Slashdot Mirror
Hardly Anyone Is Buying 'Smart Guns'
Daniel_Stuckey writes "The technology is here. So-called 'smart guns' are being programmed to recognize a gun owner's identity and lock up if the weapon ends up in the wrong hands. Entrepreneurs and engineers have been developing technology to make safer guns since the early '90s, and by now we've got working prototypes of guns that read fingerprints, hand grips or even sensors embedded under the skin. But after 15 years of innovation, personalized guns still haven't penetrated the marketplace."
The idea of having your kids not be able to blow their brains out with your gun seems like quite a good one...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Why is very simple, people don't trust them. They use technology to prevent a simple mechanical device from working, which do you think is more likely to break?
Guns are life-saving devices when used by the police or military. Murphy's Law says it all, and if their life-saving device won't function for whatever reason they are dead. Period.
Then there is also the old remote-control problem like using a magnetic or EM/RFI field to jam the gun's mechanism and render it useless remotely, but I'm sure they already addressed this, right? Right?
Bottom line is no one trusts the technology, it's too new, unproven, and an introduction of multiple points of failure in an otherwise tested and time-proven technology.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
1: Don't need another point of failure introduced, if the reader doesn't recognize it's owner at the worst possible moment when he needs to fire a gun.
2: Price hike. I expect there would be a hefty price jump with these newfangled electronic gizmos.
3: Remote killswitch? The police can kill your car's engine and disable your gun with a simple command. So can hackers.
Also, are batteries included? I don't think people want to charge up their guns, unless they're shooting plasma bolts.
Why would anyone buy this? Its a horrible product idea. Take a reliable device and fuck with it. All I want is to know that when I point and click it goes off. Not, my hand isn't held right, the battery is dead, i'm in a fight and its covered in mud, or its just dusty and it malfunctions. Or even worse and a delay, which could cause you to be off target or allow someone else to enter the sight picture. It is a self defeating idea. If you are worried about child protection, buy a safe, teach your kid gun safety. Carry it with you. I could go on for ever.
For those who aren't in the gun culture it may come as a surprise that gun owners tend to be a somewhat conservative lot when it comes to new technologies. They prefer things that are reliable and proven to gimmicks, especially for their go-to guns, because at the end of the day they want to be absolutely sure that their guns will fire reliably and immediately whenever the safety is off and they pull the trigger. Anything that might possibly interfere with that, like smart guns or RFID bracelets and rings or crap like that, is most unwelcome indeed. Oh sure, you'll find the occasional gadget fetishist at the gun shows, but they're the exception rather than the rule in my experience.
a gun is a large responsibility. smart guns are an attempt to remove that responsibility. if you are irresponsible then you should not have a gun. if you dont know if you are responsible enough to own a gun then you are not.
before someone tries to compare it to owning a car, i would like to point out that a gun is specifically for killing. it has no other function, it's literally a killing machine.
i have yet to hear an argument for making crossbows safer yet it serves the same purpose as a gun. if it is somehow intrinsically safer then why aren't people advocating crossbows over guns?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Guns are life-saving devices when used by responsible citizens employed in any occupation to stop an immediate threat to the life of an innocent person.
Fixed that for you.
Write failed: Broken pipe
That would make them life-swapping, at most.
You've got it right in one. The biggest issue is one of trust. I don't trust the gun to not screw up when I need it the most.
I don't trust the technology to work when the gun needs to be rekeyed to a new owner upon resale (assuming that's even possible. Wouldn't surprise me if the intial models are imprint once and that's it). Or when I want to rent a gun and test fire it before I purchase.
I don't trust the technology to not have some kind of back door making the firearm able to be disabled, even when I'm the keyed owner and I pull the trigger.
As for safety... give me a break. My first firearms instructor put it best 'Your finger is the safety'. If I put my finger on the trigger, it means the discharge of my weapon is imminent unless circumstances change *really* quick.
About the only way this will work is for manufacturers to offer it as a cheaper alternative (aka, the Android business model) in order to spur adoption, and then increase cost as it became more mainstream.
