Slashdot Mirror
New Smart Gun Company Hopes To Begin Production This Summer
Lucas123 writes Safe Gun Technology (SGTi) is hoping it can begin production on its version of a smart gun within the next two months. The Columbus, Ga.-based company uses relatively simple fingerprint recognition through a flat, infrared reader positioned on the weapon's grip. The biometrics reader enables three other physical mechanisms that control the trigger, the firing pin and the gun hammer. The controller chip can save from 15,000 to 20,000 fingerprints. If a large military unit wanted to program thousands of finger prints into a single weapon, it would be possible. A single gun owner could also temporarily program a friend or family member's print into the gun to go target shooting and then remove it upon returning home."
When I pull the trigger, I want the gun to fire. I doubt this will be reliable enough to depend upon.
People often wear gloves when shooting pistols. And in combat situations, fingers may get dirty, or even partially damaged or burnt. This strikes me as a REALLY bad idea. Lives will be lost to this.
I'd prefer a fool-proof gun over a smart gun.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I cannot imagine what a nightmare it will be to manage weapons access thru fingerprints into a large military unit.
Achille Talon
Hop!
If this fingerprint scanner works as poorly and as slowly as the fingerprint scanner on my Thinkpad, there's no way in hell anyone would want this on a gun.
If on the other hand you want to make sure no one can ever fire the gun, this sounds great.
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
They should make it rechargable. Can use the same energy used to operate the slide but just build a little mechanism to recharge a battery. Still a horrible and stupid idea tho.
..about buying this equipment for my guns.
I don't care much about the false positive rate, because I keep my guns locked up. What I need to know before I buy is, what's the false negative rate and the response time? I own some guns for sporting purposes, and a couple of big clunky rifles for hunting. A false negative or a laggy response time on those isn't necessarily a big deal. OTOH my wife and I also have guns for self defense and home defense. A false negative or laggy response time on those could get us killed.
Finding God in a Dog
"You do not have permission to fire this gun."
"sudo Fire gun!"
*BLAM*
That's called 'transfer of firearm' and is illegal in many places thanks to our politicians. Creating technology to circumvent the law sounds like a sticky place to go.
I don't see why anyone would ever buy this. "It's a gun, but it's designed not to work sometimes. And we charge very reasonable rates for it to not work sometimes."
is now real.
seed a company to mass produce these. laws already on the books state that all guns must use this tech once someone starts making it. The laws make have no requirement that the tech work, just that someone is selling it in mass production. Seeding such a company, even if there is no real market for it's products, is cheaper than politics.
hah, catchpa OPPRESS
Take it from a gun owner, this will not sell well. Gun owners do not want a safety preventing them from defending themselves. One of the most popular pistols, the glock, has a special "safety" mechanism where you can just pull the trigger and it will always fire, 100% of the time. Responsible gun owners that are worried about their children or others using their guns without permission will simply use an aftermarket trigger lock which costs $5 at the store, or keep their guns in a fast access safe with its own fingerprint reader or combination lock.
Info about glock's "safety": http://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action
I really doubt gun owners will keep this pistol charged and ready to read the fingerprint anyway. Gun safes usually do not have electricity inside and in some states it's a law that any guns must be kept in a gun safe, especially if they have minors living in the house. So it's not like you could just leave this fingerprint gun sitting on the kitchen table. Given this information, I don't see any advantage to the fingerprint gun.
... NOT!!
This technology could cause accidents by people assuming the safety function is operational, similar to when electric carving knives were introduced they had a pressure activated on switch on the blade.
It may also lead to the assumption that a gun is safe when it can still accidentally fire for other reasons inherent in a firearms mechanism.
It's cold where I live for most of the year. I wear gloves a lot.
Oh really?
If I really need my pistol to function, and I have blood on my hands, I don't think I'd trust one of these.
Given that most firearms technology starts with the military and then spreads out to the civilan market Congress should require this technology for the military. Also since the police are becoming most militarized they should also use. When it is good enough for the Special Forces and the Secret Service protective details I might consider it.
Oh really?
Upon pushing the trigger a display on the gun prompts:
Are you sure you wish to fire this gun?
