Smart Guns

[Gerhardt]

It's been a couple of years since I left the shooting industry. For a period of time my job was to keep abreast of changes in retail trends and legal sectors. I caught the 60 Minutes segment last night regarding smart guns. I knew the shop owner caught some grief, but I had no idea it was that bad.

Aside from the unintended consequences of selling them, I've never seen the downside for offering them for sale. There is a large market for them, and it could be huge if legislators hadn't started meddling.

It's not something that I would want, but I can see where a lot of people would.

 

[JCranford]

Are you talking smart guns as in some kind of biometric or encoded ring or something that renders the gun inoperable if you don't have it on?

That particular idea does not seem to be catching much of a toehold in the gun industry as I see it.

 

[Bob Noel]

I didn't see the show last night, but I'm aware of the backlash, and yeah, that backlash wrt smart guns isn't the best PR move on the part of gun owners etc. (how's that for an understatement?)

I would definitely believe that smarts guns will have their ideal uses. I also believe that smart gun technology isn't quite ready for prime time and certainly not appropriate for certain applications (e.g., competitive/target shooting)

It's a balance between the risk of the gun being used by the wrong person and the risk of the gun not shooting when you need it.

 

[EdFred]

Sounds like one more thing to go wrong when you REALLY need it.

 

[Bob Noel]

Sounds like one more thing to go wrong when you REALLY need it.

true - otoh, places like massachusetts ruin a perfectly fine firearm with an absolutely unusable 11+ lb trigger pull (with an inordinate trigger travel) on a full size 9mm.

 

[Henning]

Are you talking smart guns as in some kind of biometric or encoded ring or something that renders the gun inoperable if you don't have it on?

That particular idea does not seem to be catching much of a toehold in the gun industry as I see it.

I recall what seems over a decade ago when the whole 'smart gun' initiative began, there was a press release from I think Glock with a fingerprint biometric safety. I haven't heard or seen a thing about it since. The only thing I have seen on the market is padlock style trigger locks. Using a late model iPad with FP recognition, I can understand why the technology has not been popularly adopted to firearms yet though.

 

[bflynn]

Smart Guns aren't really needed. We don't have a gun problem, we have a violence problem.

Unfortunately there's no SZ to put this thread into, so it probably should be locked and then removed

 

[Henning]

Smart Guns aren't really needed. We don't have a gun problem, we have a violence problem.

Unfortunately there's no SZ to put this thread into, so it probably should be locked and then removed

Truth, we are an angry and unjust society, and that leads to violence. We see to place the blame everywhere except on us, and it is our fault for the choices we make. Rule of law is used to serve the injustice, so people lash out using the only option they have present, violence. This is the society we built and stand on, protecting with the lives of children.

 

[Everskyward]

It's been a couple of years since I left the shooting industry. For a period of time my job was to keep abreast of changes in retail trends and legal sectors. I caught the 60 Minutes segment last night regarding smart guns. I knew the shop owner caught some grief, but I had no idea it was that bad.

Aside from the unintended consequences of selling them, I've never seen the downside for offering them for sale. There is a large market for them, and it could be huge if legislators hadn't started meddling.

It's not something that I would want, but I can see where a lot of people would.

I saw the show last night and the "unintended consequences" of existing legislation seemed pretty big.

I also think it's a tradeoff between the gun being used by the wrong person and the worry that it might not work when you needed it to work. But I think there is at least some market, which might get bigger as technology and the trust in it increases.

 

[Henning]

I saw the show last night and the "unintended consequences" of existing legislation seemed pretty big.

I also think it's a tradeoff between the gun being used by the wrong person and the worry that it might not work when you needed it to work. But I think there is at least some market, which might get bigger as technology and the trust in it increases.

The question is is 'some market' large enough to be profitable, especially in light of the liability consequences of a failure of function leading to a fatality, not to mention the damage the stock value and future production that kind of PR would cause. It has the potential to sink a mid size market player, and seriously damage even a big name. From a business standpoint, I have trouble justifying the risk.

