
How an Idea to Develop a Safer, Smart Gun Backfired - dpflan
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473416699/how-an-idea-to-develop-a-safer-smart-gun-backfired
======
ctdonath
_he explained that it was only supposed to fire if the shooter was wearing a
special wristband with a little radio frequency transmitter inside. The CEO
put on the wristband and went to pull the trigger. ... And it didn 't shoot.
Just silence._

Those focused on ensuring guns aren't fired fail to grasp the paramount
importance to buyers that guns fire with absolute reliability when they're
supposed to. The understanding is that it will be used in a situation where
failing to shoot will allow a bad person to destroy someone good, and failing
to fire when needed is literally a terminal flaw. Alas, those pushing for
"smart guns" are perceived as, if not actually, trying to disarm upstanding
citizens. This is not a successful business plan.

~~~
detaro
This reminds me of the discussion of nuclear safety in the book _Command and
Control_ , where the tension of securing trigger devices is quoted as
"always/never": a weapon should always work properly if intentionally
deployed, but never by accident or by misuse. Same issue, different scale.

(The book is a great read and I recommend it, even if it makes you wonder how
we got to 2016 as well off as we did. "Always" was always more important than
"never")

EDIT: article about the book, + quote: _" ﻿ In fact, it is easy to design
weapons so that they can never fire by accident or unauthorized use. It is
equally easy to design them so that they will always fire when the order is
given. But it is extraordinarily difficult to meet both criteria at once—what
is known as the “always/never” problem."_

from [http://www.thenation.com/article/eric-schlosser-and-
illusion...](http://www.thenation.com/article/eric-schlosser-and-illusion-
nuclear-weapons-safety/)

~~~
robert_tweed
> "Always" was always more important than "never"

That's exactly the opposite of what you want from a nuclear trigger system. I
mean if you actually need to launch, it's already past the point where it's
going to do anything helpful. What you need is something that everyone in the
world unquestioningly _believes_ will always work, even if that isn't entirely
true.

OTOH, if it ever goes off by mistake, that not good. Not good at all.

~~~
detaro
That mindset seems to be relatively young in military circles (late 80s or so,
if I remember the timeline in the book correctly)

------
zyxley
Part of the reason people get so paranoid about the government pulling sudden
mandates on guns in regards to one thing or another in the news is that, well,
it's not paranoia. Federal, state, and city legislatures have pulled a lot of
stupid moves in regards to gun regulation, like regulating aesthetic features
instead of capability, creating gun owner lists that absolutely-definitely-
won't-get-used-for-anything-nefarious (and then using them to confiscate guns
without compensation and when the law changes), etc.

I support gun control in general, but even on a purely financial level (e.g.
"I paid $X for these guns and the government might suddenly destroy their
value) there are plenty of reasons for people to argue against it.

~~~
hga
And very specifically, if "smart" handgun technology is developed, sale of all
others will become illegal in New Jersey:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Childproof_Handgun_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Childproof_Handgun_Law)
Of course " _a seven-member commission [would] determine whether personalized
handguns qualify for use by State and local law enforcement officers_ ", all
these sorts of laws have such exceptions.

