
German-designed ‘smart’ guns rerouted after cultural backlash in U.S - tempestn
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/german-designed-smart-guns-rerouted-after-cultural-backlash-in-us/article22222138/
======
chroma
I own half a dozen firearms and I wish smart gun technology worked. The main
problem with RFID smart guns is that they can be jammed. If such tech was
required by law, any criminal with a jammer would create a zone where only
they could shoot. This makes RFID guns useless for any sort of self or home
defense. Likewise, police wouldn't be able to use them. There are similar
problems with fingerprint reading. Reading a fingerprint isn't very reliable
(dirt, cuts, etc), and the owner may need to use the gun while wearing gloves.

On the sort-of bright side, unintentional gun deaths are only around 3% of all
firearm homicides. One could save many more lives by further restricting
handguns. For example: make getting a handgun more like getting a private
pilot's license. Unfortunately, such restrictions are probably
unconstitutional.

~~~
derefr
> If such tech was required by law, any criminal with a jammer would create a
> zone where only they could shoot.

I don't see why the system would do that. A "fail-safe" doesn't always mean
failing closed; sometimes it means failing open. That is, if there is a
jammer, then fall back to letting anyone shoot anyone, which is no worse than
things are now. If there isn't a jammer, then let the law say who can shoot
people.

(Yes, then anyone can buy their own personal jammer to make their gun "work."
People can _also_ override those breathalyzer-meters that they have to blow
into to get their cars to start. But, by-and-large, do they?)

~~~
chroma
Nice idea, but how does one reliably detect RFID jamming? This isn't
rhetorical. I honestly don't know the answer.

~~~
lmm
"Jamming" usually works by putting out a bunch of energy on the same
frequencies to overwhelm any actual signal. So, detect the overall amount of
radio coming in, and turn off auth if it's too high.

~~~
orbat
But then you're left with a smart gun that's unlockable with a simple RF
generator

~~~
lmm
Sure. So it only stops unsophisticated criminals. But they're mostly the ones
that kill people.

------
blucoat
I'm not typically a gun person, but this seems like a really flawed idea. As
the article describes it, it's a gun that only works against an unprepared
enemy. Anyone with an RF jammer could completely stop its use, if I understand
it correctly. It wouldn't be much more complicated to make a device that could
pick up its frequency from a distance and use it on a stolen weapon either. Of
course some cryptographic exchange between the watch and the gun would fix
that, but it still doesn't prevent you from jamming it.

In cases like many school shootings, where the gun was stolen ahead of time,
all it does is require the culprit to steal the watch too. A physical key
(old-fashioned or cryptographic) would do the same thing but more reliably.

The term "smart gun" brings to mind a development that I think most users of
HN would agree is a bad idea. Making a gun that tries to automatically
determine who's authorized to shoot whom, like a Dominator from Psycho-Pass,
seems to open up a whole mess of problems. Making more reliable non-lethal
weapons is the direction I'd rather see the problem attacked from.

~~~
lotsofmangos
_it 's a gun that only works against an unprepared enemy._

Quite similar to a normal gun then.

~~~
seanp2k2
Tanks also only work against an unprepared enemy, but I think many will agree
that tanks can still do lots of damage, even given the prevalence of armor-
piercing munitions and anti-tank weaponry.

In practice, how many people are going to have RFID jammers, and how many of
those will reliably work? I'm guessing that that'd be close to zero. Related,
Psycho Pass is an interesting anime which goes into the issue of "smart guns"
and the subversion of their safeguards. It's also a damn interesting series.

------
valar_m
I can't help but think that gun control activists have, pardon the pun, shot
themselves in the foot with the New Jersey law:

 _Once a personalized weapon went on sale in the United States, the law said,
then within three years, all guns sold in New Jersey would have to include
such safety features._

How could they not have seen that passing such a law would impede advancements
in gun safety by creating opposition which would not have otherwise existed
(or at least to this extent), but for this law?

I suppose it is possible that gun safety was never actually the goal to begin
with, but it still seems like such a predictable result, given the ferocity
with which any real or perceived encroachment on the Second Amendment is met.

On the one hand, it's kind of amusing, in a way, to watch the instant,
reflexive backlash which invariably erupts in response to even the slightest
suggestion of tighter gun control. On the other, it might make some sense if
one were inclined to take a conspiratorial view of the true purpose of laws
like this one in New Jersey.

------
Htsthbjig
Two problems with this:

1- It could be jammed by a 10 euro/dollar device.

2-The smart watch(via Patriot Act) is going to require the government has a
back door or mechanism that could disable it remotely when the government
wants it disabled, like they do with computer software and hardware.

The second amendment reason for existence is controlling the people in power
against abuses on the people. Of course people in power want to get rid of it
while militarizing the police(because hard times are coming).