3D printers will likely render the subject moot anyway.

 

[Everskyward]

The question is is 'some market' large enough to be profitable, especially in light of the liability consequences of a failure of function leading to a fatality, not to mention the damage the stock value and future production that kind of PR would cause. It has the potential to sink a mid size market player, and seriously damage even a big name. From a business standpoint, I have trouble justifying the risk.

3D printers will likely render the subject moot anyway.

I would argue that accidents by someone other than the owner, and bad guys getting possession of it through burglary, etc., happen much more often than a successful self-defense. So even if you take the odds of a malfunction into account, the net good looks like it outweighs the net bad. At least that is my opinion.

 

[Henning]

I would argue that accidents by someone other than the owner, and bad guys getting possession of it through burglary, etc., happen much more often than a successful self-defense. So even if you take the odds of a malfunction into account, the net good looks like it outweighs the net bad. At least that is my opinion.

Ask yourself this question and see if it changes your thoughts. "Which event will the gun manufacturer be held liable and sued for, unintended use, or or fatal malfunction causing the design to fail at its advertised purpose?" You can also phrase it as, "Which is more likely to put my stock holders at risk?" That is the most important question in American business decision making, because that was s the mandate in their charter, it's part of the corporate credo same as the Hypocratic Oath for doctors. Ergo, that is the question our legal system and government revolve around, protecting the markets. The majority of Americans think that is what they want so the prosperity will rub off on them, oblivious to the fact that they are the source, not the benefactor of, American prosperity.

I love your hippie soul Mari and share it, but if you try to understand our society and what is happening using the goals of a hippie, you can find only consternation. If all a person is looking for is to righteously complain, that's fine. But if you really want to understand and try to develop a solution of consequence, you have to understand the mandates and motivation of the leadership and resource stewards of society. If you want to understand society and what is and will happen(ing) you have to put yourself in Dick Cheney's shoes, and Rothschild's shoes, and Queen Beatrix's shoes, or any major corporate CEO's shoes and think first, "How can I profit off this?" Can't? "How can I protect myself from losses? Can I place a hedge on an enemy? Can I form a resource alliance with a common enemy of my enemy that I can overpower later?"

This is the pinnacle level of our society and the one everyone has aspirations for and why we play the lottery against all odds. It's the top of the ladder, and if you are on the ladder to success in corporate America, that is the thinking you emulate, because that's the "team spirit". I was told once I wasn't a team player, wasn't true, I just didn't like where the team was heading.

 

[Norman]

Truth, we are an angry and unjust society, and that leads to violence. We see to place the blame everywhere except on us, and it is our fault for the choices we make. Rule of law is used to serve the injustice, so people lash out using the only option they have present, violence. This is the society we built and stand on, protecting with the lives of children.

Kool Aid, Kool Aid, Get your KoolAid. 5 cents a glass.

 

[Everskyward]

Ask yourself this question and see if it changes your thoughts. "Which event will the gun manufacturer be held liable and sued for, unintended use, or or fatal malfunction causing the design to fail at its advertised purpose?" You can also phrase it as, "Which is more likely to put my stock holders at risk?"

I think they have already made that decision when they decided to manufacture guns, which carry a lot of risk from mishandling even before you add the "smart gun" part. In fact the "smart gun" part makes guns less risky to the general public even though it may slightly increase the risk to the owner.

 

[Henning]

I think they have already made that decision when they decided to manufacture guns, which carry a lot of risk from mishandling even before you add the "smart gun" part. In fact the "smart gun" part makes guns less risky to the general public even though it may slightly increase the risk to the owner.

Mari, what part of this are you not getting? The risk to the public is irrelevant, the risk of what the bullet does is not in the manufacturer's liability. What the bullet fails to do due to the design not functioning to advertised use, that is the manufacturer's liability. "Gun operates and a person dies, gun manufacturer not liable. Gun fails to operate and person dies, the gun manufacturer is liable." Now what CEO is going to release technology that is life dependent if it creates this kind of exposure, and can he get it insured at an economically viable rate?"

