How the NRA works to preserve our RKBA

[mikebol]

...inability for a stranger to use the weapon against me...

I could see this being a big advantage for LEOs. I've seen my share of YouTube videos of a LEO in a fight with a suspect, struggling to control the suspect while also keeping a hand on their weapon. Imagine if there was no concern with the suspect being able to return fire with a LEOs primary weapon? Now the LEO could aggressively use both hands without the heightened concern for their own weapon.

Mike

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Understood, Kut. Not offended at all.

Given that the device would be ready to fire at the immediate instant I laid hands on it.
Given that the device would have ample battery power to maintain said authentication function.
Given that the device would have the ability to store a reasonable number of identities.
Given that the device would have no other "back door" authentication or disabling capabilities.
Given that the device cost would not be excessively effected.

Sure, I'd use one.

There are in fact a few pros to this type of technology - Theft deterrent, inability for a stranger to use the weapon against me, inability for a child to cause an AD, inability for an AD caused by an outside device (think walking through brush when hunting), etc.

Mike

What is the minimum level of reliability we are to expect out of our defensive weapons? We know nothing is 100%. So, what is the reliability of the average, good quality, name brand gun the average guy/gal carries for self defense? 99.999%? 99? Something more/less?

Let's say we're a 99.9% for that average gun carried by the average person, that if deployed in a self defense situation, would go bang when needed -- all other things being equal. Now, what are the odds that the average electronic device is ready to go the instant you pick it up? That the batteries haven't run down? That is doesn't all of a sudden need to be rebooted, out of the blue? That it will recognize your ID the first time? That it hadn't lost its programming without warning?

Being pretty liberal here, based on consumer grade electronics--the kind we can afford to buy, let's assign values of 98%, 90%, 85% 75% (anybody have a iphone 6?), and 99% to each of those attributes. Multiplying all those together with our original 99.9% reliable gun reduces our gun to 55%. No thanks. Yeah the technology always get better and even if all of those attributes all got to 99.9%, your gun might only be 99.4% reliable.

Nah...I'd rather have 99.9% reliable gun. The odds of winning are bad enough. I'd hate to ceed a half a point to the bad guy on the off chance all those wiz-bang features *might* keep some unauthorized person from using my gun against me.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

here's the pitch.
"Nuclear-powered, non-radiation, bio-signature gun! Will last 1000 years from power source. Bio-engineered, so that any proximity of less than one inch, and the gun will fire, for approved users. Customizable, so that up to 500 friends and family can use with inputted bio-signatures, in as little as 2 minutes! And if your power source should ever fail, gun immediately reverts to a standard firearm, with no delay.

NOW, if that tech were available, would you be interested?

Given that the device would be ready to fire at the immediate instant I laid hands on it.
Given that the device would have ample battery power to maintain said authentication function.
Given that the device would have the ability to store a reasonable number of identities.
Given that the device would have no other "back door" authentication or disabling capabilities.
Given that the device cost would not be excessively effected.

Sure, I'd use one.

There are in fact a few pros to this type of technology - Theft deterrent, inability for a stranger to use the weapon against me, inability for a child to cause an AD, inability for an AD caused by an outside device (think walking through brush when hunting), etc.

It all sounds great on the surface and would have legitimate benefits in a perfect world, but the line I highlighted in red text will NEVER happen because the gov't will never allow it. The temptation for those in positions of power and evil in their hearts WILL result in them having a backdoor to disable our guns. They will deny it (even when they have both the intent and the ability), just like they denied the mass collecting of electronic data without a warrant for YEARS. They still (mostly) deny it, and continue doing it, even after Snowden showed us the truth. The only way to ensure that the gov't doesn't have the power to shut down the function of our guns is to deny them the electronic doorway in the first place. Anything that denies this outcome is meaningless pie-in-the-sky hot air that would only serve to confuse the issue and distract us from reality. Heck, in the perfect world where this tech would work and the gov't wouldn't have the ability to mess with it, we wouldn't actually need guns at all (although many, myself included, might still want them for enjoyment).