The vast majority of firearms deaths are caused by people pulling the trigger on purpose, and a smart gun does nothing to prevent that decision.
An area that's dangerous perhaps because of all the guns?
It depends.
I carry a sidearm with me pretty much everywhere I go (as allowed by state law, anyway). I reside in Georgia, and I have in fact carried my sidearm in plain view on MARTA and in the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson.
I've never had to use it, never even had to draw it, and $DEITY willing, I never will.
It's presence on my hip has acted as a deterrent to what would have very likely resulted in at least a 911 call, if not a trip to the emergency room or the morgue on two occasions. Downtown Atlanta is not a friendly place at 3am.
A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested. Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up. Most of us take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously, and we do so because we understand that the world at large is not a friendly place. I am an honest and true believer that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Perhaps our criminals, like our police and military, are simply more weaponized than those of your country?
Perhaps if our police was as weaponized as yours our criminals would have to tool up?
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested. Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up. Most of us take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously, and we do so because we understand that the world at large is not a friendly place. I am an honest and true believer that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Isn't this viewpoint as sad testament as to the state of the land of the free?
In a civilised country the populace shouldn't feel that they need to carry a weapon when walking the streets to be safe.
I believe that its better to not have the need to carry than to carry just in case.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
As a sportsman, a gun owner, a CCW license holder, and an avid shooter, I guess I will weigh in here.
For one thing, if I ever have to use a gun quickly, it's in a circumstance where (God forbid) my life or the life of someone else is at risk. There is no room for error in that situation. How do I know this system will work? Sure, it probably works, but why take the risk when other weapons don't have that point of failure?
Another thing is that a lot of these systems rely on the user wearing something for the weapon to be useable, which creates a second point of failure. The user has to be wearing it, and the system has to work.
The point is fair that the overwhelming majority of weapons used street crime are stolen, not purchased lawfully. Systems that disabled a gun after it was stolen might have some value there. But to me, mine are kept in a safe that is secured to the floor in my house - they aren't getting stolen, so that doesn't concern me.
He was a horrible parent. Any good parent would have kept the guns locked up in a nice safe. So yea, natural selection.
Plus, had his child not been killed, we would all be slaves to the Gua'uld.
Wait a second. You oppose guns that require the user to be wearing something, because you might not have it on at the time when you have to use a gun to protect yourself in a rush. But at the same time, you store your guns in a safe, which presumably takes the same (if not more) time to open as putting on the device that enables a smart gun.
If you properly maintain your guns to keep them out of reach of unintended users, then you are not going to be able to use them instantly in a crisis situation. That is how it has always been. Smart guns don't change anything.
The one thing folks can never be free of is human nature, whether their own or that of another.
Civility is only accomplished by the mutual agreement of all participants. Not everyone is willing to participate.
I agree with you in that it would be ideal to not have a need at all, but there hasn't been a society in the history of the world that has been free from a criminal or oppressive element.
However, I have to live in the real world where there are people who are more than willing to do me and mine harm if presented with the opportunity. I choose to eliminate the possibility of becoming a victim as much as I possibly can.
"Even as you read this, you are wishing that you could jam a gun in my face and make me back down." That's a whole new level of projection, right there.
I cannot conceive of a circumstance where I would be intimidated by the abundant presence of guns, while in the absence of belligerent people. The presence of belligerent people on the other hand, may intimidate me without the presence of guns. It's clear to me that guns are not what make a place dangerous.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
We may be the land of the free...but that doesn't mean there arent bad people here out to take advantage of the unwary. he mentioned atlanta; he's right. It's not a nice place in the wee hours. Hell, there's places you just don't go even in broad daylight, especially if you're the wrong color.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Guns are, however, what makes belligerent people dangerous. Hence the focus on extensive background checks.
Safes are proven technology. Electronic gun locks aren't. Big difference.
No, that's 3 lives saved (yours, the intended victims, and the assailant you just shot). Killing the dude who was just trying to murder someone saves 2 lives, and saves the taxpayers from having to feed and house the murder for the rest of his life.
He probably doesn't take the gun-safe with him while he's concealed carrying.
