NRA's enemies list.

[Plu]

The constitution does not grant rights, it protects the natural rights you have a human being, take away the second amendment and the rest are soon to follow.

I'm not even going to pretend to have read the rest of the thread because I'm really tired of all the gun-stuff lately, but I just wanted to chime in stating that it sounds hilarious to say that we have a natural right to own unnatural devices that were specifically designed to take away the natural rights of others.

Even if I know what you mean by this, it just sounds really funny.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The constitution does not grant rights, it protects the natural rights you have a human being, take away the second amendment and the rest are soon to follow.

I'm not even going to pretend to have read the rest of the thread because I'm really tired of all the gun-stuff lately, but I just wanted to chime in stating that it sounds hilarious to say that we have a natural right to own unnatural devices that were specifically designed to take away the natural rights of others.

Even if I know what you mean by this, it just sounds really funny.

I think a fair argument could be made that a man has a natural right to self-defense.

I understand that semi-automatic rifles aren't very useful for that task, in most instances, but they can be and have been successfully used in that context.

I agree that the gun debate is tiresome.  It's particularly so for me, because the extremists on both sides of the issue refuse to consider that there may well be a solution that can satisfy the demands of both camps, in the form of smart guns.

[Plu]

I think a fair argument could be made that a man has a natural right to self-defense.

Well yes, and I assume that is exactly what he was talking about too, the right to self defense. It just sounds really silly when you call it "the natural right to own guns".

[Hakurei Reimu]

@Thumpalumpacus: Is it? How are you going to make a gun that cannot be fired in principle when all the components are there? Such guns can be modified to remove the "smart" aspect, because somewhere along the line you're still going to be igniting a chemical charge with some sort of igniter/cap. If you have that component, the smart gun can be hacked.

I agree that a smart gun would be safer than the alternative, in that you'd still have to spend time hacking the gun to get it to fire for anyone but the proper owners and inside verboten places, but once hacked you're still fucked. I would accept smart guns above the alternative as a stopgap, I do not believe it to be a complete solution.

[Plu]

I don't think you'd ever get rid of guns entirely, but once you get a smart gun to the point where it's harder to hack the gun than it is to build your own entirely, you're pretty much at the best possible solution.

Anything beyond that point is going to have to deal with "how can you prevent people from building their own guns?" where the only reasonable answer is "you can't".

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think a fair argument could be made that a man has a natural right to self-defense.

Well yes, and I assume that is exactly what he was talking about too, the right to self defense. It just sounds really silly when you call it "the natural right to own guns".

Yeah, it's a bit rich there.

@Thumpalumpacus: Is it? How are you going to make a gun that cannot be fired in principle when all the components are there? Such guns can be modified to remove the "smart" aspect, because somewhere along the line you're still going to be igniting a chemical charge with some sort of igniter/cap. If you have that component, the smart gun can be hacked.

I agree that a smart gun would be safer than the alternative, in that you'd still have to spend time hacking the gun to get it to fire for anyone but the proper owners and inside verboten places, but once hacked you're still fucked. I would accept smart guns above the alternative as a stopgap, I do not believe it to be a complete solution.

Of course, nothing is a complete solution.  But making smart guns hack-resistant ought not be too hard.  I'm no technician, but I could imagine the trigger interlock being set to relock at the end of each firing cycle, with the sensor being re-polled each time the trigger feels pressure; in other words, locked is the default..  And I could also imagine setting the IC controller to require an authorization to make any modifications to the action -- and releasing an epoxy or other disabler onto the interlock as soon as any unvetted (by RFID or 'print) modification to the gun is attempted.

Imagine that a criminal steals the gun in the course of a burglary, and takes it back to his home.  He realizes it will need to be hacked.  He doesn't have the right fingerprint or RFID transmitter.  He gets his trusty #1 Phillips-head.  The IC controller sense torsion on one of the screws, checks the sensor for an authorization, sees no authorization, and releases an epoxy into the interlock to prevent its future operation.

Now, like I said, I'm no technician, but I don't think for a moment that that sort of stuff is far outside our capabilities; and because it addresses the physical mechanism itself, it seems to obviate your concerns, which are fair and must be addressed for the idea to work.

[wolf39us]

I think a fair argument could be made that a man has a natural right to self-defense.

Well yes, and I assume that is exactly what he was talking about too, the right to self defense. It just sounds really silly when you call it "the natural right to own guns".

Yeah, it's a bit rich there.

@Thumpalumpacus: Is it? How are you going to make a gun that cannot be fired in principle when all the components are there? Such guns can be modified to remove the "smart" aspect, because somewhere along the line you're still going to be igniting a chemical charge with some sort of igniter/cap. If you have that component, the smart gun can be hacked.

I agree that a smart gun would be safer than the alternative, in that you'd still have to spend time hacking the gun to get it to fire for anyone but the proper owners and inside verboten places, but once hacked you're still fucked. I would accept smart guns above the alternative as a stopgap, I do not believe it to be a complete solution.