 

[jamil]

If it fails "open" then steal it and just take the battery/flux capacitor out.

 

[mikebol]

What is the minimum level of reliability we are to expect out of our defensive weapons?

GFGT - your point is valid but I'd argue it's equally valid with any gun you seek to purchase today. No one wants to buy a gun that experiences a FTF or FTE. One of these at the wrong time or with any degree of repeatability would be a non-starter for any of us.

In theory though, and I think this is what Kut is asking, assuming there is no more and no less issue with reliability and usability, would you use a gun that implemented a biometric safety of some sort?

We agree that the technology is YEARS away and that proving it's reliability is essential, required for mass appeal.

Mike

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

GFGT - your point is valid but I'd argue it's equally valid with any gun you seek to purchase today. No one wants to buy a gun that experiences a FTF or FTE. One of these at the wrong time or with any degree of repeatability would be a non-starter for any of us.

In theory though, and I think this is what Kut is asking, assuming there is no more and no less issue with reliability and usability, would you use a gun that implemented a biometric safety of some sort?

We agree that the technology is YEARS away and that proving it's reliability is essential, required for mass appeal.

Mike

Right. I gotcha. I am saying that Kut's hypothetical is impossible. It will never happen. It can't happen. Even if they improve the technology to near perfection, the overall reliability (unless it also shifts the paradigm of the underlying machine as well) will necessarily decline. It's just the way things work. Now, the trade off may come from another angle. People may decide a 99.4% reliable gun is a good trade off for some other reason. But as I said above, for me, as a guy that will probably never have to use a gun in self defense (I pray anyway), I do not want to give up that small percentage of reliability for any of the factors I've heard discussed so far. It's not worth it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The question I'm asking, is "if" the tech were available and reliable, to make some sort of attachment to a person/firearm, to prevent it from being used by anyone but the owner, and whomever else he blesses, why wouldn't people be interested in it?

Why? Well, where I live it gets cold and I wear gloves.

Just as with the Magna rings, this high tech crap is desired by people who have no experience with guns.

Forcing the coppers to use is one thing (A political issue), but it has no place on my weapons.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why? Well, where I live it gets cold and I wear gloves.

Just as with the Magna rings, this high tech crap is desired by people who have no experience with guns.

Forcing the coppers to use is one thing (A political issue), but it has no place on my weapons.

Which would be most gun owners, lol

 

[pudly]

In the end, it boils down to:

• Design and develop any "smart" technology you want.
• Allow people to use them if they feel they are worthwhile.
• Don't force people to use it.

AKA: Free market good. Government control bad.

 

[level0]

As noted by some above, I'm on board if the technology is no less reliable than the mechanics of my gun.

If it adds no significant weight or dimension changes to the weapon (grip, sight lines, etc), and the technology is, so to speak, bullet proof (impervious to hacks, cracks, EMP, jammers, and all other would-be methods of disabling against my will).

It needs to be instant on, or at least demonstrably faster-than-or-as-fast-as I can grab the gun and shoot it.

It needs to be autonomous (no registration, phoning home, checking in, or otherwise validating with anything anywhere at any time).

It needs to be easily modified so I can let whomever shoot it whenever, and so I can easily sell it.

It needs to be rugged so it can withstand drops, the shock of firing, cramming in a magazine, cold weather, hot weather, moisture, sweat, rain, humidity, and anything else my current gun can withstand.

It needs to be optional so if it stops working I can replace it on my own time and my weapon will still work as it works today.

It needs to not have any lights or sounds or anything else that could give a tactical advantage to the bad guy, or lights and sounds are optional at my discretion.

It needs to work if my hands are too dry, too sweaty, if my heart is racing too quickly, if my voice is wavering and cracking under stress, if I'm yelling or if I'm whispering.

It's a needs a battery life reliably measured in years under any and all conditions.

 

[Expat]

I am in a fight and my hands covered with blood, will it read my fingerprints?
A guy stabs me in the hand and my ring is no longer on my hand, what do I do now?

