Smart guns? Dumb idea.

So, Jeremy Shane thinks the solution to the problem is to “make guns smart”: (h/t Shawn)

While the debate rages on, it’s worth thinking out of the box for a moment. What if we could design guns to be smarter and safer — with hardware and software? The right technology could neutralize the killing capability of an assault weapon, even in a madman’s hands.

After reading Mr. Shane’s article, I’m not sure how much he knows about guns or software, but it comes off like he doesn’t know much. I’m a firearms instructor and have been a software developer for over 20 years, so I know a few things about both realms. Given that, while I applaud Mr. Shane’s imagination, I can say his ideas are best left to the imagination, as realization of them will not lead to the end goals he desires.

The root of the problem is that guns are “dumb.” Pull the trigger and they discharge bullets mindlessly, regardless of who is doing the aiming or where they are aimed. Guns should “know” not to fire in schools, churches, hospitals or malls. They should sense when they are being aimed at a child, or at a person when no other guns are nearby.

Most useful tools are dumb. We don’t have “smart” hammers, smart screwdrivers, smart knives, smart binoculars, smart blenders, smart cars… well, granted some things are starting to try to move that way, but most things understand that those “smart” devices can really only operate in dumb environments. No computer can process information as fast and as well as the human brain, can make the “instant” decisions that sometimes are necessary. The “touchier” the environment, the more humans are still needed. Even with all the safety technology being brought into cars, we still haven’t eliminated the driver because there are just some things the car cannot do and only a human can.

Should guns “know” not to fire into schools or churches or hospitals or malls? I don’t know… what if there’s an active shooter in a school or church or mall (since that’s where most such events have happened)? Wouldn’t you want the good guys to have guns that can work in those environments?

They should sense being aimed at a child. How would that work? Define “child”, as some sort of optical device would perceive them? I mean, I know some young teenagers that are larger than adults, some adults that cast child-like silhouettes. Mr. Shane also says “Sensory data can be used by built-in software to disable firing if the gun is pointed at a child or someone holding a child.”. Or someone holding a child… So a gun shouldn’t be functional if pointed at the person kidnapping your child?

You see, these are subjective decisions. How exactly can software make the sort of decision necessary? And even if it can, it takes time, time that may not be present as a horrible event is unfolding.

If you wish to have software attempt to make these subjective decisions, we have to remember that software is imperfect. It’s written by humans — who are imperfect — and software has bugs. It may not be robust enough. It may not be sound enough. It may hold bias of the programmer. I mean, for all my care and concern at writing bug-free code in my decades of programming, it’s impossible to write bug-free code. Do you want YOUR bug to be responsible for someone’s death? That it might not fire when you need it to fire, or that it fires when you don’t want it to fire? And then, who bears the responsibility for such a mistake?

Couldn’t gun software be hacked? Perhaps, but the risk can be reduced by open-sourcing code, requiring software patch downloads, and notifying gun makers or law enforcement if software is disabled. Open-sourcing code is not foolproof, but it will build a community of lawful gun owners and code writers who value safety and Second Amendment rights. Enabling two-way communication between guns and their original makers will help guns to be tracked beyond the initial sale, putting greater long-term responsibility on gun makers.

Nice thought, but open source code is still not bug-free and still can have horrible things happen. And there’s nothing here to address “software hacks”, but boy… what about viruses? what about social engineering? hardware hacks (I mean, why not just disassemble the gun and disable or replace the mechanism)? It’s not like DRM has really stopped piracy. It’s not like iPhone’s don’t keep getting jailbroken. There’s so many other things that can happen and be made to go wrong, to bypass, or to even force malfunctions. Wouldn’t it just be dandy if some virus was let loose that caused all these guns to rapidly empty their magazines at some coordinated time of day… all around the world… *shudder*.

There have been groups that have attempted such “smart guns”, and all have failed. Not only because the system itself doesn’t really work out, but because no one is willing to buy said “smart” systems. There’s no police nor military group that would want to buy such a thing, because they operate in environments where you may need to shoot multiple rounds in a school at a person holding a child. They understand these “smart” systems are anything but, and are too risky and prone to failure, and not worth risking their lives over. So you may say, only sell “dumb guns” to police and military. Realize then that still means such guns would be in circulation, and thus bad people will still get a hold of them. Of course, if you know anything about weapons fashioned and found in prisons, bad people will get weapons without your “smart restrictions” if they really want them. Even if somehow that’s all there is, there are going to be other “dumb” ways to cause mass destruction; look at Timothy McVeigh. So all these “smart” weapons would do is abridge and hamper law-abiding good citizens. Why do you want to do that?

You see, a well-made gun is actually a very simple mechanical system; it’s a simple machine. Once you start to add all of these things on it, start trying to add GPS, sensory data, target discernment, you start making for a massively complex system. And with any complex system, it starts to become… well… complex. Difficult. And prone to mistakes.

If truly you value life, should it be held to a system that can be massively complex and prone to mistakes? For all your attribution to car technology, Mr. Shane, consider how many recalls happen every year. A car is a massively complex system, and while it may work most of the time, you know all too well that cars break down and fail us. Thankfully most of the time car breakdowns don’t have life hanging in the balance. But when good guys need their guns, for certain lives are hanging in the balance — do we really want the risk of breakdown when preserving life is most critical?

It’s a nice thought, but technology cannot save us. Fixing our cultural and social norms and behaviors is at the root of solving this problem.