Smart gun or Smart scam?
- Thread starter 9x45
- Start date
I don't think anyone has gotten to the point of being able to demonstrate that the technology will work with the level of reliability that the market would demand. Until that happens it won't see any adoption. As mentioned, even developing that technology proves problematic for people in MD and CA.
I wouldn't buy one, but to many people they make a compelling case. You mean I can buy a gun that can only be used by me? It could sit in my dresser drawer instead of in a locked safe (I have kids). If a mugger grabs it from my hands it becomes useless. The list goes on and on. This may be a bit condescending, but I think the perceived "need" comes from a lack of gun ownership understanding more than anything else. When you buy a firearm, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that it is used in the correct manner. Obviously stolen guns are a different story, but other than that you should have some form of control over who has access to them.
In a perfect world it would be great, but IMO we are many years away from having the technology to actually employ smart guns. Guns fail without electronics, what happens when a design becomes much more complicated. I have worked in the electronics field for 11 years now, and they are finicky. I'm not just talking a $1,000 cell phone, but also $300,000+ systems used by the government.
These "innovations" have a place in the world as long as they do not become mandatory. Unfortunately the good idea fairy pokes her head out from time to time. That last part is enough to keep me from ever wanting to see one, but I bet they will come out at some point. These companies are just trying to get a head start.
In a perfect world it would be great, but IMO we are many years away from having the technology to actually employ smart guns. Guns fail without electronics, what happens when a design becomes much more complicated. I have worked in the electronics field for 11 years now, and they are finicky. I'm not just talking a $1,000 cell phone, but also $300,000+ systems used by the government.
These "innovations" have a place in the world as long as they do not become mandatory. Unfortunately the good idea fairy pokes her head out from time to time. That last part is enough to keep me from ever wanting to see one, but I bet they will come out at some point. These companies are just trying to get a head start.
Polls are worthless and completely contrived. I read a poll once that told us that a large percentage of Americans support some Democratic candidate in one way or another. I looked up the details of the poll and found that the only people polled were ones that had received free internet access from a government program that was provided by a Democratic administration. Yeah, no bias there.
One of my concerns about so called smart guns is that it may lull people into a false sense of security. We all know you never, ever trust the safety on a gun because its a machine and all machines can fail. But, tell someone their gun is smart and won't fire until they want it to they may get lazy with proper gun safety practices. Then either the safety will fail, or they unwittingly disengage it, and someone is killed. I prefer the safeties on my gun to be as dirt simple as possible to ensure reliable operation. And then I still always assume it is on the verge of failing at any moment.
One of my concerns about so called smart guns is that it may lull people into a false sense of security. We all know you never, ever trust the safety on a gun because its a machine and all machines can fail. But, tell someone their gun is smart and won't fire until they want it to they may get lazy with proper gun safety practices. Then either the safety will fail, or they unwittingly disengage it, and someone is killed. I prefer the safeties on my gun to be as dirt simple as possible to ensure reliable operation. And then I still always assume it is on the verge of failing at any moment.
kilimanjaro
New member
According to the polls, Thomas Dewey was elected President in 1948 and Jimmy Carter was odds on favorite for a second term.
A ring???
Anyone else remember the old S+W (I think) revolver from the past?
I believe it was a modification of the lock work that required the shooter to be wearing a magnetic ring. The ring acted upon the lockwork permitting the revolver to fire.
If memory serves bank guards were one market for this.
Anyone else remember it?
Anyone else remember the old S+W (I think) revolver from the past?
I believe it was a modification of the lock work that required the shooter to be wearing a magnetic ring. The ring acted upon the lockwork permitting the revolver to fire.
If memory serves bank guards were one market for this.
Anyone else remember it?
Roland Thunder
New member
"You can't rely on everything you read on the internet" -- A. Lincoln
Note that in every discussion of Smart Gun Tech, ALL the police are adamantly OPPOSED TO IT, UNLESS they are specifically EXEMPTED FROM IT!
I can easily see their point. IT is simply because it does NOT work well enough to be safe.
Note that, to date, the only gun using it is a hyper expensive .22, which does not work all that well, and is not a market success last I heard. Also, I hear that it is a .22 because the tech used will not survive the recoil of a centerfire duty round.