[ok][cancel]
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
But it is not going to be popular. The thief will simply take the gun from you, and know the cheat code trig-trig-up-down-up-down-A-B-A-B and presto, all the levels would be unlocked.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Would the new "smart" guns have been smart enough to save Trayvon Martin, or a classroom full or little children, or a movie theatre full of innocent people?
*sound of crickets*
Didn't think so.
...while referring to himself in third person, like a true neckbeard.
Then why exactly cars haven't been banned yet?
Even worse, breathing air causes millions of deaths every year, let's ban air!
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
"A single gun owner could also temporarily program a friend or family member's print into the gun to go target shooting and then remove it upon returning home."
Either that or the guy who takes your gun will also take your finger
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
I thought that "transfer of firearm" was intended to cover change of ownership ("This gun is yours now") versus handing it over temporarily for the purpose of handling or firing ("Check out my new SIG, want to shoot it?"). Is my thinking here wrong? If so, what am I missing?
Finding God in a Dog
You select the target with your iris and eye gestures, recognized by cybereye or goggles. Target gets a highlight/targetting frame.
You move the gun so that the reticle (based on gun-mounted camera) on your HUD enters the defined targetting frame.
The moment the gun detects the match (reticle enters the frame = the gun is aimed at the target), it fires, hitting the highlit target.
This is how a smart gun is supposed to work. Not some shmancy safety feature.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
i'm shocked (shocked!) that there's no long thread about how this technology will promote fingers being hacked off (and worn around the neck along with several others necklace style) by eeevil folk. for instance, here's your precedent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4396831.stm now... let's get on with our panicking about this aspect, shall we?
The problem with this system, as well as the problems with the Lanza reference, are that people were expected to follow a set of rules in order for the system to work as intended. When people don't follow the rules, the system does not work. As soon as someone forgets to disable temporary permissions, or effectively does a "chmod 777" on the smartgun system to "to make it easier to use", it's just as useless as the paperwork system that's been in use.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1+1=1+ -1; 2=0 :)
Hammers are almost never useless.
Oh no, someone is breaking in. Okay, I have a "clip" (lol) loaded, ready to go. He's coming around the corner! Click! Click! Batteries are dead. Hold on, let me check the drawer in the kitchen.
Presumably there are some electronics in the gun making this decision, which means if the electronics are messed up (eg: with an EMP or by being immersed in water), the gun becomes unreliable.
Just imagine someone with this gun living in fear of an assailant with ... a water pistol! (scary music here).
Don't worry though, we can fix this by banning water pistols!
I ask because I have no firearms acquisition certificate, but I have shot handguns at ranges under the supervision of their staff.
Presumably there is some mechanism to allow someone to fire your weapon without actually "transferring" it to them.
That said, I've also gone plinking with a .22 at my grandparents farm as a kid with my uncle...which I pretty sure is totally illegal. :)
This is intended to keep unauthorized users from using the firearm, not to help authorized users use their firearms intelligently
George Zimmerman was the intended user of his firearm. The same goes for J. E. Holmes. It might have prevented Adam Lanza from using guns to massacre kids in Newtown, if his mother had kept him locked out of the fingerprint registry. Or, he would have resorted to other and equally gruesome means.
Finding God in a Dog
Are you comparing hundreds of accidents per hundreds of millions of firearms, to 30 ingestion incidents per, what, a hundred thousand magnets? MIght that be at all relevant? While we're at it, backyard pools kill far more kids under 6 than guns do. Is that reason to ban pools?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Perhaps this is more useful in large war or battle then individual use.
Tanks may incorporate these to prevent enemies from taking advantages (such as against North Korean).
Other than triggering them, maybe loading or unloading ammo need a security check as well.
Pulls trigger. Nothing. Notices blinking LED by trigger. Looks at six character LCD display scrolling past. "15 updates are available, would you like to download now? Please tap once for yes, twice for no."
A smarter society would be a much better solution.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
More children are killed by their parents bare hands every year than by firearms.
Optimize for the big n=O( ) first.
THL phish sticks
Are you under the impression that I am suggesting that guns should be banned?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Then so will I and other citizens....
If not, then we'll never accept it. Not as a requirement.
