Slashdot Mirror
'Smart Gun' Firm Wants You To Fund Its Prototype
Lucas123 writes "After striking out at getting private investors to fund a new prototype, Safe Gun Technology (SGTi) is hoping it can generate $50,000 through a crowdfunding effort to build an assault-style rifle with fingerprint biometrics technology. Handgun and shotgun prototypes would follow shortly thereafter, the company said. SGTi, which is using the Indiegogo crowdfunding site for its Fund Safe Guns campaign, has so far raised just over $1,600. Several companies are working on developing smart gun technology, which can identify an authorized user through fingerprint, handgrip or RFID recognition techniques. Last week, a Massachusetts congressman submitted a bill that would require all U.S. handgun manufacturers to include smart gun technology in their weapons." I'm looking forward to the best car analogy that anyone can come up with on this topic.
The only SmartGun I recognize is something that links to a socket in my palm and transmits targeting data to a HUD.
They want to make safe guns, but they're starting out with an assault rifle.
Totally makes sense.
... which quickly analyzes your ass shape and fart composition and only allows you to drive if your ass shape and fart composition is exactly the same as when you first bought the car. As an extra incentive, it discourages weight gain.
What problem does this solve?
I realize that stolen guns are a big item in criminal circles, but my guess is these will be "hacked". Additionally, if these guns prove less than reliable (doesn't fire by the "owner"). And finally who is actually clamoring for "smart gun" weaponry, besides the anti-gun nuts?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'm pretty sure anyone who feels the need to own or carry a gun is also pretty damned adamant about having it reliably and unquestionably work when they actually need it. The first time one of these things fails (even in a test) will be the last time anyone buys one.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
I can see it now ... an attacker tries to carjack you with no warning. You manage to get the gun out of your bag, but because of your fashionable driving gloves it refuses to fire. Thinking quickly and realizing what the problem must be, you frantically try to remove your right glove so that the gun can get a read on your prints. Relief fills your body as you get the glove off and aim the weapon at the terrorist who is trying to carjack you. You pull the trigger, but nothing happens. Shit! When was the last time you changed the batteries in this thing? Seeing what is going on, Achmed decides enough screwing around and sends a lead slug through your cranium - no witnesses this way. He then takes your car anyway, because your ignition did not have any biometric scanning built in.
But what if I cut off the owner's hand and use it to fire the gun with? Huh?! Didn't think about that one, did you technology people? Then I could go around committing mass acts of violence and it'll look like the guy who got his hand cut off did it all. And you won't be able to prove it in court. See?
i already prefer to buy used guns from individuals because the manufacturing quality on an older weapon is usually better, and it shoots just as well for a fraction of the price. just one more reason to keep buying weapons with no paper trail...
When is the government going to mandate smart cars, smart kitchen knives, smart tree branches, smart rocks, smart lightening bolts, smart light sabers, smart hammers, smart chainsaws, smart door knobs, smart electrical outlets, smart rivers, smart rain, smart earthquakes, smart bridges, and most importantly, smart politicians?
sudo make me a sandwich
This is the sort of thing that sounds like a great idea to people who don't know much about computers or guns, and the ways that they can fail.
No, I am not trolling.
I genuinely believe that weapons should be "locked" to their owner.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Proposal : the only validation method I think is usable is an implanted RFID tag with encryption. I don't think these exist yet, the current ones that can be implanted can be "cloned" because they emit a fixed data string when queried.
Why not fingerprints/palmprints? Validation is too slow, too many ways for the sensor to get obscured or some other failure to happen to cause the gun to not register the user instantly. Also, fingerprints/palmprints can be hacked easily.
Anyways, it would use implanted RFID tags, and there would be mechanical switches in the gun itself that must be closed before the weapon starts scanning for a tag. That way, when a user is not holding the gun, the switches are open, and it does not use any energy at all. (the switch allows power to flow to the circuitry). It would have to use long life, non rechargable lithium ion batteries similar to what they use in pacemakers.