The biggest risk we face is that the anti gunners (and their lawmakers) will declare "victory" with smart gun tech, claiming it works (when it doesn't), and since it works, all "non-smart" guns are not safe enough, and will have to be turned in.
Personally, I think the proper test bed for smart gun tech is the Police and the Military, IF DONE RIGHT. Typically, our bureaucratic system would not do it right, and put too many people at even greater risk.
I can easily see their point. IT is simply because it does NOT work well enough to be safe.
Note that, to date, the only gun using it is a hyper expensive .22, which does not work all that well, and is not a market success last I heard. Also, I hear that it is a .22 because the tech used will not survive the recoil of a centerfire duty round.
The biggest risk we face is that the anti gunners (and their lawmakers) will declare "victory" with smart gun tech, claiming it works (when it doesn't), and since it works, all "non-smart" guns are not safe enough, and will have to be turned in.
Personally, I think the proper test bed for smart gun tech is the Police and the Military, IF DONE RIGHT. Typically, our bureaucratic system would not do it right, and put too many people at even greater risk.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
We've discussed this before and the issues are:
1. Will it work?
2. Will it be mandated for new guns for civilians, police and military? Or what subset of those?
3. Is there a market for them?
On the latter, supposedly market research (not polls) demonstrated a segment of the population that would buy one. They were called 'fencers' as they were on the fence whether to buy a gun but had fears of kids, burglars, retention problems. That would be a good free market if it worked.
Total antis realized such a gun would expand gun ownership and oppose smart guns.
Police might see utility give the numbers shot with their own guns but a reliable solution isn't here yet. They don't want them mandated.
Some antis thought the mandate would get rid of most common guns now.
It's a mess. The conclusion is that if it worked and was not mandated, it would be a nice product for the free market.
1. Will it work?
2. Will it be mandated for new guns for civilians, police and military? Or what subset of those?
3. Is there a market for them?
On the latter, supposedly market research (not polls) demonstrated a segment of the population that would buy one. They were called 'fencers' as they were on the fence whether to buy a gun but had fears of kids, burglars, retention problems. That would be a good free market if it worked.
Total antis realized such a gun would expand gun ownership and oppose smart guns.
Police might see utility give the numbers shot with their own guns but a reliable solution isn't here yet. They don't want them mandated.
Some antis thought the mandate would get rid of most common guns now.
It's a mess. The conclusion is that if it worked and was not mandated, it would be a nice product for the free market.
I want to know just how long is the battery life, and can I use my Cell Phone Charger to keep the electronics powered?
Oh yes, polls. Fifty one percent of people think stormy weather "affects" Cloud Computing.
And 1 in 4 Americans think God helps decide the outcome of football games. I don't know why this one is considered a silly result, given that it is so obviously true.
http://www.oddee.com/item_99116.aspx
Oh yes, polls. Fifty one percent of people think stormy weather "affects" Cloud Computing.
And 1 in 4 Americans think God helps decide the outcome of football games. I don't know why this one is considered a silly result, given that it is so obviously true.
http://www.oddee.com/item_99116.aspx
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I hope you catch HTML for making me look at that page.
Good points about polls.
Good points about polls.
Hacking the Smart gun
I don't have the tech expertise to hack one, but I would imagine that within a year or so of their hitting the market, Wired magazine & You Tube would have info on how it can be done.
Putting the high tech aside, I would think a lot of people using ordinary tools could convert one from a smart gun to a regular gun. It has 80% of the components needed for a normal gun, frame, barrel , magazine. It would be a lot easier than trying to make a gun from scratch.
Another negative possibility is that someone could make a device to block or jam the signal, thus making the gun useless. I'm just speculating, but something as ordinary as a garage door opener might so it.
If I haven't made my position clear, I'm not a fan.
I don't have the tech expertise to hack one, but I would imagine that within a year or so of their hitting the market, Wired magazine & You Tube would have info on how it can be done.
Putting the high tech aside, I would think a lot of people using ordinary tools could convert one from a smart gun to a regular gun. It has 80% of the components needed for a normal gun, frame, barrel , magazine. It would be a lot easier than trying to make a gun from scratch.
Another negative possibility is that someone could make a device to block or jam the signal, thus making the gun useless. I'm just speculating, but something as ordinary as a garage door opener might so it.