False negative are the problem. False positive are OK if they are low enough. Effectively even if there is a 20% false positive rate, that means 80% of the time somebody not you trying to use your gun will fail. Better than the current 0% failure 100% sucess today. Bad guys would find the gun less interresting to steal, if they can't get their hand on the reprogramming tech or it is too expansive (and it would still be easier to steal a classical one not needing reprogramming).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I was hoping the gun would have some intelligence(?!?) that would prevent it from shoot children or family members
Of course, that's impossible so it's neither smarter or safer
According to Miller, had smart gun technology been available to Nancy Lanza, she could have programmed her guns so that only her fingerprint could have activated them; she could have enabled her son to shoot them at a firing range and disabled them upon returning home, or she could have enabled them for her son to use all the time, Miller said.
"So without the technology, we went from zero percent chance of preventing the shootings to having the technology and a 66% chance of preventing it," Miller said. "Those are much better odds."
Wow. How...what...really? "There's three scenarios related to this event I can think of in my head right now and two of them would be better ergo 66% chance of improvement?"
When I walk outside I can either be hit by lightning or not be hit by lightning, so 50% chance right? What the fuck?
I haven't suggested we ban guns.... I just find it ironic that something as simple as a product intended for entertainment can get banned on account of a small number of incidents when it's actually entirely safe for people to use as intended can be banned when there are other things with far greater numbers of accidents which don't get seem to really get touched.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
...unless one used a revolver or a brass catcher (or simply policed ones rounds after shooting).
After a few reloads, all those overlapping stamps would get awfully hard to read.
That? That was a pigeon.
Gun accidents kill hundreds of people EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.
There were fewer than 30 ingestion incidents, *EVER*, with buckyball neodymium magnets that led to their being declared a health hazard and banned.
While I know the latter aren't protected constitutionally, doesn't that still strike people as being incredibly inconsistent?
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Someone picking up a dropped gun in a fight and using it against its owner? Probably. But someone like Lanza from stealing his mom's guns, opening them up and jamming the solenoid in the 'enabled' position? I doubt it.
Guns are remarkably simple mechanical devices. Stolen guns will have their interlock mechanisms filed down or superglued and placed on the black market.
Have gnu, will travel.
I always thought that smart guns would be better implemented with a sub dermal RFID. It would make it alot more reliable,
The magnets were marketed as a toy... but most definitely *NOT* intended for children. The product was very plainly labelled as such.
It's idiotic parents who gave such toys to small children that were the real problem, not the toy itself. Just as certainly as the parents are wholly to blame when one of them leaves a loaded gun lying around where their kids can potentially handle it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If regulatory inconsistency is amusing to you then you've got an incredible amount of entertainment at your fingertips. Sorry some government bureaucrat feels the need to protect us all from negligently swallowing magnets, you seem to have described a lovely example of unnecessary restrictions.
Buckyballs could be banned because they were new , just like "assault weapons" could be banned. Trying to prohibit swimming pools or shotguns would be a different story even though they are actually more hazardous. So there is a consistency even though it's not logical.
I never said I found it amusing. I said I found it ironic. Stupidly ironic, in fact
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Wonder what they plan to do with these things in the winter. For that matter, if they want to sell to police or the military, they're going to tell the potential buyers that they can't wear gloves at all? How well does this mechanism handle dirt, mud or blood? None of those things are unusual in combat, nor in the field for LEOs.
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
So we have to prevent that from happening. No doubt, there will be a unique hardware reset key, available upon request from the manufacturer. Which means key management and a record of who legally owns each weapon.
No thanks. If you want to register guns, just say so.
Have gnu, will travel.
"You do not have permission to fire this gun."
"sudo Fire gun!"
"Please enter sudo password"
*BLAM YOUR ALREADY DEAD*
tell me again - how does this nifty tech read your fingerprint through your gloves or other coating?
Why aren't pools, cars, and doctors banned?
Yes, based upon the implication of your post, I am.
I bike and during the winter I wear gloves, with this I would have to remove them before I could fire it? There's got to be a better solution.
thats pretty much my best post ever. I spent like 3 hours typing it.
Does anyone in the world know what this guy is talking about?
So because an assasin can kill an army lawyer, this means we gun nuts live in a fantasy world?
Oh and you prove our point that milliseconds matter. You outline a case in which the man did not have enough time. We already know we don't have enough time during a home invasion. So why would we want to risk losing more needless seconds.
