Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheJoeMan | Hacker News Reader

This is a completely incorrect interpretation of a FMEA (failure-modes-and-effects-analysis) / "Risk Chart". ISO quality systems regulations / the army mandate engineers sit in a room and dream up every way the device could fail and/or harm someone. You then classify the risk of that harm, so in all cases an unintentional discharge would be "high risk". This does not mean the pistol has a high chance of discharging, that is a separate metric for odds of occurrence. Even if the pistol was redesigned to only have a 1 in a million chance of unintentionally discharging, the "risk" category would stay "high".

View on HN

At least while I was at NASA, a high impact score (ie death) would still elevate total risk even if the likelihood was low.

The Risk Assessment Matrix Level (right most column) takes the incidence x severity into account. Even after mitigations, there were quite a few "Medium"s, almost all of which were E-1 ("Improbable: So unlikely, it can be assumed occurrence may not be experienced in the life of an item, .0001% Occurrence per item" x "Catastrophic: Could result in one or more of the following: death....")

Though millions of guns x .0001%...well...

https://smokinggun.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/gov.uscour...

I agree. FMEA has separate fields for likelihood of occurrence and severity of occurrence. I agree with this in that the severity of occurrence is high/critical. The likelihood, I don't think it described that well.

To put an analogy, I've participated in FMEA's for software systems and the underlying physical installation. The severity of losing your class A data center due to flooding or complete power loss for over 48 hours is critical. The likelihood is low depending on the data centers location.

Question is how likely were the unintentional discharge scenarios in this FMEA study?

This guy FMEAs.

The harm is always a property of the failure, independent from the likelihood. The combination of the two independent values is usually a lookup in a grid to some score. I’m not gonna look at an FMEA in my leasure time, but if there was something juicy it’d be in the article text and it didn’t convince me.

They don't care.

"The Smoking Gun" is part of the Everytown Support Fund [0], which has been lobbying for gun abolitionism. It was created in opposition of the NRA by Michael Bloomberg [1]

Just like how the NRA would skew stats against any form of gun control, an organization like Everytown would skew facts the other way around.

Firearm abolitionism and unrestricted firearm access are both equally dumb.

There is a middle ground that can be found, but the extremes on both sides make it impossible to compromise. Gun ownership is a 2nd amendment right and often needed in areas with limited population density and access to police or animal control services (try dealing with packs of feral hog like most rural communities in the American West - can't be done without .223 calibre ammo), but that doesn't mean we can't add safety and training requirements given that there is a real issue with gun smuggling that is exacerbating crime across the Americas as well as the inability to prevent and flag high risk individuals from purchasing weapons (especially via private sales).

IMO, an Israeli style model would be best - Israelis are allowed to own a private weapon, but are required to get tested and recertified every year AND need to show that they have a gun locker. All weapons are also registered and cataloged, and all gun sales need to be notified and allowed by the Ministry of Public Safety.

If Israel can do it, the US absolutely can as well.

[0] - https://smokinggun.org/about/

[1] - https://www.everytown.org/about-everytown/history/

"If Israel can do it, the US absolutely can as well."

This is not just a matter of technical ability.

In practice, you cannot simply bypass current reading of the 2nd Amendment by SCOTUS, unless you have enough support to amend the Constitution again. Which, on this controversial topic, no one has.

I know, and my argument is that the Israeli model can be safely argued as falling within the current reading of the 2nd amendment, especially after NYSRPA v. Bruen

The reading of Buren allows control on concealed carry and gun ownership via objective criteria - which is what Israeli gun permitting rests on as well.

Yet, I have never seen a single organization fight for an Israeli style compromise for gun control in the US - almost all lawfare is either for abolitionism or unrestricted ownership.

Yes, but then you'd have to create a database of gun purchases and that would be illegal.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-database...

You can drop the weapons catalog requirement that Israel has, and you would still add significant guardrails against misuse.

Even without Israeli style gun cataloging, the rest of the Israeli gun control requirements should be able to pass the "objective criteria" test from Buren while also reducing the risk of misuse by tying license ownership with criterias such as mental health, training, and access to safe storage.

