Slashdot Mirror
Smart Gun with Minicam and Biometric Access
StrawberryFrog writes "Ya well no fine, those crazy South Africans are at it again, this time with a "intelligent firearm". You may have heard of guns with fingerprint recognition before, but this also uses a laser to ignite the propellant, has multiple barrels and incorporates a minicam to record as evidence what you are shooting at. It's a very different gun design, and one that depends on electronics to make it work."
"Smile, I'm about to take your picture punk!"
X10 enters the firearm business.
Now to ensure my clone never gets his hands on my gun...
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
They would invent smart bullets so that a gun can be fired in the U.S. by Dubya and it will hit all the evil-doers in Iraq.
Because you see, Saddam is an evil, evil man and the U.S. is not interested in Iraq's oil fields (nor was it interested in Afghanistan's natural gas and iron deposits.)
What I want to know is when Thinkgeek will be carrying these ... any bets?
KARMA TAG! You're it.
"[B]ut this also uses a laser to ignite the propellant, has multiple barrels and incorporates a minicam to record as evidence what you are shooting at. It's a very different gun design, and one that depends on electronics to make it work."
Same premise as any other gun, this just...makes it easier to be arrested for murder?
TLoM: Nerds + DDR + Rednecks for the win!
Red LED display of number of rounds left. (Preferably facing the user when held, so no-one else can see it).
graspee
That's Ja well no fine, boet.
Great, can't wait to see the headlines: Dumbass kills self while trying to take picture, family sues gun manufacturer.
Insert witty comment here
Now script kiddies are going to h4x0r guns.
It's a very different gun design, and one that depends on electronics to make it work.
You might want to carry a revolver in your sock for when the OS crashes.
"ya well no fine"?
;-P
am i having a stroke and losing the ability to decipher english? what does this mean?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's also a gun easily disabled by an electro-magnetic pulse, which is especially relevant since the military now has EMP bombs.
You're only as smart as your brain.
When the world outlawed certain countries from making guns, what did they do? They used soviets. Cheap, powerful.
So, tell me, what is stopping a crook from NOT buying one of these? By putting a gun like this in circulation, you are basically protecting only the "good" gun owners; the bad guys will still just go out and buy guns off the black market. And, well, what happens when it becomes illegal NOT to use guns like this?
Well, I see cars around me all the time with modified exhausts-even though its ILLEGAL where I live.
Crooks will be crooks; thats why my solution doesn't lie in the gun, it lies in the criminal; work on figuring out why people use guns instead of fixing guns for crazy people.
a video record of what you're shooting at... hmmm maybe this will be the advance in technology that can bring the gun rights people and the gun control people together. i think accountability is the most important thing; if you are responsible you can have a gun if you want. now only if bullets had these minicams in them so that you can see who shot the bullet when the shooter cant be found
The problem with all of these type of technologic "advancements" in firearms is that they miss the whole point of a self-defense firearm. If one is to use a firearm for self-defense, it will be used at the last possible moment - a moment that does not allow for software glitches, hardware bugs, run-down batteries, etc...
This 'technologizing' of firearms is only viable for certain military applications - useage scenarios far removed from those of civilian owners; yet there are enough dumbass lobbyists and politicians who don't understand that one can NOT ask an attacker to 'wait while I reboot my gun'.
For a street-legal weapon that complies with civilian laws, it would have a 10-round magazine and fire single shots only, requiring the trigger to be pressed each time.
So....A "street-legal" gun is one that can only shoot 10 people in about 15 seconds or less? What street would this be? Then again this is being developed in south africa. I guess even warlords have to keep their goons under a tight leash.
=If life was easy, i would be out of a job=
... but, this would in essence be pointless. There are guns over 100 years old that still work today, and there are millions of guns without this implemented floating around. What kind of stupid-ass criminal would buy one of these when he could steal a gun without this?
I'll stick with my H&K.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
Now the Chic Geek will be looking to outfit his Segway with a turret.
Then you can add blue tooth so you can fire it remotely...just make sure it doesn't get hacked.
Woohoo!
:-)
GO South Africa!
~ Kishyr
I can see it now.
"This gun has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down..."
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
But I bet the idiots who bought 4 large crates of these guns didn't bother to ask about the little red button on the side.
I don't understand some of the logic behind some of the guns features, for example, the built-in camera. If I'm going to do something illegal, I can put a piece of tape over the lens. And if its recording data on all shots, and taking pictures, how much memory does it have? If I go to the shooting range, and I go thru a couple of boxes of ammo, will I run out of memory? If I run out of memory, does the gun lock up? Regarding the the biometric data locked into the gun. Knowing how fast most other things are cracked, how long till mod chips are available? Somehow this doesn't seem to be the answer to gun crime.
Does this gun ever BSOD?? ;)
(I see Star Trek phasers comming to Real Life with these types of weapon in the works)
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
but will it be able to identify it's user through chocolate doughnut topping or whatever else people get on their fingers?
to try this out.
Or possibly firing in the dark? Maybe even sitting high up in your father's oak tree polishing the gun with your bottle of nu-metal shine the all new gun polisher which also happens to coat the gun's camera in 3 inches of metal nu-ness as you shine and chant "I am the angel of death."
imagine a beowulf cluster of these...
That cam would sure be a lot more entertaining to watch than some crappy office/desk mounted webcam. Just donate a set of these to your local police department and see how the pictures turn out.
What is BSOD, and what is LOL? help please
David
dmiller@iinet.net.au
I can't wait until small, reasonable resolution and frame rate video cameras can be worn with a cord going to a waist clip harddrive or a radio antennea. We'll see some flip-floping of positions on the privacy issue; the facist portions of our society will discover the value of privacy when not just the authorities are recording everything, and the civil libertarians will discover that you can actually exercise your rights when you make it impossible for people to lie about you in court.
1) Does that thing remind you of a Star Trek phaser as well?
2) Thumb-print protection? Eh...excuse me, but wasn't there recently an article on Slashdot were a bunch of students tested thumb-print security and found that they were pretty much all easy to bypass!?!?! Some thumb-print security pads could be by-passed by simply BLOWING on them!!!
Puts a whole new meaning to the phrase "This'll blow you away man!"
not even worth it
Of course, every American will want one. It's our constitutional right.. you know, just in case our government gets out from the control of the people. After all, the government is born of the people, and it's every American's right.. ney, DUTY to take up arms against their government when they have over stepped their bounds.
So if that happens, well, when the black storm troopers try to take away ma and pa's surburban homestead, we'll protect it.... what? 'central control has declaired use of this firearm unauthorized???' WTF????
Seriosuly, can I get mine without 802.11x??
I am not a gun nut
The Internet is generally stupid
Thanks!
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
What's the best way of eventually eliminating usage of existing weapons? Prohibit manufacture of ammo for it.
I can forsee all current types of ammo being banned one day, and only a new non compatible design being allowed. The gun that can use this ammo will be highly restricted. Eventually the existing ammo supply for "pre-legal" weapons will run out, rendering them useless to all except those willing to pay high prices for the remaining ammo stocks. A black market ammo industry will arise though.
Now.. what you see and what you hit can be different things, no?
What we need is a bullet with a mini-cam in it to take pictures of it's victim before it strikes, and preferably a picture or two of his internal organs(also great for diagnosis--bad liver? no problem anymore!), and maybe a picture of his backside as it exits.
Until this happens, I will remain unimpressed.
So if the gun crashes and fires acidentally do you get to see the blue sceen of death?
In a nutshell, isn't that just adding the missing components to a blank casing? Kinda like the firearm equivalent of buying a rebuilt alternator? What if manufacture of the slug (or whatever the term for the lead is) gets banned? Or even sale of reloading components is banned? Plus the supply all those casings are eventually going to dry up.
Can you make your 2nd amendment right take the 5th?
I'm for gun rights for lawful owners. But I can forsee the Liberal elements of this nation intent on making it easier for criminals to attack lawful gun users. Gun restrictions won't be enough for them, they'll attack the consumables.
When reloading, does one create/mold/pour their own slug out of lead stock, or does one buy them preformed?
This would be ideal for cops. Now, the next time the police shoot, we'll have photographic evidence that could prove whether it was justified or not.
It's, oh, say... 50 years from now. You're a soldier, say a blue-helmet, supposed to be keeping the peace in some crappy country that's chock-full of gang lords and private armies. You're on patrol with your partner.
Suddenly, a crack and your buddy is down, choking on his own blood. You take cover behind whatever is available, try to figure out where the fire is coming from.
Another shot, and your Intelligent Rifle is hit, damaged beyond repair. Shit.
Luckily, the rifle dropped by your buddy is close. You grab it, jam your thumb into the stock's biometric window. No response. Damn! Covered with dust again, frickin' dirt... Still cowering, hoping you're covered, you wipe the window and try again.
"BZZZZZ... User's Smart Card does not match profile. Please ensure that you are using the proper weapon."
You jab the control button to force the gun to authorize a new user, but it's too late. You just got killed by a rifle made in your great-grandfather's day.
