to be able to use them....or what about at the gun range when you and friends or other folks there, want to swap guns to try out which I do all the time...?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm..just thinking about this...how easy would it be to let someone else shoot the gun? Can it be set for multiple people to be authorized?
There's no reason it couldn't. But so far we don't have any smart guns that work reliably for one user.
what about at the gun range when you and friends or other folks there, want to swap guns to try out which I do all the time...?
Yeah, you'd probably want to be able to disable the locking feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep..and really at that point, what's the point of having the 'smart' feature? I'd think a LOT of people would want to leave it 'unlocked' all the time....or, would it be mandated, etc?
This smart feature causes more problems that it solves IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Smart guns & communism
Smart guns, Communism & Windows
Re:Smart guns & communism (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? This tech will protect home owners from escalating the level of violence against a burglar.
You mean "protect burglars from home owners", of course. And, obviously, burglars already have a sure-fire way to protect themselves: not breaking into homes. And note that smart guns that work correctly won't protect burglars from homeowners.
Simply breaking into a place shouldn't be a death sentence.
I actually agree with this. The problem is that it's very difficult to know what the burglar's intentions are. If I could be certain that all the guy wanted was my TV, and that if he got it no one would get hurt, I'd help him carry it out. My TV isn't worth anyone's life, and anyway, I have insurance.
But if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I can't know what they intend, other than that it's very unlikely that they intend to be nice to me or my family. So unless they can convince me pretty quickly that they don't intend to do my family any harm, I will be aiming a gun at them. Whether or not I pull the trigger will depend on what they do next. Raise their hands, turn around slowly and leave the house the way they came? Fine. I'll do my best to give the police an excellent description. Make any move that seems aggressive or threatening? I'm shooting first and dealing with the outcome -- which will probably include a lifetime of regret -- later.
A 15 year-old kid was shot in my neighborhood a few years ago after walking through an unlocked sliding glass door. No thinking person would ever believe that he deserved to be executed for that.
Deserved? Absolutely not. Even if he intended to rob the place. But neither does the homeowner deserve to be in fear for his life and that of his family... none of them did anything wrong at all! As for the young burglar, it's a tragedy, but the tragedy is not just that he got shot, it's also that he chose to commit a violent felony. He didn't deserve to die, but he made the choice to place his life in serious jeopardy, by threatening the lives of others. Or appearing to, at least, which is the same thing in the eyes of the law.
I'm assuming that it was deliberate here, and not some sort of accident, of course. If it was an accident, that's also a tragedy, but it's way, way down the list of the ways that 15 year olds accidentally die.
Re:Smart guns & communism (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no. Get down on their knees and wait until the police come as you keep them under control, yes. You are simply allowing them to go on the the next house, making you a passive accomplice in the next crime.
Utter nonsense.
Oh, I have no problem with holding the intruder for the police if I can do so in safety... but that's a really tough thing to do. Not only might the intruder be able to do something, but more than one homeowner has been holding a gun on a perp, and been shot to death by the police when they arrived.
In one example, from a few years ago, the guy sent his family into the yard and his wife called 911. She told the dispatcher that her husband had the intruder at gunpoint, and described in detail their location, clothing, etc. The dispatcher passed all of that along to the police officers responding. When the police arrived, the wife reiterated all of this information to them directly before they went in. But when they walked in and saw a man holding a gun, they shot him, putting six bullets into him before he could hit the ground. Oops.
Nope, unless it's absolutely certain that I can hold the perp and turn him over to the police safely, I want him to run away. And I'm a former police officer, who actually received training in how to safely disarm and secure a prisoner.
Re: (Score:2)
That would also enable the use of the gun as a deterrent rather as the judge, jury, and executioner.
What? So, if the gun works when and as the owner wants it to, you consider that a risk to the lives of the people who do home invasions. But if people's guns are hobbled to the point that they can't work well enough to hurt the person invading the home, then that's going to be a good deterrent ... how, exactly? That's not a deterrent, it's an invitation to break in armed with nothing but a pointy stick, because the homeowner can't hurt you in self defense with the electronically broken gun.
Re: (Score:2)
The important thing is that intruders believe the home owner has a right to shoot them.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? What do you believe?
Do I have to have a fist fight with an intruder irst? I think I'd probably lose and know my wife with severe MS would most definitely lose.
