6 ms·

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 t

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 11y ago
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-nuclear-weapons-safety/ http://www.thenation.com/article/eric-schlosser-and-illusion...
- robert_tweed 11y ago
  > "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 11y ago
    That mindset seems to be relatively young in military circles (late 80s or so, if I remember the timeline in the book correctly)

detaro 11y ago

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-nuclear-weapons-safety/ http://www.thenation.com/article/eric-schlosser-and-illusion...

robert_tweed 11y ago
> "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 11y ago
  That mindset seems to be relatively young in military circles (late 80s or so, if I remember the timeline in the book correctly)