What I'm guessing he means is: say there is a transponder wristband you have to have on you while shooting your smart-gun. What if the wristband comes loose? It could, and that is another point of failure.
Realistically the signature grip makes little sense really. Firearms are inherantly mechanical things and they are much simpler to work on than internal combustion engines. Getting past an immobilizer in a car's ECU can be a big challenge because you need the ECU for the fuel injection to work. I can't even think of a way to make "smart-gun" difficult to defeat. Most people who don't own firearms don't realize that an essential part of firearm operation includes field stripping (tearing the gun down) to clean it after a day at the range. after a strip it should not take long to modify the smart-gun to operate for anyone, and you'll also have a more reliable weapon than before. This means the only benefits of the techology are those cases where your gun would be used against you.
I'll place my trust in a complex machine, but when that machine needs a battery to operate is when I start to doubt it. It's like when you cross your fingers to start a car that hasn't been run in a while.
Guns are, however, what makes belligerent people dangerous. Hence the focus on extensive background checks.
No. Belligerent people are ALREADY dangerous. If they're going to be dangerous, they'll do it whether or not they have a gun, box cutter, knife, baseball bat, etc.
But the various mental defectives out there latch on to GUNS being the culprit and not belligerent assholes.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Part of being the "land of the free" is that we are trusted with the tools to keep ourselves free. In other words, we get to keep and carry tools of deadly force.
Liberty is like that.
you are pretending to be dumb. guns make belligerent people WAY MORE DANGEROUS than they would be if they had no guns. Also guns have the tendency to turn people from cowards into thugs.
A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested. Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up. Most of us take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously, and we do so because we understand that the world at large is not a friendly place. I am an honest and true believer that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Isn't this viewpoint as sad testament as to the state of the land of the free?
In a civilised country the populace shouldn't feel that they need to carry a weapon when walking the streets to be safe.
I believe that its better to not have the need to carry than to carry just in case.
From a straight humanist POV, yes it's a sad commentary.
OTOH, civilization only works when everyone follows the same rules. Hence the problem of criminals who, by definition, refuse the social contract of civilization.
And yes, not having the need to carry is INFINITELY better than carrying "just in case". HOWEVER, we live in the real world. Where a small subset of the population make the first an unrealistic option.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Wow, what a moron. The sad thing is I bet you thought you were being smart.
Sorry, the substitution doesn't really change it for me. I'm largely unworried about nuclear weapons now, compared to back when Reagan was scaring the shit out of the Soviets. The danger is entirely a function of who has their finger on the button.
I think it is jut the opposite.
When crime is not longer a possibility, or you are simply no longer allowed to defend yourself, then America will have lost every last thread of freedom, and decency.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I agree with that. Once the police don't feel the need to carry guns I'll feel safe not having one.
In a civilised country the populace shouldn't feel that they need to carry a weapon when walking the streets to be safe.
I always find it to be a peculiar blend of amusing and depressingly facepalm-worthy when people talk about "civilization" to mean "sticking our heads in the sand and pretending human nature is the opposite of what it is."
Attempting to shoot someone in the foot is stupid and dangerous. Extremities are very small and difficult to hit and shooting at possibly hard ground can cause a ricochet which would put others in danger. If you are shooting at a person, you shoot for center of mass. If the situation doesn't require lethal force, you shouldn't bring a weapon into the situation.
You mad
Depends on your perspective, as you are facing someone who does not care about the law or YOUR life.
I would rather keep on living at the expense of some scumbag assaulting me.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
You ask us to assume that a gun is the same as any other weapon.
Excuse me, perhaps you do not know what a gun is.
A gun is a device that is pretty much guaranteed to maim or kill--with a single use--a selected target, at a distance and almost instantly. It requires almost no real physical effort on the part of the user. Multiple uses can be accomplished pretty much as quickly as you can point, squeeze your finger, release, and point again.
This works really well for cancelling out advantages of size/weight/strength such as otherwise might be of concern to... I dunno... say, a skinny 16-year-old kid who's got a very big grudge against a high school teachers' lounge full of adults half again as big as he is.