If I haven't made my position clear, I'm not a fan.
I wont even use a gun safe that required electronics let alone a gun. If you want a smart gun add a safety. technology and guns just seems like a bad idea. If the tech fails will gun accidentally fire? I can see people just suing the makers of that tech for every accidental discharge...
gyvel
So I'd turn gyvel's question around: How easy is it for the average bad guy to jam the signaling link, given the specific format and frequency are known?
Trivial for an engineer, hacker or technician. I see that as a major issue.
Trivial: The 2006 patent issued in Europe https://www.google.com/patents/EP1936572A1?cl=en&dq=ininventor:%22Diet lists 3 bands they could provide the signaling data. In a followup article, I don't have the link for, one of the designers identified the specific band and frequency.
So I'd turn gyvel's question around: How easy is it for the average bad guy to jam the signaling link, given the specific format and frequency are known?
Trivial for an engineer, hacker or technician. I see that as a major issue.
Smart Gun Tech has a huge trap to overcome, which is real world engineering vs. what the general public thinks, and vs. what the actual owners expect and demand.
Here's the rub, FAILURE. There is failure of the gun to fire on authorized demand, and failure of the system to prevent the gun from firing at all other times. Either one is unacceptable to someone who would have to use the gun in a serious situation.
The trap is, ONE of these situations has to happen, if the Smart Tech fails.
In our engineering culture, we try to build things that fail "safe" Meaning, that is a part or system fails, that failure does the least damage practical, and poses the least practical risk to the operator and bystanders.
On a grand scale, this is what modern skyscrapers do, collapsing straight down is "safer" over all than falling over a tree.
SO, if the smart tech fails to work, what condition is the gun left in? SAFE? meaning unable to be fired at all? Might be the best thing for the company's liability, but it might be the absolute worst thing for the user.
Or is the gun now a fully live piece, just like a "dumb" gun, if the smart tech fails? If it was my choice, I would want it to be able to be fired.
Any system that relies on a radio frequency can be jammed. Any system with remote authorization can be hacked. A system the GOV has the codes for can be operated by them, not you.
Biometric systems have been tested. Fingerprint ID or pressure pattern recognition systems fail at a huge rate when real world conditions are involved. Mud, dust, dirt, oils, gloves, "improper" grip, all effect theses systems to the failure point, very easily.
Things that would not affect a "dumb" gun at all.
Its a tough life, being a smart gun designer. Despite people saying how they would buy one, they don't. No one wants a gun that may NOT work. And you can't get the bugs out until people buy them and use them so you find out what the bugs actually are.
But those bugs can get people killed.
I'll pass on the concept, for myself, thank you.
Here's the rub, FAILURE. There is failure of the gun to fire on authorized demand, and failure of the system to prevent the gun from firing at all other times. Either one is unacceptable to someone who would have to use the gun in a serious situation.
The trap is, ONE of these situations has to happen, if the Smart Tech fails.
In our engineering culture, we try to build things that fail "safe" Meaning, that is a part or system fails, that failure does the least damage practical, and poses the least practical risk to the operator and bystanders.
On a grand scale, this is what modern skyscrapers do, collapsing straight down is "safer" over all than falling over a tree.
SO, if the smart tech fails to work, what condition is the gun left in? SAFE? meaning unable to be fired at all? Might be the best thing for the company's liability, but it might be the absolute worst thing for the user.
Or is the gun now a fully live piece, just like a "dumb" gun, if the smart tech fails? If it was my choice, I would want it to be able to be fired.
Any system that relies on a radio frequency can be jammed. Any system with remote authorization can be hacked. A system the GOV has the codes for can be operated by them, not you.
Biometric systems have been tested. Fingerprint ID or pressure pattern recognition systems fail at a huge rate when real world conditions are involved. Mud, dust, dirt, oils, gloves, "improper" grip, all effect theses systems to the failure point, very easily.
Things that would not affect a "dumb" gun at all.
Its a tough life, being a smart gun designer. Despite people saying how they would buy one, they don't. No one wants a gun that may NOT work. And you can't get the bugs out until people buy them and use them so you find out what the bugs actually are.
But those bugs can get people killed.
I'll pass on the concept, for myself, thank you.