You keep coming back to addressing issues from a public interest perspective while our country has a corporate interest mandate. In the hierarchy of mandated interests to protect in America, "Stock Holder" is our highest and most dearly guarded since this is where all the imagined wealth and value of our economy and society lies. "Public interest" is only served to the limits of diminishing returns of profitability, beyond that it serves no cause and steers no interest of consequence.

If you don't like that and want to see a change, help me provide an option.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/urban-agriculture-and-energy--2#/

 

[Bob Noel]

I would argue that accidents by someone other than the owner, and bad guys getting possession of it through burglary, etc., happen much more often than a successful self-defense. So even if you take the odds of a malfunction into account, the net good looks like it outweighs the net bad. At least that is my opinion.

I doubt your opinion is correct.

 

[Henning]

I doubt your opinion is correct.

More to the point, her opinion is irrelevant because it is seeking a different mandate than the manufacturer. It may very well be correct, it's just not the primary concern. Most things in our society do not serve society as well as they could because corporate stockholders would lose out through loss of profitability and market value.

 

[Norman]

Ask yourself this question and see if it changes your thoughts. "Which event will the gun manufacturer be held liable and sued for, unintended use, or or fatal malfunction causing the design to fail at its advertised purpose?"

Can't we ask the same about cars, boats, knives and planes? For that matter, anything man made that can harm someone in any way?

 

[ChemGuy]

When the police force and military are using it on a large scale then its ready for regular people. Those 2 have more day-today risk of being shot by their own weapon and should be the proving ground for the technology.

 

[Henning]

Can't we ask the same about cars, boats, knives and planes? For that matter, anything man made that can harm someone in any way?

Exactly! Look at the precedents. Drunk in car runs over bus stop of people, stockholder unaffected. Design/product failure causes cars to catch on fire or brakes to fail, stockholders lose wealth. Guy has a folding knife, stabs someone, stock holder unaffected. Guy has folding knife, the lock fails and he amputates two fingers, stock holders at risk, but it is manageable through insurance and quality control practices.

All industry is the same.

 

[ejensen]

They should be an option for the market to sort out. But anything that even smells like the camels nose under tent is fought tooth and nail.

 

[Henning]

They should be an option for the market to sort out. But anything that even smells like the camels nose under tent is fought tooth and nail.

When the technology is ripe, it will become one. Right now the technology is unreliable enough to create a manufacturer liability situation that is unacceptable, and a failure result that is unacceptable to their customers.

 

[Everskyward]

Actually I think the main stumbling block is that it will probably need to be a new manufacturer since current manufacturers don't want to face a boycott of their existing products.

 

[wsuffa]

Ask this question: will the law enforcement officers (FBI, local, state police & sheriff) carry such weapons themselves? If not, why not? Those answers will be telling.

 

[ejensen]

When the technology is ripe, it will become one. Right now the technology is unreliable enough to create a manufacturer liability situation that is unacceptable, and a failure result that is unacceptable to their customers.

I see it different. They tried once and gun rights advocates and the NRA shut it down. Threat of Boycotts, lawsuits and such. I agree there is some market issue.

 

[Henning]

Actually I think the main stumbling block is that it will probably need to be a new manufacturer since current manufacturers don't want to face a boycott of their existing products.

Oh no, the current manufacturers would love nothing more than be able to offer a replacement on a "trade + cash" basis to meet any mandates, although most likely all existing firearms will be 'grandfathered'. They have a large overseas market they can resell the trades at a profit.

 

[Everskyward]

Oh no, the current manufacturers would love nothing more than be able to offer a replacement on a "trade + cash" basis to meet any mandates, although most likely all existing firearms will be 'grandfathered'. They have a large overseas market they can resell the trades at a profit.

You are wrong there. No current manufacturer wants to touch this for fear of boycott. It has happened before.

