Regarding your post on the recent CIA hack “proving” your case against smart guns, you obviously know more about these sophisticated devices than people like me who’ve been making them. Even I didn’t know there are Blueooth, Wi-Fi, GPS, cameras, facial recognition, tracking systems, and other evil instruments lurking in the guns my company builds.
Oh wait. There aren’t. Our guns were designed 17 years ago when most of that stuff didn’t even exist. And they still have none of that junk in them. I don’t know about some of the other smart gun makers, but you may want to consult with someone who actually builds smart guns before pontificating on their dangers.
Admittedly, there are people working on advanced firearm technology who envision and even advocate this type of Big Brother nonsense. We want no part of it, though. So by lumping all smart gun technologies into a single, vulnerable category you’re stooping as low as the lame liberal media does when they espouse the idea that “Uzi’s are bad, but semi-auto hunting rifles with shiny wood stocks are just fine.” Sadly, you’re playing the same game with your “knowledge” – such as it is — of smart guns.
Picture this: a burglar breaks into a home at 3:00am. The husband is on a business trip. Two children are sleeping down the hall. Mrs. Smith keeps her smart gun by the bed. She wants to own a firearm to protect herself, but is concerned about her children’s safety with a gun in the house.
Do you really think Mrs. Smith is remotely concerned that the burglar has armed himself with a portable EMP device? You may want to re-think your nightmare scenario.
Jonathan Mossberg is the CEO of iGun Technology Corp and the Mossberg Group.
So I have to wear a magic ring for my gun to work? And if I have another brand of gun, I have to wear another ring for that? Pretty soon I’m out of fingers…and what if the battery dies?
Anyway, it’s fine with me if you make these, but I’m not buying one.
You won’t have a choice in Mark Zuckerberg’s America when he’s elected President in 2024.
Ivanka will run in 2024. And win. MAGAA.
By the time you’re done you look like mr. T from The A-Team LOL.
I PEW PEW da FOOOL!! Been waiting for that one along time bit as for smart guns helll no
Can I trade in the rings for one set of chains that function for all my guns?
I want the One Ring to rule them all!
The average home burglar probably isn’t prepared with electronic jamming equipment. But arm a police department with smart guns and the whole station can be disarmed with an EMP.
On top of which, at least one state has promised to ban the purchase of all non smart guns as soon as smart guns become available for citizens to buy
These are extremely valid criticisms of a tech that already has few gun buying supporters
How many more criminals would invest in jamming equipment (not just emp, how about simple radio frequency and Bluetooth) if it saved them time and effort as well as extra insurance against ventilation?
EMP can be defeated, but it’s better to hunt EMP mfr’s where they sleep and breed, then hunt those that fund them.
Make me a fool proof, indestructible, holographic optic, and you’ll still fail to convince me that a smart gun is feasible (with 100% regard TO THE USER, F all others and else). No one can produce the former, so I’m not going to waste my time on arguments to the latter.
The fact that Jonathan isn’t wasting more of his company’s time and effort on QC and ‘production’ is proof to me, though, that he [and Mossberg] don’t give an F about wanting you to have guns, they just want you to have “smart-guns”. Kinda like the way the POS (D) and now the POS RINOs are pushing Healthcare “Coverage” instead of just Healthcare. Therefore, I want Jonathan and MOSSBERG to not just have “competition”, I want them to have “Smart Competition”, as it will hopefully redirect Jonathan on to (the obviously more mundane to him) taking care of job 1.
Apparently we’re too stupid to realize those shortcomings.
I’m confused, other than taking a swing at RF, which I’m fine with, did you refute anything at all here.
Cause this kind of feels like your trying really hard not to get your smart guns lumped in with those other smart guns so we will really really like your smart gun and you won’t loose you ass on all the R&D you wasted on a concept that your marketing team sold you on.
How about spending this “Smart Gun” money on making your low quality shotguns nicer so I would even consider buying one.
He didn’t refute anything, in fact he validated some of it. He’s just triggered and venting.
Either that or (just as likely) he’s another tech illiterate masquerading as an expert, who really doesn’t know what those who want to do, can in fact do. Or, Mr Mossberg is just being a savvy businessman, attempting to sell a product that the masses are learning is, well, problematic.