~~~
pjc50
_controlling the people in power against abuses on the people_

So how's that working out for you then? This story is right next to one on HN
about NSA abuses, and there's the ongoing saga of police violence against
black people. Is gun ownership somehow going to make a difference there? How
do you expect armed politics to end other than incredibly badly?

The "government"'s usual device for disabling a gun is a bullet to the head of
the person holding it.

------
cronjobber
The "nuts" in this story seem to have a very acute understanding of the legal
and propagandistic climate in their country and the medium to long term
implications of mandatory "smart" technology in personal handguns.

~~~
gaius
HN readers ought to too, at least those old enough to remember the so-called
Clipper chip.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip#Backlash](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip#Backlash)

------
jzwinck
Of all the gun uses I am aware of among every person I have ever known, only
one single bullet would have been prevented from leaving the barrel by a
system like this.

That bullet killed a child and sent the (accidental) shooter to prison.

~~~
gnarbarian
If accidental deaths are what you're concerned about maybe you should tackle
this one beforehand.

[http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-
safety/wa...](http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-
safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html)

Edit: compare that with the fact that in 2011 there were 600 accidental deaths
from firearms.

[http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pd...](http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pdf)

~~~
mercurial
Why wouldn't you do both?

~~~
gnarbarian
Indeed why not ban everything that causes annual accidental deaths?

~~~
mercurial
Why the strawman?

It's a question of tradeoffs. Making seatbelts mandatory was a major step in
preventing accidental deaths. Ensuring that pools are safer (which doesn't
necessarily mean banning them...) would also be beneficial. As for gun safety,
what's wrong with investigating how to prevent instances of mass murders which
by now make a regular appearance in US news, since apparently the pro-gun
lobby is too strong to outright ban weapons? Not to mention children playing
with unsecured firearms.

~~~
gnarbarian
It's not a straw man, it's reductio ad absurdum.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

Just to be clear, I think that people should have the right to purchase these
RFID guns, but I think any sort of mandate requiring them is bad news for a
number of reasons.

I'd be willing to investigate things like trigger locks or home safes or
licensing IF we on the gun rights side of the discussion could get something
too. Namely a repeal of the hughes amendment. Also this is something I think
would be better dolled out state by state.

People here in alaska don't want the same things that people in new york or
california do.

~~~
mercurial
It's a strawman in the sense that it doesn't characterize my position
correctly: in this case, I'm not pushing for "banning all the things", or even
the things under discussion. Furthermore, I don't see how you can call mass
murders "accidental deaths". They are all quite deliberate.

As for the rest, I'm afraid that being from the other side of the pond
prevents me from being familiar with the various US gun laws...

------
qwerta
What would prevent people from disassembling this, replacing a few parts and
making new gun? Making hand gun is very simple once you have basic components,
such as barrel and bullets.

I am worried that this will become yet another obstruction for gun holders.
Germany (and EU) is crazy, pepper sprays or even pocket knives are banned.
Neighbouring Czech rep. is more liberal and has comparable crime rate.

~~~
lmm
> What would prevent people from disassembling this, replacing a few parts and
> making new gun? Making hand gun is very simple once you have basic
> components, such as barrel and bullets.

Nothing, but why would you want to? The whole point is so you can buy a gun
that only you can use (and not e.g. your kid). I guess a thief might still
steal a gun and then disable the system, but making life harder for such a
thief is a good thing even if it doesn't make it impossible (just like an
engine immobilizer). But if you're worried about "bad guys", the point is just
to stop accidental shootings. There's nothing in the system that would stop
you _deliberately_ e.g. shooting a cop with one (as long as you had the
wristband on).

------
Omniusaspirer
This article is very reminiscent of "The Weapon Shops of Isher"\- it's always
a strange feeling when the lines between science fiction and reality start to
blur.

------
alkonaut
Not really sure why smart guns have to be so dang hi tech? How about a gun
that can't be left with safety off for more than 30minutes, and requires a
pin-code to remove safety?

We can make pill jars impossible for 5year olds to open. How hard can it be to
make a gun too hard to use?

~~~
tempestn
That sounds like a really good idea to me. No problems with jamming in that
case. Obviously it wouldn't work in all cases, like for police officers who
might need to use their gun at a moment's notice, but it sounds great for
recreational and home-defense firearms.

------
danmaz74
Crazy. So in the name of "freedom", these gun-nuts want to deprive other
people of the freedom to buy a safer gun if they want. I really wish they'll
find a way to sell it anyway.

PS to all the gun-nuts dowvoters: Thanks for showing how you _really_ value
freedom.

~~~
jimbobimbo
Nobody is against selling this kind of guns per se - people are against the
laws mandating "smarts in all guns" that would be triggered, if this kind of
guns become available.

------
callumjones

      They flooded the Facebook pages of both stores with angry comments; some even called in death threats, according to a video later posted by Andy Raymond, an owner of Engage Armament.
    

Thank god they are the ones with guns....