And we're not so much worried about losing 6 milliseconds, as we are of losing seconds or even minute or even our life, if said electronic device failed to operate correctly.
An expensive firearm locked inside of a safe has zero value. The intruder can come in, shoot you in the back while you're attempting to open the safe, then walk out with the safe, to open it up at his leisure at the auto wrecking yard.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Will it fire when my fingers are covered in zombie gore?
No?
Then no thanks.
The fact is that firearms are TOOLS. They kill things. To damn firearms for all the people they kill (including suicides) is like damning hammers for all the nails they pound in. If someone uses a gun to commit suicide, technically, they're using a pretty good tool for the job.
To directly harm the utility of the tool in order to make it safe is an argument that's failing in first principles.
Of course, we're all to uncomfortable to acknowledge that simply, some people are not responsible enough to handle these kinds of dangerous tools. Rather than actually point that out, we're trying to remove the ability of every civilian to use them - brilliant. Just brilliant.
-Styopa
Riiiight. The same people who don't want background checks are going to just fine with an implanted RFID tag.
I would love to see that conversation take place, if only to watch all of the heads explode.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Electronics fail, things go wrong. Adding more possible points of failure to the people that depend on a single shot firing perfectly seems absurd. This technology I think is great and should be required for all consumer sold weapons. I doubt that active military weapons are frequently used against us and I'm sure that they keep much tighter control on their weapons already. Additional components will also mean retraining of the weapons so they can be properly maintained. This would cost an insane amount of money to retrain soldiers as well as replacing current weapons.
http://interserver.net/
This could be an interesting method for gun control. If an internet connection is required, a "banned" status could be linked to the fingerprints of felons and those who have been determined to be mentally ill by a court of law. I effect, no one who has been tagged could fire a gun. (I am ignoring the logistics involved. Just a thought experiment).
What was the market penetration of Buckyballs? Did they achieve saturation levels of firearms in the US?
Another problem with Buckyballs (and I have a bunch on my desk as I type) is that when you drop them, they scatter and cling. It would be very easy for them to 'contaminate' an area. I expect that after I leave for my next assignment, the person who inherits my desk will be finding little magnets on the lamp, edges of drawers, etc. In my office, that's not an issue (I hope), but at my home, I actually did become rather worried that I might lose a couple of the magnets and my children could find them (Kids find EVERYTHING).
With a firearm, I'm not worried about them getting lost under the stove, or stuck to the lamp. I don't run the risk of losing one while I'm handling them.
So I can see that buckyballs could actually become quite a serious problem if left in the market for a long time. I honestly could see it being an issue like lead paint in homes. Obviously a bit easier to cleanup, but quite easily a contaminant.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Yes, there are incidents where some kid takes his father's gun out and accidentally or intentionally kills someone or something that he shouldn't.
That said, the overwhelming majority of undesirable shootings wouldn't be stopped by fingerprint reading guns.
Furthermore, this is a radically less useful weapon in general. For one thing you have to charge up it's batteries which means you can't leave the gun in a safe place and then count on it operating months later. For another, the damn thing is likely to misread your print occasionally.
The fingerprint reading gun is stupid. Tell you what, get law enforcement or the US military to touch this thing with a ten foot pole and maybe it might be ready. Short of that... keep it in the comic books or the funnies.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The logic is flawed right out of the gate even before you consider any of the logistical issues with a shooter = owner confirmation scheme.
Here's the deal. A parent who lets their kid get hold of their gun or a gun owner who doesn't lock up their weapons and they are stolen and used in a crime have at least one thing in common: neither of them thought they had a problem to begin with.
My question then is: why does this company think anyone is going to buy one of these if their intended customer already doesn't think they are at risk?
I'll stick with my Glocks with NO safety. One of the primary reasons I chose them was because of that. I've read that many police officers have been shot because they forgot to switch off the safety on their duty pistol. Many other people have been shot accidentally because they relied on the safety which either wasn't activated or failed. Either way - it's misplaced trust in an imperfect safety device. The proposed system will obviously be many times more complex and subsequently even less reliable.