Oh, I entirely agree. It just seems absolutely nuts that the US government (or rather the state governments, because ultimately they'd be dealing with it) cannot attribute a gun to a purchase because they've specifically made it illegal to do so.

When you're dealing with that mindset, no wonder gun control measures as unremarkable as mandatory safes and training are anathema.

As a former legislative assistant during the Aurora shooting, it's because gun abolitionists and gun fundamentalists are extremely organized interest groups, and risk your chances during a primary.

There is a silent majority that feels the 2nd amendment and gun control can co-exist, but they are not represented by any type of organized lobbying group so that voice is not heard.

It's also become a culture war signifier, so if you are a D who is fine with controlled gun ownership instead of abolition, you will face severe lobbying from Everytown, and if you are a R who is fine with controlled permitting instead of maximalist shall-issue licensing, you will face severe lobbying from the NRA.

We can't even get anything as minor as firing pin microstamping implemented.

It's shocking how effective the opposition to it has been.

No, for many reasons including that the technology does not work.

And herein lies a clear demonstration of the problem.

A firing pin is designed to slam metal into metal. Do you really think a detailed pattern on the end of the pin will not soon become too blurred to be useful? Even if somebody doesn't take an abrasive to it.

And it's not like a firing pin is somehow unique to the gun. They are wear items, in time they get replaced. And you have to be able to take the moving parts of a gun apart for cleaning, there's no way to ensure a given pin doesn't get swapped to another gun.

And this once again comes back to at best only being useful in the cases where the gun was legally purchased, which is a very small part of gun crime.

Testing has demonstrated that microstamping remains readable on casings after thousands of rounds with a SEM.

Moreover, even if it wasn't, who cares? It would still be an improvement over what currently exists (unintentional microstamping) given a fair number of guns that are used in crimes have barely been fired.

Nor does it matter if someone switches the firing pin since criminals aren't likely to do that. They don't even file down serial numbers most of the time.

The fact that it isn't absolutely 100% perfect doesn't mean it isn't better.

This still comes down to the basic problem that the vast majority of crime guns were not obtained by legal means. Yes, criminals don't file down serial numbers because there's no reason to as the serial number isn't connected to them.

While the vast majority aren't obtained through legal means, a surprisingly large percentage can be connected to the individual who committed a crime with one.

According to the BJS, of those in prison in 2016 who had a firearm during the offense they were in for, 7.5% purchased it legally under their own name and 25.3% obtained it from family or friends. An older 2004 Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities showed 12% obtaining them from retail and 41% from family/friends.

Criminals don't file down serial numbers not because there's no reason, but criminals don't think they'll be caught. Most simply don't think very far ahead.

Micro-stamping isn't perfect, but again, it is better. If it can lead to arrests in even a small percentage of the thousands of unsolved murders ever year, it would be a huge win with little downside.

And the evidence that those family/friends obtained it legally?

And how many of those "purchased it legally" were in private party transactions that didn't require a background check?

I don't believe the study asked how many family/friends obtained the firearm legally. It seems unlikely that it would be 0%.

Overall, 6.7% of prisoners reported gone through a background check when obtaining a firearm at a retail source (that's not 6.7% of the 7.5%, but rather 6.7% of all prisoners).

A "retail source" includes the 7.5% number above which is just licensed firearm dealers, but there were other retail sources I didn't include (pawn shops: 1.6, flea markets: 0.4%, gun shows: 0.8%).

Of course, the background checks doesn't really matter given that those 7.5% reported giving their actual name to a licensed firearm dealer which is what one would need to track them down.

> We can't even get anything as minor as firing pin microstamping implemented

> It's shocking how effective the opposition to it has been.

It's becuase the patent for microstamping is owned by a single and very litigious company [0].

There needs to be a non-patented OSS alternative, because the margins for manufacturing are extremely low.

This is why there is pushback to microstamping from companies.

Edit: did not realize the patent expired. Good callout.

