Posted on 01/24/2016 12:13:21 PM PST by Iron Munro
The gun control movement's latest hobby horse is the smart gun. President Barack Obama included federal support for smart gun research in his recent executive orders, delighting activists who insist that a locking mechanism capable of preventing criminals from firing stolen weapons would surely be popular with gun buyers -- if only the gun industry would drop its opposition.
The bad news for anyone looking to the smart gun as a technological quick fix for gun violence is that, absent a government mandate requiring all guns to be "smart," a robust market is unlikely to materialize. And even if new laws were to require that all new firearms include smart gun tech, many proposed smart systems would make us less safe.
The primary objection that American gun buyers have to smart guns is that any integrated electronic locking mechanism will necessarily decrease a gun's reliability by introducing more points of failure. Smart gun proponents are quick to dismiss these concerns as overblown, but they don't seem to understand how all-important reliability is to gun buyers, or how difficult it is for even premium gun makers to mass-produce weapons that will function smoothly under the most adverse conditions.
Every gun owner who has put enough rounds down range has had his favorite firearm fail to go "bang" when he pulled the trigger. These failures can happen to the very best semiautomatic weapons in the final round of a competition, in the heat of battle, or when a trophy buck is in the hunter's sights. Weapon malfunctions are such a widely acknowledged reality that basic training courses typically explain how to rapidly troubleshoot such failures during a gunfight.
Gun owners are terrified of anything that might make their guns less reliable. And when they consider the frequency with which their $700 smart phone's fingerprint scanner fails when presented with a clean, dry, perfectly-positioned thumb, they rightly conclude that putting any type of electronic lock on their Glock will likely make them less secure, not more.
For the sake of argument, however, let's say that the reliability objection to smart gun technology has been definitively addressed, and that there exists an electronically lockable gun that's practically flying off the shelves. Such technology would not dependably stop unauthorized users from firing stolen weapons, for the simple fact that every piece of locked-down consumer technology that has ever been introduced -- from the DRM schemes that encrypt Blu-ray disks to the software locks intended to keep users from installing illicit software on their iPhones -- has been "jailbroken" and can be defeated by anyone with a little time and access to YouTube.
As impossible as sealed electronic gadgets are to secure against tampering, guns are even more hopeless, because firearms are mechanical devices that are designed to be disassembled for regular cleaning and repair. Once a gun has been broken down, any component that prevents it from firing can be filed off, taped over, replaced, or otherwise circumvented. Smith & Wesson users, for instance, routinely remove the integrated mechanical locks that the Clinton administration convinced the gunmaker to add to its popular family of revolvers.
Smart gun technology can and will be jailbroken -- but that isn't even the worst consequence of this particular "safety" trend. The bigger problem lies with smart guns that are designed to connect to another device, either to obtain permission to fire or to alert authorized users to the gun's location.
Technology companies warn that if they create a "back door" in their encryption products for government agents, they're also creating a possible "back door" for criminals. Just so, any capability we give authorized gun users can and will be exploited by unauthorized users.
With this in mind, a gun like the one proposed by the president in his recent speech, which can broadcast its location when stolen, seems like a spectacularly bad idea.
If the authorities can locate or disable a firearm remotely, then the bad guys can, too. Imagine a criminal with a laptop casing a crowd or a row of homes, looking for the tell-tale wireless signature of a hidden gun. Even if the gun doesn't connect to a network and is instead secured by RFID technology, it's hardly invulnerable. The same tools that identity thieves use to remotely read the RFID chips embedded in newer credit cards can be repurposed to target hidden weapons for theft.
Genuine improvements in firearm safety are always welcomed by American gun owners, who know exactly how dangerous guns are in the wrong hands.
But electronic locks that are likely to backfire on gun users, and that are vulnerable to exploitation by criminals, will be rejected by the market and, ultimately, by Congress.
Jon Stokes is a founder of Ars Technica and the author of "Inside the Machine: An Illustrated Introduction to Microprocessors and Computer Architecture." He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.
Points out potential unforseen consequences of Smart-Gun technology.
The push for Smart-Guns is like all other liberal initiatives - they never consider or have concerns about the likely downside.
The next thing might well be a push a federal gun ‘kill’ switch via web connectivity (yikes).
I would not mind a switch for police guns. Let the police work out the bugs. If it is so safe and reliable, then the police should have no problems being the first to adopt it, yes?
fascinating article considering I don’t know a whole lot about guns. But I heard that having two parents and a father with a job is usually pretty good for avoiding gun deaths. on a side note I think I watched a documentary that stated that the m16 in Vietnam Jammed very easily if a little dirt got in it
The same ones laws are for.
When I order my gun to shoot, I don’t want my gun second guessing me.
Exactly.
Once a firearm depends on electronics, implementing a “kill switch” is fairly trivial.
‘Smart guns’ is a masturbatory exercise the left has been fondling for over 40 years with no real progress seen since the 1970’s. Just another liberal feelgood mantra... OHHHMM. heh
Smart guns are nearly as useless as smart toilets.
Or being second-guessed by some Affirmative Action appointee back at Big-Gov Master Control who has the power to enable or disable your weapon with the click of an icon.
Exactly. It’s just soft confiscation. “We don’t want to take your guns” ... no, they’ll settle for just making them worthless.
Once you start adding electronic crap to the operating components you will see some really stupid guns.
Don’t forget that the federal government will demand a remote override be in every smart gun so that they can remotely disable them.
I wonder what effect an EMP would have on a SMRT gun...
Another example of elitism...
So that only the rich and wealthy can own guns.. And those with less money can’t.
Where is the outrage of the that would claim it as a racist measure?
1. The M16 was designed for Dupont IMR powder, but the Army changed the spec to the same Winchester Ball powder as the M14 rifle. Result: the higher proportion of calcium carbonate in the Ball powder was left behind as fouling in the M16. The Ball powder was particularly tenacious and hard to remove, it burned hotter than the IMR powder, it raised gas port pressures, and increased cyclic rates that resulted in part breakage.
2. The M16 rifle was the only rifle issued to troops without a cleaning kit nor were troops trained in its maintenance. Troops were told that the rifle was self-cleaning and they did not clean their M16's resulting in corrosion and jams caused buy fouling.
It took the Ichord Committee report and unfavorable reports coming back from the combat zone to move the Army to solve the problems it had created. Cleaning supplies were rushed to Viet Nam and troops were trained how to maintain their rifles. Some had been so neglected that they required an overhaul to restore them to service.
The Army instructed the contractor to make the necessary changes so the rifle was more tolerant to the fouling effects of Ball powder and the powder formulation itself was modified.
To reduce the erosion problems caused by the hotter burning Ball powder, the Army specified chrome plating of certain parts. Chrome plating also made cleaning the caked-on fouling easier to clean off.
By 1969, the M16’s early flaws were pretty much a thing of the past, but the damage done to its reputation for reliability took many more years to repair.
“The push for Smart-Guns is like all other liberal initiatives - they never consider or have concerns about the likely downside.”
Why would a gun control fanatic who only wants to reduce the number of guns worry about something that will make guns less useful. That would be a ‘feature’ not a bug to them.
No such thing as a dumb gun or a smart gun.
Like any other tool it is only as good or bad a the human being using it.......
Most “smart technology” being attempted with guns simply renders them useless as a defensive tool.
wow. thanks. what does fouling mean? i assume some kind of damage, ball powder?
i’m sorry. im a NYC/USSR resident.
the documentary was VERY misleading then, because it made it sound lie many lives were lost throughout the entirety of the war because of the defect AND that the AK47 was far superior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.