If it’s got an RFID chip in, I’ve got more than a few hacks, and I’m am a nobody hobbyist. If it’s electronic in any fashion, I can damn sure find a way to shut it down, or call someone who knows.
^-THIS. So very this.
I’m left shaking my head at this weapon-making windbag, too. Who even mentioned Mossberg in the original article? I don’t even see mention made in the comments.
And what’s this guy’s expertise, anyway? By his own admission, his company doesn’t make so-called smart guns. Yet, he proceeds to suggest that he’s an expert on them. Uh…ok……thanks for stopping by. Sounds like somebody’s taken one too many shotgun concussion waves to the head.
“None of that junk in them”? Your guns are absolute junk. If Mossberg made a smart gun it would be the Nokia N-Gage.
Phew! I reread the end line and wiped my brow, for a second I thought it was time to boycott OF Mossberg!
Yes, Jonathan has nothing to do with OF Mossberg and hasn’t for many years. He’s persona non grata within the family AFIK.
“Jonathan Mossberg is the CEO of … the Mossberg Group.”
Am I missing something? Is “the Mossberg Group” not the firearms manufacture?
Correct. Mossberg shotguns and rifles are manufactured by O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. There’s no business connection between the two.
The simple and inescapable point is this: adding batteries to fairly simple mechanical objects is dumb. Doing it to fairly simple mechanical objects on which your life may depend is flat out retarded. KISS. For the love of Christ, KISS!
Until you can articulate to me why I need a “smart” fire extinguisher just stop talking.
And, as cold as this may sound, if mommy isn’t smart enough to keep her kids away from her pistola, or at least the ammo for said pistola, then her kids don’t have much of a future anyway. Natural selection at work.
The battery will always fail at the worst possible time.
It can fail brand new or ancient, it cannot be trusted.
“The simple and inescapable point is this: adding batteries to fairly simple mechanical objects is dumb.”
Not to mention: solenoids(prone to locking up), wires, circuitry(at risk of damage due to any number of things), solderjoints(not good in combination with rapid temp change and vibration/jarring), transceivers/transponders(prone to jamming) etc.
And the only real gain to this is… bullpups with good triggers. Oh wait, we can’t have those because electronic triggers in an auto-loader are too easy to convert to full auto.
Some people ople sure do get all snarky when they build products consumers aren’t actually interested in buying.
Correlation or causation? You decide.
Nothing wrong with RF’s post. Jonathan has constructed a strawman here. The fact remains that electronics are an unwelcome point of failure.
Lest we not forget why we have 2A… There is no reasonable expectation of defense against the cyberattacks of a nation state. If even the common burglar is not beyond jamming wireless home security systems, why trust the government with the keys to your “smart gun”?
As someone who has actually made things that are designed to go boom, as well as medical devices who’s job it is to save lives – oh, yea, and large robotics that could kill –
Maybe we should stick with saying anything that either pulls the trigger, or inhibits it – we will call a smart gun. BTW – doesn’t that include any tracking point gun ?
Now, living in the high tech world, and seeing how creative hacker types are. Let me say there is NO WAY you could keep some enterprising person from replacing the smarts, with smarts of their own and bypassing everything smart about it. Just open it up, pull out the bad chips, put in the new chips (at the worst case) and you are good to go.
So, what are smart guns trying to accomplish again ? Take a look at high tech car keys – lots of technology there – yet, someone wanting to get in, simply records the RF from your key fob (jamming it at the car, there are ways to do this). Let’s you push your button 2 or 3 times recording the codes, then plays back the first one and the door opens. Later they play back #2 and your door opens for them.
Dumb is smart. Nothing like a human to control things, or screw it up. Take the good with the bad, but I wouldn’t want to turn my life, or anyone else’s over to anything the government calls ‘Smart’
DS
I like the idea of creating a definition of what constitutes a smart gun, and your’s is close, and seems to capture the spirit of the idea. For legal purposes though, it’d be nice to pin down a solid definition we can rely on.