 

[Henning]

I see it different. They tried once and gun rights advocates and the NRA shut it down. Threat of Boycotts, lawsuits and such. I agree there is some market issue.

It's all irrelevant political blustering and posturing. It is part of the distraction we are provided to entertain and alarm us. The reality is that the technology is not yet reliable enough to be suitable for the application. When it is, Incan assure 'finger print safety' will be an available market option because there is certainly market demand for it regardless what the NRA says. The NRA does not represent the thinking of the entire gun owning population, certainly not mine. Many people look forward to being able to purchase a reliable weapon with a biometric safety, I am one as I understand and accept the reality that there is a good chance that I could lose control of my own gun and become its victim. Therefore a biometric safety opens up some response options to me that can prevent an accident.

 

[JCranford]

Ask this question: will the law enforcement officers (FBI, local, state police & sheriff) carry such weapons themselves? If not, why not? Those answers will be telling.

I wouldn't. The pistol I trust my life to is going to be simple and reliable. The more 'technology' you add to it the less potential for reliability you get.

 

[Henning]

You are wrong there. No current manufacturer wants to touch this for fear of boycott. It has happened before.

Because the technology does not function sufficiently. No one wants to sell a firearm that may or may not fire depending on the sweat on someone's finger. If they had a product that worked, that had a government mandate, the manufacturer's would jump for joy. The gun manufacturers didn't want to pay to develop that technology, and I think it would be the stupidest market to develop the technology in. Let the technology development costs be borne by industries that can develop it without risking life. It's happening, don't worry, it's just not there yet. I have an iPad and iPhone with the print reading button, it has a distinct rate of recognition failure in anything but dry, clean, conditions, and even then sometimes takes a try or two.

This will become an option when the technology is ready because there is a market demand for it, there are enough people who would prefer to have a better option than the cumbersome trigger guard or safe storage options the execute now to keep their kids out of trouble. Right now is not that time. NRA screaming 'boycott' is nothing more than the gun industry lobby making sure the gun industry doesn't have to bear the costs and risks of bringing the product to viability. The gun industry owns the NRA, not the other way around.

 

[Everskyward]

Trust in technology might come quicker than you think. After all, they are making driverless cars. Think how much more risky that seems than the thought that your gun might not fire on the occasion you need it, which for many people is never. Besides, not all guns are purchased for self-defense.

 

[Norman]

Ask this question: will the law enforcement officers (FBI, local, state police & sheriff) carry such weapons themselves? If not, why not? Those answers will be telling.

Highly unlikely. When your life depends on something to work every time without fail are they going to depend on something unproven?

 

[Norman]

Trust in technology might come quicker than you think. After all, they are making driverless cars. Think how much more risky that seems than the thought that your gun might not fire on the occasion you need it, which for many people is never. Besides, not all guns are purchased for self-defense.

And are those driverless cars guaranteed to stop at stop lights? Trust but verify.

 

[96gs917]

I wouldn't. The pistol I trust my life to is going to be simple and reliable. The more 'technology' you add to it the less potential for reliability you get.

I agree with this. I used to have a gun safe that would only recognize my hand print. (forget the Mfr) The thing was horrible, would only open after 5 or 6 tries. If I needed my gun in the middle of the night, I was screwed.

Keep it simple, the technology is not there yet.

 

[Henning]

Trust in technology might come quicker than you think. After all, they are making driverless cars. Think how much more risky that seems than the thought that your gun might not fire on the occasion you need it, which for many people is never. Besides, not all guns are purchased for self-defense.

I do not think the technology is that far away, that's why I say wait a bit. However, before people accept it on their sidearm, it has to be reliable on their phone first, and we're not quite there yet.

There is another method that I can think of, and that is an RFID interlock in a ring or embedded in the hand; but the public is pretty wary of RFID at this point because of the increasing tracking and control capabilities that are being developed. Even with a ring, you can be discretely identified as carrying a gun, by satellite even.

 

[Everskyward]

I do not think the technology is that far away, that's why I say wait a bit. However, before people accept it on their sidearm, it has to be reliable on their phone first, and we're not quite there yet.