[0] - https://tac-labs.com/forensics/

The patent expired five years ago.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6886284B2/en

The federal statute only prohibits the AG from promulgating a rule that would require the feds or the states from maintaining a registry. While unconstitutional, many states already have one such as CA, CT, DC, HI, MD, MI, NJ, NY.

The basic problem is that a list of guns is the holy grail of the gun banners. Is it any wonder that the pro gun crowd is afraid of it?

And the reality is that legally purchased guns account for a tiny fraction of gun crime. Stopping every gun purchase by even a would-be criminal is going to do very little except to the suicide rate.

And the "unremarkable" measures often have nasty hidden details. Mandatory safes? Just exactly what do you count as a safe? Doesn't take much of a requirement on a safe before it becomes something that can only rest upon a proper foundation--thus completely prohibiting many apartment and condo dwellers. Put a bolt-down requirement on it and you have disallowed all renters.

Training is looking at it backwards. We have a perfect model of how it should be handled: just look at driving. You pass a test of knowledge and a test of proficiency.

I’ve seen the standard of driving in the US. This is not the model you are looking for.

You should reread Bruen there is not an "Objective Criteria" test for gun laws. There is a text history and tradition one which ownership licensing completely fails.

The Swiss model would be a much more reasonable approach. Shall-issue purchase permit on passing a background check, and the requirement to keep the firearm locked up when not used. But if you live alone, your locked front door counts as "locked up."

Statistically, the problem isn't keeping scary guns away from everyone, because the vast majority of people will never shoot anyone. The whole "you're more likely to shoot a household member than an intruder" is a red herring, because the vast majority will do neither of these things. What matters is disarming the suicidally depressed, as well as a subset of people who are disproportionately likely to commit violent crime. 60-85 percent of gun deaths in the US are suicides, jurisdiction dependent. The prototypical gun homicide in the US is a young minority man with a criminal record being killed by another young minority man with a criminal record using an illegally-possessed handgun, usually involving street gang disputes and/or the illegal drug trade.

So what matters is being able to disarm people who exhibit violent tendencies and/or suicidal depression "left of bang."

> So what matters is being able to disarm people who exhibit violent tendencies and/or suicidal depression "left of bang."

I agree

> The Swiss model would be a much more reasonable approach. Shall-issue purchase permit on passing a background check, and the requirement to keep the firearm locked up when not used. But if you live alone, your locked front door counts as "locked up."

I disagree simply because unlike CH, our neighboring states like Mexico, Haiti, and Jamaica are all facing severe public security issues due to US originated gun trafficking, and this blows back into the US.

Adding some additional securitization to our rules more in line with those in Israel allow us to help defend ourselves from contagion.

If the party that support the 2nd amendment also views organized crime in Mexico and Haiti as a national security risk, then using the securitization framing is an easier sell.

I'd argue Mexico, Haiti, and Jamaica are facing severe public security issues because they're failed states run by the stupid and corrupt. The guns probably make it a little worse, ja.

This describes how it works in Seattle, WA.

Washington is a must-issue concealed carry state though. When working at Microsoft I had to sign something saying I’d keep my gun in my car when on campus.

Except Washington has rolled out broad-based bans which statistically do nothing except harass law-abiding citizens. I live in Greater Seattle, and the vibe seems to be much more "ban them all" than "how do we responsibly have these tools in society." The attitude here towards guns is as irrational as the attitude in Mississippi towards people having gay sex.

The Swiss will sell you your service rifle converted to semi-auto when you leave the military, yet somehow these "assault weapons" don't cause them problems.

Gay sex doesn't kill 45000 people a year.

You know, it probably kills way more than that.

HIV transmission is way higher among men who have sex with men.

US annual HIV deaths are like under 5000 total. It's gotten way, way, way better than earlier decades.

Thanks for the info. I was imagining the whole world. I look a little above, and maybe it's Washington State really?

In any event:

1) Guns don't kill people. They don't even make the people-killing appreciably more likely.

2) Washington has about 1,000 gun murders per year

3) About 2/3 of U.S. gun deaths are suicides, so we might expect about 333 gun murders in WA in a year.