Ultimately, the whole technology package would be a module that could replace part of the firing mechanism for an existing tried and true firearm, such as a popular model of glock or something. I think if it were reliable enough, police would want to use it.
Fingerprint scanning technology isn't even very good for DOORS yet. Why would anybody try to apply it to guns, at this stage of the technology?
Maybe when it gets to the stage that the Mythbusters can't beat them ridiculously easily with photocopies and gelatin, it might be appropriate. Now? Not a chance.
Fingerprint ID for a gun won't work for obvious reasons. You can't guarantee fingerprints can be read if your finger is dirty or injured. Further more when you need to pull a trigger on a gun you need it to go off right then and not have to mess around with it.
Lots of government money has already been wasted on this concept only to conclude its not practical
I won't be contributing.
All this will do is add a piece of technology that is more prone to breakage than the gun itself. One purpose of the weapon is to defend yourself, almost always, quickly. The last damned thing I want on my gun is another locking mechanism that could fail when I need it most.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
Because nobody in their right mind is going to want a "smart" gun. I advocate for smart gun owners. In fact, I help train them. It is much more effective than the "smart gun" will ever be, and the cost will be about the same. Trying to fix stupid with technology is a losing bet.
Reliability is a sticking point when people ask advice for which gun to buy. You want it to shoot every time you pull the trigger. I'm not going to add a layer of uncertainty to a life-critical mechanical device. What if I need to use it during the winter when I'm likely to be wearing gloves? Or if it's raining and my hands are wet? No thanks; we'll pass.
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
A google car which detects whether you're upset and refuses to start even if your wife's water just broke.
Lets look at some extra smart features
a) RF signal to disable the gun around schools, malls and movie theatres
b) ID + location beacon that is transmitted for 1 hour after any firing
c) write only GPS time and location log of all firings. Anything within 5 minuts and 50m is logged as single event with total rounds fired count
d) Friend of Foe ping with identification.
e) remote disable using secure key, this must be active on all privately owned guns
f) ability to turn off features (a,b,d,e), but the gun will transmit its ID and the fact it has had the features turned off for 8 hours. Turning off the disable takes effect after 4 hours of applying during those 4 hours the gun will begin transmitting the id. It is legal to test the disable feature at licensed locations, usually police stations and gun ranges. It is illegal to have d,e disabled without a very special license.
Comments, "militia's" will not like most of this, the f option is what makes it work and acceptable.
"Dammit, why did my car just shut off again?!"
I think anyone here will recognize how easily "smart gun technologies" will be circumvented on the streets, either by hardware hacks or software ones, meaning the technology will be useless at preventing illegal firearms transfers after a few days of being introduced. The only kind of crime that would be prevented by biometric or RFID identification would be stealing someone's gun to use on them in the heat of the confrontation. This seems somewhat desirable for peace officers and security personnel, but only if the technology can be made robust enough to prevent false negatives. No officer would ever want to place their lives in the hands of a gun that might refuse to fire at the most important moment.
For the majority case, sport and range shooting, the "feature" is nothing more than a potential nuisance, something else that can break in an already complex, dangerous system.
...on something that can easily hacked and never will work reliably, why not spend money on something much better, which can also easily hacked and never will work reliably? A gun, which refuses to shoot unarmed people?
This using crowdfunding to pay for your own personal hobby-horse is getting real old.
I'm going to start a kickstarter to send me on a research expedition to Aruba.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If your car doesn't start immediately on the first turn of the key, you die of multiple gunshot wounds.
It's a bad idea and I forbid you to proceed. I'm out. -Mr. Wonderful
In most US states you can just go out and buy a gun, no licence needed to own or use it.
Such a gun licence, with or without a prior test, would do away with the discussion about buying guns a shows, you don't have licence, no sale.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Okay, if the government wants this, then let the military develop this technology and prove it on the war agaist terrorism.