I think some militaries might have reservations about a few of the "features" on these guns. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell
As opposed as I am to owning a firearm of any type, security measures on guns are a big issue if you're a legitimate gun owner. This would allow you to keep a gun in your house. Hell, just keep it under the pillow. Kids can't shoot themselves, and your gun can't be used to shoot you.
There are other ways to do it that require less electronics, though.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
How am I supposed to pretend I'm Dirty Harry weilding one of those things? No thanks..
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
A lot of NRA types would reject technology like this out of hand. I would not, but I do have a few problems with it.
Keeping guns out of criminal hands - long term.
This gun will not do it, and I doubt if any feasible security system could. No matter how well designed, unless it actually wrecks the gun when tampered with, any security system could potentially be by-passed. I doubt if it would take criminals long to figure out how to do it.
Keeping guns out of criminal hands - short term.
If the only aim is to prevent a criminal from pulling a cop's gun and shooting him, or using a home-owner's gun against the home-owner, then a system like this might work, but is really over-kill. The electronic firing mechanism is designed for long-term security. A mostly mechanical firing mechanism with regular amunition would be just as good for short term security, without the problems asociated with special amunition.
Reliability.
A lot of gun owners, and cops, would be concerned about reliability. Personally I think this is an issue that could be over-come. If such a fire-arm could pass the sort of reliability tests used by most police departments then it would be fine with me. What I would object to is legislation that foisted such fire-arms on the public before they had passed such tests. Ideally the police and/or military should be required to use the same technology if it is forced upon private gun owners.
Hardening
As long as such firearms are sensitive to EMP effects, or any other method by which the state could easily disable them, I think that any law which mandated them would be unconstitutional. If the 2nd Amendment protects anything at all it is the right to keep and bear arms that could be used effectively against the state.
Again this is a problem that could be over-come. Military hardware is hardened against EMP effects. In principle there is no reason why a un like this could not be hardened as well.
Price
Technologies like this push the price of firearms beyond what the average citizen can reasonably afford. US society already suffers from an unhealthy prevalence of inequality. Any law that reserved firearms for the wealthy would make things considerably worse.
Wasn't there an article on slashdot approximatley 3 months ago about a Japanese scientist who could fool 95% of ALL fingerprint sensors (even those that require heat/heartbeat)? According to him all one would have to do is lift a fingerprint, make a PCB mould out of it, pour Jell-o(?) and glue it to his finger, and voila, the owner could get framed for anything. I see no way one could make fool-proof guns these days, as retinal scan or DNA sampling would take too long to authenticate, and in case of emergency, chances are the user would be loong dead/injured/unconcous/kidnapped/tied up... to get any use out of it. I say it is a noble idea, but other than for the army (set a 12 hr timeout so that the gun will work for while soldier is doing his 10 hour patrol or whatnot...) i can see no useful uses.
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
Okay, it's got the minicam, right? Well, here's the deal. If it's got a minicam that saves to onboard memory, it can only store so much, I'm sure. If it's hi-res enough to make a positive ID, it's going to take up alot of memory. If it's low-res, you can make a positive ID.
If the gun runs out of memory (Owner takes it to a shooting range and empties about 10 clips at 10 rounds a pop, that's 100 pics), does it dump the oldest pic and save over it? And if so, what stops the "bad guys" from killing someone and then emptying out a few hundred rounds at the nearest range (there are 3 of them I can use within 20 miles of where I live, for example) to eliminate the evidence?
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
It's only a matter of time before Microsoft gets into the gun market...
Windows for Handguns:
- It will have state-of-the-art security features so that only the true owner and any script kiddie with ability to download a crack can use it.
- Whenever you are in a critical situation it will lock when you try to fire.
- The EULA will come with 5 pages of clauses outlining how the gun does not let you shoot MS employees.
- The targetting system will be off by varying amounts.
- Shooting will be delayed by messages informing you that you're low on bullets.. even if you're not.
There is no chance in hell I would own of these. There's just too many things that can go wrong. One example, how does the biometric portion work? Is it instant or do you grab the gun and wait 10 seconds while it validates you? By which time you have been killed by the intruder.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Is it perchance called Rinpoche?
OK, if you not read redRobe get your ass to IBList and check out Jon Courtenay Grimwood. And then I'll get round to adding reRobe when I get up tomorrow. Since I'm tired from doing the Arabesks!
Long story short though, AI gun, who's sarcastic and difficult. And a great character.
You just KNOW there will be all sorts of sites on the net with "candid shots" from this gun... I wouldn't envy those suprise "up the skirt" shots, but I am macabre enough to want to rate the "am I dead or not" pics...
Important feature for whom? I'm certainly not going to shoot anybody and I certainly don't need a gun to make me feel safe.
In fact, if there's anything I've learned from the government's anti-drug commercials it's that we need more gun control. Otherwise when little Jimmy and his friend get high (and we all know they will) they'll accidentally shoot each other.
Hahahahahaha, what?
That's an insightful comment for about two seconds. Who's going to convince people that these are the only guns you can use? It's like passing escrow laws and assuming those wacky terrorists will update all their commercial software to the latest versions. Good luck getting the NRA to even think about supporting something like this.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
i love guns!
you love guns!
guns are great!
guns make big noises!
i want one!
woohoo!
(BANG)
dead gun owner
the world improves a bit
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Nope. We catch almost all the people who kill other people with guns, but they're still dead.
Stopping the killing is the key to bilateral acceptance.
Produce a gun that won't fire unless the target deserves it.
for example, the best idea was to not mark the bullets but rather the gun powder with plastic micro-taggants (basically a dust whose particles are made up of snadwhiched layers of plastic that form a sort of bar code that can be read under a microscope). The test project put this into commercial dynamite and in fact several 1960/1970 convictions were obtained based on the taggants. but they tried it in gunpoweder and it workd just fine. The NRA moved in and killed all the legislation. Now a days dynamite is no longer tagged.
the wonderful thing about this stuff is that when the gun fires the power gets onto the shooter, bullet and target and is hard to remove. indeed its so hard to remove its main current use is in secretly marking designer clothing (e.g. to reconize real jordache jeans over the couterfeits)
the NRA, is, surpisingly, not you and me, nor even most US gun manufacturers, but rather its mainly funded by foreign owned cheap gun maunfacturers. They want to keep hand gun laws uncomplicated so more folks can own guns cheaply. The more expensive (mainly US + european based) manufacturers are not big NRA supporters since they would prefer to see the fixed costs of gun ownership rise a bit, so that the differential costs of their higher quality weapons are not as noticable. In fact the better gun manufacturers are solidly behind legistlation to improve handgun safety since anything that would make people have to go out an buy new and higher quality guns is good for them
taggants and the consequent legislation and regulation and tracking of bullets would increace the costs of gun ownership but not the cost of guns, thus favoring the quality manufactureres.
unfortunately the quality gun makers dont have the clout the NRA has.
As it is police dont even track ballistics and shell casings across juristiction boundaries. THe homeland defense hysteria may finally cure this with a central database. Which is a great worry to 2nd amendment people. And of course to the NRA.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If this gets fielded, I suspect we'll be seeing it crop up in the RISKS Newsletter more than once.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
The suitcase that serves as Reason's power supply and ammo dump is open on the deck next to him, its color monitor screen reading: Sorry, a fatal system error occured. Please reboot and try again.
-Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
Ideas like this and gun control laws never seem to grasp that a gun is in theory a very simple device. Even if they made all guns illegal and managed to seize every gun in existence it's still not hard to build a gun. I've built several ranging from handguns to a cannon.
Gun powder isn't especially hard to make either and you can design guns that fire without it. A gun that fires darts with compressed air can be just as deadly as one that uses explosive charges.
Sure your average criminal might make sucky guns that eventually blow up in their hand.. but not until after they've already robbed a couple hundred people. All you'll end up doing is taking away peoples right to defend themselves.
ll life's secrets can be answered by Weird Al..
"Gun control is for wimps and commies."
"Guns don't kill people - I do!"
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
The purpose of this gun - and other guns designed like it - is to keep innocents safe and criminals without the tools to murder or steal, right? I really wonder. There are already millions of guns in existence that don't require you to fake a fingerprint in order to use them, and it's not that hard for any criminal worth his crowbar to acquire one. As for civilians who seek protection in these guns, there are several aforementioned issues with the user recognition system. One internal error and you're screwed. Outside of rounding up every ballistic weapon in existence and destroying/disabling them - which is, of course, nearly impossible - there's no solution to the problems created by guns. We've gotten ourselves into this, and unfortunately, there isn't really a way out.
Waiting for the announcement...
NetBSD is now available for your SmartGun!
sigs are dumb.
would this help this guy?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
See? Who SAYS having one of the world's highest crime rates can't lead to positive advancements? Probably the most fun thing to happen in South Africa since Queen played Sun City.
I am Law! You are Crime!
a street-legal gun is one that doesn't give a victim enough firepower to ward off a mob larger than 10 people
How to deal with a hot burglary using Microsoft SmartGun2000(tm)
Hear window break.