Or do I have to record myself saying "stop! I have a gun" then prove they understood the warning before I can shoot (while hoping they stand still so I can go through whatever dumbass checklist you think I should complete before firing)?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I get it...if someone doesn't like guns and doesn't want to own and keep them in their house, more power to them.
But there is no reason at all for an intruder to be in MY house, and given that an increasing number of break ins these days are home invasions with armed nasty folks coming in armed to do harm, well, the first thing they will hear to know I'm home is the first shots.
I keep my weapons all loaded and chambered and I do not have to unloc
Re: (Score:2)
Generally the idea is to not leave it on the coffee table.
Re: Smart guns & communism (Score:5, Informative)
Too many Republicans believe that you have the right to shoot an intruder.
I'm not a Republican, but I believe I have the right to shoot anyone who threatens my life or my family's lives. Do you honestly disagree with that? The right of self-defense is the most natural of natural rights.
I'll grant that an intruder may not intend harm, but I'm pretty certain he doesn't intend kindness. He's already demonstrated the willingness to commit a violent felony against me, and if I wait too long to see what he's going to do, I may lose the opportunity to stop him.
Re: (Score:3)
In most European countries you have to use reasonable force. If they are unarmed, if they try to leave when discovered, you can't try to kill them. You can't even attack them, you have to let them go, even if they are carrying your stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Most crimes where "guns" are used, the gun is never fired. I quoted guns, because alleged and fake guns are often used.
So a stolen smart gun, while unable to kill, will still result in crimes, including rape, and even death by other means. (I just watched a solved cold case type show where a mother and baby was lured with a gun to the woods, gun jammed but was promptly beaten to death with it, baby left to die by the elements. And lots of others where intruders get in by use of gun and kill the victim in o
If the gun fired, the secure owner fired the shot (Score:3, Interesting)
"Mr X, this gun can only fire if you pull the trigger. You're going away for a long time."
"But I wasn't even in the city!"
"The gun says you were. GPS tracking confirms."
Re: (Score:2)
But my phone says I was in New York, and I even made calls.
Hello, reasonable doubt.
Keep the honest, honest. (Score:2)
Most security features on personal items at best would be made to keep the honest, honest.
You lock the door on your car, not because it is not impossible for someone to get in. But for that casual person who sees that you accidentally left your wallet there. will try to see if the door is locked. If so, they will not try further.
The smart gun, can't be unhackable. Because the core technology of the gun is well understood, and designed to be reliable and easy to maintain. However the smart gun can prevent
Re: (Score:2)
However the smart gun can prevent the person from taking someones gun and then shooting the owner with his own weapon.
Seems like it's something the police should have. So if someone looks like they're grabbing for an officer's gun, they no longer have an excuse to pump him or her full of bullets.
Re: (Score:2)
If I see a wallet on the seat of a car with an unlocked door, or even an open car window, I am not going to steal it.
If I found a wallet, say on the sidewalk, I would make an effort to try to locate the owner.
Surely I am not the only one. There must be others.
The real question is: what if the wallet had, say, $100,000 in it. I think I might just leave it where I found it. But the real test comes if I ever find myself in that situ
Re: (Score:2)
Well keep the Honest, honest is the phrase. It is more correctly, most dishonest people are rather lazy, so in a movement of temptation any little excuse normally will stop them.
Now these people who commit the petty crime of getting that $20 out of your wallet. Are often under hard times, and needs it for drugs, or more important reasons. When you are poor $20 can allow you to eat for a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Also chances are getting caught with a Hacked Smart Gun, will probably get you much more trouble.
This statement exposes the deeper motivation that is the fear in the hearts of many gun activists: "Wait - So, you'll want to punish owners of hacked smart guns? Why? How is that any different than owning guns without safety features? Should it be illegal to even own a gun without smart features? How far will the government go to keep us safe? It'll always be pushing for taking freedom away! Freedom! FREEDOM!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never said AR-15, "AR", or that AR stood for assault rifle. I just said that I don't own one. My brother has an Ar-15 that I can occasionally shoot if I really want - though his sucks because you can't hit much with it (has a 9:1 spin ratio in the rifling, cheaply made, etc.). A bro-in-law also has one but it's nicer - and he's picked up a suppressor (can't wait to try that out).