Of course, nothing is a complete solution.  But making smart guns hack-resistant ought not be too hard.  I'm no technician, but I could imagine the trigger interlock being set to relock at the end of each firing cycle, with the sensor being re-polled each time the trigger feels pressure; in other words, locked is the default..  And I could also imagine setting the IC controller to require an authorization to make any modifications to the action -- and releasing an epoxy or other disabler onto the interlock as soon as any unvetted (by RFID or 'print) modification to the gun is attempted.

Imagine that a criminal steals the gun in the course of a burglary, and takes it back to his home.  He realizes it will need to be hacked.  He doesn't have the right fingerprint or RFID transmitter.  He gets his trusty #1 Phillips-head.  The IC controller sense torsion on one of the screws, checks the sensor for an authorization, sees no authorization, and releases an epoxy into the interlock to prevent its future operation.

Now, like I said, I'm no technician, but I don't think for a moment that that sort of stuff is far outside our capabilities; and because it addresses the physical mechanism itself, it seems to obviate your concerns, which are fair and must be addressed for the idea to work.

This could definitely be made into reality.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Of course, nothing is a complete solution.  But making smart guns hack-resistant ought not be too hard.  I'm no technician, but I could imagine the trigger interlock being set to relock at the end of each firing cycle, with the sensor being re-polled each time the trigger feels pressure; in other words, locked is the default.

Which you can defeat by removing the solenoid from the trigger interlock.

And I could also imagine setting the IC controller to require an authorization to make any modifications to the action -- and releasing an epoxy or other disabler onto the interlock as soon as any unvetted (by RFID or 'print) modification to the gun is attempted.

Short the power cell, thus rendering the ICs dead. Or fill the action chamber with water before tampering, thus diluting the epoxy.

Also, for the determined criminal who has his own gun, he already has authorization to tamper with his own weapon.

An interlock can really only defeat casual means to get around them. A determined individual can do so with enough effort, and most means of defeating interlocks are pretty simple and just need a bit of planning.

Imagine that a criminal steals the gun in the course of a burglary, and takes it back to his home.  He realizes it will need to be hacked.  He doesn't have the right fingerprint or RFID transmitter.  He gets his trusty #1 Phillips-head.  The IC controller sense torsion on one of the screws, checks the sensor for an authorization, sees no authorization, and releases an epoxy into the interlock to prevent its future operation.

The first thing a criminal is going to do is NOT going to be getting out his Phillips-head. Prior to hacking the gun, he's to go online and figure out the specific weaknesses in his particular model, and there are always weaknesses.

[Plu]

Which, I would think, brings me back to my point that the smart gun only has to be harder to hack than it is to build your own gun, which I think should be possible. Especially ones with an electronic charge.

If it's going to reduce the number of people with illegal access to weapons by 50%, it's already totally worth it. And you can probably do better than 50% if you secure it well.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Which, I would think, brings me back to my point that the smart gun only has to be harder to hack than it is to build your own gun, which I think should be possible. Especially ones with an electronic charge.

If anything, an electronic charge is easier to circumvent if you got it on the bench, as it's basically a smart-igniter. All you need is a little electronic knowhow and build your own means to deliver the required electric pulse to the igniter.

If it's going to reduce the number of people with illegal access to weapons by 50%, it's already totally worth it. And you can probably do better than 50% if you secure it well.

Unfortunately, smart guns will probably make it so less guns are secured, because of overconfidence in the technology. "There's no need to secure this gun; after all, it cannot be fired accidentally." It's a queer bit of our psychology.

There's also the point that any interlock designed to catch a criminal is probably going to sooner or later catch many many more legitimate users who forget to do some vital thing and ruin their gun, which is going to make them pissed and not likely to buy a smart gun in the future.

[SvZurich]

Don't forget the possibility of jamming/igniting the "secure trigger" remotely.  Or if an EMP goes off.

[Plu]

If anything, an electronic charge is easier to circumvent if you got it on the bench, as it's basically a smart-igniter. All you need is a little electronic knowhow and build your own means to deliver the required electric pulse to the igniter.

Assuming it's powered by an electric charge through a simple battery. I was more thinking something along the line of a micro-processor delivering a more complicated sequence of information. You're going to need one anyway. Might as well use it all the way through.

Unfortunately, smart guns will probably make it so less guns are secured, because of overconfidence in the technology. "There's no need to secure this gun; after all, it cannot be fired accidentally." It's a queer bit of our psychology.

I'm not sure how this would be a problem? It can't be fired accidentally, at least not by anyone except the authorised operator(s). Unless you mean someone stealing it, in which case I guess people would be idiots because even though someone might not be able to fire it easily, they can still just take it.

There's also the point that any interlock designed to catch a criminal is probably going to sooner or later catch many many more legitimate users who forget to do some vital thing and ruin their gun, which is going to make them pissed and not likely to buy a smart gun in the future.