And such as been proposed in California and Maryland. It's not "paranoia" when
they are explicitly "out to get you".

~~~
aftbit
Something similar has already happened with "microstamping", a neigh-mythical
technology that would imprint the gun's serial number on all ejected casings.
California has a roster of "safe" handguns which are all that may be sold by
dealers in the state. However, they haven't allowed any manufacturer to add a
new semiautomatic handgun without microstamping technology, which practically
means that there are no new pistols being added to the list. Once the old ones
fall off the list, that'll be it - it will be impossible to buy a
semiautomatic handgun from a dealer in California.

------
danielvf
This article notes that Colt had fallen on "Hard Times". This is an
understatement.

In the mid eighties, Colt was doing great, making hundreds of thousands of
rifle for the US military. Then a five year labor strike brought the end of
all military contracts as Colt replacement workers were unable to make
properly functioning guns.

Colt decided to focus on the civilian market, and brought out a new high tech
handgun that was so unreliable that it was eventually recalled.

Then Colt's CEO said that he was in favor of a all gun purchasers having to
register federally and purchase a federal permit and training. This did not go
over well. (*understatement)

His replacement, seeing that the military would not buy Colt guns and that
civilians would not buy Colt guns, decided to focus on police sales.

Unfortunately making a new smart gun required ability in the two things that
Colt was not good at - making reliable guns and designing new guns.

It was not just the disastrous demo that killed the smart gun - the prototype
smart guns were not even able to be fired without permanent destroying the
mechanism. Also, there was a delay from between when the gun was grabbed by
the officer and when it could be fired. And of course, the fact that it didn't
always unlock to fire even in the best possible circumstances.

Interestingly enough, police handguns have moved even farther away from the
smart pistol idea. Today it's a rare department now days that does not use
Glocks or M&Ps, both of which are far simpler than the average police handgun
of the nineties.

~~~
hga
There's a bit more to it than that; whatever the reasons (I forget), Colt lost
the M16 contract to FNH in 1988 (but continued to make them for civilians, and
in many years/all recent years/decades? at a high level of quality), and but
essentially got it back in 1994 when the Army switched to the M4 carbine (the
Marines stuck with their long barrel and therefore more effective M16s). Now
they've lost M4 manufacturing exclusivity and for a while all contracts, and
only recently won one of the new M4 full auto only, no 3 round burst variation
contracts, presumably because they're desperate enough to bid really, really
low.

On top of all the other problems, the company is now run by financial vultures
who are bleeding it dry.

And, yeah, their flirtation with gun control did not go over well, I would
never buy one from them after that, although their relative lack of quality in
the category I might have otherwise (M1911s, which they were the original
manufacturers of back in 1911) is the biggest reason.

------
gnu8
A truly safe gun must do two things: 1) always fire when the trigger is
pulled, and 2) never fire when the trigger is not pulled. So called Smart Guns
are deficient on point 1 and probably always will be. How often does an iPhone
decline to unlock with a fingerprint and require a passcode? That would never
be acceptable in a life or death situation that requires a gun.

~~~
robert_tweed
Without wishing to comment on what is or isn't feasible now or in the future,
I'd approach the technical requirements similarly to self-driving cars. They
simply need to crash less often than a human driver. They don't need to be
completely infallible, though for emotional reasons they need to crash
_significantly_ less often than humans.

Similarly, a gun would need to have a failure rate somewhere in the order of
1% of the typical misfire rate. E.g., if a particular gun & ammunition pairing
misfires 1 time out of 1,000 then the security system must fail no more than 1
in 100,000 times or thereabouts.

At that point, any misfire due to the security system would be
indistinguishable from a misfire that would have happened anyway.

A 1% increase in misfires would not equate to a 1% increase in unintentional
deaths, but a viable safety system would significantly decrease them. In fact,
it might be possible to mathematically derive a much higher break-even point,
but I daresay that would not work out well politically.

~~~
LyndsySimon
The failure rate of modern handguns is _extremely_ low.

I carry a 1911, which is a design more than a century old. I've fired that gun
around 15,000 times without a single failure of any kind.

~~~
Turing_Machine
_I carry a 1911, which is a design more than a century old._

John Moses Browning was the Leonardo da Vinci of gun design. In addition to
the M1911, several of his other designs are still in production, and indeed,
in active duty use by various militaries.

~~~
LyndsySimon
I agree, for what it's worth.

I carry my SW1911 90% of the time these days. I occasionally switch out for a
Hi-Power (another Browning design!) or a Glock 31.

The Hi-Power is honestly a more practical gun, but the trigger is harder to
make decent, since Browning was working around his own patent that he'd sold.
My 1911's trigger is the best I've ever seen, bar none.