Stand up and walk[1] to the spare bedroom[2] where Microsoft GunSafe2000(tm) is located.
Sing the sacred song "How Great Bill Art" into Microsoft GunSafe2000(tm). Upon this confirmation of your loyalty, Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) will automatically determine which firearm you likely are thinking of using. Since it's deer season, you are offered your 24-inch bolt-action .308. You were probably going to go off on an early-morning hunt on a whim anyhow.
Put the rifle back in Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) and punch the "burglar" button.
Listen to the interminable recorded message from Sara Brady stating that it's best to call the police if you're so unfortunate as to be robbed.
Notice Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) make whirring noises and a metallic "clunk". "Please wait" appears on the monitor.
Hear Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) call 911 and play badly digitized audio tracks of some old Flash Gordon serial.
Shout at Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) to give you your 1911A1.
Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) refuses to give you the pistol because the competition isn't until next month and it's too early in the morning to clean it.
Lie to Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) about the match really being at 4:00am today. Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) being bad at math, this works. Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) relents and offers you your Microsoft SmartGun2000(tm) and helpfully reminds you that it destroyed your 1911A1 last week because it wasn't compatible with Microsoft GunCase2000(tm).
Begrudgingly, you take the fetid pistol and the magazine, which appeared in a slot nearby.
Insert the magazine. Press the "Ok" button when the voice asks "do you wish to load Microsoft GunOS?"
Meanwhile, the intruder hears you cussing at your gun case and correctly concludes that you are quite defenseless. After rebooting your gun for the third time, the burglar appears at the door and shoots you dead.
[1] Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) is carefully designed to prevent the owner from grabbing for gun when he is angry, thereby preventing heat-of-passion shootings. Running to Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) is interpreted as anger, so please WALK.
[2] Microsoft GunCase2000(tm) is a modern GunCase(tm) and therefore requires at least 128 square feet to properly protect your firearms.
Um. I shoot people so that there AREN'T witnesses. Fuck this gun!
Game... blouses.
yeah, i may actually have a use for a gun now. the only way that i could ever purchase buying such a thing is if it can do something useful, like run netBSD. i'd bet at the consumer launch of these things you'll be able to download netBSD for it too.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of guns....
What about substituting the video camera from one of these tv shows (you know which) with one of these?
I'm on the battlefield, killing the enemy then my battery runs out. Great I feel so much safer. Least with chemical based (i.e. normal guns) least you know there are to work as long as you have ammo
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
You are the one spreading FUD, apparently without knowing it. I'm trying to set the record straight. asshat, try learning something from scientists who actually indpendently studied the issue, rather than repeating Heston's gospel.
...a Beowul....nevermind.
I don't see this new biometric stuff being used for close range weapons-- at contact range of only a few meters, there's no time to fiddle with a pistol or do anything except pull the trigger. Mag Loc solves the retention problem; it's a metal ring that you and your spouse wear that engages a plate in the grip of your pistol to prevent anyone who takes the weapon from immediately using it against you. It's a great idea, and as shown in the reviews of the product it's definitely workable. It's available for the Colt 1911A1 now, and they told me they are adding other models in the future. This is ideal for in-home use or for concealed carry, assuming you use a 1911. If I were a law enforcement officer I would just use a pistol lanyard for retention purposes. At $89.50, I would much rather get the mechanical solution.
i highly doubt gun rights advocates would ever swallow wide implementation of computer technology in guns, especially if TCPA and RFID ever come to their attention.
AAAGH! You killed Kenny!
Ron Paul 2012
But, furthermore, why does a firearm need to function 100% anyway? If the choice is between no gun because of gun control or a gun that works 95% of the time, which would you pick? If the choice is between guns that kill hundreds of kids in accidents a year an work 100% and guns that don't kill children, what's the right tradeoff? And do you think that a gun that works only 95% of the time is not going to deter a criminal anyway?
Your argument is like people who expect that medicine is error free. It isn't. 25% of the time, it's probably the doctors that kill you if you go in for something serious. You are still way better off to get the treatment than not. And if most malpractice were actually detected and prosecuted, we'd get no medical treatment at all because there would be no doctors left.
Lets port it to Linux!
I'll abandon the SourceForge project.
We'll have to check for buffer overflows - a DDOS could make this thing into an automatic!
I like what Chris Rock said "They should just make bullets cost $5000 dollars, that way before you could shoot anyone, you'd have to save up the $$ first and if someone gets shot, then they probably deserved it".
is one that won't fire when aimed at a person - or a animal, for that matter...
I was just thinking, I wonder if there'll be bootlegged copies of those images going around, gore gallery style.. if every murder (with those guns) is captured.
but then again, who'd kill someone with one of these??
when the rain comes, they run and hide their heads. they might as well be dead.
Python. If you code in anything else, you're a crack-addicted monkey whore.
Whatchou say 'bout my momma?
Ron Paul 2012
OK, I guess it's time for eat my words. In reply to this article, I shot my mouth off about the stupid legistlators who enact stupid laws.
Now who looks foolish.
Until the police and military are using these 100% of the time - I WOULD not considering using them. Why? Reliability issues.
For those thinking about serial numbers on bullets and taggants - remember if someone is really determined they can make there own:
http://www.corbins.com/howto.htm
OR - they can just steal guns and bullets from the police/military. 3 HK-11 submachine guns ..
Want to learn more? here
Would be cool to play quake on it. Is somebody porting it already?
Uh... won't fool me. This thing is like a cell phone. When you finally want to use it, it will start beeping and flash *low battery*...
A Smart Weapon based on a dumb-ass concept. Hmm let see be held legally responsible for every bullet you've purchased. Purchase a firearm that cost twice as much and can be disabled by authorities at a distance. Yeh I'll take two please. First off, I don't think they've ever heard of a little concept called identity theft and second, the only way I'd be willing to buy into that is if the military and law enforcement had to as well. Of course they wouldn't want it since a thirteen year old with a wireless connection and laptop could hack their weapons making them fire in the holster or disable them. A firearm is a simple device with a simple role. Complicate that role and it becomes more dangerous to the user and nearly worthless as a tool. The only place I could see such a weapon be even remotely useful is in places such as prisons. Where those that it is to be used against do not have much in the way of resources to fight back. I guess it's noble to try to make it more difficult for firearms from being abused, but at the same time it's pretty pointless. I've got an idea, instead of chasing the symptoms as so many idealists/liberals typically do, how about going after the source, which is the scum that needs to be filtered from the gene pool. Make it illegal to have children without special safety training, a license, and being able to demonstrate a suitable degree of intelligence and competence. I think that would have a much greater impact on the problem of violence than trying to blame a inanimate object, and in the process waste a great deal of money on a useless scheme. Of course if we put restrictions on reproduction rights then there would be a few areas of the world that would die out in a single generation due to low birth rates. The again that's not entirely a bad thing, since California and parts of Europe are getting awfully crowded anyway.
actually the NRA has supported the efforts to make biometric guns, because a safer gun is a better gun. Now if congress was trying to pass a law stating that only biometric guns could be owned by private citizens you would have a very different situation, but in general the NRA is extremely pro gun safety.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Here we have someone spieling a conspiracy theory about how foreign manufacturers own the NRA, and are flooding the US with cheap guns?
Excuse me?
Apart from your total ignorance of the NRA's substantial individual membership, I don't think you've recently been to a gun store or gun show. If you had, you'd have seen the prices. Most of your cheaper firearms (lorcin, davis, raven, bryco, jennings, et al) are american-made. Most of your large foreign manufacturers make some pretty expensive guns (go price a Sig-Sauer, HK, Beretta, or Glock). Taurus is the only exception, and their firearms are still muliple hundreds of dollars. As far as I'm concerned, that point alone invalidates your credibility.
Exactly how "preliminary" was this "research" you did?
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
How many points of failure do you need? This gun is ridiculous.
Isn't this what most geeks hate about Microsoft... too busy building in every gee-whiz feature, so that they neglect the basics, like stability and reliability? Situation seems pretty analogous to me...
No chance anyone who trusts their life to a firearm would ever carry one of these.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Nobody who seriously trusts their life to a firearm would use one of these... the FOP membership would revolt enmasse.
Check this link... NJ put a smart gun law into effect, but law enforcement is exempt.
You may form your own theory about why that is... mine says that this technology is nowhere near ready for prime-time, and police officers know it. They have enough problems with regular guns malfunctioning, and those are simple, blow-back operated mechanical devices that any machinist can make. If the simple stuff sometimes fails, how can this complex system hope to do better?
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
The Australians made an electric gun long time ago, see it here, nice videos too.
- Raynet --> .
I guess it's back to stabbing them in the back, black mage style :)
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
I don't really see the use of the video record; it shows someone being shot by your gun, but not the circumstances surrounding it. Was it for self defence, or was it pre-meditated? Usually a dead body (or gunshot injury) is enough to tell us that a gun got fired. The only use of the video I guess would be to show where the gun got fired.
