The Washington Post
A high-tech startup is wading into the gun control debate with a wireless controller that would allow gun owners to know when their weapon is being moved — and disable it remotely.
The technology, but not an actual gun, was demonstrated Tuesday at a wireless technology conference in Las Vegas and was shown to The Associated Press in advance. It comes at a time when lawmakers around the U.S. are considering contentious smart gun laws that would require new guns to include high-tech devices that limit who can fire them.
The new Yardarm Technologies LLC system would trigger an alarm on an owner’s cellphone if a gun is moved, and the owner could then hit a button to activate the safety and disable the weapon. New guns would come with a microchip on the body and antennas winding around the grip. It would add about $50 to the cost of a gun, and about $12 a year for the service.
“The idea is to connect gun owners more directly with their guns, no matter what the circumstance,” said Yardarm CEO Robert Stewart.
The Yardarm system is one of several recently introduced high-tech offerings: the iGun only fires if it recognizes a ring on a finger, the Intelligun uses a fingerprint locking system and TriggerSmart uses radio frequency identification.
I'll bet the same guys who applaud the plastic 3D printed gun, even in its primitive stages, will denigrate smart gun technology as impractical and expensive.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Here's the thing, Mike--I applaud the efforts of the people working on this tech. I'd love to see how it progresses, and if it gets to the point that I can trust it (the reliability issues that have been raised before) I wouldn't mind having it on my gun.
ReplyDeleteI'll also add that this is one of the more interesting bits of tech that's been tried, although I generally dislike carrying GPS trackers on me, and I wonder how they'd manage to do this in a way that it couldn't be disabled by cutting the antenna, etc.
As for objections, I don't have objections to the existence of the technology, my problem is with the government mandating tech, especially when it's in its beta testing phase at Best.
Like most gun control measures, smart gun mandates would likely have a LE exemption, even though a cop who open carries by default and deals with criminals on a daily basis is the person most likely to lose control of his or her weapon. You can bet that the LE organizations and unions would lobby for an exception based on the same practicality issues we raise.
The two types of technology are of different categories. A 3-D gun requires a design and materials able to fulfull it. "Smart" guns need recognition software and battery power.
ReplyDeleteBut if you can't see the concern over letting some company charge me $12 per annum per gun to monitor my armory, there's no hope for you.
On the contrary Mike, This technology holds some great promise. However, they can quote prices and boast about capabilities all they want, but they are still a long way to where they can offer a finished product. As with many electronic devices, the issues can be divided into two areas, hardware and software.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem with the hardware aspect is that the device must have a reliability very close to perfect. Either of two possible failure modes can result in death. If an unauthorized person is allowed use of the weapon, another young life could potentially be lost. If it doesnt allow an authorized user access, again lives counting on the weapon for self defense could be lost. My personal criteria for considering the purchase of such a firearm would be when law enforcement and the military impliment the systems in all of their weapons.
However, as often seems to happen with gun legislation, law enforcement and military are often exempted from restrictions they dont like. One example of this is the NY SAFE Act. The bill was passed so quickly, that nobody noticed that there was no exemption from the restrictions for law enforcement. Ooopsy...
Another challenge is the software. Some of the features they are talking of offering holds great promise, such disabling the firearm if moved without permission.
However, the other question would be who else can disable it. The government? Hackers? We are seeing examples right now of government employees violating their public trust. The IRS scandal, The collection of phone records from newsmen, and of course,the Wikileaks case where many classified documents were compromised. And that's just the government side of things.
How about a threat a bit more mundane? Will the gun still operate if you dont pay the monthly service fee? Will it default to work like a standard without the safety feature? Or will it default to unusable?
A very large safety concern is that if people come to count on it too much, then they'll start to do stupid stuff. Not worry about leaving it where kids can get to it. Will the child know whether its a smart gun? Or one of the 300 million of so standard firearms. And of course, possibly with a bit of alchohol thrown into the mix, someone will want to demonstrate how well it works by giving the gun to a buddy and telling them to try shooting the owner.
Trying to legislate the technology's use would be disastrous because to require someone to use unreliable technology would result in death or injury.
As Greg says--comparing this . . . "smart" gun technology to 3-D printed gun technology isn't comparing apples to oranges--it's comparing apples to lamb chops.
DeleteI have no problem with people buying the "smart" gun tech if they want. I don't imagine that I'll ever join them in that desire, but one of the key differences between people like me, and so-called "progressives," is that when I spot something I don't want, I simply don't buy it, rather than try to have it banned.