First off, I don’t think there are very many people that would make the argument that the Tracking Point isn’t a smart gun, although there are probably some the who would simply because they’ve insisted at one point or another that “I wouldn’t buy a smart gun if they payed ME!!@!” Just speculation, not a judgement. These people would want to argue that smart guns are merely devices that inhibit firing the weapon, which may be an valid approach, since if you can fire the weapon regardless of the “smarts”, you simply have a ordinary gun with some extra features, and no one can keep you from firing if you wish. I doubt that is what NJ lawmakers had in mind with their ‘smart’ gun law.
‘Smart guns are guns featuring a device that inhibits firing’ isn’t perfect yet either. After all, the frame safety of a 1911, or the trigger safety of a Glock both will inhibit firing if not engaged, but there is almost no one that would classify either of those weapons as smart (or even together). Perhaps ‘Smart guns are guns featuring a device that inhibits firing against the operator’s wishes’. By this definition my LCP9 with a magazine disconnect is a smart gun, so, this still isn’t a perfect definition. Changing ‘operator’ to ‘authorized user’ doesn’t fix the mag disconnect issue, but even if it did, the LCP9 has a lock that ‘prevents unauthorized use’.
So there’s a little tinder to go with your spark of an idea, let’s get this bonfire going!
The problem with your device predating Bluetooth, WiFi, etc is actually that being an electric device it can be developed further to allow exactly all of those things. The first computer I popped an ARCnet card into to network it didn’t have those things either. Even if your device was 100% reliable in use and it never allowed “unauthorized” people to use it, the electronic nature of it makes it susceptible to the meddling nature of politicians and bureaucrats, and that is unacceptable. Once a shoot/no shoot decision is dependent on some electronic gizmo, these same politicians and bureaucrats will demand remote veto of that decision. They will cloak it as something lots of ignorant folks could be fooled into supporting like shutting off all the guns at a riot to protect police with a carve out for the cops, or how cool would it be to turn off all the non police guns in Chicago on a Saturday night to cut down on the number of people who get shot?
I will never purchase a “smart gun” and would always encourage everyone else not to either. A smart gun is a dumb idea.
Not to change the subject, but a ‘Smart’ car is a very dumb idea. If you don’t believe me go & drive on. Absolute garbage, Just calling something smart doesn’t make it a smart idea to own.
So, a $1000 smart gun is a safer alternative then a regular gun and a $150 handgun safe? Or simply teaching their kids to keep their damn hands off of the gun? And it has to be a woman in the story thats too stupid own a regular firearm without somehow endangering her kids? I think some liberals call this patriarchy but I will probably just call it stereotyping.
I wouldn’t own one, but I think the marketplace should decide if this has merit. So long as it doesn’t lessen my choices of traditional guns, I’m in favor of it. Might even get some people interested in gun ownership that would not be otherwise.
I would agree with you completely if it wasn’t for the New Jersey mandate that once a smart gun goes on sail anywhere in the country all handguns in that State must be smart guns within 3 years.
That is why my response to Jonathan Mossberg is that no American company should even consider working on smart gun tech until that law is overturned. The funny thing is that the greatest resistance to this tech is that law.
“Do you really think Mrs. Smith is remotely concerned that the burglar has armed himself with a portable EMP device?”
She should be.
Energy storage – aka batteries – is getting better. Fast-discharge-capable systems are becoming more compact and faster recharging. And more and more homes are relying on highly computerized, heavy-on-wireless-device systems not only for burglar alarms, but for basic communications.
So yeah, I expect that pretty soon, if not already, the burgler’s toolkit will include portable jammers as well as wire cutters and screwdrivers. If that takes down a smart gun too, so much the better for the burglar.
Ya, people ain’t even thinking out there. When hacked self-driving cars can be used to deliver a death blow to your whole house (in their current form) EMP threats are a yawn factory.
Someday people will say, “remember when people used to have windows in their Un-armored homes AT GROUND LEVEL?” and “Remember when people used to have windows in their Un-armored cars” WHAT FOLLY !
RF may indeed be a knucklehead.
Regardless, “smart guns” are an answer to a question that shouldn’t be asked.
It is a solution to a statist bureacrats dream….how to increase cost and complexity to keep mere peons from owning guns.