Also, the development of a smartcard that must be near the gun when it is fired doesn't fill me with confindence that the biometric sensors are up to much!
Having GPS and video for military applications could be useful - by I imagine the military already have something along these lines with the development of all the next generation soldier programmes that have been going on.
For example there are no locks on any of our tanks or fighter jets, you can simply get in and start the thing up. The security comes form the fact that you are supposedly never able to get near enough to one to do this (though it has happened at least one time that I am aware of).
This sort of control, if it happens, will be limited to civilians. It's along the lines of most silly controls, that if we make something illegal that is used to facilitate crime, the criminals will suddenly stop using it.
I am very glad to see this and I'm somewhat concerned at some of the absurd commments made by many slashdot readers.
/. comments:
.44 Magnum to shoot a criminal, these would be just fine. And without regular guns available criminals would have a hard time running around shooting people. Ok sure it doesn't say where the criminal is located, but when the police do find the gun it will reveal who shot who.
Here's a list of absurd
1) "The gun will crash!"
Um, no, most likely it won't. Does your microwave crash? What about your TV? How about your watch, cordless phone, or camcorder? I'm guessing the answer to all these is "no". Why? 99.99% of the reason is because dumbasses can't monkey with the firmware running these devices, you can't install new software to muck with it or strange and unfamiliar hardware. It is very easy to make a reliable OS when you know the exact hardware and there is no software that needs to interact with the OS.
2) "the thumbprint system can be circumvented!"
OH yeah, just jump through 8 flaming hoops holding a glass of water in one hand (not spilling a drop). Give me a break. If you're the common drug dealer you're not going to "lift a fingerprint belonging to the original owner, make a PCB mould out of it, pour Jell-o(?) and glue it to his finger, and voila".
3) "Just cover the camera!"
Alright so that might be easy to circumvent, just use tape/gum. Someone said you could just practice firing the gun and use all the memory available for pictures but if the camera is low resolution it could take a few thousand photos, like a 320x240 jpg could only be a few kB so even just 8meg would be enough. But I think this is more for law enforcement, so the pictures match the story they tell.
If you ask me I think every handgun should be turned in to exchange for one of these. Handguns can only be used for self-defense, you can't really hunt with a handgun, so if self-defense is your desire then these guns fit the bill. No one needs a Glock or
4) "But criminals won't turn in there gun!"
Of course not, but if cops destroyed every gun confiscated in a crime and civilian relinguish legitimate guns then it will only be a few years before "old" guns become scarce.
Say Cheese!!!
Just blast a small EMP grenade nearby and disable everyone using these guns...
Imagine bank robbers going in and firing an EMP blast to disable the guard's guns.... and then going in with traditional weaponry and shooting up the unknowing guards.
Ever need an online dictionary?
So what? This is intended to be used by law enforcement against criminals. Which do you think your average criminal has more access to: EMP weapons, or illegal (regular) hand-guns? Guess which of those two are more effective for use against law enforcement officials?
Matter of time until portable EMP generators get to the "wrong hands". Then we will have thieves (street thugs) robbing thieves (the banks) after disabling their computer and security systems.
And they will have EMP-hardened guns.
a video record of what you're shooting at... hmmm maybe this will be the advance in technology that can bring the gun rights people and the gun control people together. i think accountability is the most important thing; if you are responsible you can have a gun if you want.
Won't work. If untrackable guns are outlawed only criminals will have untrackable guns.
This gun is designed to be of benefit to the individual owner. The fingerprint activation is good to ensure you will not be shot with your own gun. The camera should help you in court when your target (or his relatives) sue you and you want to prove it really was self-defense.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Dumbasses.
Metal Storm is another group working on weapons like this. Instead of using lasers to ignite the propellant, they use electrical impulses travelling down the barrel. The rest of the mechanism is functionally the same. However, they seem to be focussing on it from a wider view, with hand held weapons being only a part of the lineup of prototypes. From the looks of it, this type of 'solid state' firing mechanism is going to be pervading much of the military in the forthcoming years.
wtf? the parent made sense to me.
but then again, who'd kill someone with one of these??
I think its intended for law enforcement officials. So its more likely to merely be intended to make police more accountable and to prevent handguns stolen from police from being usable by criminals.
I'm sure pictures from these would 'leak' onto the internet sooner or later. I wonder where the bullet would be when the picture gets taken? Still leaving the barrel? In the air? Already hit its target?
'The device is designed to empower a country's authorities with absolute control over the gun's life history, says Van Zyl.' Uh huh. I fail to see how this is a good thing. Sure fire arms are dangerous items and therr needs to be controls on who has access to them, but I really don't like the idea of any authority having 'absolute control' over anything I own.
Being an Australia one of the few things I envy about US law is the Bill or Rights, specifically the right to bear arms.
Hit reply on the wrong post. :/
By the way, in 2000 in the USA more people were killed by cars than guns. See for yourself.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
As has been stated, the designer is a scientist and not a gun expert. So in designing this Buck Rogers piece, he overlooked one major factor for civilian and governmental usage.
Practice. Anybody who reasonably expects to put a small piece of lead anywhere near where they wish to has to maintain a certain practice regimen that would likely be very uneconomical with a firearm that requires a specially designed multibarrel setup for every reload.
Another case of engineers not relating to real-world situations. And another case of people trying to correct the tools instead of the people who use them.
lol
You'd think it'd be pretty obvious what someone was aiming at...
You're making it sound like EMP devices are hard, which they're not.
;)
Here's an example. Please don't actually try this as if you do it wrong, you'll probably qualify for a Darwin award (as well as qualifying for a Big Fat Evil Terrorist award, which is a given).
Outer tube aluminium to enable you to carry it.
Inner coil, ideally copper. NOT insulated (important), you'll be wanting air gaps. Don't make it too thick but it'll need to carry a lot of juice.
Inside that coil, a core of alumininum... shaped mining explosive of your choice. The important thing is that when you detonate the explosive with the detonator in one end, the explosion buckles the aluminium outwards and shorts out the coil... steadily, from one end to the other, not simultaneously throughout the coil.
I'll let you figure out the details for yourself, but the net result of this if you construct it right, is a big fat sawtooth of an EMP, with high frequency components capable of penetrating most Faraday cages (where the holes aren't too small) and destroying even the vast majority of EMP-hardened equipment.
Getting your credit cards to work afterwards is left as an exercise to the reader.
a Beowulf Cluster of THESE?
(In Soviet Russia, trigger pulls YOU.)
Note to self: Buy more stupid guns.
Actually we only catch a majority of known-to-victim killers.
Killings by strangers, on the other hand, still tend to go unsolved in the majority of cases.
It may be a smart gun, but it should be designed to help weed out the stupid gun owners.
For example, the guys that clean loaded guns... then end up on the Darwin Awards page. This a natural way of culling them from the herd. It shouldn't be messed with.
Why would you need evidence of the target unless you were using said gun to MURDER ANOTHER HUMAN. I can't believe this is built in...
OTOH, it would prevent problems where intruders or children get hold of weapons. If it reduces the number of accidents then I'm in favour.
Taggants are designed to be mixed into an explosive mixture and survive. Their strength and durability give them a very very long life time in the environmanet. Their small size makes them impossible to completely clean up in the area of use. Over time, they can accumulate, making recovery from a single event "tainted" by any past events in proximity to that area. Taggants are good in specialized uses, but use them everywhere and they become ineffective with time.
We have to suffer for your freedom?
Oh wait, I guess that is a rhetorical question.
Or do you have some schematives for a semi-automatic potato gun? (Im interested :)
At the last hacker conference in New York (http://www.h2k2.net), I did a presentation on "Logic-Regulated Firearms Systems."
g _w eb_viewable/h2k2_arms_nitzberg_files/v3_document.h tm
I focused on where I saw firearms development heading if additional regulatory pressures (either civilian or within the military) influenced firearms design, and where the designs would lead, as well as some of the implications, if logic-control systems were integrated into firearms.
The presentation is available from:
http://www.iamsam.com (It is the third item down under presentations)
http://iamsam.com/papers/H2K2/h2k2_arms_nitzber
Some comments on this thread question the usefulness of the camera feature. A camera could be used with circuitry distinct / detached from the firing systems. Such a camera could providede logging, without affecting operational behavior of the arm. There are actually some clever tricks that would allow imagery before a shot to be recorded, as well, as audio. This could be of excellent evidentiary value. Again, I would want the gun to have well-thought-out access mechanisms to restrict tampering. The army is working on rifles with integrated video, radio, and other capabilities. This could be of benefit to soldiers in relaying situational information.
I will mention that any such arms should have secure timestamps and formal-methods applied to their computing integrity. When was the picture taken, and can you prove it?
I also see computers with transmitters and receivers coming into play. When someone who responds to emergent situations (ex/ a cop, marine, etc...) fires, a network message could be broadcast for support, also relaying position, visual, or other critical information. This could be from the gun itself, or an accessory worn by the individual. Such messages would have to be performed securely, and with integrity. Otherwise, message injection attacks (into the network) could cause numerous false-alerts to be responded to, or real alerts could be tampered with.
