US Government Releases Proposed Guidelines For Smart Guns

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The government has given their thoughts on how they think smart guns should work, but with layers of complexity at play such as interference or malfunction, public input is expected and finalized specs are still to come. Even if the security of a smart gun fails, it “must default to a state to allow the pistol to fire.”

The biggest difference that the proposed smart gun would have from regular firearms is the addition of a so-called "security device." This is designed to prevent unauthorized use by disabling the firing system unless when in control of identified users, and has to meet an exhaustive list of requirements (at least, in this draft proposal). The security device is to be a permanent part of the pistol, but can include externally worn items such as rings, wristbands or tokens. More than one person can be programmed to operate the gun, and the security device must not alter the normal operation of grasping and firing the pistol, nor increase the time needed to grab, draw from a holster and fire the weapon.
 
"must default to a state to allow the pistol to fire."


I don't get that requirement at all.

The whole point of "security" (as i'd imagine it) is that the weapon is a dumb object unless the handler's person is authenticated and even once authenticated, that the handler's person has authorization to trigger the firing of the actual weapon.

Of course, when i hear security, i think security from the perspective of a software developer i.e. 'integrity', where integrity is defined as "verification/validation" or "authentication/authorization".

Whatever the government is cooking up, as usual it appears to be half-assed.
 
You will be able to buy an Apple Gun that syncs to your Apple Watch using bluetooth. Every time you need to fire a bullet, you can pull out your iPhone and use the fingerprint reader to sync it to your gun. For extra security, it would require you to install any new firmware updates before firing. That way you can be sure you're safe in any tense situations.

If someone pulls a gun on you and your Apple Gun needs an update, just calmly ask them to wait while you update and reboot your iPhone and Apple Watch before engaging in any firearms usage.
 
You will be able to buy an Apple Gun that syncs to your Apple Watch using bluetooth. Every time you need to fire a bullet, you can pull out your iPhone and use the fingerprint reader to sync it to your gun. For extra security, it would require you to install any new firmware updates before firing. That way you can be sure you're safe in any tense situations.

If someone pulls a gun on you and your Apple Gun needs an update, just calmly ask them to wait while you update and reboot your iPhone and Apple Watch before engaging in any firearms usage.

Don't forget the government backdoor that allows them to turn off all smart guns to keep them from doing anything dangerous like shooting.
 
"must default to a state to allow the pistol to fire."


I don't get that requirement at all.

The whole point of "security" (as i'd imagine it) is that the weapon is a dumb object unless the handler's person is authenticated and even once authenticated, that the handler's person has authorization to trigger the firing of the actual weapon.

Of course, when i hear security, i think security from the perspective of a software developer i.e. 'integrity', where integrity is defined as "verification/validation" or "authentication/authorization".

Whatever the government is cooking up, as usual it appears to be half-assed.

exactly. if this is a requirement then why do we smart guns at all?
 
I'm still waiting for a "smart government". Sigh. The Constitution was a great guideline. If they'd only follow it, even the idiots in government (elected, appointed, and hired) would seem so much smarter. Now? The opportunity to make an invidious comparison to "going off half-cocked" is almost too great to resist.

Smart guns? Give me a smart government. The one is so much more dangerous than the other.
 
Smart guns regulated by dumb government? Brilliant.

It may simply be stating that if the tech fails, it defaults to being able to fire?

Still don't agree with it, but it kind of makes sense. You don't want to whip out your gun to protect yourself only find that it's crashed and is no longer usable.
 
It may simply be stating that if the tech fails, it defaults to being able to fire?

Still don't agree with it, but it kind of makes sense. You don't want to whip out your gun to protect yourself only find that it's crashed and is no longer usable.

It was an overall general statement and not necessarily directly attributed to the specific verbiage.
 
exactly. if this is a requirement then why do we smart guns at all?

Because if it can work most of the time, then it could be useful in preventing people getting shot with their own weapons. The police would be interested in something like this. It has to be reliable, it has to fail in a state that leaves the firearm operation, it has to work more or less 100% of the time for the correct user of the gun. However if it can prevent someone who takes the gun from firing it, even only say 80% of the time, that is still a win. Not the kind of thing we'll see in use any time soon, as the tech would not only have to be developed, but then proven to a high standard, but it is something there would be legitimate interest for.
 