3-D printed guns--what's not to like? As Dan Baum brillaintly wrote:
What really has people upset about Wilson’s plastic pistol is the absence of permission inherent in the project. The idea that people might own something as dangerous and personally empowering as a firearm without society’s permission is what has always given gun-control advocates the fantods. That’s really what we talk about when we talk about guns: the power of the individual in relation to the collective, and the extent to which each of us needs to live by the permission of the rest.
To continue what Kurt said, I'm not particularly a fan of Glocks, but someday, I might own one, and I certainly don't want to ban them.
DeleteDan Baum is full of it with his libertarian-adolescent nonsense. Guns are restricted because too many unfit people have easy access to guns. This home-made 3D thing makes that worse. The bullshit about gun control advocates just want to control, is glib and slick, which appeals to you guys, I know, but it doesn't really make sense. Gun control advocates want gun owners to be better qualified. What's so hard about that?
DeleteDan Baum is full of it with his libertarian-adolescent nonsense.
DeleteNo--you're full of it, with your authoritarian-collectivist nonsense.
Gun control advocates want gun owners to be better qualified. What's so hard about that?
One of the problems is that in your case, merely dropping a gun is enough to "disqualify" a person for gun ownership (and you support bans of so-called "assault weapons," which are defined in part by the presence of grips and barrel shrouds that make them easier to hold, and thus less likely to be dropped).
It is, of course, exactly none of the government's business who owns guns, and the sooner officials become disabused of the ridiculous notion that it is their business, the better.
Mikeb, if you really only wanted gun owners to be more qualified, we'd have a lot less to disagree about. The problems are as follows:
Delete1. We don't believe you. There's no good to be had by asking us to trust you or to have faith in what you want.
2. What you want would make legal gun ownership so difficult and so expensive that few would bother. Many people would own guns anyway. They just would take the position that if the government doesn't respect their rights, the government may fuck off.
"It is, of course, exactly none of the government's business who owns guns"
DeleteIs this also true about cars and boats? How about real estate? Or, are you only worried about the government knowing what guns you own?
Is this also true about cars and boats?
DeleteI'm not particularly worried about cars and boats. For one thing, I have not noticed any movement to make those harder to obtain, to reduce the number of people eligible to obtain them, or to reduce their capability. For another, I don't see cars and boats as being terribly central to the people's ability to resist tyranny. Finally, I don't know how one could make much use of a car or boat that one keeps secret. Where would you drive it?
How about real estate?
Now how would that work?
Me: This is private property--you'll have to leave.
"Tresspasser": But there's no public record of it having been purchased.
Me: Yeah--shhhhh! The government doesn't know about it. But anyway, scram, beat it--this is my land.
So, yeah--I guess I can live with the government knowing who owns what real estate.
Good try, though (well, not really--but an entertainingly weird try, anyway).
Kurt, thanks for the humorous example regarding real estate. Honestly, this is something I haven't raised before, but that has always bugged me when people say "We register our vehicles and land, why not guns."
DeleteThe whole reason we started registering the vehicles and land was to help determine who owned what so that people wouldn't fork over their life savings to a charlatan selling other people's land. It was worth it due to the prices involved. At the same time, we didn't start registering lawn mowers, table settings, etc. Potential losses weren't worth the expense.
Now the government requires registration because they want the fees and ability to tax the property, but originally it was a way of giving notice that this big thing was yours. It wasn't a way for the government to know who had what and to control who had what.
By the way, Mikeb, you'd like the end of this Dan Baum article a lot better--lots of crap about the desirability of "safe storage" laws, and how "the community" of gun owners hasn't demonstrated enough responsibility, and how concealed carry permit holders should be required to get more training--blahblahblah, collectivist claptrap.
DeleteBut the part that brings me joy is with the guy who owns KT Ordnance, which makes and sells "80% complete" receivers that anyone can buy, completely legally, no background check, no paperwork, no nuthin'. He tells Baum that he has sold over 10,000 80% complete AR-15 and AR-10 receivers.
Isn't that the coolest thing you've ever heard? Over 10,000 legal, but completely untraceable, "assault weapons," from just one of the producers of the 80% receivers.
Time for a beer and a happy dance for me!
"I'm not particularly worried about cars and boats. For one thing, I have not noticed any movement to make those harder to obtain, to reduce the number of people eligible to obtain them, or to reduce their capability."
DeleteHave you really not seen any of those things regarding cars? Aren't licensing, registration and insurance requirements exactly that?
C'mon, admit that it's your "particular friendship" with guns that makes the difference.
More great news, Mikeb! The Liberator pistol CAD file is vastly more popular than I'd ever imagined:
DeleteThis blueprint is now among the top 10% most downloaded bit torrent files.