There could be significant value also in reconstructing shooting events involving multiple officers at different locations, with cameras recording information relevant to the firings.
Some of this may flow-down from the military. If greater accountability is desired, many of these features may come into play, and eventually flow-down into the commercial markets.
I am not personally in favor of fingerprint sensors on firearms, nor transponder-rings. There are a number of situations under which I see them as being problematic. However, if you want to ensure that one person on a patrol does not have his arm fired by an assailant grabbing it, such methods can be of value.
Sam Nitzberg
sam@iamsam.com
I want to be sure that my Sig Sauer P229 fires when I need it to. Add this kind of shit only reduces the chance that the gun will work when I need it most.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter since my roommate killed himself 3 months ago and the police won't give me my firearm back. It's 'evidence'.
I fucking hate cops.
In other news, the NRA is pre-emptively hiring console mod-chip makers, and funding linux programmers to turn the gun into a server.
Uh... Please don't slashdot this server...
-Adam
if you are responsible you can have a gun if you want
Sounds great...but who decides if I'm responsible? By what criteria? We don't want to meet in the middle with the gun control advocates. They want to strip rights, or only allow certain people to exercise their rights based on their own individual critera, forgetting always, that if someone's a criminal, he doesn't care if he's also breaking the law by carrying a gun or not.
The problem is that so many gun control advocates have convinced ordinary people that if you bring a gun into a house, your children will die, a plague will descend upon you, you'll suddenly become impotent, and you really must NOT love your family...
This is not the case, and we all know it, but somehow we believe it's better to let the gun control people dictate who can own a gun and what kind without giving a thought as to the fallacies of their arguments, and why this issue seems so important to them.
Why is it so important to them to take guns away?
From the article: "In addition to this record, we have added a tiny camera - similar to the devices used in mini-cam recorders - which takes a photograph every time the gun is fired. This information is downloadable by the authorities for use in a court case, if necessary, to document the circumstances in which the shot was fired." After losing ratings and advertisement dollars on the almost debunked reality TV craze, Fox announced a new reality show today. Manhunt, where you have to run to live. I left my sig at home.
New jersey just passed a new law requireing all guns in their state to have some type of system like the one posted in this article.
it comes in effect 2 years after the first sale of a smartgun in the state.
The sad thing is, the bill was ment to prevent children of police officers, and police officers from being shot with their own guns. Stistics show that this is a big problem.
But, the new law leaves police officers exempt from it.
Id dig up the article i read about it, but i dont have the NRA newsletter i read it in.
remember, even if the technology is foolproof, nothing is foolproof to the talented fool.
What about the fifth ? ;)
"It could make criminal abuse of firearms a thing of the past"
Umm, yes, since all guns are purchased legally from authorised dealers. I'm sure everyone who has a gun will return it to be equipped with these features.
You have to buy SOME supplies... powder and caps are not recyclable...
And cartridges wont last forever..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
One state has already mandated 'smart guns', once they are functional.. ( i think its NYC.. but i could be wrong on that )
Except for the police, they don't have to use the unreliable junk.. They even refuse to use them, and I don't blame them, I wont either.
Add DRM to the gun.. ' sorry but we have banned all weapons from the public now.. have a nice day '.
Step by step... Inch by inch Erosion of rights and freedoms. I'm sick of it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Its already been made a requirment in one state.. once smart guns are shipping. No more 'dumb guns' will be allowed for sale in that state.
Police are exempt.
And california circuit court has declared that the 2nd admendment does not extend to individual citizens.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Firstly, is it kind of racist/xenophobic to write "crazy" South Africans? (I'm sensitive: I'm South African born).
Can't we just write "crazy gun-totting idiots" and leave the race out of it? Guns are bad, whoever has them in their hands.
-psy
I mean, trying to force a DRM-like system into a gun is such an idiotic notion anyway. Only a Holywood graduate could come up with such an idea and expect anyone to buy it voluntarily or to be able to force people to use it. The backlash against copy-protected CDs would be mild by comparison :-)
What I find interesting is the laser-based trigger, instead of the use of a hammer. A problem with all existing hand guns today is that it is cumbersome to get off the very first round. Double action (as in a revolver) reduces accuracy, and chambering the first round (in an automatic) is a downright ridiculous process.
Any sort of "electronic" trigger would allow working around this. There has been attempts in the past, all requiring special bullets, but I never heard of a laser based trigger.
*If* it can be made reliable enough, and the cost of bullets isn't over the top, that's about the only technology that may make it into "next generation" hand guns. Otherwise, these things are about as mature as technology can get.
The effect is the same, though. Somebody was careless, drunk, or otherwise out of control, and somebody paid for it. Normal people are capable of handling dangerous things properly, but it's important to pay attention.
Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
http://www.nraila.org/NewsCenter.asp?FormMod e=Detail&ID=2343&1=View
Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
Because they are (generally) chicken-shit elitists who lead pitiful little lives and take out their frustrations by disenfranchising people they don't like: conservatives.
Slashdot: Liberal News for Nerds. Liberal Stuff that Matters.
I think the camera is definitely a good idea. However, until this thing has been battle proven I wouldn't want one. However, a lot of guns now a days have tactical rails on them. Some one should come up with a camera that can slide on the bottom of HK's, Glock's, etc. Hell even the Walther P99 has tac rails. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but if you really want to cover your ass, that would be a good way to do it and not sacrifice reliability.
Why is it so important to them to take guns away?
Because people get killed by them, intentionally or by accident, and most gun owners aren't responsible enough with their weapons.
Why do you have to be registered to drive a car? Same reason. (Think about it...)
Next question?
I know I'm going to come off as a gun crazy shill in this post, but here it goes anyhow...
At the most basic level a gun is a tool much like a knife is a tool or a shovel is a tool or a car is a tool. There are some applications where an owner might like to restrict the use of his tools, such as my car. I generally keep it locked and it requires a key to use it. However, I can give a key to someone else so they can use my car. This "Smart Gun" has much less utility because it cannot be loaned to someone else.
Then there's the whole nonsense about the integrated 10 rounds of ammo in the barrel bit. What sort of crack addled brain thought that was a good idea? Each magazine for, say, a Glock weighs a couple of ounces and is easily reloaded in the field with inexpensive ammuntion. If you want to reload your smartgun you get to remove the barrel, carry it down to your Authorized Smart Gun Dealer and pay him to reload it for you. Makes for an expensive day down at the shooting range. This factor alone will make this gun inappropriate for law enforcement use.
I see a very limited market for these guns until they're mandated by law. After that, there will still be criminal acts with guns because traditional guns are common tools and are easy to make. A smooth bore zip-gun that doesn't blow up in your hand could be made in minutes with simple machine tools.
This is a very high tech solution to a problem that won't be solved by very high tech solutions.
Peter
Downsize DC Today!
Anyone else getting flashbacks to the gun in Iain M Banks' "A Gift from the Culture?" The smart handgun that will only work for the protagonist, that targets and tracks and fires on its own? Just me, then? Hokay.
Karma: T-rexcellent.
--there are around 80 to 100 MILLION people in the last century who died as a direct result of their OWN governments. In the 20th century, MORE people died as a result of their own governments murdereous actions than died as a result of foreigners killing them in wars. This is just DATA. It can not be disputed, it is *real*
You can't take a poll of those people, but I would wager all of them would have wished to own a simple, normal firearm with no BS politically correct crap associated with either it or it's ammunition. If not something even better quality.
Until you have become a victim of state sponsored terrorism and assorted indignities, maybe it's a good idea to at least contemplate the theoretical possibility? Not to mention normal crime?
Regimes who publically pronounce by words and laws that they cannot trust their own populations with firearms are not to be trusted. Populations who cannot contemplate their own regimes going rogue are naieve, and really shouldn't be trusted until they rid themselves of that naievete. The proper mindset, IMO, is that both the official state and it's citizenry remain armed. This is not a perfect solution,not at all, there are problems associated with it, but so far on the planet it approaches the best solution.
Inside the united states, there are 50 states. Of those, the state with the least restrictive laws, vermont, has the lowest crime rate. In europe, the nation with the least restrictive laws over "civilians" and firearms ownership-switzerland-has the lowest crime rate, and also the lowest level of what might be termed "human rights abuses" by their own government as they are commonly understood.
You might consider those verifiable stats to be just random and co-incidental, wheras a lot of scholars see it as a decent level of "proof of concept" with the premise of the universal right of self defense. You either believe you have a born with right to your person and self defense, or you believe that you do not, again, binary. If you do have this right, then a lot of situations require use of self defense tools. This is just reality.
There's theory, then practice. In the scientific model, results need to be reproducable. These social results have been in history. Once a state disarms it's own population, at some point they have always gone into serious exploitation mode. The time frame involved may be different, but it inevitably happens. Thinking that this somehow will now "not" happen because of....no reason ever offered from the other side.. is naieve.
No amount of anti weaponry legislation has ever resulted in the elimination of a states potential to fall into abusive mode, on the contrary, it can be shown to up the chances of it occurring eventually.
