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
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
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.
If Dubya can fire one bullet and it hits every evildoer in Iraq...well, I want me one of those is all I can say. =)
TLoM: Nerds + DDR + Rednecks for the win!
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.
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?
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."
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.
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!"
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.
So if the gun crashes and fires acidentally do you get to see the blue sceen of death?
As opposed to now?
And, well, what happens when it becomes illegal NOT to use guns like this?
You eventually get most of the illegal guns out of circulation thru attrition, and then there is accountability with the guns. Of course, someone can just haxor a stolen gun to not use the ID function...
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.
So what should people do, just shrug and say 'thats the way it is', and try and do nothing to change anything? Or wait for God to come down and explain "Why"? Either way, I would rather see people try to innovate a solution. It doesnt get better overnight, and this is a crude first try. But its a nice start.
I know you probably will never see a soldier with this gun, and I wouldnt want to drop it in water. But eventaully it will improve (assuming it catches on).
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
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?
OK, let's see if I've got this straight. Your counter-argument is that Saddam is not an evil man, and we are trying to free Iraq's oil from sanctions because spending billions of dollars to go to war costs less than simply... oh... waving a pen and lifting the sanctins?
No wait, that doesn't make sense. It must be because the oil companies want to make lots of money by putting Iraq's oil back on the market, thus making oil cheaper.
Hmm. That doesn't make any sense either. Maybe you can enlighten us?
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.
Saddam is an evil, evil man
I'm detecting sarcasm..meaning that you think Saddam is an upstanding citizen of the world community. What about Slobodan Milosevic? I bet you think he's a cool guy. And I'm sure you give props to Hitler, because you don't wanna leave any of these guys out.
and the U.S. is not interested in Iraq's oil fields
Nor is France hijacking the peace movements objectives to cover up the fact that "Made in France" is written over most of Iraq's missles, missile fuel and many of the warheads...in violation of UN sanctions, I may add.
Why bring war talk into the middle of a discussion over CIVILIAN firearms? Is it because everyone else ignored you when you posted on the message boards about the war?
Might as well bring up Martians in a discussion of BSD. It'd be about as on topic as your post.
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
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!
I suppose that's what passes for a rational argument in your neck of the woods?
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
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!
Um. I shoot people so that there AREN'T witnesses. Fuck this gun!
Game... blouses.
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
There are other kinds?
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.
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.
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.
1. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
2. Tons of military hardware.
3. Daddy has shares in United Defense.
4. Profit!!!
Or do I have to spell it out for you?
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
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 --> .
cover up the fact that "Made in France" is written over most of Iraq's missles
USA donated most of Sadam's Biological and chemical weapons. So what say we remove this axis of evil
USA,France and Iraq
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.
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?
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.
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."
You'd think it'd be pretty obvious what someone was aiming at...
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
Out of bullets....?
No moron. Out of batteries.
"Times may change, but standards must remain the same." - George Carlin.
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
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
Care to document your claims? Or are you just blowing hot air?
Eh?
..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
Here
Here
Here
and here.
First two things to learn in journalism school: Behind every newsworthy event, find out who benefits and follow the money. That's where you'll find the REAL story.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
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?
Mmm-hmm. Go read the stories, will you -- they go out of there way to try to suggest a connection, without showing any money actually being made. And that's a pretty darn big conspiracy you're alleging. Let's look:
First, we have to assume that the president, the cabinet, and his whole administration are entering into war just to make money for some relative of the president.
But wait! There's more! Then we have to assume that almost the entirety of the Senate and 75% of the House was in on the conspiracy, when they voted, in Joint Congressional Resolution 140 to approve the use of force!
But that's not all! Then we have to figure out how the entire United Nations Security Council joined the conspiracy when they voted unanimously to approve UNSC Resolution 1441 approving `serious consequences' for Mr. Hussein if he did not take advantage of this `final opportunity'!
But that's not all you get! Then we have to understand why a majority of Americans approve immediate action against Mr. Hussein, too (52%, according to this week's NYTimes/CBSNews opinion poll, with 58% supporting action if the UN doesn't act within the next week or two)!
But that's not all, either! Then we have to understand why 19 European nations, and another several dozen nations from the rest of the world have signed on too!
You know, I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only one in the world who's not part of this `conspiracy' you allege.
I mean c'mon. That's all you've got?
That leaves us with your two references to articles in more-or-less reputable business publications. But wait! If we actually read them, we soon see that they don't back up your claim at all. These piecestells us that the Carlyle group has notably failed to do a very good job of seeking profit from the current war, focusing instead on their flagship artillery offering the Crusader. In case you missed it, this is the same Crusader which Bush and Rumsfeld have been pushing to eliminate orders of since 2000.
