5 ms·

Are there any gun- and tech-literate people who actually think smart guns like this are a good idea? Anytime someone (cop or civilian) pulls a trigger in self

Are there any gun- and tech-literate people who actually think smart guns like this are a good idea? Anytime someone (cop or civilian) pulls a trigger in self defense, they do so as a last resort. Have you honestly never heard of an accidental shooting occurring? Heck, it seems like at least once or twice a year we hear about a parent being shot by their own toddler... Trigger locks and smart guns are specifically intended to prevent these types of accidents.

bifrost 9y ago
The same parent who gets shot by their toddler is also the same parent who will never have this kind of gun. We have very very effective toddler thwarting technology; low tech, very cost effective and easy to impliment, its called "keeping it where the toddler can't get it". Its worked fairly well since the inception of the firearm.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  We have very very effective toddler thwarting technology; low tech, very cost effective and easy to impliment, its called "keeping it where the toddler can't get it". Its worked fairly well since the inception of the firearm. To which the inevitable reply is: If I put my gun in a safe place, it won't be where I need it when I need it. A similar argument is frequently used as an objection to manual trigger locks, which have also been around for a very long time. An effective smart gun eliminates that objection by allowing a firearm to be stored somewhere accessible while still preventing accidental discharge. I understand there are enormous technical challenges to achieve that goal, and I'm not claiming the current generation of technology is effective, or heck, even that an effective solution is possible. But I think it's absolutely disingenuous to claim that all firearm discharges are done under deliberate, life-threatening circumstances, or that this kind of technology does not have the potential to save lives while still providing an effective tool for self-defense.
  - stickfigure 9y ago
    Speaking of disingenuous... there are other places besides a safe that toddlers can't reach. Like say, any shelf more than a few feet above ground. Source: Once was a toddler.
    - zzalpha 9y ago
      I think you're maybe taking my example a bit too literally...
  - bifrost 9y ago
    There are tons of ways to safely store a firearm that mitigate the "where is it" objection, all of them cheaper and safer than buying a new gun of debatable reliability. I have yet to test this but I believe the grip safety of a 1911 or the standard safety lever on a modern pistol would thwart a toddler as well. Teenager not so much. Again, this is a solution in search of a problem.
    - Pinckney 9y ago
      >I believe the grip safety of a 1911 or the standard safety lever on a modern pistol would thwart a toddler as well. Counting on either of those alone to stop a toddler would be grossly irresponsible.
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        As is on the smart electronics, which are liable to fail when they shouldn't and won't stop a criminal either way. See, there is a reason why a dead man's switch is as simple as possible and completely not remote. Anything remote can and will fail sometimes. If it would be a local switch it would be way more trustworthy in my eyes.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    I take issue with your hypothetical "inevitable reply". All responsible gun owners will tell you that the first rule of gun ownership is that you always handle the firearm as if it is loaded. That includes how you store the firearm. There is absolutely no sensible way to argue the gun must be stored in an unsafe location in order to keep the owner safe. The technology absolutely has the potential to save lives. Well, an even stronger statement is true -- this technology will save lives. That's not the objection though -- it's will the technology cost lives?!