------
pg_bot
Gun control should not be a national issue, it should remain a local one. What
works for the people of urban cities will not necessarily work for rural
areas. Like it or not the second amendment exists and isn't going anywhere
anytime soon. While I choose not to exert my right to bear arms I should not
force other people to conform to my lifestyle.

~~~
mmcconnell1618
My biggest issue with guns is that they let one person become judge, jury and
executioner without due process. Yes, you can kill someone in many other ways
but guns have a tendency to deliver multiple kills with incredible ease and
detachment.

I do understand that rural areas are going to need a level of protection from
wild animals that might not be required in urban areas.

My suggestion for how to solve gun violence is to put together an "Apollo
moonshot" project to develop a non-lethal weapon as effective at stopping as a
lethal one. Phasers on stun is my dream. Once you can stop a person without
harming them you can then take a tobacco industry marketing campaign to make
owning a lethal weapon unacceptable in civil society. Rifles and relevant
lethal weapons should still be available outside of urban areas unless non-
lethal alternatives would work.

~~~
enjo
_I do understand that rural areas are going to need a level of protection from
wild animals that might not be required in urban areas._

How do people living in rural areas with strong gun control even survive?

~~~
tclmeelmo
I realize your comment was said in good-natured jest, but I've actually had to
shoot (based on behavior) several rabid wild animals over the past decade that
were an immediate threat to me.

------
rbobby
Back when seat belt laws where being introduced more than a few people
complained that sometimes a person will die in a car accident because of the
seat belt. Saner heads prevailed because the overall statistics showed much
fewer deaths and injuries occur when using seat belts vs not using seat belts.

To me insisting on a 0% failure rate for a smart gun is very reminiscent of
the mandatory seat belt arguments. Sure... sometimes a gun will fail and the
owner end up injured/dead and that's pretty awful. However, if the overall the
number of deaths and injuries has been reduced then those tragedies will have
been "worth it".

It is irrational to insist on a 0% failure rate.

It is also probably irrational to insist on the same failure rate as existing
guns. The correct measure is the deaths/injury rate.

Unfortunately the US doesn't seem to want to tackle the problem of gun
deaths/injuries in any sort of scientific manner. There needs to be accurate
and reliable data on gun ownership, gun usage (scared someone off), gun
deaths, gun injuries. Solid data is the foundation of good policy... and
preventing the gathering of good data is pretty telling.

And far too many vested interests are more than willing to mislead people.
Specifically, the NRA's constant "confiscate our guns" rhetoric i pretty
unconscionable... but folks seem to blithely accept this sort of
misrepresentation.

~~~
ctdonath
Such calls for sensible data analysis followed immediately by wanton bashing
of the NRA and gun owners is making it very difficult to have a sensible
discussion on the subject in this country.

~~~
rbobby
I'm not sure I'd call what I said "wanton bashing".

The NRA does attempt to mislead folks on a regular basis... this is well
documented.

~~~
hga
[citation needed]

As for your specific claim about confiscation, how about this tag I was
reminded of on a blog that's in my early morning rotation:
[http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/gun-rights/no-one-
wants-...](http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/gun-rights/no-one-wants-to-
take-your-guns/)

Or Senator Diane Feinstein, who represents a lot of HN readers), telling "Mr.
and Mrs. America turn 'em all in" in a _60 Minutes_ interview.

And let me assure that, using registration lists, guns have been confiscated
in the US, e.g. SKSs in California after the government decided they were
"assault weapons" after all (OK, you were allowed to move them out of state,
but...).

~~~
ctdonath
NY regularly sends police to the homes of the recently deceased to take their
guns, denying heirs ownership thereof.

~~~
hga
I would also expect that of other states where mere gun ownership is an
explicitly granted by the state privilege to particular individuals, e.g.
Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey off the top of my head.

And California has created a unit to do the same to people they think are
prohibited. Most recent horror story was about a nurse who'd _voluntarily_
checked herself into a mental ward because of a medication screwup (i.e. it
was self-limiting) and her husband's guns were confiscated:
[http://bearingarms.com/california-returns-confiscated-
guns-t...](http://bearingarms.com/california-returns-confiscated-guns-to-
husband-following-wifes-voluntary-mental-health-visit/)

I'm not even sure in Crazy California a voluntary admission is a disbarring
event, it isn't Federally or of any state I'm aware of, as this case shows it
shouldn't be.