 

[rvb]

As I clarified above, yes, without a doubt. If the tech fails, the weapon reverts to condition in which anybody could use it.

I've designed/analyzed "fail safe" systems. ensuring it does what you want, when it's broken (or when it's been tampered with), isn't easy. And the "safe" mode means different things to different people. Most would consider the fail-safe condition to be locked preventing use, since if the tech's job is to lock the gun, the fail-safe mode = still able to meet it's requirement after a failure and lock the gun. That's the engineering speak, not politician speak.

for example: loss of power = failure... ok, so you are saying if the power source dies you can still use it. So quickly people learn that to use it after theft, etc, they just remove the battery, short something, etc. Kinda defeats the purpose of smart guns which is to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

biometrics need to work with gloves, bandages, soaked in blood, etc. If it can't, that's a failure. how do you make that fail-safe (if safe = a working gun)?

Proximity devices (special rings, rfid cards, whatever) would fail if the distance becomes too great or the RF is over powered by another source (you drive by the local TV station, etc). Their job would be to unlock the gun when in proximity, but if the gun works when they fail (get too far away, etc) then failing in a way where the gun works would defeat the purpose... you wouldn't need to wear the magic ring...

Smart guns = the technology of the future.... and it always will be!

-rvb

 

[Kutnupe14]

I've designed/analyzed "fail safe" systems. ensuring it does what you want, when it's broken (or when it's been tampered with), isn't easy. And the "safe" mode means different things to different people. Most would consider the fail-safe condition to be locked preventing use, since if the tech's job is to lock the gun, the fail-safe mode = still able to meet it's requirement after a failure and lock the gun. That's the engineering speak, not politician speak.

for example: loss of power = failure... ok, so you are saying if the power source dies you can still use it. So quickly people learn that to use it after theft, etc, they just remove the battery, short something, etc. Kinda defeats the purpose of smart guns which is to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

biometrics need to work with gloves, bandages, soaked in blood, etc. If it can't, that's a failure. how do you make that fail-safe (if safe = a working gun)?

Proximity devices (special rings, rfid cards, whatever) would fail if the distance becomes too great or the RF is over powered by another source (you drive by the local TV station, etc). Their job would be to unlock the gun when in proximity, but if the gun works when they fail (get too far away, etc) then failing in a way where the gun works would defeat the purpose... you wouldn't need to wear the magic ring...

Smart guns = the technology of the future.... and it always will be!

-rvb

Yesterday's science fiction is today's reality. If science is saying bending space and time, is possible to travel insane distances....creating what I've described doesn't seem that outlandish at all.
I've already said the tech doesn't exist, so why we're applying current capabilities into the discussion, I'm not sure.

 

[searpinski]

If the tech was available, would anybody oppose being able to customize a firearm so it could only be used by whomever the owner programmed it to allow? Idk, bioscans or something? Seems like could be kinda cool to have weapons only your family could use.

100% opposed. Technology adds a failure mode to using your weapon. It also adds the ability for the device to be rendered useless.

 

[Kutnupe14]

100% opposed. Technology adds a failure mode to using your weapon. It also adds the ability for the device to be rendered useless.

Neither issue has merit, at least how I've explained it.

 

[pudly]

100% opposed. Technology adds a failure mode to using your weapon. It also adds the ability for the device to be rendered useless.

100%? Do you oppose someone who wants the option having it or oppose being required to use it or both?

 

[rvb]

Yesterday's science fiction is today's reality. If science is saying bending space and time, is possible to travel insane distances....creating what I've described doesn't seem that outlandish at all.
I've already said the tech doesn't exist, so why we're applying current capabilities into the discussion, I'm not sure.

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination.

 

[ajeandy]

Hi, I work in the technology field, and technology, at some point, will always fail (electrical)

 

[Kutnupe14]

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination.

Imagination is the birthplace of invention.

 

[singlesix]

since we are "if'ing", I agree to the "tech" once they put a psychic stone in the grip that can read my mind and only allow the gun to fire if I am really, really in danger.