The US is sort of unique in the world, we have an historical belief system, currently under attack constantly unfortunately, that we have "born-with" as opposed to "government-granted" rights. No other nation has bingoed to this yet in their official designations of exactly what government and non government really are. All other nations assume government owns it's citizenry. We don't, although many here would like to see that happen. Those people I consider to be at best perhaps quite well meaning but seriously uninformed, at worst, traitors and a definete menace. All other nations operate exclusively under "government granted" rights. We theoretically do not. Our first born with right is "free speech", which everyone more or less assumes is basically a good idea, well, because it is. Our second, and one which at the time it was delineated had just been proven to be of a similar and extremely important nature, is our second delineation of a born-with right, that of self defense and to have the means to be able to defend from an organization as large as a "government". This by necessity means use of weapons, basically following whatever technology curve that "government" grants itself. It is unfortunate that governments always seem to seek a "monopoly on violence
Smart Active Armor.
:-)
Wearer of armor is walking down street. Criminal pulls gun, points it at the armor wearer. Armor activates laser, and fuses bullet to barrel of gun so that, if criminal shoots gun, it just explodes in his face.
I'm not saying it'll ever be possible, and of course it's got problems, including requiring lots of processing power, and mind-reading.
Right now 100% of the weapons out there don't have anything like this.
Imagine 100% of new civilian weapons do.
Eventually old style weapons become less and less accessable.
After 100 years the world our children live in will be much safer.
Look at MMX. When it was introduced it wasn't useful because only a couple people had it. Now after a long enough period of time everybody has it simply because you have to buy a slightly bigger/more expensive CPU with it built in. Even though servers, etc are hurt by this as they has a slightly bigger CPU with features they don't need overall the average civilian benefits from having an integer SIMD standard companies can use.
Eventually these guns would become "standard" and everybody would benefit. Just because sometime doesn't have an immediate benefit doesn't mean its not good.
Ah, complicated electronics in a life-or-death application with vicious, repeated mechanical shock loads. Now there's a real Blue-Screen-of-Death scenario!
If this is a good thing it is up to the government to subsidize the improved, but expensive version and tax the old version.
If this wasn't true hybrid cars would never get to market. Electric or hydrogen powered vehicles simply suck and no company would develop them on their own. Unless governments funded them and pushed manufacturers of old systems towards the improved one.
If this is a better gun the price can be beat.
Out of bullets....?
No moron. Out of batteries.
"Times may change, but standards must remain the same." - George Carlin.
that many of you do not read the original article. This gun is a threat to society.
You know how I can tell? Right in the article:
The device is designed to empower a country's authorities with absolute control over the gun's life history, says Van Zyl
This does NOT mean government authorities will use the gun. It means government authorities will make YOU use the gun. Personally, I think the government has a little too much power as-is.
People who have mentioned the issue of running out of memory for the webcam? It's NOT AN ISSUE. This gun was designed to hold TEN rounds, and not be able to be reloaded by the user. So in other words, you use your ten rounds, and you have to go to a dealer to get it reloaded. At which time, I presume the data will be uploaded from your gun to some government database. You could buy more barrels in order to be able to shoot more than 10 rounds, but I'm assuming that those would be ungodly expensive.
I would rather shoot myself in the foot a couple of times with a 'dumb' gun than to have a 'smart' gun that I can't reload.
I think the only good thing that could come from this gun is the non-mechanical firing. If perfected, non-mechanical firing could make for even more accurate firing. Until then, pass me my magnum.
The real problem I see is what happens when these guns are adopted, at least in some sectors, be it 5 or 10 years from now, or maybe even sooner with the way the world works today.
Because it's all well and good for a cop to be able to prove that, Yes, I did fire in self-defense, but when courts start basing cases on the evidence from guns that record user details, and these things affect peoples lives, it becomes a whole lot scarier.
Sure, the crypto that ensures that only the gun and authorized dealers can modify the onboard memory is great now, and will be better when they actually hit production, what happens in 30 years, when guns made 5 years from now are a quarter century old?
Do you want to trust that the records in a gun made 25 years earlier are secure enough? Because everything's fine until some ex-employee of the gun's manufacturer cracks the ram, or flash memory, or whatever they used to store the data, and frames you for a murder. Think about it, 30 years from now how hard would it be to get somebody's fingerprint, when even today they're being used for authentication?
The real question is, if you wouldn't entrust your email and IM conversations to 1970's crypto technology, in the future is it a good idea to trust peoples' lives to what we've got today?
It takes about 3/4 of a second for a person to see something and then act. A lot can change in that much time.
While you do have a good point, in a lot of officer-involved shootings, the police already have their guns drawn, aimed, and fingers on the trigger. One of the major parts of their training is improving their perceptions and reaction times; I suspect in that case they would fire much more quickly. If you're wildly throwing your hands up in the air from behind your back, even if you do plan on surrendering, I can completely see an officer shooting you. Maybe small head-mounted video cameras like bouncers in Scotland use would be better to police the police?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I'm sure something like this has already been done. But for a different reason, so that, with the aid of a heads up display. You can put the gun (and not the rest of your body) around a corner to shoot.
Until our children are no longer molded into castrated sheep democracy remains a fake and a danger. -A. S. Neill
Yes, the "blood for oil" arguments make no sense, along with every single other argument offered up by the pro-Saddam "anti-war" arguments.
Since Bush's arguments for ending Saddam Hussein's years-long war against Iraqis and others make sense, and the arguments against him are based on fictions and wild conjecture, I support the President.
Calling the pro-Saddam guys "anti-war' is misleading. Saddam's war against Iraqis kills tens of thousands each year. Successful disarming won't stop this. Bush is truly the anti-war person, as he wants to end this war and bring peace to Iraq.
The profitibality of the oil companies is the last thing on Bush's mind in his push to halt imperialism and root out terrorism at the source.
If oil company profits were the real consideration, Bush would have dropped sanctions right away and cut a nice sweetheart deal with Saddam which would have been the best way to profits.
Additionally, oil companies profit best when things are stable. Which they aren't right now.
You've just repeated a common fallacy. There is no right to drive a car, it's a privilege. Whereas in the US, there is a RIGHT to defend oneself and one's loved ones and home. Including, as others have stated, against tyranny.
Now I have no problem with requiring a gun safety training class in order to own firearms. I voluntarily took one even before my state started requiring it. But requiring a safety class is an objective standard. That's appropriate to require to prove that the citizen is prepared to safely exercise this potentially dangerous right. But in much of the US, especially under "tougher" gun control laws, the government has granted itself subjective control of who has the right to own a firearm. And that opens up government abuse, restrictions of rights because a given municipality's police chief doesn't believe that the citizens whom he serves are capable, favoritism and cronyism.
It should work like this: if you've passed the mandatory standardized safety class, and you're not a convicted felon, the registering authority (usually the local police chief) should be required to issue the license. Not "may-issue" the license if he likes you or you're the right politics for his taste or not issue if he's against self defense. But "must-issue" (or as it's often termed "shall-issue") if you've passed the objective requirements.
In which case there's no need for this unreliable technology. The person has passed the test, he/she knows how to safely store and use a gun and the laws around using it.
Wouldn't an intelligent gun know better than to go around shooting people? :)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Reminds me of Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai novels, in which military technology was slowly devolving back towards swords-and-armor, because technological countermeasures were rendering more sophisticated weapons useless.
..will prevent any useful pictures being produced.
Because I know if there was a murdering rapist in my house, I'd want my gun to have all kinds of things that could go wrong with it, rather than a time tested design proven gun, to defend myself and my family with.
I can't wait until my gun will run Windows CE.
I'm not to worried about the government coming and taking my firearms. Since repressive gun regulations are unenforceable, and never work. Only those who are willing to voluntarily comply will turn in/register their firearms(Canada & California government officials still haven't figured that one out). New York had a ban on the books for years on handguns, it did absolutely nothing to change the problem. Now when they started locking criminals up with mandatory sentencing it had a huge impact on firearm abuse. All problems of the world have nothing to do with inanimate objects and everything to do with people. Attack the problem at its source instead of its symptom. There are more than enough people on this planet. I don't see a problem with keeping the dumb shits of this world from breeding in order to preserve the freedoms of those who don't cause the problems.
That is an insightful comment that lasts exactly as long as it takes someone to cover the camera eye with a bit of opaque tape.
Or only shoot people at night.
Overall this idea of a new, better gun is a piece of "feel good" garbage that will result in a lot of people running around shouting that all the problems of guns have just been solved -- and attempt legislation to make it happen.
Truthfully, does any of this actually make you feel any safer?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
As for the current military, they have all sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States. I wonder how many of them would disobey a direct order from a superior (Including the President himself) if they believed that it went against the Constitution...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's expensive, both to buy, and shoot afterwards.
It's reliability is in question (my gun must shoot first time, every time)
It appears inaccurate, especially from the bottom barrels (gun control is hitting what you are aiming at).