And note medication screwups/unwanted mental side effects happen all the time,
a former SO got frank suicidal ideation when switched to a standard normally
well tolerated anti-depressant (she just stopped taking the drug and was
careful while it worked its way out of her system).

And many drugs can cause mania, as I can personally attest (hypomania in my
case, and my "you're impaired" flag kept me from doing anything stupid
including spending money needlessly (well, beyond buying a power supply as a
kit when they're so cheap and easy in the form of wall-warts) until the
problem was realized). Many that are not normally psychoactive, I've read
systemic steroids like prednisone often do this.

------
minikites
The safest "gun" is not owning a gun. There's an abundance of studies showing
that gun ownership tracks with an increase in home injury/death. The idea that
having a gun protects you from home intrusion is a red herring because home
intrusions almost never happen and the chance of an accident is possible every
day there is a gun around. Private firearm ownership should be illegal.

~~~
pmalynin
The safest way to ski is not to ski.

The safest way to sky-dive is not to sky-dive.

The safest way to have sex is not to have sex (I like the last one the most as
it is touted by various groups).

That logic is absolutely broken.

~~~
otterley
What's broken about the logic? All of those things are logically consistent.

If you mean that foregoing experiences for safety's sake isn't your cup of
tea, that's one thing; but claiming it's logically broken is simply false.

~~~
pmalynin
It's not logically consistent. You're claiming that p implies not p

~~~
rwjwjuwjudf
Oh come on, the claim is that safe (p) <-> !p, which is a bit different.
Attack the actual claim.

~~~
woodman
@pmalynin, you forgot the safety variable.

    
    
      p | q | p ∧ q → ¬q
      --+---+-----------
      T | T | F         You can't be safe and own a gun.
      T | F | T         You can be safe and not own a gun.
      F | T | T         You can be unsafe and own a gun.
      F | F | T         You can be unsafe and not own a gun.
    
    

@rwjwjuwjudf, logical implication is correct - logical equivalence leads to
this trainwreck:

    
    
      p | q | p ∧ q ↔ ¬q
      --+---+-----------
      T | T | F         You can't be safe and own a gun.
      T | F | F         You can't be safe and not own a gun.
      F | T | T         You can be unsafe and own a gun.
      F | F | F         You can't be unsafe and not own a gun.

~~~
rwjwjuwjudf
Nice analysis! I was thinking safety is a function equivalent to negation. But
I agree if safety and gun ownership are separate variables.

    
    
      p | safe (p) | ¬p | safe (p) ↔ ¬p
      --+----------+----+--------------
      T | F        | F  | Owning a gun is unsafely owning a gun.
      F | T        | T  | Not owning a gun is safely owning a gun.
    

I think this is the original reason why it's confusing, because the sentence
"not owning a gun is safely owning a gun" is highly unintuitive. There is a
contradiction because safely owning it conflicts with not owning it.

edit: I think we can legitimately fix the confusing sentence to read "not
owning a gun is safely not owning a gun".

~~~
woodman
Safety as a negation would be an xor operation, which leads to the wacky
logic. Both of you are right though, I was probably far too generous in
treating @minikites's use of the word "is" as a logical implication instead of
the logical equivalence that you suggested. The resulting logic leads to
conclusions that both support and refute the likely intent of the original
statement. So either the logic is broken or the intent is :) If only
@minikites had used the word "maybe" instead of "is"... the weaker position
would have been supported with a logically consistent argument.

~~~
rwjwjuwjudf
I think the original expression was poor, it could perhaps be paraphrased as
"gun safety is an oxymoron".

~~~
woodman
That still leaves five words to debate about, to quote a very sly fellow "It
depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." I'm pretty sure we could
distill the argument to the point where we find ourselves debating the finer
points of chaos theory.