I also own a 30-06 (a nice Remington) - but I never shoot that one because I'm not left-eyed and the bolt action is backwards fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"assault rifle" is a defined term for the US Army. this [tulprpc.org] has some more information, but the short form is that it has the ability to do fully automatic or semiautomatic selectively, using cartridges between submachine gun and rifle in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Well for some areas if you are caught with a gun, with the safety features disabled, you are already in trouble as you are caring a weapon with the intent to harm.
The biggest problem I see today with the Gun debate, is how both sides dropped personal gun safety. 20 years ago the NRA would admonish a picture post of a person pointing the gun at an other person even if unloaded and just for a joke. They were involved in teaching Gun safety as part of how to use the gun. Trying to make sure the people who ch
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time the kid who want to play with guns, are kids who were never exposed to them.
My father had a rack of rifles hanging on the wall. For me those were mostly decorations, I knew they were real guns, and my father would use them. But for the most part I never gave them a second though.
However when I had a friend over, they were much more curious about them and I normally had to tell him not to touch them. As an adult I am not a gun owner, not because of any moral stance, but just because I find
Re: Keep the honest, honest. (Score:5, Informative)
Fired my first gun at the age of 9, owned my first gun at 11 and was allowed to take it out and use it anytime I wanted unsupervised.
Was taught some very simple rules about guns and have followed them my whole life, without exception ever.
1. Treat a gun as if its always loaded, even if you just unloaded it yourself, you act as if it is still loaded.
2. Never ever point a gun at anything you dont actually intend to shoot.
3. Finger off the trigger.
4. Identify risk down range.
There are more rules, but good teachers and role models make a big difference too.
Not unexpected. . . (Score:2)
. . . . nor was the remote Denial of Service attack against the weapon. In fact, many cops would call that a win.
Or they would if anyone had actually BOUGHT an Armatix, a hugely-overpriced .22 semi-auto pistol with integrated electronics. . .
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, many cops would call that a win.
Until that cop tries to fire his own gun and is denied.
One gun with electronics (Score:2)
The only gun that should have electronics is the M-27 phase plasma pulse rifle in the 40 watt range.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey buddy...just what you see on the wall, ok?
Smart Guns are just the first step (Score:5, Insightful)
The government could keep track of how much ammunition is used. This would provide valuable statistics for the department of the census bureaucracy.
Instead of requiring a fingerprint or gadget to authorize your gun to fire, you could authorize it to fire using an app on your smartphone. "hold on, just a sec, Mr. burglar, while I authorize my gun to activate . . . where did I put my phone . .
The government could revoke the firing of weapons that have been stolen. The government could also revoke the ability to fire any weapon to certain individuals. Especially crazy people. And crazy could have a technical definition, such as "the desire to own or use a firearm".
It's all for your protection.
Think of the children!
Nobody's coming for your guns (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile it's being used as a wedge issue to distract you from economic issues. So you go to the polls and vote for the gun loving guy and he sells you out on the economy. How the hell do you think NAFTA got through? They knew the gun lovers would vote them in no matter what they did to the economy. Nevermind the fact that you and your little pea shooter of a rifle is about as useless as tits on a bull
Re: (Score:2)
How about this: You can have a mother f'in bazooka if I can have Single Payer healthcare & college tuition for my kid. Deal?
There is a way we can all have it closer to our own way. Stop expecting that everything should be handled by the federal government.
Why shouldn't there be a state with single payer healthcare and strict gun laws and other states with less restrictive gun laws and employer based insurance or offer private high-deductible plans and low taxes? Why do those in Nebraska or New York feel that they need to tell those in Alaska or Florida what rules they need to live by? Why even have states if everything is run
I've got 5000 years of recorded history (Score:2)
The reason you can't have a state do that is a state doesn't have enough power to stand up to a global mega corp run by robber barons. Did you ever see the pic of a snake cut in 13 pieces when you were a kid? It wasn't from a snake cook book.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie f'in Sanders got an A from the NRA.
And he was squashed by a woman who said she'd certainly consider an Australia-style confiscation program, and who said she considers the Supreme Court to have been in error as they ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership. In other words, you're exactly incorrect.