Are we really that surprised that this is a dumb idea? I mean, this is the same Government who spent millions of taxpayer dollars to study the dynamics of a frisbee....
 
Is it just me, or does Lawgiver from Judge Dredd sound like a better idea as time goes on?
 
Smart guns regulated by dumb government? Brilliant.
Oh, wait and see what's in the pipeline with respect to your government update campaign your are in.

As for smart gun: it would be smart to not have a gun, then you can't shoot in your own foot and other people's chests.
 
why is it smart not to have a gun? i would say the opposite, how will you defend yourself or your family when someone comes to hurt/rob you/them?

you gonna call the police and wait 3hours for them to get there?
or you gonna get some other useless weapon and get your face bashed in?

either way you gonna lose
 
Oh, wait and see what's in the pipeline with respect to your government update campaign your are in.

As for smart gun: it would be smart to not have a gun, then you can't shoot in your own foot and other people's chests.

Tell us more about these magical guns that act on their own free will.

Guns>Knife>Rock>Fist
 
Oh, wait and see what's in the pipeline with respect to your government update campaign your are in.

As for smart gun: it would be smart to not have a gun, then you can't shoot in your own foot and other people's chests.

I find multiple aspects of this post confusing.

I find your logic unsound.

Most importantly, I find the lack of your sense of humor disturbing.
 
No mention of compatibility between one brand of weapon and another. What is the point of a 'smart weapon' if it defaults to allow to fire? Looks like a typical set of specifications designed by someone that has no real experience using the item being specified.
 
Because if it can work most of the time, then it could be useful in preventing people getting shot with their own weapons. The police would be interested in something like this. It has to be reliable, it has to fail in a state that leaves the firearm operation, it has to work more or less 100% of the time for the correct user of the gun. However if it can prevent someone who takes the gun from firing it, even only say 80% of the time, that is still a win. Not the kind of thing we'll see in use any time soon, as the tech would not only have to be developed, but then proven to a high standard, but it is something there would be legitimate interest for.

80% of the time? I can only imagine the lawsuits that would follow that one. Someone getting shot because the safety mechanism failed to work would get massive attention.
 
Who would use such a thing? More importantly who owns those? Answer, nobody.

i can't think of anyone who would be willing to pay for that, maybe some misguided democrat who hasn't woken up to the reality of the situation
 
80% of the time? I can only imagine the lawsuits that would follow that one. Someone getting shot because the safety mechanism failed to work would get massive attention.

How about a person who needs to shoot and the 'more or less 100%" of the time to work for the correct user is closer to 'less'. Some police officer or law abiding citizen gets killed because when he tries to use his smart gun for self defense, it fails.

If when the tech is broken the gun defaults to fire, it will be all of 6 minutes before every criminal on the face of the planet learns how to break the tech.
 
I will stick to all of my Beretta's that I keep safely locked up, but I can get to them in less than 5 seconds.
 
i never will understand why weapons are that important for some. I'm with the therory/utopie that if you don't have easy access to weapons the need to have access to weapon is also reduced. Sorry, I have that simple mindset.
Living for 50 years on this planet I never needed a weapon or even felt the need. Maybe because I grown up and live in societies were access to weapons are highly regulated. Worked for me.
 
Many of us enjoy having them. The self defense aspect of ownership is secondary to that at least in my case anyhow. I don't think it likely I will need to use it for that purpose though there is that remote possibility. Regardless the 99.99% of us who have them are fine with them. People need to turn off the TV and quit with the hysterics.
 
i never will understand why weapons are that important for some. I'm with the therory/utopie that if you don't have easy access to weapons the need to have access to weapon is also reduced. Sorry, I have that simple mindset.
Living for 50 years on this planet I never needed a weapon or even felt the need. Maybe because I grown up and live in societies were access to weapons are highly regulated. Worked for me.

Hah...I remember the same thinking being said about vehicle airbags way back when. My line of thought is: Better to have them and never need them, than the other way around.