On it passes this test then it will be reliable for us civies.
Fingerprint approaches just are not going to work, because the environment is insufficiently controlled.
Why not either design the assault rifle to use a small implantable RFID key device, that is coded to you and works every time? If it's implantable, it's always there..
That strikes me as a simple and elegant solution. You're always going to need a battery, but the power level might be low enough to measure the lifetime in years.
*shrug*
Another approach would be to code the ammunition not the rifle, and electrically detonate it. That way you could have a fresh "battery" every time. Likely cost prohibitive, however.
There's a few hundred million weapons in the US now anyway, millions more sold every year. I think the horse left the barn some time ago.. making this kind of moot.
If I ran the kingdom in light of the above, I'd have mandatory practical firearms training for every high school student. That'd make too much sense, though..
..don't panic
Best car analogy? Okay, how about this:
You leave work late one evening. You notice a group of trashy teens across the parking lot, but see similar groups often enough so think nothing of it. You start walking toward your car, and as soon as you've gotten committedly-far from the safety of your office building, the teens start moving quickly toward you. You notice two now have knives out.
You start running toward your car, and make it with a good 10+ second buffer before the thugs reach you. You press your thumb to the door lock and...
Bzzzt. Damn that paper cut you got right after lunch! You try again: Bzzzt. Third time: Bzzzt.
The thugs reach you, stab you 27 times, rape a few of the new holes, and take your iphone and wallet. They leave you to die, which you obligingly do roughly twelve minutes later.
Whether you "like" them or not, if you acknowledge that guns have any legitimate use, they need to just plain work when needed. Period. No papercuts preventing them from recognizing your fingerprints, no batteries to die, no "instant background check" to take 30 seconds to verify that you haven't started taking Prozac in the past few days.
And if you don't think guns have any legitimate purpose, well, too bad - Because the authors of our constitution did.
For a Pledge of $1000, Jaqen H'ghar will kill 3 people of your choosing using this product. Just don't waste it on the wrong 3 people that could have ended the book series quickly.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
It takes a smart guy with a dumb gun to stop a dumb guy with a smart gun.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Not going for 'funny' points here, but still.
In plenty of juristictions, you can be in trouble if you're in possession of car keys whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.
(BTW, are they not the same thing? Why the distinction? But I digress...)
How would this work with a 'smart' gun?
Your car keys are on the table when the cops bust the bar. You've just finished your 10th strong drink. No problem; someone (sober) in your entourage was going to drive you home.
Your 'smart' gun, (why do I dislike that term so much?), is on the table. Hmmm...kinda hard to convince the law that someone else is in charge of it.
Because that's exactly the argument they use to bust you when you are "drunk in charge"...of just a set of car keys.
Mind you, I suppose you could argue that if you go out drinking with a gun, you deserve all you get.
Or you live in Detroit.
are not gun owners.
I can't imagine any reason that I would want their project to succeed.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
...it's the moron's holding them that are the problem.
to build an assault-style rifle
Much like the double rainbow guy, I can't help but ask...
"What does it mean? I don't know what it means..."
Really. What the fuck is an assault-style rifle? Have we not muddled the language enough yet?
An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that is designed for tactical operations.
An assault weapon is a semiautomatic rifle that is specifically named in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, or has a certain combination of cosmetic features specifically identified in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
An assault-style rifle is... is what?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
This would be an amusing hornets' nest to kick: Kickstart Jim Bell's "Assasination Politics"
Isn't this the plot of Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots? War... has changed.
This technology will likely have issues. It sounds great in principle, but probably can be hacked and could prevent people from defending themselves if there's a glitch. Furthermore, what's to prevent someone who passes the incomplete background checks from getting an assault weapon and the massacring people anyway? It sounds good in principle, but in practice is probably trouble.