Ah, but such things don't really happen except in our paranoid imaginations.
How anyone in his right mind can imply that such a device is qualitatively no different than, say, a baseball bat or a straight razor is simply beyond me.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
How does one provide a citation for the claim that statistics about something don't exist? Your "citation needed" is asking the OP to prove a negative. The OP just stated that there is not documentation of statistics on how often a gun is taken from a gun owner and used against them and you asked them to provide documentation that documentation does not exist.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Wasn't a gun range the scene of a killing of a veteran recently..
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/texas-sniper-killed
Yea, even the gun ranges are not safe. But then again, no where is really 100% safe.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
I reside in Georgia, and I have in fact carried my sidearm in plain view on MARTA and in the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson.
I'm somewhat dubious that you carried openly in an airport unless you were wearing a uniform at the time or this was a LONG time ago. However even if you did I have to ask, WHY? Nobody is going to attack you in an airport that you are going to be able to defend against and it's about as secure a location as you are likely to be in. Your sidearm at best is NO help at all and at worst could cause a huge problem. I don't have any problem at all with people transporting their unloaded firearms though airports but if you brought a loaded firearm into an airport in the current security environment we should have heard your arrest report on the evening news. I say this even if what you did was perfectly legal. Actions like that are what gives thugs like the TSA the excuse they need to behave badly.
A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested.
Really? India seemed to do pretty well with passive resistance against the UK. The Soviet Union collapsed and it wasn't because of personal firearms. Your little personal firearms don't stand a chance against the military or even the police really. The notion that your personal firearms are what preserves your liberty is a cute little sound bite that doesn't really stand up to serious scrutiny. I have no illusions whatsoever that my own guns (yes I have some) are what is keeping our government at bay. What keeps them at bay is our collective behavior and our willingness to speak up courageously in the face of power. The government can overwhelm some of us for a time but it can't handle all of us forever. As the saying goes, "vox populi, vox Dei".
Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up.
I think you are mistaken on what constitutes popular belief. I very much agree that most firearms owners are quite responsible and most Americans understand this. That's never really been the issue. The problem is how do you identify the people who are crazy? How do you identify the irresponsible ones? How do you identify the criminals? It only takes a small number of people with guns to cause a big problem.
In all likelihood you are not the one I'm really worried about. (Although if you actually brought a loaded gun to the airport maybe you are...) I'm a supporter of gun rights but the the gun lobby (aka the NRA) has really gotten out of hand. There ARE crazy people out there looking to shoot up schools and movie theaters and public gatherings. They exist but as a society we seem unwilling to have an adult conversation about what to do about them. I'm not for a moment proposing that we take away everyone's guns but I don't think it is unreasonable to register firearms, *require* safety and competency training, and to conduct background checks. I don't think it is unreasonable to require precautions when handing someone a weapon whose primary purpose is to kill.
I cannot conceive of a circumstance where I would be intimidated by any item, while in the absence of belligerent people. The presence of belligerent people on the other hand, may intimidate me without the presence of that item. It's clear to me that items are not what make the world dangerous.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
Depends on your perspective, as you are facing someone who does not care about the law or YOUR life. I would rather keep on living at the expense of some scumbag assaulting me.
This is the scumbag assaulting you with his 'life-saving device', yes?
I don't have a problem with legitimate self-defence, but as a pedant I can't accept that a lethal weapon is a 'life-saving device' either. A pacemaker is a life-saving device, as is an aircraft ejector seat or an air-bag in a car.
But claiming that a device designed to injure, maim or kill is a 'life-saving device' is pushing a point too far for me.
Smivs on the intertubes!
I cannot conceive of a circumstance where I would be intimidated by the abundant presence of guns, while in the absence of belligerent people.
The presence of guns generally signals belligerence, except in very narrowly defined circumstances - e.g. at a shooting range, in a police station or military training facility.
As a general rule - if you are in a country with generally free emigration laws and people make a habit of carrying guns, then something is terribly amiss and you need to get out of there. Two possibilities:
1. The people carrying guns have drastically overestimated the danger, in which case, you need to move away - people with bad judgement and no ability to accurately assess personal risk pose a danger to those around them.
