
The Smart Gun Doesn’t Exist for the Dumbest Reasons - adventured
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-15/the-smart-gun-doesn-t-exist-because-of-new-jersey-and-the-nra
======
coredog64
“If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the
right fingerprint,” he asked in 2016, “why can’t we do the same thing for our
guns?”

My phone can’t read my fingerprint reliably. It definitely can’t do it when
it’s wet.

~~~
nathan_long
Poor reliability is a theme in IoT, self-driving cars, and here.

We are all accustomed to the fact that computers are flakey. Our computers and
phones sometimes need rebooting to fix weird behavior. My printer just forgot
how to connect to WiFi for no apparent reason. Everyone has stories like
these.

What's tolerable for many popular products is not tolerable for others,
though. Leaving aside whether having a gun actually protects you, people own
guns for that reason. If your gun won't fire when your life is in danger, or
if your car won't swerve when a truck is in the road, or if your thermostat
won't turn on when it's bitterly cold, that's unacceptable.

Clearly there exists highly reliable technology: plane and spaceship controls,
for example. My understanding is that an extreme focus and expenditure on
reliability is required to achieve that.

I think that some of these consumer product categories where it's critical
that the thing actually work will require the same kind of rigor before people
can trust them.

------
finndark
"Smart guns" in the form of the Magna-Trigger Conversion have been available
for decades:

[http://gunssavelives.net/gear/smart-guns-have-been-
available...](http://gunssavelives.net/gear/smart-guns-have-been-available-
for-decades-still-not-popular-the-magna-trigger-conversion/)

From the article:

 _" Magna-Trigger conversion is a custom process in which a magnetic piece is
placed in the gun, preventing it from firing unless the user is also wearing a
magnetic ring. Despite the simplicity in this system, it never really caught
on for one simple reason. Generally people want their defensive firearms to be
as simple as possible. Simple, well machined firearms make for reliable
firearms._"

BTW what responsible manufacturer would sell a gun that might not shoot when
you need it to? That's a lawsuit-in-waiting for manufacturers. Depending on
the local political beliefs, a gun that _would_ shoot under the circumstances
is _also_ a lawsuit_in_waiting! So "smart guns" are a lose-lose situation for
gun manufacturers.

And when a "smart gun" mechanism fails (say, due to low battery) should it
allow _anyone_ to shoot it)? That's what I would want but I think others would
want a gun to be disarmed under such circumstances.

Imagine being raped/robbed/killed b/c your gun has a low battery! [the Magna-
Trigger system requires no batteries]

~~~
masonic
The tricky part is getting someone to store their gun with less care than they
store their ring.

Rings are also not unique to each gun.

If _any_ of these technologies worked reliably, law enforcement would be all
over it, because (1) perps couldn't take officers' guns and use them and (2)
the politicians who make the purchase authorizations would love to claim
credit.

------
kevingadd
It's interesting how this is a story where to a degree, the demands of the
power-user (who probably wouldn't want this product to begin with) help make
the product not happen at all:

> The trouble is that fingerprint readers struggle with sweat or dirt, and
> friends in law enforcement advised Stephens that cops often wear gloves. A
> sensor error in a self-defense situation could prove fatal.

It's absolutely the case that (for example) fingerprint readers are flaky, and
cops would not be willing to tolerate anything that could stop them from using
a firearm in an emergency. But really, does the technology even matter then?
Why would a cop want a smart gun? So from the beginning, looking at what cops
think about your smart gun prototype means you're looking at the entirely
wrong audience.

Likewise, are hunters the ones who want a smart gun? What about single mothers
who need to be able to defend themselves during a home invasion? The right
authentication mechanism and tradeoffs depend on each audience, and the things
they want _definitely_ don't match with what cops want. If I was picking up a
firearm to use on the range or for hunting, being told 'this RFID ensures
nobody can use it after stealing it or taking it from you, but it has a 1%
chance of not letting you fire it' might be a pretty good pitch - but if I'm a
cop, there's no way I want even an 0.1% failure chance, because if I had to
draw my gun a lot of stuff has already gone wrong.

Kind of a baffling place for an effort like "let's make smart guns" to end up
at.