So it looks like your theory doesn't hold up too well, eh?
So it looks like your theory doesn't hold up too well, eh?
So, what's your theory? And don't simply parrot the official line. It's never that simple.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
I'd say that the government and people of the US have stated again and again what our aims are. Here are some examples, if you want:
Of course, to hear you tell it, all of these people are just in it to make some money for President Bush's father. Is that really your claim?
First, we have to assume that the president, the cabinet, and his whole administration are entering into war just to make money for some relative of the president.
And themselves. Why else? Because Saddam is a bad man? Bullshit. The US made him who he is today. North Korea is a hugely greater threat.
But wait! There's more! Then we have to assume that almost the entirety of the Senate and 75% of the House was in on the conspiracy, when they voted, in Joint Congressional Resolution 140 to approve the use of force!
How many of them do NOT have stock portfolios?
But that's not all! Then we have to figure out how the entire United Nations Security Council joined the conspiracy when they voted unanimously to approve UNSC Resolution 1441 approving `serious consequences' for Mr. Hussein if he did not take advantage of this `final opportunity'!
No conspiracy required. The President of The United States said jump. They fell over themselves to see who could jump highest.
But that's not all you get! Then we have to understand why a majority of Americans approve immediate action against Mr. Hussein, too (52%, according to this week's NYTimes/CBSNews opinion poll, with 58% supporting action if the UN doesn't act within the next week or two)!
Do you beleive everything you read? Most Americans do. Control the media, you control the people.
Then we have to understand why 19 European nations, and another several dozen nations from the rest of the world have signed on too!
See above re: UN Security Council.
I mean c'mon. That's all you've got?
Oh, there's lots more. You just have to look a little deeper than most people are willing to do. For instance, do you have a satisfactory explanation for this?
Not so much the fact that it happened, but the fact that you never heard anything further about it. The fact that an ex-director of the just happened to be in the position he was in just compounds the coincidence further. I mean if you laid all this out for the American public as a TV movie of the week, you might actually cause one or two people to ask embarrassing questions of the authorities. But if you have a reasonable explanation (not a coincidence, use Occam's Razor) I'm willing to listen.
As far as biased sources go, are you saying that the right wing sources of news are bastions of impartiality?
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread United Defense's flagship product is the Crusader artillery piece, which Bush and Rumsfeld have been working to eliminate since 2000 -- but of course, like the sites you point to, you only seem to pay any attention to evidence which supports your black-helicopter claims, no matter how strong the counter-evidence may be.
But then, what are we to expect from someone who thinks that pretty much the entire congress -- of both parties -- is in a vast conspiracy to make a relative of the President some money? And that the US is so powerful that dozens of nations around the world, including 90% of Europe are joining in the conspiracy to do so?
No really -- how do you sleep with all those black helicopters overhead?
Somebody is going to make a pile of money off of this war. I suppose that is just another coincidence? How do you live in your pollyanna world where the rich and powerful know what is best and we should just find a nicce sandpile to stick our heads in? Do you question anything at all or do you just take in what you are fed as gospel?
How did Saddam get to be as powerful as he is? Who were his allies during the Iran/Iraq war? Who was his ally when he was gassing Kurds? Suddenly the US gets a conscience? Just a desire to do the right thing?? WHY NOW? Oh, sorry, inconvenient line of thought. Just dismiss me and get on with your flower and butterfly encrusted life. Where everyone has an IRA and the only people who die in wars "deserve it".
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
And in case anyone reading here is leaning toward taking Mr. Iguana's claims here seriously, do go read the two links he includes towards the end of his last post, where he links to lefty sites which -- get this -- allege that the government of the US knew about the attacks in advance (or even planned them).
And here are some of the other headlines from the two sites he links to:
In other words, this guy is a one-man fleet of black helicopters.
You do keep repeating that claim, even though you haven't presented any evidence yet. On the other hand, since you also keep linking to news sites promoting `Race War' and selling books denying the holocaust and lionizing the Waffen SS, I suppose a rational position is a little too much to hope for from you, eh?
(See here for some of the articles on Mr. Iguana's idea of a `reputable' news site.)
SO, when you have nothing rational to contribute to the argument, attack the messenger. Typical right wing bullshit.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
So, because I use a website as a source suddenly means that I agree with everything written on said site??
Talk about a narrow worldview.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
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..
Say as you will. If the only `reputable' news source you have to back your claim is also peddling holocaust-denial and alleging that September 11 was carried out by the US government (all while selling admiring books about the Waffen SS and advocating `Race War'), I think the readers of this thread have all the information they need to judge your position...