2. The people have accurately assessed the danger and so you are in danger as well, from whatever threat they are facing. You have no good basis for staying in such a place, unless you are a war correspondent or in the military. The sensible thing to do is to leave.
The presence of belligerent people on the other hand, may intimidate me without the presence of guns.
Logic error. Presumably, sufficient numbers of unfriendly people will intimidate you regardless - what you fail to mention is that if you walk into a facility where there are typically many guns - a nest of taliban fighters, a cartel stronghold and the like, then you are in objective danger anyway.
It's clear to me that guns are not what make a place dangerous.
The presence of guns indicate danger and the presence of guns will cause any conflict to escalate. The real world isn't like hollywood depictions of the American West.
Even when there was only 4 people on the planet there was still murder.
I'm pretty sure you were joking but there never has been only 4 people on the planet. That's not a viable breeding population and evolution doesn't work that way.
We are fortunate that we are allowed to protect ourselves and not have to totally rely on the government to be safe.
There are many ways to protect yourself and carrying a firearm isn't the best among them. Frankly if it gets to the point where you truly need a firearm, you probably screwed up somewhere along the way. (Not saying you shouldn't have the right to carry, just that it should be a very last resort)
I believe he's asking you to assume that a gun is an inanimate object incapable of independent action and that it is the person wielding it that ultimately makes it dangerous or rather uses it in a dangerous manner.
Can it be used more effectively than the other items listed? Sure. Does that negate the point? It does not. You want to imbue it with special powers beyond those of the person holding it as it seems what you really want to do is blame the thing and ignore the user.
A baseball bat in the hands of a mad man is most certainly a deadly weapon and without adequate resistance can easily kill a goodly number of people in a relatively short period of time. Longer than a gun perhaps but that really depends on the targets and environment.
A sword would be even more effective and again absent adequate resistance would be extremely deadly even in the hands of the untrained mad man.
While you're mentioning the evil uses of the canceling properties it seems highly disingenuous not to mention the practically infinitely more common instances:
The 90 pound woman defending herself against a rapist.
The gay man defending against the mob intent on beating him senseless.
The old and the infirm defending against the young and strong
And so on.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Shooting someone doesn't always mean you kill. You could shoot them in the foot for example. If it stops that person knifing an innocent in the heart, then that's a life saved.
If you draw a gun on someone you had best be prepared to kill them. You might wound them as per your example but that should not be your expectation. If you draw a lethal weapon on someone, your expectation should be that you are going to kill them and you should be prepared to possibly go to jail for your actions. You are NOT going to shoot the gun out of the guys hand. The real world isn't like a 1950s western. There is nothing wrong with drawing a weapon in self defense but be realistic about the consequences and likely outcomes of doing so.
"I believe that its better to not have the need to carry than to carry just in case."
So do I, and once you create that place, please invite everyone, as it currently does not exist on this planet. And no, the first step is no to take protection away from honest people.
Sometimes people do because they're angry, stupid and/or crazy. The problem when everyone is waving a gun around, how do you know which one to shoot?
There .. fixed that for you. You can change it back to often when more than a fourth of gun owners have done so.
Who do you know who to shoot?? Probably the guy that is doing the shooting and killing would be my guess. During the Tucson shooting, several people in the crowd had guns, but didn't shoot because they couldn't identify the shooter (this is Arizona, many people carry guns. I've even carried a gun on my hip into Chase bank without any incident.) The shooter was disarmed later by unarmed people, and a guy who had a gun mistakenly thought the person who took the gun was the shooter. However, he didn't shoot because the person with the gun WASN'T SHOOTING AT ANYONE.
Just because a few people are ignorant (mostly people who don't shoot guns) in how guns work doesn't mean everyone is.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
For the manufacturer, it's also a political maneuver. They can say "we made smart guns!" and maybe get some politicians off their back for a little while.
And it's obvious why people don't actually buy them. Pay $$$ extra for finicky biometrics which are at least as likely to impede you as they are to assist you? I'll get right on that.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.