------
ocdtrekkie
And of course, the problem is, even if New Jersey fully repealed the law, it
still leaves the demonstrated goal behind: That should the technology become
available, liberal lawmakers will seek to outlaw traditional firearms. Why
would any gun manufacturer want to jump on this trend?

~~~
eesmith
Why? Because if I start the market, and the rest of the market gets shut down,
then I have the market advantage for a while while the other manufacturers
have to retool.

Why? Because of the guns are more expensive, then the profit margin may be
higher and my profits higher, even if the overall market size decreases.

I could likely think of others if I gave it more than a few moments' thought.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
It's likely any gun manufacturer could start putting out smart guns in short
order if they needed to for competitive reasons, the market advantage would be
very short and very small, and I would guess most gun buyers would focus on
reputable brands for firearms over "first to market" with a particular flavor.

Furthermore, we have to bear in mind that there is a significant portion of
gun control advocates who have already made their real goal clear: To ban all
guns. So capitulating to moves like this is simply allowing them to move the
goalpost, making a small quantity of firearms that are more restricted, before
moving it again to restrict those even further.

You may be giving this a few moments' thought, but I'm guessing executives in
the firearms industry and NRA members have spent significantly more time
thinking about it.

~~~
eesmith
Oh, I'm certain there are many reasons for _not_ doing it.

However, most of what you said was appropriate for a large gun manufacturer.
They don't apply to a small one, which might start this sort of production for
the 0.001% of the market interested in such weapons.

I am a gun control advocate. I do not want to ban all guns. I want to have gun
control laws similar to what's present in Finland, which is one of the
countries with the highest per capita gun ownership in the world. (#10
according to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country)
.) I think the large majority of gun control advocates in the US also do not
want to ban all guns, and would be just fine with similar gun laws.

BTW, you have just described another reason for making such guns. If someone
is against all sorts of gun ownership, then there is a short-term
justification for producing these sorts of weapons. By doing so they get the
foot in the door for large scale bans.

Since that hasn't happened, and since anti-gun-ownership advocates have _also_
had significantly more time thinking about it, your own logic suggests that it
isn't tenable.

~~~
masonic
What Finland law differences would you want in your area?

~~~
eesmith
How is your question much different than "what are the gun laws in Finland"?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Finland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Finland)

> no types of firearms are outright banned, and in principle a person can
> apply for a licence for any type of gun

(Though some weapons like machine guns and rocket launchers are 'specially
dangerous' and 'can only be granted on a very limited basis and are
essentially for recognized collectors and filming purposes only'.)

> A license is always needed for possession of a firearm and all firearms are
> registered. Firearms may only be carried while they are being used for a
> specific purpose (e.g. hunting, shooting at the range). When transporting a
> firearm to or from such activity, the firearm must be unloaded and stored in
> a case or pouch. The owner of a firearm is responsible for making sure that
> firearms and ammunition do not end up in unauthorized hands.

> The application process includes a check of criminal records, the police
> interviewing the applicant and in some cases a computer-based personality
> test or a medical health certificate. Any significant history with violence
> or other crime, substance abuse or mental health issues will cause the
> application to be rejected.

> Carrying a firearm licensed for hunting or sporting use outside of that
> specific activity is not allowed.

Those are all differences from, I believe, anywhere in the US. And for all of
the ones I listed I say, "yes, please!"

------
RickJWagner
Gun owner here. I've owned guns for 5 decades, my father before that, his
father before that. Not once have we shot at a human being. We're sporting
mid-westerners.

If the technology is electronic, no thanks. Guns are fascinating mechanical
marvels. The way the actions work, the trigger pulls, etc. is like a fine
watch. I don't want any electronics involved.

But if the lock were mechanical-- say a 4-or-5 digit (or alpha) roller lock--
then I could see it. Your fearful types ('Keep it loaded!') could even set off
just one tumbler, it'd still be very very difficult to crack.

My opinion, anyway. I don't see the appeal in the electronic version.

------
goda90
"A sensor error in a self-defense situation could prove fatal."

I've read stories where a grip safety(a button that is pressed down when
you're gripping the handgun properly) has slowed down the person just enough
to let the bad guy shoot him a couple of times before he could return fire.
Safety systems probably save more innocent lives than the they've hurt, but I
bet anything less than perfect in a smart gun is really going to hurt
popularity among gun enthusiasts.