Let us know when you a Govt contract to arm their defense forces. Any government…Like to know which country is arming judge dredd.
I asked my son what he thought of smart guns, explaining the good and bad points of the idea and implementation.
He thought it was a very bad idea, and this is from a 8 year old ( admittedly a smart 8 year old who is well versed in critical thinking and analysis).
If an idea fails the “child test” it is clearly a bad idea.
Well, at least he mentioned all of the 3 letter agencies, police departments and security details that have bought his smart guns………………………….oh, wait……..
The adoption of these “good ideas” should be mandatory for law enforcement agencies, fat chance that would happen.
That tells you how workable these things really are.
“Uzi’s are bad, but semi-auto hunting rifles with shiny wood stocks are just fine.”
Mossberg’s only handgun is an AR “pistol”…
This guy is not affiliated with the gun company.
Perhaps an example of this unhackable Emp proof smart technology should be displayed or otherwise explained (specifically) in this response. Second, I have a dumb gun collection and a dumb safe, they work-well. Perhaps Mrs smith should be concerned that her armatix in her biometric safe IS subject to malfunction following an electronic attack-unfortunately the burden is not on me to refute the claim, rather mr mossberg’s. His response answered no questions, provided no EVIDENCE to refute previous claims, and attempted to make less sense than I can after working 12 hrs.
Well duh you just pizzed off and alienated potential dupes er customers…yes I knew he had NOTHING to do with Mossberg(I have one). BTW dumbguns will work in case of an EMP attack…
Johnny seems to be approaching this as though time eternal will remain at this static point. Sure, right now as your product currently exists it specifically at this point in time would noir be affected by a current method of intrusion.
So naturally one can extrapolate all future iterations of so-called “smart” gun implementation will remain impervious to all future intrusion methods.
Right?
Fucking sad for an alleged tech guy.
Yeah, that article didn’t make sense.
I still have no interest in smart guns, though, I’d much prefer a safe.
RFs opinion is RFs. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes not. Such is life.
One conclusion I would have come to without TTAG is no electronics on my guns. Simple. Simple is best.
whats that old engineering adage? “the design is perfect not when you can find things to add, but nothing that can be taken away” Something to that effect. It stuck with me
This is an excellent engineering principle and is exactly why I’m uninterested in a so called smart gun. Why complicate a simple, effective, nearly 100% reliable design. I think this is the critical flaw in the idea from a design and marketing standpoint – gun people don’t want it to become more complicated to use a gun. Even the external lock on S&W revolvers, which is easily removed, has not been particularly popular with many gun owners.
Personally, I don’t want any new potential failure modes introduced into any of my firearms regardless of whether that failure mode is due to its internal components or outside interference.
I have no issue with someone choosing to use this technology. I think it’s a bad idea in most circumstances.
Seems to me that S&W made a ring based (rare earth magnet) internal lock for their revolvers many years ago. It didn’t sell. Now Mr. Mossberg has reinvented the system using a ring based RFID chip. What makes him think that this will be any more popular than the previous version? And although his system is likely more secure, it is less reliable since it is based on batteries that may fail. And it presents a real dilemma for anyone who has more than one or two firearms, since all would likely be keyed differently, or just the opposite, someone who has one that needs to be shared.
Plus the ever present bugaboo: once this exists and sells, some states will mandate it for all new firearms, irrespective of the cost, irrespective of the downsides, and irrespective of the fact that it may not work in all firearms. Once that step is taken, is it too much to suppose that it will eventually be mandated for all exiting firearms, and that those that are not adaptable be turned over for destruction? Sure, that’s extreme–but we see too much extremism in the gun control crowd.
I don’t get why Mr. Mossturd and others who dabble in smart gun tech fail to understand that as soon as a practicable smart gun hits the market, governments everywhere will mandate that all ‘dumb’ guns be phased out and/or declared illegal at some point. People won’t be able to buy (at least not legally) anything other than smart guns. Then it’s only a matter of time before said governments find a way to hack / disable those guns.
While I agree with you, what you fail to understand is that there’s nothing keeping them from doing it anyway.
See: California’s Roster.