No, he was squashed by mega corps (Score:2)
Re:Nobody's coming for your guns (Score:4)
>"How about this: You can have a mother f'in bazooka if I can have Single Payer healthcare & college tuition for my kid. Deal?"
I have a better deal- you pay for your own children (or let them get their own loans and pay for themselves) and get your own health insurance AND we also obey the 2nd amendment, too.
And I will further with: There is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows the federal government to mess with education nor health insurance, and if you want them to, then first you get a Constitutional Amendment passed.... then we'll talk about more Socialism after that.
Might be time for the Chris Rock solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something many people may be unaware of, is that black powder weapons are completely uncontrolled. Bullets can't be expensive so long as lead is pennies a pound -- I've cast them myself, it's a really simple procedure -- and cartridges are frequently reloaded. It's a joke, and a reasonably funny one, but it doesn't go much further than that. Even if somehow all existing cartridges could be cleared from circulation to prevent reloading, you'd just see a rise in the ownership of black powder pistols [cabelas.com].
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I have a hard time believing that it would really cause an uptick in black powder sales. Right now as the law stands it is relatively easy to kill someone with a typical firearm. Hell in many states it takes less time to purchase a weapon than it takes to purchase sudafed. You buy the weapon and the ammo at the same time and only a couple second
Re: (Score:2)
I have a friend who is a reformed felon. He would like to own a gun to protect his family but is prohibited. I told him about black powder revolvers. You can get .44 special performance out of an Army model black powder revolver and pretty good reliability.
LK
That's how it used to work (Score:2)
Reminds me of one of the funniest things I've ever read. A bunch of those "People's Militia" folks decided to get their Assault rifles and go scare some Muslims by hanging around their Mosque with their guns slung over their back.
Apparently these fine upstanding citizens didn't realize that the Nation of Islam is a different branch of faith than w
Re: (Score:3)
The NRA supports the rights of ANY legal gun owner to own or carry their firearms.
Really? Then why didn't the NRA have more to say about legal gun owner - and legal permit-to-carry holder - Philando Castile when he was gunned down by the police?
You can pretend that the NRA cares about non-white people as much as they care about white people, but the truth won't support it.
Huge problem with "smart" guns (Score:5, Insightful)
This hacker just demonstrated what gun advocates and critics of smart guns have been saying for years. The use of a gun is to stop a person or animal, often in a life or death situation. Guns are a powerful tool, and have historically relied on training to ensure gun safety and proper use. Smart guns attempt to take away some of that responsibility from the owner and in the process sacrifice key functionality. Guns have been developed over hundreds of years, and the modern gun is both extremely simple (relative to other technologies) and very reliable. As soon as you start adding other technologies, there are unintended consequences (or intended if you are a bit more cynical).
I am a firm believer in a constitutional amendment that subjects lawmakers first and foremost to their own legislation, and this is just another example of where that would be an excellent idea. I think that the every politician who voted to require smart guns who is armed, and every armed bodyguard that they have (all the gun grabbing libtard politicians are armed and/or have armed bodyguards BTW; classic do as I say, not as I do) should be required to carry only smart guns first and foremost. Tax dollars well spent in my opinion. That way they can experience the problems first hand (running out of battery or malfunctioning or being jammed by a wide band transmitter etc.) when their lives depend on it. After the first few politicians have their guns fail when their lives depend on it, I suspect their positions will change.
Re: (Score:2)
Shocker/Not Shocker, hacker with physical access to a device can make a device malfunction.
If an organization or entity is dedicated enough to have identified your particular firearm, built a device to disable your firearm, than actively use the device, guess what? You are dead as fuck and your trivial ass gun, smart or not, will not be able to do you any good
I am rather neutral on gun control laws and see some rather philosophically valid argum
So all I have to do is (Score:2)
shoot the guy first or cut the guys hand off and wear the watch?
An idea doomed to fail (Score:2)
These are guns for people who don't like guns or the people who like guns.
They're ridiculously expensive and why in the hell would I want a gun that can be remotely disabled? Lest we forget, the people that are the reason why we (in the USA) have the second amendment are the very people who would be able to remotely disable such a device. No thank you. Do not want. No bueno!
LK
Re: (Score:3)
Or a smart mother for that matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
the army will not take any smart gun (Score:2)
the army will not take any smart gun.
You want the them to work / not need battery's / need a network / be easy to fix in the field.