para.2
Member
^^^ I honestly see that as being so rare as to be a straw man type argument, if not urban legend. It just doesn't happen enough to worry about, unless you're the one guy in a decade it happens to.
Smart gun technology
- Thread starter kwguy
- Start date
- Status
I will admit, the more you add to a system, the less reliable it can become. But we already have that. Some guns are already more or less reliable than others. The most reliable gun, in theory, would be a single shot, breechloading type of gun (least amount of moving parts). But we have semi-autos now that we consider reliable, when in the past, people questioned their reliability in comparison to revolvers. Remember all the doubts about polymer?
As far as stuff like EMP and all, yeah yeah guys, I get it
. But when I said that modern optics are durable and reliable in nasty conditions, I was thinking more along the lines of harsh military / field use, not a nuke blast. Everything has limits, even iron sights can, and have been taken out at the worst time by getting crudded up by dirt, or just plain getting shot off by an enemy round. That usually doesn't happen at the best time.I would certainly agree with that, I think that would be a serious hassle, but I'm really talking about new designs. And again, I'm not proposing mandatory replacement, or anything of the sort. Just looking at it from the tech geek side of the house.
Over the past few hundred years, firearms technology and development has advanced a lot. I would hope it's going to keep doing so. Right now, the military is evaluating a lightweight machine gun that uses a polymer casing that is about 40% lighter, and looks like it will work pretty well. I'm wondering if this technological march may continue on in the way that I'm asking about with some success as well. If it works reliably, it certainly has advantages.
I'd love to have a firearm that would only work for me, or those I authorize, with total reliability. I mean, wouldn't that actually be cool?
Mmm, I can't find the specific source, but I'm pretty sure I remember it being a higher number than that. Not in the hundreds per year or anything like that, but more than a couple, maybe around a dozen...depending on the year.
If it was reliable, that would be a good reason for that type of tech.
I guarantee hacking a gun to circumvent electronic protections will be a trivial excersize. It will not affect criminal guns. Good weapon control and storage practices by owners are the correct answer to other problems of unintended access. It is rare for a defender's gun to be taken from them and used by an assailant. All smart gun tech does is create complication and add barriers for law abiding persons. It can't make any impact to those who would just cut out and rewire the electronics.
JustinJ
Member
A straw man argument of what? The OP is not calling for mandated electronic controls. And relatively rare events seem to drive a lot of change in LE policy.
gc70
Member
kwguy said:
Are you aware of law enforcement agencies adopting such technology to prevent officers being shot with their own guns? Any?
While this pie in the sky is a nice ideal, it is just not pratical. I keep having to tell my wife to dry her hands before picking up her cell phone. So what happens if you are caught in the rain, or drop it in a puddle. My understanding is that shock from recoil also damages the electronics.
I am not going to wait for a smart gun because:
A. Not pratical
B. Excesively expensive
C. Unreliable
D. Easly defeatable
E. Not going to happen.
Jim
I am not going to wait for a smart gun because:
A. Not pratical
B. Excesively expensive
C. Unreliable
D. Easly defeatable
E. Not going to happen.
Jim
^^ Domina post 31. Well, that's assuming a certain level / type of technology, I agree. But what if the gun were designed in such a way that it would be rendered inoperable if it were 'gutted' so to speak (just tossing it out there).
Also, any system can certainly be defeated, and criminals will always find ways around systems. Even new cars with the complex, coded keyless proximity entry systems can be defeated, but it's more difficult than smashing a window and pulling up on a door lock. Newer technology can, given that is works as intended, stop the 'casual misuser'. It won't stop everything, and just like the bullet vs. armor battle, there is always a round that can defeat some type of new armor. There is always some crook that will figure out how to defeat some defense system.
But we have 'safe action', striker fired pistols that we totally rely upon now, but 100 years ago, you were nuts if you wanted to carry one of those with a round in the chamber.
Also, any system can certainly be defeated, and criminals will always find ways around systems. Even new cars with the complex, coded keyless proximity entry systems can be defeated, but it's more difficult than smashing a window and pulling up on a door lock. Newer technology can, given that is works as intended, stop the 'casual misuser'. It won't stop everything, and just like the bullet vs. armor battle, there is always a round that can defeat some type of new armor. There is always some crook that will figure out how to defeat some defense system.