Maybe people will choose these guns because if given the choice between one that might not function in the wrong hands and one that will fire every time they feel better with the extra measure of control. I fear, however, that it will just be another cause of people getting complacent and lazy about proper training and handling. They will assume that the gun will not go off so they let their six year old play with it. Trust me...it will happen.
Entertainment serves no vital purpose, self-defense does. That changes the threshold for acceptable danger.
Of course, this doesn't answer the question who gave the government rights to ban fun toys because "think of the children".
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Seriously, other than multiple other flaws, how is this going to work with a battery?
Is it going to have a cord so you can plug it in? Sorry power cord won't reach! :) Or even if it has a battery , you pick it up and the battery is dead, so useless... and how might you charge it? Like an iPhone? And how is that going to work when locked in a safe or gun cabinet?
Reload! No no no. Reload the batteries! lol
Reread it. You are mistaken.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yeah, first squeeze the trigger 10 times to charge an ultracap. Not Eleven! BAM!
Exploding magnets would have done just fine. Second amendment and all that. Stupid manufacturer.
Perfect crime= internet hack + your gun as the murder weapon left at the scene
OR
Perfect crime= "But it's not even my gun! I've never even held a gun before!" Now, members of the jury, how can you believe a statement like that when his fingerprints were the only ones programed into the murder weapon?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
This is going to be a market failure, because the only people to support things like this are the people who don't buy guns.
To all the anti-gun folks out there... you may wonder why gun laws are universally hated by gun owners. It's mostly because the laws are proposed by people who know nothing about guns.
As an example, here's a woman who has been her career trying to "stop gun violence". She's the co-sponsor of a bill to outlaw high capacity magazines.
US Rep Diana DeGette, from Denver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfngrMVzH0s
In this snip of video she's asked how banning large capacity magazines will change the current situation, because there are so many of them out there. Her response is that as people shoot, the number will decrease as they are used up. She's co-sponsoring legislation to ban a product that she has no clue about.
Hint for the non shooters out there: magazines are re-loadable. Much like you can put more gas into the gas tank of your car, you can also put more bullets into a magazine. I wonder if she buys a new gar every time she uses all the gas in it?
Her response to the criticism? Blaming the NRA for twisting her words. WTF?
Until the anti-gun crowd finds some people with a clue, they just aren't going to get support from the gun people.
...or LEO.
Oh frabjous day!. I really want to deploy with a weapon that might not work if I get too close to ground radar, a welder (especially TIG), an aircraft radar, or other gear. Of course EMP weapons are a threat too, but there is good reason that hundreds of years of firearm designs have so many similarities.
Also, the military nowadays uses tactical GLOVES, because personal protective equipment isn't just for the workshop.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Figure it out.
Some Techies Hear Call of the Shooting Range
Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Almost overlooked your probable provenance. Sorry lad, you're in a bit of a hard place there, but I can understand your confusion over the rights enjoyed by American citizens.
Self-Defense: An Endangered Right
The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The rest of the world thinks that attitudes to guns in the United States are pretty fucked up.
No, not the entire world, although certainly many Europeans and leftists in general. But here is some material for you to gain some insights.
Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI
Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
Self-Defense: An Endangered Right
The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .
England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study
Cheers
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Reliability issues aside, I don't want to add value to my body parts. Consider the older gentleman in The Avengers whose retina was the key to unlocking access to that rock they needed to open the portal. Things didn't work out so well for his eye. It's a ridiculous example, of course. Still, I don't want to unnecessarily increase the chances that someone might want to lop off one of my fingers because it's the key to firing a gun. I like my fingers the way they are presently.
So they think someone who was sick enough in the head to kill his own mother, and then kill 20 + small children with multiple gunshots each wouldn't be sick enough to cut someones fingers off to unlock said gun ?
These companies proposing these things think they are dealing with sane and rational people with their technology. it all falls to pieces when they are dealing with someone that will stop at nothing to do what they want. the guy in question obliterated his mothers face with a 22.lr why would he stop and think "oh damn the gun is keyed to her finger prints i cant do it anymore" no he is going to think "hmmm il just kill her. cut off a finger and we are good to go"
A safe and a lock to put the gun has a much lower MTBF than above. Going by this you would rather leave your gun outside a safe than secure ?