Now that didn't take long.
Perhaps even more gladdening to my big, libertarian heart is seeing that Janet "Skunk Mullet" Napolitano's DHS is shitting porcupines about 3-D printed guns:
A new Department of Homeland Security intelligence bulletin warns it could be "impossible" to stop 3D-printed guns from being made, not to mention getting past security checkpoints.
Few things make me happier than seeing the panic in the eyes of the statists when freedom starts breaking out.
I know what you guys are really looking forward to is one of those Judge Dredd guns.
ReplyDeleteI'm sort of old school. I dont like counting on batteries.
DeleteActually, I want a phaser--not the dust buster of the Next Generation, but the classic design.
Delete+1 on the Phaser--stun setting would be a nice option to have, and the top setting means the revenuers never get found!
DeleteLaci will be along with an "insurrectionist" comment in 3...2...1...
Here's food for thought: Do you want Microsoft having control of your guns?
ReplyDeleteLet the market decide how much they want it. They problem with the gun control folks is that when they get a whiff of something like this they immediately want to use the full force of government to control people with it.
ReplyDeleteBeam me up Scotty! I am Lost in Space! Lols.
ReplyDeleteI will add this as well. Any device that can be added to a weapon can also be removed thus restoring its original functionality. Remember, ANYTHING ADDED CAN BE REMOVED!
DeleteSo a true "smart" gun will have to be a complete re-design and these devices must be integral in order for them to work as conceived. That will be a new class of weapons and most likely VERY expensive.
So lets consider the smart gun, a TRUE smart gun, not an add on device, and computer interface for a moment. Would some hacker out there turn the smart gun into a FULL AUTOMATIC weapon by hacking into the program. That would give it the option of semi-auto fire, three burst, five burst and so on. How about an outside hacker that hacks in to a gun making it a full auto without the gun owners knowing? Or not to function at all when needed?
The concept listed in the article uses open air radio transmission and can be intercepted, blocked, hacked, spoofed or a virus introduced in either the gun or the owners computer, pad, phone app. A hacker could hack the persons monitoring capability to show his weapons are not being disturbed when they are actually going across the country from theft.
Large government computer are reportedly hacked all the time around the world. Big companies as well. Smart phones are attacked with viruses as well as home PCs, constantly, daily. It would be nothing for a hacker to look for a certain APP, identify the owner, disable the monitoring, and someone to go get those weapons. Malicious programs that randomly disable or reprogram a weapon to be useless or dangerous.
For me, NO THANKS! I will keep my 100+ year old gun designs thank you very much!
Have you really not seen any of those things regarding cars?
ReplyDeleteNo I have not seen anything like that required for ownership of a car.
Aren't licensing, registration and insurance requirements exactly that?
Those requirements are for driving a car on public roads. And sure, it's intrusive, and maybe the fact that these requirements (except for insurance) have existed since long before I was born has conditioned me to be more tolerant of them than I should be (the boiled frog analogy), but I'm not going to worry about it until there's a Brady Campaign to Make Car Ownership More Difficult.
Even then, it would be a far lesser evil than "gun control," because as I've said, cars aren't really going to be a central element in fighting tyranny.
And wait a second. Aren't you the one who shrieks like Ross the Intern tossed into a crocodile pit, every time someone compares gun regulation to car regulation? Aren't you the one who claims that your fundamental human right to not have to deal with such comparisons would be Constitutionally protected, if not for the Constitution having been written thousands of years ago by primitive white men?
Yeah, the old "driving a car on public roads" qualifier. That's pathetically weak. And you slid from that one right into the car infringements have been in effect since before you were born so you're used to them.
DeleteAnd just in case we weren't laughing enough an your inane fumbling, you reminded us of the heroic fight against tyranny.
How's that fight going, by the way?
Yeah, the old "driving a car on public roads" qualifier. That's pathetically weak. And you slid from that one right into the car infringements have been in effect since before you were born so you're used to them.
DeleteYou know what a person sounds like when he dismisses arguments without addressing them? Like someone who has no counterargument. That's you, Mikeb.
And just in case we weren't laughing enough an your inane fumbling, you reminded us of the heroic fight against tyranny.
It has been explained to you more than once, by me and multiple others, that as sane, ethical people, we who have never lost sight of the fact that the Second Amendment exists to protect the people's right to the means to resist tyranny will avoid war until all hopes of a peaceful resolution have been exhausted.
That has not yet happened.
You. Fail. Again.
And just in case we weren't laughing . . .
DeleteBy the way, what's this "we" shit--is that dissociative identity disorder kicking in yet? Time to call you a hate group now?