The extreme regulation or outright ban of firearms by oppressive government regimes works for some countries...take Australia, for example. It is an island in the middle of the ocean. It takes a lot of time, effort, and money for criminals to smuggle firearms all the way to Australia. And that is why the reports of black market firearms costing several 10s of thousands of dollars there are believable. It's not going to work out so well for countries with borders comprised of terra firma. Here in the USA, about 2,000 illegal firearms enter the country daily (yes, every day) just from the southern border alone. That's not counting further illegal firearms that make it over the northern border and land on our shores daily. Over 1,000,000 illegal firearms get smuggled into the US annually, which is why getting a firearm on the black market can be relatively easy and cheap for most criminals. It's an absolutely idiotic notion to believe that banning legal purchases and ownership of firearms here will curtail gun violence in any way, shape, or form.

Besides, all responsible, safe, and law-abiding gun owners are inherently against gun violence, given the very meaning of the words responsible, safe, and law-abiding. Gun violence is the result of criminal activity with a firearm when there is no regard for responsibility, safety, and law-abidance.
 
Besides, all responsible, safe, and law-abiding gun owners are inherently against gun violence, given the very meaning of the words responsible, safe, and law-abiding. Gun violence is the result of criminal activity with a firearm when there is no regard for responsibility, safety, and law-abidance.

Agreed.

The left's definition of gun control always restricts the rights of responsible gun owners, and has little effect on the criminals.
What we need is gun control that makes criminals think twice about having a gun when they commit a crime.

Here's the gun control law I'd like to see.

1. Use a gun during the commission of a violent crime and 10 years are added to your sentence.
2. If anyone gets shot, your sentence is increased by 20 years.
3. If anyone is killed (even if they are hit by a car running away from you and your gun) it's an automatic death penalty.

4. Full protection for anyone using a gun in self defense of them selves or others.
 
Here's the gun control law I'd like to see.

1. Use a gun during the commission of a violent crime and 10 years are added to your sentence.
2. If anyone gets shot, your sentence is increased by 20 years.
3. If anyone is killed (even if they are hit by a car running away from you and your gun) it's an automatic death penalty.
4. Full protection for anyone using a gun in self defense of them selves or others.

1. and 2. There is, quite frankly, not enough prison space for what you want. This data on what sentencing gun crimes get on average may be of interest to this conversation; what you are asking for in most cases far exceeds what is given out, and we currently have 2.2 million people in prison (22 percent of the global prison population). You have a logistics problem.
3. Almost all of the states already have felony murder rule.
4. In what way do we not already have that?
 
I remember a news piece with a concept similar to this being considered after the Columbine shooting, never heard from it since then, looks like no one had interest in it at the time.

I wonder if interest will fade with this one too.
 
How did a backwards flag get past the patriots?

I'm glad I live in a country that did real gun control after our last mass shooting, (1996 Port Arthur massacre), we havn't had one since nor have to live in fear of shootings in places that should be givens as being safe. Plus we have a national agency that actually stops terror plots instead of just sees where they are taking it. You all should be mad as hell and demanding more than just do nothing public addresses from the President each time this happens. Stop buying into the bullshit. No mass killings here, yet our gun ranges and private ownerships are very very healthy. Our kids go to school without needing weapons detections, or fear of being shot, we can go to the movies without fear of being shot, same as public events, hell, even just taking the train.
 
How did a backwards flag get past the patriots?

I'm glad I live in a country that did real gun control after our last mass shooting, (1996 Port Arthur massacre), we havn't had one since nor have to live in fear of shootings in places that should be givens as being safe. Plus we have a national agency that actually stops terror plots instead of just sees where they are taking it. You all should be mad as hell and demanding more than just do nothing public addresses from the President each time this happens. Stop buying into the bullshit. No mass killings here, yet our gun ranges and private ownerships are very very healthy. Our kids go to school without needing weapons detections, or fear of being shot, we can go to the movies without fear of being shot, same as public events, hell, even just taking the train.

The flag isn't backwards. Read up.

Why is the U.S. flag worn backwards on uniforms?
 
Thanks for that. I'm sure I'll notice it more now on things. Now I know what it symbolises, I can't agree it should be on a gun at all. Seems insulting as someone isn't going home.
 
God forbid they try SOMETHING. Guns are a problem that need dealt with and yet anytime something is proposed that could be positive, people won't even hear it. Sure, it needs work. We have to start somewhere. At this point, we should be listening to and exploring all ideas.

But "'murica" and "muh guns!"
 
Back
Top