The solution is simple. If you want to eliminate gun violence, eliminate guns. The second amendment exists in part because of the reluctance to have standing armies and the perceived need for citizens to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government. The first reason didn't last long since a standing army was established under President Washington. As for the tyrannical government, there's no way a bunch of people with semi-automatic rifles are going to defend themselves against the firepower of the United States military. The second amendment is antiquated.
I'm not opposed to people having a handgun for self defense. But the people arguing against gun control because of the second amendment are loony. Repeal the second amendment rather than creating new technologies that might not work well and that gun owners will resist. Just repeal the second amendment. Problem solved.
But the correct response to fear is to strengthen one's self. The incorrect (but very popular) response is to weaken everyone else. This smartgun tech falls into the latter category.
Didn't ATF rule electronic triggers classify as a machine gun because they are more easily convertible to full auto? Wouldn't these violate that ATF letter/ruling? Also, unintended consequenses and all that since conversion would require a soldering iron instead of a machine shop.
As long as we use gun powder and bullets for fire guns you can't reliable stop anyone from working around the fingerprint technology. It is too simple to modify a gun, simply by cutting off the handle and attaching a new one or even. With the right tools, or even the wrong ones, you can make anything a lethal weapon. Heck, even potato guns are lethal and just about anyone can build one. There are a million more ways to commit the same crime a gun does.
Or look at airplanes... Based on one single person, every person now has to remove their shoes. They let you bring laptops onboard, but not knives? Any laptop contains bits of metal that can be broken apart into sharp shards but box cutters and pocket knives are confiscated? Like most security, it only trivially increases the difficulty of committing a heinous act until it can appease the public opinion and absolutely will not prevent the one-off psychos from acting.
Where can we contribute to prevent this idiocy being pursued?
This is the equivalent of a car with a steering wheel that has fingerprint sensors on it, at the 9 and 3 o'clock positions. If it is unable to read valid fingerprints, the engine stops and the steering wheel locks in place.
It's safer because it doesn't let someone steal your car (be it your child, or a thief), and it forces you to drive with both hands on the wheel at all times.
do {print "Mini-Geek Rules!\n";}
until ($TheEndOfTheWorld);
If you'll look at my post, you will see that my statement was that I can't imagine any reason I would want this project to succeed. I want any legislation that would require such technology to fail as well.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Get a lobbyist to get a congressman in his pocket to propose a law that would require technology that doesn't exist yet, but your company could make. Then at the same time while this slow process gets going ask for random strangers to fund your technology for free. .... profit
I don't want a safe hammer that doesn't kill people, I just want a smart hammer that won't crush my fingers.
Someone made a "safe" circular saw (http://www.sawstop.com/) but it either "cost too much" or "opened up legal troubles" to get it sold. It's much cheaper to replace the amputated worker, than the tools.
VIDEOhttp://politics.slashdot.org/story/13/05/30/1627256/smart-gun-firm-wants-you-to-fund-its-prototype#: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esnQwVZOrUU
Yea no thanks Would rather not have to find myself in a situation having to reboot my weapon because it has a required update while an intruder is aiming his own non-hindered weapon at my chest.
What about a phone analogy? A phone that doesn't work except in the hands of its owner. Good luck calling 911. Oh wait, you say it will call 911 in the hands of anybody because it's an emergency? Remind me again of the reasons a law-abiding citizen might need to use a gun? (for the slow-minded, the answer is: in an emergency)
When the british took the powder, the shooting war started.
3 percent of the colonials were directly involved in that war.
The rest carried on with their lives.
Car:
A woman is crossing a dark parking lot at night; she sees someone in a hoodie on the other side of the parking lot. The person in the hoodie obviously notices her with a predatory pause and tarts moving towards her Her car is between them. She runs for the car, the bad guy starts running towards her. She gets in RFID range; the car notices the keys in her purse. She reaches the drivers side of her car just as the bad guy reaches the passengers side. She opens the door because the RFID has authorized it. The bad guy opens the passenger door, because the RFID has authorized it.
Isn't she happy she had the RFID?