Yeah. One of the primary points of smart guns would be that they're a requirement, not an option. They're supposed to replace older type weapons over time.
Also, there's not supposed to be any vital steps you can forget. The ruination shouldn't trigger on anything except someone taking the weapon apart (in which case you should damn well know what you're doing) and when used improperly the weapon simply will not fire.

Or if an EMP goes off.

EMPs are defeated by a bit of steel wire.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Assuming it's powered by an electric charge through a simple battery. I was more thinking something along the line of a micro-processor delivering a more complicated sequence of information. You're going to need one anyway. Might as well use it all the way through.

If you're getting around the security by hacking the gun, that's what you're going to need. And how complicated do you imagine the firing to be? Remember, the more complicated the sequence, the more prone it is to failure.

I'm not sure how this would be a problem? It can't be fired accidentally, at least not by anyone except the authorised operator(s). Unless you mean someone stealing it, in which case I guess people would be idiots because even though someone might not be able to fire it easily, they can still just take it.

That's exactly what I mean.

Yeah. One of the primary points of smart guns would be that they're a requirement, not an option. They're supposed to replace older type weapons over time.
Also, there's not supposed to be any vital steps you can forget. The ruination shouldn't trigger on anything except someone taking the weapon apart (in which case you should damn well know what you're doing) and when used improperly the weapon simply will not fire.

I thought taking a weapon apart is a regular part of gun maintenance. Even in an electronically fired gun, you're still going to have some mechanism to chamber the rounds and eject the spent casing, and you're still going to have to clean the gun of residue that will build up from the propellent and stray bits of metal from the barrel rifling shaving stuff off the bullet. That means many, many opportunities for the gun owner to forget to authorize the cleaning before disassembling the gun.

Oh, that reminds me of another set of people who could take apart a gun: gunsmiths. Again, guns will require maintenance because of the action and powder residue, and will occasionally need to be repaired or customized, which means that you'll have a whole class of people who will be able to open a gun without being their operator.

[Plu]

If you're getting around the security by hacking the gun, that's what you're going to need. And how complicated do you imagine the firing to be? Remember, the more complicated the sequence, the more prone it is to failure.

The sequence has to be completed by the processor, those are highly unlikely to fail. They're very good at repeating sequences.

That's exactly what I mean.

I still don't see the problem? If you're an idiot, you deserve it. There's no way that the gun can accidentally trigger, and any object you leave lying around to be stolen is you being an idiot, not a problem with that object.

I thought taking a weapon apart is a regular part of gun maintenance.

Yeah, and if you can't follow basic steps when doing that maintenance, you shouldn't have a gun. I'd rather have someone forget to take basic steps and ruin his gun over someone forgetting basic steps and accidentally discharging the weapon, the way it happens with a regular gun if you're being a moron. At least you'll learn to RTFM without possibly accidentally shooting someone.
That's why guns come with instruction manuals. This one will just have "authorize disassembly by holding down button A until weapon beeps" as the first step.

Also, all of the "problems" you keep mentioning apply equally or worse to standard class weapons, and every other object in existance. Nothing can be perfectly safe, but it's hard to claim that a smart gun can't be made substantially safer to operate and harder to crack than a regular gun.

I mean; computers can be hacked, and we have entire classes of people whose job it is to try and hack things, but we don't just say "sod it, we'll just publish everyone's bank account information online where everyone can see". Nothing is ever perfectly safe, but I'm not really hearing any arguments against smart guns.

I mean; even "they'd be more expensive" would be a better argument than "but someone could still take it apart if they'd invest 100 times more effort than they'd have to for a regular gun".

[Thumpalumpacus]

Which you can defeat by removing the solenoid from the trigger interlock.

Perhaps.

Also, for the determined criminal who has his own gun, he already has authorization to tamper with his own weapon.

Of course.

An interlock can really only defeat casual means to get around them. A determined individual can do so with enough effort, and most means of defeating interlocks are pretty simple and just need a bit of planning.

Once again, correct, except I don't think defeating them has to be so easy as you think.

Here's another idea:  what if opening up the gun to disable the solenoid activated a "kill" file in the OS, so that no electrical impulse would be sent to the firing pin?

The first thing a criminal is going to do is NOT going to be getting out his Phillips-head. Prior to hacking the gun, he's to go online and figure out the specific weaknesses in his particular model, and there are always weaknesses.

Well, that was just a little stab at levity, y'know?  A little creative flourish.  

The point is not to make a perfect system; such is obviously impossible.  The point is to make a system difficult enough to defeat that it isn't worth the effort.  Let's face it, gun-toting criminals -- the type who rob liquor stores and banks -- they're looking for the biggest, and easiest, return on a minimal investment.  

I'm not a big fan of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  I figure that we're pretty capable technologically, and can make a system that's bitchy enough that it will eliminate most -- not all -- firearms violence in America.  I certainly think that with some R&D, a robust system can be put together.