But we have 'safe action', striker fired pistols that we totally rely upon now, but 100 years ago, you were nuts if you wanted to carry one of those with a round in the chamber.
No, didn't say that I was aware of that. I did read that many entities are interested in such tech, but that's nothing new.
Yes, it is 'pie in the sky'. This thread started out that way. I was simply asking if anyone thought it would EVER be possible, and if so, would it help solve at least a few problems. Of course it's not practical now, but that doesn't mean it may not ever be, does it?
Everything we have, technologically speaking, was 'pie in the sky' at one point, even the firearms we have now. At one point, a rifle like an AR or whatever was considered 'pie in the sky'. Surely, we can't be at the evolutionary peak?
As far as cost goes, sure, a non smart gun would be cheaper, just like a keltec is cheaper than some other brands. Costs always go down, but I'm leaving cost out of this. Just brainstorming.
A gun is a compact device that is highly mechanical in operation. Whatever circuitry is included, it's primary output will be to enable/disable the mechanical. All one needs to do circircumvent whateve logic has been wired in so enable is always "True". Consider Bunny Huang's work hacking the original xbox. Significant thought and paranoia was put into the design of the xbox for security, but it was defeated by soldering on a new ROM to overwrite/replace the original allowing full control. A hardware intense system like a pistol should be very easy to override with very basic skillls.
An old car I bought from the 70s with a locking system preventing it from being started came pre-hacked by the original owner to short that system out. The same principle will be very applicable to guns, whether it's wiring around or simply swapping electronics.
I'm not saying that such a system would be un-defeatable. Of course anything can be hacked or bypassed with effort. How much effort depends upon the design. It would certainly stop a casual effort at malfeasance. When you talk about the effort required to hack a gun, well, there is no system that can't be broached. Just like there is not a car that can't be taken. But it's not as easy as it could be if nothing were in place.
Imagine some type of lojack system in conjunction with the 'smart' technology, and maybe those things together can work to defeat the purpose of the theft by allowing recovery even before the hack is performed.
Or the circuitry is actually imbedded into the metal of the frame? And to get at it, you actually need to cut into the frame (or slide) itself? Just throwing it out there...
Maybe a ring? Do NOT put up a Green Lantern picture!
Consider how nearly every electronic doodad gets hacked / unlocked across the spectrum. I'm just saying don't be suprised when "smart" guns end up presenting no meaningful barrier to abuse. If someone wants a gun that only works in their hand and are willing to pay for the technology and face the reliability risks, more power to them. If anyone want's to argue it will have any impact on "illegal" guns, or is part of some mandate, I think a reality check is in order.
Right, it doesn't actually exist yet, so all of those other disadvantages are projections of the limitations of the current tech, as it currently does exist, onto the possible future tech. I asked if it's possible to get there at some point in the future.
That's like saying an automobile from the 21 century won't work because we are limited to technology from the 1920's. Or it's like saying an IPAD will never work because cassette tape storage technology is too primitive. Or like saying airplanes can't go past mach 1 because we are limited to propellors. You get the point.
Implemented implies 'mandatory'. That's not what I said at all. That's not even part of the discussion.
I posted on this subject before:
Its from the NYTimes in the Stupidest Gun Story sweepstakes, which has some pretty fierce competition. It’s titled “Smart Guns Can’t Kill in the Wrong Hands.”
Among other implied claims, it asks, “Why can we open our front doors with our iPhones and have cars that drive themselves, but we can’t make a gun that doesn’t fire unless its registered owner is using it?” Set aside the fact that you have to have some pretty sophisticated technology beyond a smartphone to open your front door (and you would definitely want a key backup). And set aside the fact that the number of cars currently driving themselves hovers around zero.