There is another method that I can think of, and that is an RFID interlock in a ring or embedded in the hand; but the public is pretty wary of RFID at this point because of the increasing tracking and control capabilities that are being developed. Even with a ring, you can be discretely identified as carrying a gun, by satellite even.

They showed the ring on the program the OP and I both saw. I agree that the fingerprint technology is probably not quite there yet but I agree that it will advance.

 

[Everskyward]

And are those driverless cars guaranteed to stop at stop lights? Trust but verify.

I would think the stopping at stop lights would be one of the simpler tasks it needs to accomplish.

Think about when you are in an airliner that is shooting a CatIII approach. You're pretty dependent upon the technology.

 

[denverpilot]

Can't we ask the same about cars, boats, knives and planes? For that matter, anything man made that can harm someone in any way?

How long until every motor vehicle has a breathalyzer built in? Because we shouldn't just do that for those who've shown to be problem children, the nanny state needs proof they did everything in their power to protect law abiding citizens from each other, right?

When the technology is ripe, it will become one. Right now the technology is unreliable enough to create a manufacturer liability situation that is unacceptable, and a failure result that is unacceptable to their customers.

Correct. I spent a pretty penny on a small biometric safe that was reviewed by not only "the security industry" (who has a desire to sell safes) but also the experts who attend DefCon and make it part of their living to defeat such devices so they know how to properly defend them.

(It's not a "gun" product, it's a security safe... There's a whole rant I could go into over the quality of "gun safes", but that's a different topic. Let's just say most of the cheap ones are easily defeated via a paperclip.)

This thing was the "fastest" and "most accurate" biometric fingerprint device in its size class a few years ago. It takes three to four seconds to read a finger, and that ain't gonna cut it in a self-defense scenario with a weapon.

It also has about a one in ten fail to read rate from my experience with it. There's a newer model that upped the read speed to 2.5 seconds plus whatever time is needed to actuate the unlock mechanism and also the time to press the start button. It is not automatic and "always on.

I suspect the current draw of such a device with this level of accuracy and speed is too high to leave it active all the time. Applied to a firearm, it would need a "read me now" button or grip safety type of device to activate it.

So biometrics isn't there yet. Not even close. Not at any reasonable price tag, and this thing I have wasn't exactly low cost.

It fails close to 100% of the time if there's any moisture on my fingers.

The rings and other RFID devices are mostly totally hacked at this point. All of the first and second generation low bit-count versions used for automotive key fobs are useless $100 hunks of garbage that make your car key fat. Third generation are better but still defeatable and the car thieves are always one step away, sometimes ahead, sometimes behind, of the "state of the art" in those devices.

The ones touted for firearms use are the identical chipsets and only a few manufacturers make them in mass quantity. Microchip and Atmel are the bulk variety.

Specialized ones are available, but they aren't even close to cost effective.

None of the options is worthy of consideration at this point on a firearm. Most of the prototypes are tiny companies hoping to ride the populist wave to some venture capital.

No big VC money flowing into the market. They'll give them a little money and see if they actually have engineers making something truly different. So far, nada.

 

[Henning]

They showed the ring on the program the OP and I both saw. I agree that the fingerprint technology is probably not quite there yet but I agree that it will advance.

When they can do it with biometrics, I'm a buyer. With RFID I'm not. Now there is a less perfect ring solution, but is ineffective against foresight and intent. You could use a generic magnetic ring rather than RFID to activate a simple reed switch interlock. This would go a long way on the accidental and kid stuff problems for low cost in both production and reliability considerations being such a simple system, but again, a generic magnet provides no safety against intent.

 

[cowman]

More technology and more choice being out there is a good thing, I'm pretty sure the only reason for opposition to this is fear that it will somehow become mandatory or the government will impose some sort of penalty on gun owners who don't have it.

Either way the technology exists and will be developed by someone. Gun manufacturers who don't get into this might find themselves missing a huge market down the road.