Comment by zzalpha | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zzalpha | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

We have very very effective toddler thwarting technology; low tech, very cost effective and easy to impliment, its called "keeping it where the toddler can't get it". Its worked fairly well since the inception of the firearm.

To which the inevitable reply is: If I put my gun in a safe place, it won't be where I need it when I need it. A similar argument is frequently used as an objection to manual trigger locks, which have also been around for a very long time.

An effective smart gun eliminates that objection by allowing a firearm to be stored somewhere accessible while still preventing accidental discharge.

I understand there are enormous technical challenges to achieve that goal, and I'm not claiming the current generation of technology is effective, or heck, even that an effective solution is possible.

But I think it's absolutely disingenuous to claim that all firearm discharges are done under deliberate, life-threatening circumstances, or that this kind of technology does not have the potential to save lives while still providing an effective tool for self-defense.

Speaking of disingenuous... there are other places besides a safe that toddlers can't reach. Like say, any shelf more than a few feet above ground.

Source: Once was a toddler.

I think you're maybe taking my example a bit too literally...

For home defense, it is possible to keep a gun in a safe space that is both toddler-proof AND accessible when necessary. I'm talking about bedside electronic safes, commonly available with combination [0] or biometric [1] locks, always with a physical key fallback. These solutions reduce unnecessary coupling between access control technology and the gun itself. At the very least, this means the (well-maintained) gun will 100% go "bang" when you pull the trigger.

[0] https://lowes.com/pd/Barska-Compact-0-36-cu-ft-Electronic-Ch... [1] https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/biometric-gun-safes

I take issue with your hypothetical "inevitable reply". All responsible gun owners will tell you that the first rule of gun ownership is that you always handle the firearm as if it is loaded. That includes how you store the firearm. There is absolutely no sensible way to argue the gun must be stored in an unsafe location in order to keep the owner safe.

The technology absolutely has the potential to save lives. Well, an even stronger statement is true -- this technology will save lives. That's not the objection though -- it's will the technology cost lives?!

There are tons of ways to safely store a firearm that mitigate the "where is it" objection, all of them cheaper and safer than buying a new gun of debatable reliability.

I have yet to test this but I believe the grip safety of a 1911 or the standard safety lever on a modern pistol would thwart a toddler as well. Teenager not so much.

Again, this is a solution in search of a problem.

>I believe the grip safety of a 1911 or the standard safety lever on a modern pistol would thwart a toddler as well.

Counting on either of those alone to stop a toddler would be grossly irresponsible.

As is on the smart electronics, which are liable to fail when they shouldn't and won't stop a criminal either way.

See, there is a reason why a dead man's switch is as simple as possible and completely not remote. Anything remote can and will fail sometimes.

If it would be a local switch it would be way more trustworthy in my eyes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com