  - astebbin 9y ago
    For home defense, it is possible to keep a gun in a safe space that is both toddler-proof AND accessible when necessary. I'm talking about bedside electronic safes, commonly available with combination [0] or biometric [1] locks, always with a physical key fallback. These solutions reduce unnecessary coupling between access control technology and the gun itself. At the very least, this means the (well-maintained) gun will 100% go "bang" when you pull the trigger. [0] https://lowes.com/pd/Barska-Compact-0-36-cu-ft-Electronic-Chest-Safe/1000080737?cm_mmc=SCE_PLA_ONLY-_-RoughPlumbingElectrical-_-Safes-_-1000080737:Barska&CAWELAID=&kpid=1000080737&CAGPSPN=pla&k_clickID=f01d89fa-a8bd-435e-b233-f60982ae903b https://lowes.com/pd/Barska-Compact-0-36-cu-ft-Electronic-Ch... [1] https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/biometric-gun-safes https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/biometric-gun-safes
lostapathy 9y ago
There's no such thing as a "smart gun" that's actually useful in the real world. There are too many failure modes that cannot be tolerated when a gun is needed to save your life. To your point about toddlers - safe storage and safe methods of carry solves that, and they work with every gun in circulation already. 1) Lock up your gun if it's not directly under your control (i.e., in a holster). 2) Carry your gun in a proper holster, on your person. Not in your purse in the shopping cart, but on your hip. These two, together, would prevent every case where a toddler shoots somebody. It's not appreciated outside gun circles, and sadly even in gun circles a lot of people don't get it, but good holsters are the most important investment you can make. A huge fraction of gun accidents trace back to cheap holsters.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- zzalpha 9y ago
  I'm going to play devil's advocate, here: 1) Lock up your gun if it's not directly under your control (i.e., in a holster). "But then it's not available when someone breaks into my home!" 2) Carry your gun in a proper holster, on your person. Not in your purse in the shopping cart, but on your hip. "How does that help me when I'm in bed and someone breaks in in the middle of the night?" I'm going to be blunt: while I recognize my own reply is somewhat simplistic and idealistic, yours is no better. There is simply no technology, today, that makes gun ownership in the home both safe and is perceived as 100% effective in circumstances where a weapon is needed for self-defense in an emergency situation. This type of technology is a search for a solution to that problem. Is it the solution? Or a perfect solution? Clearly not. But to imply there is no solution, or that it's a solution in search of a problem, belies a profound cynicism. This is Hacker News. Folks, here, believe technology can solve everything, from world hunger to poverty. But for some reason, apparently it's impossible to improve on the firearm. it's baffling.
  - lostapathy 9y ago
    It's not impossible to improve firearms - tons of innovation happens in that space. At the same time, anything that decreases reliability is a deadly liability that cannot be tolerated. To your counter-examples. Carry your gun at home if you're worried about break-ins. Put your gun in a quick-access safe when you sleep. Problems solved
pps43 9y ago
Negligent discharges happen because people break gun safety rules. In the entire history of USPSA there were only two fatal accidents. If you think it's a lot, compare to other sports. Besides, the device in question won't help in the cases you mentioned, as the parent with the watch would still be within the range of the transceiver, and the gun would fire anyway.