Are you saying that a gun on his hip (or my hip) is not secure? Or one on my computer desk (no kids in the house) within arm's reach? And no intelligent gun owner uses gun locks. All they do is force a thief to take the gun home to break the lock. And trigger locks are dangerous, because the possibility of a negligent discharge goes up dramatically when you stick things in the trigger guard.
It wouldn't have been a problem if they'd just designed the magnets to be fired out of a gun.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Personally, I have only had to shoot one human being in my life, and it unluckily happened to be one where my strong hand was wrapped in bandages and a brace from injuries sustained shortly beforehand. In my case, a weapons system equipped in this way would have failed to function. Same with any grit, ooze, or even water from rain, forget battery or electronics failure or any other environmental issue. No way. Not even close.
Considering how small and simple guns are, would it be that hard to simply disassemble it and remove the fancy gadgetry attached to the safety catch, or just file it down?
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
I guess this system will increase the occurence of scary sounds of the second kind.
An expensive firearm locked inside of a safe has zero value. The intruder can come in, shoot you in the back while you're attempting to open the safe, then walk out with the safe, to open it up at his leisure at the auto wrecking yard.
If you weren't armed the intruder wouldn't need to shoot you in the back, would he?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You're statistically more likely to shoot a member of your own family than an intruder if you own a gun.
I'm sorry - did you have anything intelligent to say? It sounded to me like you have attempted to justify a home owner's murder by an intruder, by saying that he was trying to get to a weapon. The home owner owns a weapon, so he deserved to die, is that it?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Soon we'll have this http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120913222314/psychopass/images/b/b8/Gun212.jpg
Lol
........
Counting in
3....
2.....
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
I wonder if the gun lobby will be quoting the statistic they very much like to ignore in order to sell this gun? "Reduces or eliminates the possibility of you being shot with your own gun which, as people have been telling us for quite some time now, the odds of increase substantially when you take possession of a gun. Also, it will prevent your gun from being used without your authorization."
I can see this tech introducing a lot of investigative and prosecutorial cans-of-worms too.
Less *is* more.
Will I expect to hear modem tones squealing from my gun as it boots up before I can fire it? What if the "smart" stuff in the gun crashes? How reliable will it be in a device that gets dirty, greasy, cleaned with solvents, subject to high pressures and forces from the gun firing? I wouldn't trust my life to it. Guns have been mechanically simple for centuries for a reason.
Bottom line - my guns have no safeties. I didn't wait 8 months for a full unrestricted carry-concealed pistol permit from the Peoples Republic of New York only to be further hamstrung by needless safeties that only serve to make the gun useless if they fail.
Don't limit my ability to defend myself because some mentally insane fucktard from Connecticut or Colorado decided to go out and kill for thrills.
We didn't have these problems when we locked up mentally ill people until the 1980's.
How about if the gun owner had kept the guns out of the hands of her know-to-be-unstable son? Wouldn't that have resulted in a 0% chance of her guns being used? Note that I'm not saying a 0% change of a tragedy, the kid was a disaster waiting to happen and people knew it and didn't try to stop it. I didn't blame the car when the drunk driver killed my cousin, I didn't blame the Bar, the distillery, other drivers, the car manufacturer, or the fact that cars are easily available. No, I blamed the driver!!! Also his license had already been suspended. I don't know where he is today, but I know he isn't rotting in jail as he should be. On another note, more people are injured or killed in car accidents where speeding is a factor than are injured or killed by firearms. How about we require a governor limiting speed to 65MPH in all cars? This has been technologically viable since 1985 when wide scale use of electronic control systems became reality.....and yes I'm kidding. BTW this isn't a new idea, I remember reading about a similar system with a wrist transmitter and grip receiver decades ago. I bet it's failure rate would be lower than a finger print reader, but where is it today? VC don't put money into this kind of thing because they know it’s not going anywhere.
I offered a smart gun design to S&W and Glock in 1995 that had a fingerprint system and had diamonds in the chamber that marked the bullet with a coded pattern identifying the gun. They both rejected the design with prejudice.
A few years later I started my own gun collection and discovered why. Getting the gun to fire with gloves on, a band-aid, or a clumsy grip are only part of the issues. Like getting into your car with a fingerprint reader in an emergency with a thug chasing you in an ice storm.