5 ms·

German-designed ‘smart’ guns rerouted after cultural backlash in U.S

52 points by tempestn 12y ago

callumjones 12y ago
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....
jzwinck 12y ago
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.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Seems like it would have been worth it.
- gnarbarian 12y ago
  If accidental deaths are what you're concerned about maybe you should tackle this one beforehand. http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/wa... Edit: compare that with the fact that in 2011 there were 600 accidental deaths from firearms. http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pdf http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pd...
  - mercurial 12y ago
    Why wouldn't you do both?
    - gnarbarian 12y ago
      Indeed why not ban everything that causes annual accidental deaths?
      - mercurial 12y ago
        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 12y ago
        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 12y ago
        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...
chroma 12y ago
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 12y ago
  > 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?)
  - r00fus 12y ago
    Does it know it's being jammed? Or does it just think that there is no connection? Would "jam rejection" result in a lot of false positives where a reasonable time w/o RFID heartbeat results in your "full open" mode? Still sounds like a bunch of expensive security kit with its barn doors open.
  - chroma 12y ago
    Nice idea, but how does one reliably detect RFID jamming? This isn't rhetorical. I honestly don't know the answer.
blucoat 12y ago
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.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  it's a gun that only works against an unprepared enemy. Quite similar to a normal gun then.
  - seanp2k2 12y ago
    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.
- tehwalrus 12y ago
  Small correction; the article said that you also need to enter a code on the watch to activate it. Assuming that this was set to a sensible and private PIN, stealing the watch won't help much.
danmaz74 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.
  - seanp2k2 12y ago
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
- radmuzom 12y ago
  So true. Strange how free market principles don't apply whenever this interferes with the power of existing private interests.
  - valar_m 12y ago
    I actually think there's a strong argument that regulation is more to blame: Part of the reaction stemmed from a little-known New Jersey law passed in 2002 by gun-control advocates. 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. It seems like greater adherence to free market principles could actually have avoided the problem -- without that law, intense opposition to smart guns would likely have not occurred as it did, or at least not to such an extent. Gun rights activists focus their energy on regulation and practically nothing else, which is why smart guns were so strongly opposed -- it was opposition to regulation, not safety.
- tomohawk 12y ago
  If only freedom was at work here. If the market was actually consensual, then innovations like this might actually have a chance to take hold as evidenced by people buying or not buying the product in an open market. Such market forces may even lead to a smart gun that actually works reliably in all the situations it needs to. However, laws such as the New Jersey one have taken away this opportunity by introducing a coercive element. This has completely changed the dynamic.
Omniusaspirer 12y ago
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.
qwerta 12y ago
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.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - qwerta 12y ago
    I would say Germany would be safer country with guns. Czech rep has some issues. Germany should be comparable to Switzerland, not CR.
- gnarbarian 12y ago
  Yep, you can make a shotgun out of two pieces of pipe and a nail. http://i40.tinypic.com/13zcqyw.png http://i40.tinypic.com/13zcqyw.png
- lmm 12y ago
  > 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).
Htsthbjig 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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
valar_m 12y ago
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.
alkonaut 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.

52 points by tempestn 12y ago

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....

jzwinck 12y ago

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.

jacquesm 12y ago
Seems like it would have been worth it.
gnarbarian 12y ago
If accidental deaths are what you're concerned about maybe you should tackle this one beforehand. http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/wa... Edit: compare that with the fact that in 2011 there were 600 accidental deaths from firearms. http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pdf http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pd...
- mercurial 12y ago
  Why wouldn't you do both?
  - gnarbarian 12y ago
    Indeed why not ban everything that causes annual accidental deaths?
    - mercurial 12y ago
      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 12y ago
        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 12y ago
        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...

chroma 12y ago

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 12y ago
> 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?)
- r00fus 12y ago
  Does it know it's being jammed? Or does it just think that there is no connection? Would "jam rejection" result in a lot of false positives where a reasonable time w/o RFID heartbeat results in your "full open" mode? Still sounds like a bunch of expensive security kit with its barn doors open.
- chroma 12y ago
  Nice idea, but how does one reliably detect RFID jamming? This isn't rhetorical. I honestly don't know the answer.

blucoat 12y ago

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.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
lotsofmangos 12y ago
it's a gun that only works against an unprepared enemy. Quite similar to a normal gun then.
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  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.
tehwalrus 12y ago
Small correction; the article said that you also need to enter a code on the watch to activate it. Assuming that this was set to a sensible and private PIN, stealing the watch won't help much.

danmaz74 12y ago

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 12y ago
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.
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
radmuzom 12y ago
So true. Strange how free market principles don't apply whenever this interferes with the power of existing private interests.
- valar_m 12y ago
  I actually think there's a strong argument that regulation is more to blame: Part of the reaction stemmed from a little-known New Jersey law passed in 2002 by gun-control advocates. 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. It seems like greater adherence to free market principles could actually have avoided the problem -- without that law, intense opposition to smart guns would likely have not occurred as it did, or at least not to such an extent. Gun rights activists focus their energy on regulation and practically nothing else, which is why smart guns were so strongly opposed -- it was opposition to regulation, not safety.
tomohawk 12y ago
If only freedom was at work here. If the market was actually consensual, then innovations like this might actually have a chance to take hold as evidenced by people buying or not buying the product in an open market. Such market forces may even lead to a smart gun that actually works reliably in all the situations it needs to. However, laws such as the New Jersey one have taken away this opportunity by introducing a coercive element. This has completely changed the dynamic.

Omniusaspirer 12y ago

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.

qwerta 12y ago

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.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- qwerta 12y ago
  I would say Germany would be safer country with guns. Czech rep has some issues. Germany should be comparable to Switzerland, not CR.
gnarbarian 12y ago
Yep, you can make a shotgun out of two pieces of pipe and a nail. http://i40.tinypic.com/13zcqyw.png http://i40.tinypic.com/13zcqyw.png
lmm 12y ago
> 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).

Htsthbjig 12y ago

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 12y ago
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 12y ago

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 12y ago
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

valar_m 12y ago

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.

alkonaut 12y ago

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 12y ago
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.