Let us contemplate the simple, observable fact that even a technology as long-established as the bar-code reader – there are millions upon millions of them out there – is still so iffy that anybody in line at a supermarket expects that the clerk will have to pause while ringing up orders once or twice to key in a product code because the reader just won’t scan the little black lines. But never mind! There’s this new technology which could be on a few hundred guns, that will work for sure. You bet your life on it. When some thugs come battering down your door, just wrap your fingers around the gun and it will work. If it doesn’t, try jiggling it. Or press the reboot button, enter your password, and wait while it cycles around.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...-like-newtown/
__________________
Its from the NYTimes in the Stupidest Gun Story sweepstakes, which has some pretty fierce competition. It’s titled “Smart Guns Can’t Kill in the Wrong Hands.”
Among other implied claims, it asks, “Why can we open our front doors with our iPhones and have cars that drive themselves, but we can’t make a gun that doesn’t fire unless its registered owner is using it?” Set aside the fact that you have to have some pretty sophisticated technology beyond a smartphone to open your front door (and you would definitely want a key backup). And set aside the fact that the number of cars currently driving themselves hovers around zero.
Let us contemplate the simple, observable fact that even a technology as long-established as the bar-code reader – there are millions upon millions of them out there – is still so iffy that anybody in line at a supermarket expects that the clerk will have to pause while ringing up orders once or twice to key in a product code because the reader just won’t scan the little black lines. But never mind! There’s this new technology which could be on a few hundred guns, that will work for sure. You bet your life on it. When some thugs come battering down your door, just wrap your fingers around the gun and it will work. If it doesn’t, try jiggling it. Or press the reboot button, enter your password, and wait while it cycles around.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...-like-newtown/
__________________
I'd much rather see a ban on smart gun technology. And I'm also a self professed nerd.
Maybe if I had a remote controlled airgun for controlling the local squirrel population then it'd be handy, but for a gun that has even a remote possibility of being used defensively? No.
And if I'm concerned about someone using my gun against me I'll just carry my HK P7M8 and hope for the best. An odd but reliable manual of arms that I'm familiar with is all I need...
(The squirrel/remote controlled airgun is just a random example of something non-critical. I'm not advocating a remote operated airgun/airsoft/whatever. Nor do I have a problem with squirrels. )
Maybe if I had a remote controlled airgun for controlling the local squirrel population then it'd be handy, but for a gun that has even a remote possibility of being used defensively? No.
And if I'm concerned about someone using my gun against me I'll just carry my HK P7M8 and hope for the best. An odd but reliable manual of arms that I'm familiar with is all I need...
(The squirrel/remote controlled airgun is just a random example of something non-critical. I'm not advocating a remote operated airgun/airsoft/whatever. Nor do I have a problem with squirrels. )
I think one of the things people are doing is projecting the limitations of the current tech, as it currently does exist, onto the possible future tech. I asked if it's possible to get there at some point in the future.
That's like saying an automobile from the 21 century won't work because we are limited to technology from the 1920's. Or it's like saying an IPAD will never work because cassette tape storage technology is too primitive. Or like saying airplanes can't go past mach 1 because we are limited to propellors.
Even today, we have technology that, while unreliable in the past, is stone cold reliable now. Why can't that continue into the future for firearms? Even the ignition systems of firearms has evolved from unreliable matchlock or flintlock (which people still used) to what we have today, which although still not 100% reliable, is much better than those earlier pieces of tech.
Is there just no more room for improvements in safety and performance in firearms?
That's like saying an automobile from the 21 century won't work because we are limited to technology from the 1920's. Or it's like saying an IPAD will never work because cassette tape storage technology is too primitive. Or like saying airplanes can't go past mach 1 because we are limited to propellors.
Even today, we have technology that, while unreliable in the past, is stone cold reliable now. Why can't that continue into the future for firearms? Even the ignition systems of firearms has evolved from unreliable matchlock or flintlock (which people still used) to what we have today, which although still not 100% reliable, is much better than those earlier pieces of tech.
Is there just no more room for improvements in safety and performance in firearms?
One weapon I actually had in mind. It's a good example of what I'm talking about. But even when it was new, people said that it's 'easily defeated' because 'all one has to do is carry a spare striker assembly'. But that doesn't change the fact that is has a feature (or two) that makes it a little more difficult to use in an inappropriate manner.
Last edited:
- Status