It's intrusive (it's none of the government's damn business what I shoot at as long as it is a legal target).
And it gives the government complete control over the use of and revocation of use of my personal firearm. The article proudly trumphets this fact.
I would refuse to buy a gun based on any of the above as long as an alternative exists. This one hits all of them. The obvious legislation outlawing every other gun in existance is the only way this gun will sell to anyone but the extreme liberal. Anyone want to bet that this is not not part of the plan?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
it gives a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".
-Styopa
Wow, you guys sure seem to care a lot. Still you ignored most of my statistics. I don't see the point of owning a gun. You do. I think that guns aren't really equalizers but rather accidents waiting to happen. I understand that in some situations guns can save lives. I also understand that in other situations guns can take them away. The point of gun control, though, _IS_ to keep criminals from getting guns. By now there are so many guns in this country it seems like it would be very hard to completely eliminate them but that doesn't mean we should just through our hands up in the air and give up. Guns may not be the entire problem but they are certainly a very deadly symptom.
You are right, my goal is to reduce the number of deaths. I think our government should outlaw SUV's, cap the maximum speed of automobiles at a much lower level, and require stricter standards to get a license. I think we should do lots of things to reduce the number of deaths. To just give up and say, "Well, something else kills just as many people" is stupid. In the end, the facts I've seen ahve not convinced me that there would be just as many deaths if guns weren't around.
Look, I'm not going to take your guns away (you'd probably shoot me if I tried). I just think that the answer to violence isn't violence. I think no one has the right to take the life of another person (even if they are trying to kill you). Guns are much more fatal with a lower level of skill than most other weapons so many accidents that do occur with firearms are more likely to result in death. For many people guns are simply toys and the cost of life that those toys cause obviously outweigh any fun they may be. I think it is easy to see how my ideas could quickly translate into a total loss of freedom. Say we take away guns and murders do go down. The next obvious solution would be to take the next most deadly thing away and so on and so forth until eventually we are all trapped in a little room and not allowed to touch anything.
However, owning a gun should be discouraged as should owning a car. Both are used irresponsibly and cause far to many deaths. Still, I don't think I'd actually try to get any legislation enacted to ban firearms. There are other societal problems that make guns particularly dangerous in the US. I just wish we didn't have these problems and don't think encouraging more people to buy hand guns and giant SUV's to protect themself with is the solution. It just makes us more isolated or gives us a false sense of security.d
Anyway, I'm not going to respond to any more of these things because I really don't care that much. I think we both have valid points and it really ends up just coming down to opinion. I think my points outweigh yours and you feel that yours outweigh mine. That's fine, we live in a democracy so we can vote and work it out that way. Anyway, it's Saturday and it's nice outside so I'm going to enjoy my day. We'll just settle this at the polls and have to let our elected representatives take care of this.
Hahahahahaha, what?
The concept of a biometric gun ala Judge Dredd is not a bad idea for law enforcement.
Things that would be useful:
* A gun that stores or broadcasts GPS coordinates of each shot fired. Makes post incident investigation easier.
* Biometric access to the gun. Fingerprints perhaps are a bad idea though, dirt being a prevalent problem. But what ever method chosen, it would be a good idea for the gun to recognize anyone on the force, or at least on each particular assignment. Solves the "my partner is down and my gun is damaged" scenario.
* Clear tagging of bullets by gun. Makes post incident investigation easier.
* The camera probably should be "on the officer" and not on his gun, and should probably upload it's data via wireless, rather than recording locally, otherwise the bad guy will just destroy the camera after killing the officer, or the officer would destroy it to CYA.
In regards to posters of the opinion that trusting your arse to one of these is crazy, it might break. I wouldn't trust any gun, technologically advanced or not, if it hasn't been field proven and heavily tested. There is no reason why a gun like this can't be brought to a high level of reliability, although we may not be technically capable of it yet.
--mike
This gun needs an LCD screen so you can review the pictures. Let's say you take a shot, but the person has their eyes closed, as often happens. Obviously you'd want to take the shot again. Then what about flash and red eye reduction? Kidding aside, it seems like a step in the right direction.
What would a video record of the shooting tell you that current ballistics evidence couldn't? We can already tell what gun said slug came from, and we can usually tell what position the victim was in when shot, and from what direction. The only thing mandatory guncams seem to do is to make it easier to circumvent the Fourth Amendment in the name of preserving the Second.
"Why do you have to be registered to drive a car?"
You don't. You only need a license to drive on roads owned and operated by the state. If you don't intend to go off your own private property, you don't need a license.
"Same reason. (Think about it...)"
What, the state owns me?
Dude, to sum you up in a nutshell:
1. You are scared of everything around you
2. You think the government's job is to take care of you and keep you safe from sharp pointy objects and bad things that *MIGHT* happen.
3. You are a complete and total fucking pussy who jumps at his own shadow and who probably takes it up the fucking ass from his transvestite mistress.
People like you make me fucking sick. instead of showing some fucking personal accountability and being a responsible adult, you fucking cower behind the notion of some protector guardian goverment who can keep you safe from harm. Show some backbone and take responsibility for yourself. Stop trying to force your view on others. If someone wants a gun and they are responsible with it, they should be able to have one. That in no way impedes in your right to not own one.
You are truly pathetic.
1) I *LIKE* my revolver - because when pull the trigger, I know it's going to work... With this intelligent firearm, now what? I have to worry about batteries being dead, corroded, or disconnected? Screw that...
.357 magnum... Works like a charm - every time... all the time.
2) Two words: Lens Cap. Cameras don't work with them on... or with paint... or with a splotch of WD-40...
3) It's a computer - it's guaranteed to fail (esp if it's an M$-based OS). I'm supposed to bet my life on a biometric reader picking up my greasy fingerprint when I'm working in the garage and get attacked by a crazed dog roaming the neighborhood (it's happened...). Forget that...
4) Jello fingerprints... So scratch that biometric junk...
5) Proprietary bullets - think I'll pass. I prefer to reload my own...
6) The only intelligent firearm is the one attached to my body. I use it to FIRE a mechanical gun with. Granted, some people aren't very intelligent, and this gun sure as hell isn't going to help them be more intelligent.
The same situations apply to this gun as with others:
People shoot other people/things intentionally
People shoot other people/things accidently
Gun gets stolen and misused...
Gun gets lost and misused...
Ammo gets stolen...
I fail to see how this gun changes any of that, or makes it 'better' somehow. All it does is increase the risk of using the weapon in a critical situation - it might not work... then you're fucked...
I'm the NRA, and I think I'll pass on this concept gun... I'll stick with my S&W
Ever occur to you that he was just saying he prefers his current, old-school product to this new one?
Why does it have to turn into a tirade about gun control and shit? Jeeze..
Then you can add blue tooth so you can fire it remotely...just make sure it doesn't get hacked
Like Roboguard?
For automatic operation, Roboguard is fitted with infrared sensors that allow it to track people as they move. Sooraksa has password-protected the "fire" command for when the robot is operated over the Internet. "We think the decision to fire should always be a human decision," he says. "Otherwise it could kill people."
1. Where are the privacy geeks on this? The article says-
"The device is designed to empower a country's authorities with absolute control over the gun's life history, says Van Zyl. When the firearm is issued, it can be "loaded" with one or more authorised users' details. This data is stored in a fixed memory that cannot be changed. And it records each and every shot fired by the IFA."
If you support this, aren't you saying that the TIA is worth it? After all if it just saves one life or solves one crime...
2. How could this gun be accurate?
"The prototype uses a 10-barrel configuration, with two vertical rows of five bullets arranged side-by-side."
So your point of aim changes each and everytime you pull the trigger. Wonderful.
My Kimbers aimpoint never changes. Proper sight alignment puts me in the ten ring each and every time.
With this thing, you have to guess which barrel you are on and how much to adjust for with the sights. That's bad news for innocent bystanders.
I have personal anecdotal evidence of a whole lot of things. Unlike you, I don't assume that just because I've seen something, it must be universally true. Of course, if you assume that you are the center of the universe, then everything you experience must, ipso facto, be universally true.
But, of course, you aren't actually interested in facts and figures. You don't actually want to learn, you want to state your position over and over until everyone believes you. And, since you are the center of the universe, and all of your friends think like you do, you know you're right, and you know that eventually everyone else with either accept that or die.
By the way, are you a member of a well-regulated militia? Just curious.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
There are too many variables that make this gun totally un-attractive to potential buyers. To name a few, if your strong side (firing hand) is wounded or un-usable, is there a thumb scanner on both sides? Will it work with your hands covered in grease, milk, sweat, soda, or any number of other things that you could fumble with while you're scared shitless grabbing for your gun (yes, the cops are typically scared shitless when they draw on someone). What happens if you drop it in the dirt? the mud? what about water? What happens when you've been carrying it around so much that you've worn through the thumb sensor (yes, just carrying a gun will wear down just about any surface over time).
And reloading...oh boy. Ammunition costs could make this a real problem to practice with regularly, making it dangerous for the owner to carry as he doesn't have the experience he ought to.
