4 ms·

Considering the largely accepted belief that a knife wielding attacker can cover 20 feet more quickly than an average trained individual can draw and fire a pis

Considering the largely accepted belief that a knife wielding attacker can cover 20 feet more quickly than an average trained individual can draw and fire a pistol (it is - at best - very close), it would seem to me that the jammer is the mostly problematic exploit. It firmly tips the engagement in favor of the knife wielding attacker without the pistol wielding defender understanding their weapon had been disabled until it is far too late to change tactics. I don't see law enforcement ever adopting smart weapons.

MBCook 9y ago
The military has plenty of anti-jamming technology don't they? I'm guessing if they wanted to do this right there would be ways that are a lot more sturdy than something a simple RF jammer can stop.
- pps43 9y ago
  It's much easier to attack such a system than to defend it. Attacker only needs a short window of time, so can emit a lot of power. "Smart" gun can't do that, it has to work for years on small battery, so its signal must be weaker by many orders of magnitude.
- cc439 9y ago
  The only effective "anti-jamming" technology is a radar/EM homing missile or some sort of artillery fired smart-shell acting on the same principle. There are technologies which work around specific functions of electronic warfare equipment but they are only effective in specific scenarios. There is no way to defeat a nearby spark gap generator without disabling the source itself.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  > anti-jamming technology Like what? SNR-boosting encoding tricks to get around high-power noise are not going to be fast like you want with a gun. The form factor needs to be omnidirectional. You don't have high power available in a portable device. You can't just change frequencies, because an attacker is likely broadcasting high-bandwidth noise. And you don't know whether the user needs it to fail safe (the bad guys got the gun) or fail hot (the good guys need to use the gun). After that, physics doesn't leave a lot of other options for technology to fix anything!

MBCook 9y ago

The military has plenty of anti-jamming technology don't they? I'm guessing if they wanted to do this right there would be ways that are a lot more sturdy than something a simple RF jammer can stop.

pps43 9y ago
It's much easier to attack such a system than to defend it. Attacker only needs a short window of time, so can emit a lot of power. "Smart" gun can't do that, it has to work for years on small battery, so its signal must be weaker by many orders of magnitude.
cc439 9y ago
The only effective "anti-jamming" technology is a radar/EM homing missile or some sort of artillery fired smart-shell acting on the same principle. There are technologies which work around specific functions of electronic warfare equipment but they are only effective in specific scenarios. There is no way to defeat a nearby spark gap generator without disabling the source itself.
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
> anti-jamming technology Like what? SNR-boosting encoding tricks to get around high-power noise are not going to be fast like you want with a gun. The form factor needs to be omnidirectional. You don't have high power available in a portable device. You can't just change frequencies, because an attacker is likely broadcasting high-bandwidth noise. And you don't know whether the user needs it to fail safe (the bad guys got the gun) or fail hot (the good guys need to use the gun). After that, physics doesn't leave a lot of other options for technology to fix anything!