Not necessarily, but if you consider a website which is peddling holocaust-denial and alleging that September 11 was carried out by the US government (all while selling admiring books about the Waffen SS and advocating `Race War') to be a reliable source, then I think the readers of this thread have all the information they need to judge your position...
I apologize for using that site as a source. I didn't read the entire 50,000 words looking for corroboration. Do I consider it a reliable source? Never said it was in the first place.
All I'm really trying to get across, sometimes from an extreme point of view, is that most people have their opinions spoon fed to them by:
a) Their parents.
b) The Media.
c) The Government.
Most people never bother to look a little deeper, question the things that they are being fed and then think for themselves. In a country that is so self centered and money focussed as the US, poining out the flies in the ointment is a thankless job. If by being extreme I can get one person to take a more human position in their thinking, then I'll be extreme. Realize though, that the reason it's needed is to counter the extreme position that most of the US population has taken on the right.
US society is all about money and lifestyle. But only for US citizens. The lifestyle comes at other peoples expense and the money is earned in rather distasteful ways. If that is where the majority of US citizens want to live their lives, great. Just leave it at the border. Don't export weapons, either selling them or using them to kill people. Keep them in the US. When you consider that the 2002-2003 year over year budget increase for the US military was more than the combined budgets of all other countries in the world and in Oregon they are shortening the school year and cutting staff, I mean it really points out how whacked peoples priorities are. People need to be shocked.
I'm sure if I spent enough time on google,, I could find some real loony conservative sites as well. Off the top of my head, try this site for links to the rest of the Rush Limbaugh set.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
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."
Yes, I was being sarcastic. Since when does being sarcastic about the war make you pro-Saddam? Typical knee-jerk reflex from a typical slashdotter. GROW UP! I was being sarcastic about Dubya's remarks about Hussein and that "He's the one who tried to kill my father..." crap he said on international television. I am sarcastic about the way Dubya and friends are behaving, looking for every little reason to justify a war. And no, I don't think Saddam is an upstanding citizen of the world community. Come to think of it, maybe the Americans did think he would be when they helped Saddam win the Iran-Iraq war.
I believe you should ask the Yugoslavians about Milosevic, after all U.S. bombs and troops didn't knock him out of his seat. It took the efforts of courageous citizens leaping over the walls of his "fortress" to do that, dodging gunfire and all. Sure, the U.S. and it's war against the evil-doer helped trim down Milosevic's troops but the Yugoslavians would have ousted him eventually, if it not the civilians, then it could have been the gangsters (who are now suspects in killing their Prime Minister).
Yes, Hitler was evil. More than that, he was an evil hypocrite. He wanted to breed and rule over a Supreme Race and wanted to get rid of the Jews in his country. But Hitler himself was of Jewish descent.
What about the fascist dictators that have ruled over the various parts of Africa at one time or another, i.e. Kabila, Mugabe and friends? These men were responsible for genocide and plundering their own country. But no, the U.S. does not have any "interests" in these countries, so let them alone.
What about North Korea and that guy with the weird hair? Yes, troops may be in place in the DMZ but what did they do when it NK launched missiles that went over Japan? How many times have they bombed North Korea recently? Isn't North Korea what the U.S. considers a rogue state? Doesn't Korea have nukes? Do we do the "Forget the here because the U.S. does not have any interests in these countries." routine?
I am not opposed to war per se. I am opposed to war to advance the interest of the ruling few. I am opposed to war of oppression. I am not opposed to war in the defense of one's interests, namely to live a peaceful life and to populate the earth. And don't give me none of that "The best defense is a damn good offense." crap. This ain't basketball or football. People die in wars. People with families and happy lives before they got involved in something they did not want by accident.
The U.S. war on Iraq has always been a war for that gooey black stuff. The U.S. oil reserves are running low, despite claims to the contrary, and OPEC is not about to let up on its production quota. And no, more oil doesn't necessarily mean oil prices will drop. Oil prices only go up, never down. At least not down for long, then they go up again. Unless Dubya and friends can present a better reason than "Saddam is an evil, evil man that must be stopped.", I am unconvinced of current U.S. policy.
You need to grow up, just like Dubya. If you can't grow up, grow a sense of humor.
And please, do not bring 9/11 into this, I lost friends there. But I'm not bitter like everyone else, life goes on.
I suppose if you looked hard enough, you could find some `loony' sites in any direction you want -- but I'm not the one in this conversation citing them, and forming my opinions based on them.
To repeat what I said earlier, we've already seen what type of sites you get your information from. I think the readers of this thread have all the information they need to judge your statements. Good day.
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.
>>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
... 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 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.
You completely invalidate any position you had (or thought you had) by making the comment you just did. I love ignorant people..they so funny.
"The difference between meat and fish is that if you beat your fish it dies"
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."