See: Microstamping.
BSEE here.
Important question. When the electronics in the firearm fail, what state is the firearm in? Is it disabled?
How do we know? Are they going to release the schematics and design data for us?
Mr. Mossberg has appeared to miss a trend. Technology comes into being that allows the government to track you, then subsequently, the government takes advantage of such technology to track you. For now, Mr. Mossberg wants to make a simple and innocent enough authorization method for firearms. Later others will do the same. And later others will be more sophisticated. Places like NJ will invoke regulations requiring them. Places like NJ will invoke regulations penalizing the disabling of the devices, even if you own them. In no time at all, they will be tracking them around. The serial number of your firearm, will also exist on an EEPROM or in flash somewhere on an IC that makes the gun operable. More tracking, more government control, guaranteed it will happen. They will claim it will reduce “gun violence.” They will claim it reduces/stops/prevents crime. But it will also track legal gun owners, and they will be taking advantage of that. Mr. Mossberg may trust the government, but I don’t.
1. Guns last decades .. the smart gun of today is the next generations Atari.
2. Every battery that I’ve let sit in an electronic device eventually coroded.
3. Technology evolves to fast, the cost to keep upgrading hardware and software on your smart gun just to outpace hackers would be insane.
It’s just a bad idea. I’m not buying your bullcrap mr. Mossberg.
Until Big Brother has a big contract for someone to fulfill. Then mossberg will want part of it.
I’ve got no problem offering smart guns as an option to people who, unlike me, feel that they need them and are a valuable compromise.
However… that’s dependent on the New Jersey State Legislature- get them to repeal their mandate, and nobody will oppose your company’s work, even if they don’t see the need personally.
Inadequate research on mossberg’s end. TTAG did exactly that:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/10/daniel-zimmerman/417224/
Nope. But the government will.
…and it won’t be an EMP – it’ll be an EMI device specifically designed to disable them.
I will consider a gun “smart” if and only if it is not only tamper-proof and EMP-proof, but when it is able to recognize someone who has come to my rescue and grant that person access so as to be able to defend me.
Oh look! The “Smart Gun” maker is a smartass. How cute! _*NOT*_.
Lemmee give you some advice, ‘ol buddy boy: You can catch a lot more flies with sugar than you can with vinegar.
Charlie
No one cares Lil’ Johnny, go cry on another shoulder.
You made a lot of noise but didn’t make any points. The intent of your entire diatribe was spelled out in your first sentence when you stated that you are/ were a manufacturer of said “smart” guns.
Yeah, mrs. Smith keeps a “smart” gun unlocked by her bed, because it’s smart! Kids go in and play pulling the trigger, because its smart! Nothing happens, because it works as intended. Great product! Then kids go to the uncles house. He has a regular old gun. No kids, so he keeps it unlocked. But kids think that gun is like moms. So they pull the trigger, like with moms.
Not smart.
Guns are dangerous. Don’t try to make them safe. It’s not smart.
You make a very interesting point. It isn’t the same as saying safeties breed complacency, but it is in the same line of thought. You certainly shouldn’t be relying on them as a replacement for training, which is what our hypothetical mother has done.
All I know about “smart” guns is that many PoTG, myself included, will not waste a red cent on them. At least not until there’s a plasma pistol in the 40W range available with voice-activated semi-auto/full-auto fire select. 😉
And mister CEO of iGuns, you can take that bitchy attitude elsewhere. It ain’t helping your case.
What do you do if your defensive sidearm develops the Blue Screen of Death? Will Mr. Home Invader allow a timeout if my gun crashes and I have to reboot it?
I don’t need an operating system to operate.
the author tries to be smart about this but then proceeds to severely underestimate the cost of an effective signal jammer (It costs nothing)
It doesnt matter what kind of extra crap he has in his circuit, all anybody needs to do is stop a signal and thats way illegal to begin with.. and way easy to do
no, armed criminals arnt going to be carrying around EMP jammers
why? because a shitty $20 jammer from the hacker down the road will work just fine against any RFID system, or just about any other solution on the market outside of high powered military transmissions. I don’t care what kind of fancy crap this author thinks he has, it’ll be destroyed with radioshack tier components in moments.