I'm really glad U.S. HIV deaths have fallen off a cliff!

The 45k number is for US total (as is the <5k number above)

WA state has about 300 murders a year, up significantly from 200-ish pre covid.

Neither do so-called "assault weapons." You're statistically more likely to have someone beat you to death with their bare fists and feet. Do you go around worrying about that every day? I don't.

Nothing is gained by conflating unrelated topics like suicide, gang violence, domestic violence, and the occasional deranged lunatic spree killer just because they all abused the same tool to commit murder.

But if you don't muddy the water like that how are you supposed to demonize guns??

Unfortunately, most people are more interested in the simple answer than in recognizing there is no simple answer. And people are remarkably poor at recognizing that those who are muddying the waters are almost certainly arguing a false position.

The Swiss also have compulsory military service for every man over 18 (women may volunteer), so the people owning these guns actually know how to handle them safely and have been trained to have some self-discipline.

I expect that the 18 week bootcamp affords an opportunity to closely observe all such conscripts and screen them for mental health disorders and behavioral problems, and that the (minimum) of 7 years of reserve service allows ongoing monitoring.

Additionally, common sense tells me that Switzerland's equivalent of "dishonorable" or "other-than-honorable" discharge would result in that person not having the opportunity to buy their service rifle, and possibly putting up roadblocks to owning a gun at all.

Therefore the people in Switzerland most likely to cause gun crime do not have ready access to them. That is quite different to how we think about it in the US.

If you were to seriously propose such a system in the US, I think you would get far more opposition from the pro-gun groups than the anti-gun groups. In fact, anti-gun groups would welcome adopting the Swiss system, since it so closes matches the legislation they have tried to enact such as magazine size restrictions in California, "red flag" laws in other states, and mandatory trigger locks. All of those laws have been opposed by groups like the NRA.

OK, but this isn't a gun control story --- this is a story about a group of people that everybody, from Michael Bloomberg to the President of the NRA, agrees need to be armed.

There is a middle ground that can be found, but the extremes on both sides make it impossible to compromise.

I don't agree about this. I do not support the Everytown group (who I agree are skewing facts) but long before they came along, the pro gun lobby was absolutely intransigent on their own. Any reasonable proposal/discussion that had broad support could get derailed by second amendment absolutists. It's gotten considerably worse over the ~35 years I've been on the internet because online social communication rewards people for being assholes; so many online debates degenerate into the pro gun people just screeching that their opponents are hoplophobes or commies, and posting 'SHALL NOT ?BE INFRINGED' over and over.

I like guns and enjoy shooting, but I absolutely despise 'gun culture'and the firearms lobby. They have never been good-faith actors in my experience.

> [Nerds] sit in a room and dream up every way the device could fail and/or harm someone

Well, yeah. And as it happened they postulated the failure mode that was actually (allegedly) seen in practice. And they were right. So the "no one could have known" side of Sig's defense seems out the window here. They could have known, and they did, and relevant experts told them.

I really don't get your point here. You seem to be saying that risk analysis, in the abstract, as a whole field of practice, has no value because of the lack of certainty? But... managing uncertainty is the whole point. Do you really live your life like this? "I mean, people say fentanyl is dangerous but you never really know, right?"

I don't understand the snark. It's plain to see that the GP is arguing that the media report is misunderstanding the document.

Whether that's a correct critique or not, I don't know, but your reply is certainly misunderstanding their comment.

"Well, we should be aware that brake failure is hypothetically possible if vanishingly unlikely, and it would be a huge deal if they did fail" is not the same as "Yeah our brakes have a known flaw that makes them exceptionally prone to failure lmao IDGAF ship it"

Clearly neither of those readings is a correct interpretation of the cited research.

Look folks, I know it offends your 2A inclinations, but this is a step in a legal action. One of the arguments made by any defendant in a case like this is "This was not a foreseeable risk". And that is directly and correctly refuted by the cited report. Period. And it's right that the media report on it.

Sig guns have a failure mode that is serious and impactful, and was aware of it when it sold the hardware.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com