bifrost 9y ago

The same parent who gets shot by their toddler is also the same parent who will never have this kind of gun. We have very very effective toddler thwarting technology; low tech, very cost effective and easy to impliment, its called "keeping it where the toddler can't get it". Its worked fairly well since the inception of the firearm.

zzalpha 9y ago
We have very very effective toddler thwarting technology; low tech, very cost effective and easy to impliment, its called "keeping it where the toddler can't get it". Its worked fairly well since the inception of the firearm. To which the inevitable reply is: If I put my gun in a safe place, it won't be where I need it when I need it. A similar argument is frequently used as an objection to manual trigger locks, which have also been around for a very long time. An effective smart gun eliminates that objection by allowing a firearm to be stored somewhere accessible while still preventing accidental discharge. I understand there are enormous technical challenges to achieve that goal, and I'm not claiming the current generation of technology is effective, or heck, even that an effective solution is possible. But I think it's absolutely disingenuous to claim that all firearm discharges are done under deliberate, life-threatening circumstances, or that this kind of technology does not have the potential to save lives while still providing an effective tool for self-defense.
- stickfigure 9y ago
  Speaking of disingenuous... there are other places besides a safe that toddlers can't reach. Like say, any shelf more than a few feet above ground. Source: Once was a toddler.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    I think you're maybe taking my example a bit too literally...
- bifrost 9y ago
  There are tons of ways to safely store a firearm that mitigate the "where is it" objection, all of them cheaper and safer than buying a new gun of debatable reliability. I have yet to test this but I believe the grip safety of a 1911 or the standard safety lever on a modern pistol would thwart a toddler as well. Teenager not so much. Again, this is a solution in search of a problem.
  - Pinckney 9y ago
    >I believe the grip safety of a 1911 or the standard safety lever on a modern pistol would thwart a toddler as well. Counting on either of those alone to stop a toddler would be grossly irresponsible.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      As is on the smart electronics, which are liable to fail when they shouldn't and won't stop a criminal either way. See, there is a reason why a dead man's switch is as simple as possible and completely not remote. Anything remote can and will fail sometimes. If it would be a local switch it would be way more trustworthy in my eyes.
- zaroth 9y ago
  I take issue with your hypothetical "inevitable reply". All responsible gun owners will tell you that the first rule of gun ownership is that you always handle the firearm as if it is loaded. That includes how you store the firearm. There is absolutely no sensible way to argue the gun must be stored in an unsafe location in order to keep the owner safe. The technology absolutely has the potential to save lives. Well, an even stronger statement is true -- this technology will save lives. That's not the objection though -- it's will the technology cost lives?!
- astebbin 9y ago
  For home defense, it is possible to keep a gun in a safe space that is both toddler-proof AND accessible when necessary. I'm talking about bedside electronic safes, commonly available with combination [0] or biometric [1] locks, always with a physical key fallback. These solutions reduce unnecessary coupling between access control technology and the gun itself. At the very least, this means the (well-maintained) gun will 100% go "bang" when you pull the trigger. [0] https://lowes.com/pd/Barska-Compact-0-36-cu-ft-Electronic-Chest-Safe/1000080737?cm_mmc=SCE_PLA_ONLY-_-RoughPlumbingElectrical-_-Safes-_-1000080737:Barska&CAWELAID=&kpid=1000080737&CAGPSPN=pla&k_clickID=f01d89fa-a8bd-435e-b233-f60982ae903b https://lowes.com/pd/Barska-Compact-0-36-cu-ft-Electronic-Ch... [1] https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/biometric-gun-safes https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/biometric-gun-safes

lostapathy 9y ago

There's no such thing as a "smart gun" that's actually useful in the real world. There are too many failure modes that cannot be tolerated when a gun is needed to save your life. To your point about toddlers - safe storage and safe methods of carry solves that, and they work with every gun in circulation already. 1) Lock up your gun if it's not directly under your control (i.e., in a holster). 2) Carry your gun in a proper holster, on your person. Not in your purse in the shopping cart, but on your hip. These two, together, would prevent every case where a toddler shoots somebody. It's not appreciated outside gun circles, and sadly even in gun circles a lot of people don't get it, but good holsters are the most important investment you can make. A huge fraction of gun accidents trace back to cheap holsters.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zzalpha 9y ago
I'm going to play devil's advocate, here: 1) Lock up your gun if it's not directly under your control (i.e., in a holster). "But then it's not available when someone breaks into my home!" 2) Carry your gun in a proper holster, on your person. Not in your purse in the shopping cart, but on your hip. "How does that help me when I'm in bed and someone breaks in in the middle of the night?" I'm going to be blunt: while I recognize my own reply is somewhat simplistic and idealistic, yours is no better. There is simply no technology, today, that makes gun ownership in the home both safe and is perceived as 100% effective in circumstances where a weapon is needed for self-defense in an emergency situation. This type of technology is a search for a solution to that problem. Is it the solution? Or a perfect solution? Clearly not. But to imply there is no solution, or that it's a solution in search of a problem, belies a profound cynicism. This is Hacker News. Folks, here, believe technology can solve everything, from world hunger to poverty. But for some reason, apparently it's impossible to improve on the firearm. it's baffling.
- lostapathy 9y ago
  It's not impossible to improve firearms - tons of innovation happens in that space. At the same time, anything that decreases reliability is a deadly liability that cannot be tolerated. To your counter-examples. Carry your gun at home if you're worried about break-ins. Put your gun in a quick-access safe when you sleep. Problems solved

pps43 9y ago

Negligent discharges happen because people break gun safety rules. In the entire history of USPSA there were only two fatal accidents. If you think it's a lot, compare to other sports. Besides, the device in question won't help in the cases you mentioned, as the parent with the watch would still be within the range of the transceiver, and the gun would fire anyway.