He needs to sit down and hang out with the blackhat crowd more often before he starts spouting bullsh*t off.
Just about seventeen years ago people were using Pringles cans to hack into people’s wireless routers. Mr. Mossberg needs to Google “wardriving” before he starts talking about how “none of those things” are in his guns.
“She wants to own a firearm to protect herself, but is concerned about her children’s safety with a gun in the house” – Children are going to be children. They will eventually find a way to do something to a “smart” gun. If they don’t, they will just end up hiding it somewhere. The best course of action with children and guns is to teach them gun safety and responsibility early on (and also keep a trigger well lock for a while until they are responsible enough). When old enough, train them so that said children know how to operate a gun safely. Trying to hide or prevent children from getting near a gun will only build curiosity. The more curiosity you build up in children, the more they will want to be around said gun(s). As an example, there are 10 to 13 year olds – some are on youtube – who have more firearm discipline than some adults. This says a lot about training and establishing discipline early on. The best possible safety in regard to this situation is to make your kid(s) smart; not the gun.
On the topic of smart guns: What can be locked electronically, can be taken away electronically. Americans might already be using other smart devices, but truth be told, those other smart devices will not be there when you find yourself in a life or death situation.
I’m going to echo what others have said already.
If not for stupid laws, I’d be all for seeing smart guns on the market, available to those with the interest in buying them.
what about the likely ease of reverse engineering and disabling these mechanisms?
i have looked at the armitix patents and they are a few minutes to disable in all probability. i will take the pepsi challenge against your trigger packs any time. inevitably they will keep no one but perhaps small children from being able to fire a stolen gun and your millions in research and development will unravel on youtube.
Still not buying one.
I want to drive my car, not let a robot do it. Don’t want a robot firearm either. Stupid people doing stupid things with cars or firearms and blaming it on the objects is insane. Blaming crime on those that had nothing to do with it is absolutely insane. There is no way to make a ‘smart gun’ smart as long as there are people involved.
Hmm, because this guy is totally impartial regarding smart guns right? It’s not like he has a stake in whether a ton are sold. /s
Screw this guy, he is a leech. He is no better than a Kirby vacuum salesman who harangues you for wanting to live in a dirty house instead of paying him a ton of money for his product. That is all this guy is. He is a salesman.
I think pretty much EVERY electronic device I’ve ever owned has (or will) fail. But only I only remember one gun failure/breakage. So I don’t buy electronical guns or Remington autoloaders for serious purposes.
Gee, I was a child with Dad’s closet having three or four rifles. Ammo up on the top shelf. I could’ve easily climbed to that top shelf. But, I knew better. My father made damn sure of it.
I have been Mrs. Smith, with a husband who traveled. Luckily, no one broke in. However, most rifles are too long, unless I use a collapsible stock. I stick to hand guns. I find that Taurus makes guns with a lock system that easily fits in my back pocket. Bersa, too. I’d recommend these, over a smart gun, if you’re afraid your children won’t learn that they can’t play with guns. Hmm, have you taught them that matches are not to be played with, either?
One question, when Mr. Smith is back in town, an armed intruder breaks in, why wouldn’t I want to be able to shoot if Mr. Smith has been disabled by the intruder? I can’t pick up that smart gun and do that.
If there is wireless communication, there are ways to screw with it. From jamming to interference to replay attacks of control codes….
No EMP required to wreak havoc.
I’ll manufacture guns out of blocks of steel before I’ll allow a smart gun in my home (for any purpose other than hacking it for funzies).
The issue that the author is overlooking is that the current approach to smart guns is fundamentally flawed. I design software for a living and in no situation is adding steps (points of friction) to an existing process “smart”, e.g. I need to authenticate to my firearm in order to use it (I just picked the damn thing up, that’s my authentication). This is fundamentally bad design. The approach being taken by Tracking Point and similar companies is much more akin to what ‘smart gun’ technology should be. Removing steps or making them easier e.g. automatic range finding, wind correction, etc. This pursuit of the Judge Dredd style of pistol that only functions for ‘approved’ users is folly.
