The Smart Gun Doesn’t Exist for the Dumbest Reasons
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
My phone can’t read my fingerprint reliably. It definitely can’t do it when it’s wet.
We are all accustomed to the fact that computers are flakey. Our computers and phones sometimes need rebooting to fix weird behavior. My printer just forgot how to connect to WiFi for no apparent reason. Everyone has stories like these.
What's tolerable for many popular products is not tolerable for others, though. Leaving aside whether having a gun actually protects you, people own guns for that reason. If your gun won't fire when your life is in danger, or if your car won't swerve when a truck is in the road, or if your thermostat won't turn on when it's bitterly cold, that's unacceptable.
Clearly there exists highly reliable technology: plane and spaceship controls, for example. My understanding is that an extreme focus and expenditure on reliability is required to achieve that.
I think that some of these consumer product categories where it's critical that the thing actually work will require the same kind of rigor before people can trust them.
http://gunssavelives.net/gear/smart-guns-have-been-available...
From the article:
"Magna-Trigger conversion is a custom process in which a magnetic piece is placed in the gun, preventing it from firing unless the user is also wearing a magnetic ring. Despite the simplicity in this system, it never really caught on for one simple reason. Generally people want their defensive firearms to be as simple as possible. Simple, well machined firearms make for reliable firearms."
BTW what responsible manufacturer would sell a gun that might not shoot when you need it to? That's a lawsuit-in-waiting for manufacturers. Depending on the local political beliefs, a gun that _would_ shoot under the circumstances is _also_ a lawsuit_in_waiting! So "smart guns" are a lose-lose situation for gun manufacturers.
And when a "smart gun" mechanism fails (say, due to low battery) should it allow _anyone_ to shoot it)? That's what I would want but I think others would want a gun to be disarmed under such circumstances.
Imagine being raped/robbed/killed b/c your gun has a low battery! [the Magna-Trigger system requires no batteries]
Rings are also not unique to each gun.
If any of these technologies worked reliably, law enforcement would be all over it, because (1) perps couldn't take officers' guns and use them and (2) the politicians who make the purchase authorizations would love to claim credit.
> The trouble is that fingerprint readers struggle with sweat or dirt, and friends in law enforcement advised Stephens that cops often wear gloves. A sensor error in a self-defense situation could prove fatal.
It's absolutely the case that (for example) fingerprint readers are flaky, and cops would not be willing to tolerate anything that could stop them from using a firearm in an emergency. But really, does the technology even matter then? Why would a cop want a smart gun? So from the beginning, looking at what cops think about your smart gun prototype means you're looking at the entirely wrong audience.
Likewise, are hunters the ones who want a smart gun? What about single mothers who need to be able to defend themselves during a home invasion? The right authentication mechanism and tradeoffs depend on each audience, and the things they want definitely don't match with what cops want. If I was picking up a firearm to use on the range or for hunting, being told 'this RFID ensures nobody can use it after stealing it or taking it from you, but it has a 1% chance of not letting you fire it' might be a pretty good pitch - but if I'm a cop, there's no way I want even an 0.1% failure chance, because if I had to draw my gun a lot of stuff has already gone wrong.
Kind of a baffling place for an effort like "let's make smart guns" to end up at.
Why? Because of the guns are more expensive, then the profit margin may be higher and my profits higher, even if the overall market size decreases.
I could likely think of others if I gave it more than a few moments' thought.
Furthermore, we have to bear in mind that there is a significant portion of gun control advocates who have already made their real goal clear: To ban all guns. So capitulating to moves like this is simply allowing them to move the goalpost, making a small quantity of firearms that are more restricted, before moving it again to restrict those even further.
You may be giving this a few moments' thought, but I'm guessing executives in the firearms industry and NRA members have spent significantly more time thinking about it.
However, most of what you said was appropriate for a large gun manufacturer. They don't apply to a small one, which might start this sort of production for the 0.001% of the market interested in such weapons.
I am a gun control advocate. I do not want to ban all guns. I want to have gun control laws similar to what's present in Finland, which is one of the countries with the highest per capita gun ownership in the world. (#10 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... .) I think the large majority of gun control advocates in the US also do not want to ban all guns, and would be just fine with similar gun laws.
BTW, you have just described another reason for making such guns. If someone is against all sorts of gun ownership, then there is a short-term justification for producing these sorts of weapons. By doing so they get the foot in the door for large scale bans.
Since that hasn't happened, and since anti-gun-ownership advocates have also had significantly more time thinking about it, your own logic suggests that it isn't tenable.
> no types of firearms are outright banned, and in principle a person can apply for a licence for any type of gun
(Though some weapons like machine guns and rocket launchers are 'specially dangerous' and 'can only be granted on a very limited basis and are essentially for recognized collectors and filming purposes only'.)
> A license is always needed for possession of a firearm and all firearms are registered. Firearms may only be carried while they are being used for a specific purpose (e.g. hunting, shooting at the range). When transporting a firearm to or from such activity, the firearm must be unloaded and stored in a case or pouch. The owner of a firearm is responsible for making sure that firearms and ammunition do not end up in unauthorized hands.
> The application process includes a check of criminal records, the police interviewing the applicant and in some cases a computer-based personality test or a medical health certificate. Any significant history with violence or other crime, substance abuse or mental health issues will cause the application to be rejected.
> Carrying a firearm licensed for hunting or sporting use outside of that specific activity is not allowed.
Those are all differences from, I believe, anywhere in the US. And for all of the ones I listed I say, "yes, please!"
If the technology is electronic, no thanks. Guns are fascinating mechanical marvels. The way the actions work, the trigger pulls, etc. is like a fine watch. I don't want any electronics involved.
But if the lock were mechanical-- say a 4-or-5 digit (or alpha) roller lock-- then I could see it. Your fearful types ('Keep it loaded!') could even set off just one tumbler, it'd still be very very difficult to crack.
My opinion, anyway. I don't see the appeal in the electronic version.
I've read stories where a grip safety(a button that is pressed down when you're gripping the handgun properly) has slowed down the person just enough to let the bad guy shoot him a couple of times before he could return fire. Safety systems probably save more innocent lives than the they've hurt, but I bet anything less than perfect in a smart gun is really going to hurt popularity among gun enthusiasts.