Anyway, enough of my little rant, I just don't think these are going to be very successful.
Fred, ;)
Please post your address. My TV sucks and I'd rather have yours, now that I know you don't have a gun to defend yourself.
Of course, I'm not a criminal. I'm joking. But I find your personal attacks on this guy repulsive. Instead of attacking his arguments, you try to make him into a right-wing fanatic. You're not the center of the universe either. You're just an idiot.
>>Anyone who only uses guns for law-abiding purposes should support these guns. If you do not, it is obvious you have something to hide
DICK: Punk! You killed my wife and child, making me alcoholic and turning me into a grizzled, drunken ex-cop! Now you die! *click*
GUN: Are you sure you want me to shoot him, Dick? It's possible that he could be rehabilitated...
DICK: Oh hell. Not this again.
GUN: Well, really. That's just rude. I happen to be the latest in Sirius Cybernetics Corporation firearms--
DICK: I know.
GUN: --and I assure you my skills in target recognition and analysis are entirely top-notch. What we're dealing with here isn't a violent criminal... why, I would say he's as much a victim of these circumstances as you are!
PUNK: He's right, you know. My violent tendencies are all the result of poor upbringing and a social disease.
DICK: Shut up, you're dead.
GUN: Furthermore, I cannot quietly be party to the unilateral use of such violent force. Have you considered outside mediation? You may find that your differences are not as irreconcilable as you thought... (PUNK realizes DICK's problem and pulls out his own gun. DICK leaps out the window and starts climbing down the fire escape into the alleyway.)
DICK: ...look, we've been over this before. I tell you who to shoot and you shoot them. (A bullet clangs off the fire escape near Dick's head. Dick tries to fire back, to no avail.)
GUN: You're looking at this entirely the wrong way. This is an opportunity for healing and growth, not a time for senseless violence and retributive justice. Why, have you even considered what you would do after you shot him? (Several more of the punk's bullets clang off the fire escape as DICK hurriedly climbs down through this conversation.)
DICK: YES. Zoom-in on my eyes, single tear, fade to black, roll credits. I'm a grizzled ex-cop out for revenge, I don't need happily-ever-afters.
GUN: That only reinforces my point. Someone in your mental state definitely shouldn't be managing firearms. What you need to do is get that chronic depression addressed.
DICK: No.
GUN: Yes. Here, I'm not really programmed for this kind of thing, but I can try: (singing) "When you walk through a storm, keep your head up high--"
DICK: NO!
(Several more bullets ricochet off the fire escape.)
GUN: "--and don't be afraid of the dark. At the end of the storm--"
DICK: Look, if you don't shut up, I'm going to shoot you.
GUN: Pshaw. I don't think you're really that kind of person.
DICK: I will, too.
GUN: You might want to duck.
(DICK ducks, narrowly avoiding getting hit by the Punk's next shot.)
DICK: Thanks. Now if you'd just--
GUN: Leap onto that scaffolding there, too. That's a good boy.
DICK: --shut up and let me shoot him--
GUN: No. As I was saying, I can't countenance the continuation of the vicious cycle of violence and retribution that plagues today's inner-city communities. If you would only try talking things out with the adolescent in question I'm sure you could help him overcome his upbringing--
PUNK: (leaps onto the scaffolding, tossing aside his gun and drawing a knife.) I heard that! That's discriminatory talk, that is.
GUN: N-nonsense! Why, I have nothing but respect for your people's ability to--
PUNK: "My people?!" Oi, that tears it! (He lunges at the gun with his knife but misses, falling off the scaffolding with a sickening THUD.)
GUN: ...oh my. I do hope he's all right.
*************Cut to next scene****************
POLICE CHIEF: ...and so, in belated recognition for the services you have rendered our fine city, I am happy to bestow upon you the 48th street station's highest medal of honor. Wear it in pride. (POLICE CHIEF leans over and hangs a medal on the gun.) An
EMP grenades are FICTION. They're an urban legend that preys on the ignorance of the average internet-goer. It is not possible to make an electromagnetic pulse without something comparable in energy generation to a nuclear reaction, in which case the guard has a much, much bigger problem anyway.
Couldn't you have at least thought critically before posting that nonsense? Seriously, if EMP grenades existed, and were available to bank robbers, then security cameras would be worthless. Computers wouldn't be used to record transactions, because a stray grenade would fuck your customers badly. This is just how banks would change- the rest of society would be even more radically affected. It's an interesting idea for a "hard" sci-fi story, actually, but it's nowhere near realty. Nowhere.
When things like this get modded up, it makes me shed a single tear for the derivative of slashdot's quality vs delta time.
... and watch BBC, CNN, Discovery Channel, and National Geographic Channel.
I would like to close with this quote, which I think is quite applicable to your argument:
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.
--Plato
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
I've had much more misfires with revolvers than with automatics. The advantage of a revolver is that you can fix a misfire just by pulling the trigger again. But police departments in the U.S. have almost universally converted to semiautos by now, and reliability is pretty high on their wishlist.
I replied to him with facts and figures, gently reminding him that one of his main points -- there's no crime in Vermont -- had a big obvious reason, and that the lack of gun laws in Vermont wasn't related.
He responted by saying, almost verbatim, 'I don't believe facts and figures, I only believe the things I believe.' I mean, he actually said, and I quote, "I have personal anecdotal that trumps your academic theory, as opposed to my reality."
And when someone starts drawing out his PERCEPTIONS of the world (not just what has happened to them, which is bad enough, but what they THINK about it) as though they were universal truths, you can't talk to them any more. There's no basis for agreement. You show them facts, and they say, 'those aren't true.' The only exchange that can go on in that kind of situation is two people yelling at each other.
Here is a great example: lifted from www.123student.com/social_issues/126.shtml.
A study of the murder rate in Washington D.C. showed that within three years of the passage of a law prohibiting the sale of handguns in the city the murder rate dropped by 25% (Kruschke 22). The state of South Carolina and the city of Boston experienced similar results when stricter gun control laws were recently enforced. In Boston the homicide rate dropped by 39% and in South Carolina the murder rate dropped by 28% (Kruschke 23).
But watch... he'll deny that it has any relevance, if he reads it at all. Perhaps, now that all this has been pointed out to him, he'll be able to find some statistics to back up his case, but his first impulse was to say 'statistics don't matter, only what happened to me matters'.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
"Why is it so important to them to take guns away?" Well, Hitler would know, but he's not around to be interviewed. Btw, there is/was a company in Australia building some really beautiful firearms on new technology. I had a Website for them, but must have lost it in one of my crashes. They had a slow motion film of a pistol being fired three times before the recoil. Now, that's cool. Many other advantages to this technology, as well. Just wish I could find that Website so I could share it with you all.
1) the taggant concentration needed is parts per million. any discussion of this altering the the chemistry to gun powder is ludicrous since thats below the purity of the ingredients themselves.
2) you done have to register the gunpowder's signature. you could and this would be a good idea but the NRA would allow it. No you could just have the signature be present an anonymous. One could still use it to correlate crimes. Currently shell casing from different crimes literally across the street from each other are often not corrlated if they occur in separate jurisdictions. the powder would add one more signature and help ID (or exonertate) shooter suspect who are picked up shortly after a crime. No need for a data base of gunn owners just crime pwder signatures.
3) you dont seem to be able seprate the notion of people who pay dues and the people who influence legislation. For example, millions of dollars are contributed to politcial campaigns by individual voters. Yet we all KNOW that there are key people who actually influence legistlation, not the contributers or the voters. Carl rove and ken lay have a lot more say about US policy than you do. The cheap gun lobby has a lot of sway in the NRA. Of course I would be foolish to suppose that they can do it with out mindshare of the 2nd amendment dupes who populate the NRA. Its like boss tweed said, "i dont care who does the votin' long as I do the nominating".
4) I've spoken with gun manufacturers and read their white papers. THere no secret at all about the industry position: legislation that forces safer guns to become price competative, will mean people will replace their existing guns. The prblem is the bottom end undercuts the market for safe waepons. The (quality) manufactueres would love this to happen The cheap gun manufactureres would hate it. period.
Courtesy of Rick Mercer, from This Hour Has 22 Minutes, CBC Television...
On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.
I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.
I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.
I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.
I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's Very Nice.
I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we Feel your Pain.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.
And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this.
We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.
Thank you.
"The difference between meat and fish is that if you beat your fish it dies"
Kinky sex? 'Fraid my mind wasn't there. I was actually thinking about an old Three Stooges episode where they invent a fountain pen that can write while submerged in whipped cream. I think script had thme make a fortune as a result.
I would normally take some time to chastise you on the fact that you assosciated whipped cream & kinky sex, but you caught the EMP bit and, on reflection, if you're fooling around with some guy's wife and whipped cream is involved, you dang well better be armed for your own protection. (*GRIN*)
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
The hieroglyphics are all unreadable except for a notation on the back,
which reads "Genuine authentic Egyptian papyrus. Guaranteed to be at
least 5000 years old."
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...