Maybe Mrs. Smith should just buy one of those pistol safes for WAY less money and WAY more peace of mind that her gun will actually work when she needs it. There is simply no use case for your product. And no you HUGE LIAR of course the police will have a way to disable smart guns do you think I’m an idiot? If these things are a good idea make the police use them. Current laws make police exempt from having to use them.
I feel like I’m just piling on here, but there are really just so many reasons why the whole concept is bad, and Mr. Mossberg’s solution in specific is bad.
The bombshell that was in the released CIA documents wasn’t the Vault7 stuff, it was the information about their Hammer tool V2.0, which proved that they could hack into air gapped devices. It also proved that this method was public, not sequestered solely inside of the CIA. Examples were given specifically for RFID devices. Perhaps Mr. Mossberg should read up on the technology that relates directly to the control of his device.
Beyond that, a good study would be how particular gangs in foreign countries were able to target foreigners by remotely scanning for the RFID devices inside their passports. Could they read the devices? In some cases yes, in some cases no. But even in the no cases, it let them know where to find a target rich environment.
Which is, of course, the real nightmare scenario. If gangs are cruising your neighborhood looking for something worth stealing, that rack of guns that are RFID signal equipped are worth something, perhaps considerably more than the “smart guns”. That will be exponentially more true if all guns are forced to be smart guns. Now, with a reader, they can find who has the guns, or who has the most guns. Before, they would have just snuck in when you weren’t home and defeated your safe or cabinet. Now, well now they need you, or at lest that ring on your finger. So now they sneak in when you are home, and they know you are armed. Or they get there before you and keep your spouse or your kids company until you get home. In that case, you put you and your family at a much greater risk of rape, injury, and death than if you had just kept your stupid guns in a safe.
And yes, Mr. Mossberg, I do know a whole lot about CS, ES, and IS, having focused on it professionally for 20 years, advised 2 governors and 2 presidents, been a member the Texas Cyber Security Council and run the most active seed and venture fund in the state.
Apple claimed that the iPhone couldn’t be hacked. The CIA proved otherwise.
Hackers hack things because they are told it can’t be hacked.
His argument starts with a string of factual errors. He’s pretending he knows about technology but if he did he wouldn’t have stated the following:
” … Blueooth, Wi-Fi, GPS, cameras, facial recognition, tracking systems and other evil instruments lurking in the guns my company builds.
Oh wait. There aren’t. Our guns were designed 17 years ago when most of that stuff didn’t even exist.”
Well genius, ALL OF THEM EXISTED ALREADY.
Bluetooth invented 1994, specification released 1999
GPS invented 1973, deployed 1978.
WiFi 802.11 protocol released 1997
Cameras (assuming he meant digital), CCD’s invented 1969.
Facial Recognition technology was developed in 1964 and 1965.
Tracking systems, well we’ve been branding cattle since before the modern calendar was invented.
Fact, guns don’t need electronics. They need responsible ownership and a culture of safety built around them. Not a damned thing else solves the root problem. Solve for why, not what inanimate object was involved.
Nice list. I briefly considered laying it out in my post, but the eternal optimist in me continually forgets that most people don’t know a damned thing about what was invented when.
Just another ass***e wanting too make a buck, dancing in the blood of children as a selling point!
What is the major problem in the home? Parents have neither the time or ambition to regulate their homes,
especially with all the child welfare laws on the books, if you look at a kid cross eyed you in a heap of trouble boy!
all learning starts in the home, if the parent or parents don’t know of comprehend basic gun safety rules the the possibility of a tragedy is just a heart beat away. then you get this fool wanting to sell his product I wonder if it functions below 0 degrees or how long the battery lasts at the equator, how long does the battery last, what if you get a leaky battery, how does corrosion effect the firing, how much does it add in weight, wonder if Uncle Sam’s Miss guided Children are going too leap on this?!
Mr. Mossberg,
I have been in the technology field for almost 15 years. Electronics are one of the most sensitive and prone to failure parts there are. Capacitors, MOSFET chips, resistors, all of them fail regularly. Stacking all of those possibilities into a time when I literally might only have seconds to save my own or someone else life, is simply foolish. You can not install enough safe guards to keep every idiot safe and still have a functional, do or die device. You are left with a paper weight with safeties and gizmo’s. We have all seen countless movies where “smart-guns” are used with ease. That is not reality and never will be. If a person made it, it will eventually fail. That is the nature of things. And with guns already being mechanical and prone to failure as it is, adding MORE possibilities to that, again, is simply foolish. “oh well i guess its fine then if some kid gets it and shoots himself” no, that is never ok and that is why it is ALWAYS up to the parent of children to guide them, not just wrap the world in safeties and bubble wrap. That creates a false sense of safety and an unrealistic view of reality.
The argument RF makes is early, I will say that. But it is really no different than all the people throwing fits about computers in cars and low and behold, they can hack cars now. It is a matter of time until people will want an ammo counter or some other ridiculous BS built into their gun AND want to be able to check it from home or some other idiotic “want”. And you will cater to it or go out of business. Its simple supply and demand. And as we have seen many times over, sometimes giving people what they think they “want” is exactly the wrong thing to do.
If you want to lock your gun then BUY A GUN LOCK!
Or get a biometric activated vault so your kid can’t acces the gun and accept a slightly slower response time to shoot a perp
As others have said, smart guns that just lock your gun are a complete scam
I agree with some other posters who said smart guns will be something like tracking point
Imagine a gun where every shot is a hit even on moving targets
And if the tech fails, well it has back up iron sights
Now that is a smart gun!
I leave it to others to choose between a smart gun and a dumb CEO.
As for me, I want neither.
If it’s got software so it can be compromised. Or are you going to tell me it is like an Apple product and because of that there are no viruses or exploits that leave it vulnerable?
Point taken about the practicality of compromising the software for nefarious purposes versus the ease of just shooting the wielder, but don’t say it isn’t possible.
If somebody could hack or EMP-blast your smart gun at home, it follows that they might be able to do the same to the electronic lock on a gun safe, leaving you locked out.
I think I’m going to stick with mechanical locks.
The one question I would like to ask John Mossberg is why havent his company or any smart gun manufacturer ever rented a booth at SHOT or the NRA convention yet? If they have smart firearms, why not show them to the gun buying public?
Jonathan Mossburg is unhinged, I wrote him about a year ago about his gun ring idea and smart gun he took it personally and went off on a tirade going as far as calling me an anti gun troll(I’m extreme pro 2nd own dozens of various firearms) I presented multiple ideas and problems with his in a second letter for which he never responded. I loved mossburg shotguns but I’ll never buy one NIB I won’t give him or anything he’s involved with my money.
Smart guns: When the battery dies, so do you!
I am a life time hunter and fisherman any I spent the last 30 years of my life designing computers to run farm machinery and writing the computer code that makes it work. I had a program that ran for weeks at a time. Every 2 or 3 days I was getting memory errors that didn’t make sense until I poked around with a Geiger counter and found the computer was in a spot that was a bit warm from prior radiation experiments years ago. Not hot enough to be a danger but enough to flip a bit on a computer chip now then.
A couple of years ago I took the pistol that is kept in the kitchen to the range to refresh my wife’s & my skill with the pistol. The first round dead center in the targets bulls eye at 25 yards. The pistol hadn’t moved from it’s hiding place in 25 years. Would the battery still be hot, where would I find the ring, were all the soldered connections properly cleaned and treated so humidity didn’t cause corrosion over time killing the computer, were all the parts properly mounted so none broke off under the recoil of the first shot.
Computers can’t be made as reliable as mechanical pistol, rifle or shogun. It need electricity. It has some mechanism to lock a gun, it has hundreds of parts that can fail and it must communicate with some object I may or may not be able to find when I need or want to use the gun.
All those problems don’t concern me because I won’t even buy a new S&W pistol with the lock that locks it’s on very rare occasions. See: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2009/09/03/internal-gun-locks/
Smart guns are a worse version of gun locks.
The reason I buy a pistol is to have something that will fire when I pull the trigger. If it needs a lock I can put one on it. If it needs to be keyed to me and me alone it my problem to take care of it. I won’t by a gun that defaults to a condition that makes it unusable.
Comments are closed.