Gun:
You get into your house. You hear a crash from the bedroom. You run to investigate. A burglar has just successfully opened your gun case. He tries to shoot you; the gun fails to go off. You rush over. You struggle. You get in RFID range. The gun goes off during the struggle, and you're shot.
Aren't you glad you had the RFID?
Car stops on railroad tracks, wont start because it cant read your fingerprint and doors lock down, train is coming.
All of the above are defeated by using a tinfoil holster (preventing the gun from receiving RF/RFID/GPS signals, or sending RF signals).
Some require a nontrivial amount of energy to use (requiring frequent battery changes), or constant energy use (need to change batteries if you haven't used your gun for a week or so).
a) Defeatable with a tinfoil holster. RF generators are theft targets and therefore Denial-of-Service-attack generators.
b) Defeatable with a tinfoil holster or by shorting or removing the battery after firing. GPS location acquisition defeatable with a tinfoil holster.
c) GPS location and time acquisition defeatable with a tinfoil holster or by shorting or removing the battery (unless battery is required to fire, which is in itself a Denial-of-Service possibility).
d) Defeatable with a tinfoil holster. Requires frequent battery changes. Denial-of-Service-attack possibility.
e) Defeatable with a tinfoil holster. Requires frequent battery changes, even when the gun is not being used. Denial-of-Service attack possibility. "Separate RFID tag must be near gun for it to work" fails when using the gun against its owner, or when the crook demands the tag when he steals the gun fom you.
f) Defeatable with a tinfoil holster, or by shorting or removing the battery. Given that all the other features can be trivially defeated, what's the point?
Malaysia car thieves steal finger
I don't feel the need to post this in response the request for a car analogy, but rather in response to any intended real world application of biometric security.
I know what you did last summer. Just kidding, I don't work at the NSA.
"no reason for any civilian to have more than 9 rounds in a firearm"
Either you are the world's best shot, or simple math escapes you. It is common in stressful situations to have a hit rate of less than 20%:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
There have been many times this past year where people defended themselves from multiple assailants like this scenario:
http://thegrio.com/2013/05/20/cops-men-burst-in-beat-up-disable-veteran-in-philly/
So explain to me why it is difficult to imagine a scenario where multiple assailants would require 3-5 shots each to disable or kill. I have a natural born right to self-defense and defense of my loved ones. I want the absolute best tool for the job. If the best tool has a standard magazine capacity of 30 rounds - I want it. My possession of the tools of self defense harms no one.
It's nice that you live in a nice, crime-free area of the world, but it is absolutely improper to think that everyone lives in the same situation.
Enthusiastic designer adds questionably functional technology to the product, which technology is undesirable to the products buyers and leads to another orphaned product of most interest to historians later on in life.
and not one comment with an Aliens Vesquez reference?
..who would be alive today, had Adam Lanza's mom had owned smart guns. Just because this kind of technology is challenging, doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing. Eventually we'll get it right. When that day comes, I would much rather all guns in the world had this kind of control, then none. That's my opinion.
Back in the Clinton Administration this was a major topic as well. My solution was a system which had absolutely positively NO effect on the weapon at all most of the time. Should the weapons operator have the weapon taken away or some other less than optimal outcome, THEN the operator could activate the system (by some form of remote control, like a car alarm) and it would safe the weapon, sound an audible alarm, make a light blink, and send out a radio beacon for locating the weapon. Had a lot of interest back then. Haven't heard a thing about it since then. Maybe I need to go dig up my plans and such. I know I reverted the prototype back to a normal gun.
At the time the name of the company was "Lifelock." Our only income came from selling the domain name (to guess who!).
To really maximize the deterrent effect, you could have iris recognition mounted at the muzzle. Simply somehow enable the gun to fire itself, and if a non- authorized eye is detected, BOOM headshot!
Anyone here up to write the code for that baby?
Last week, a Massachusetts congressman submitted a bill that would require all U.S. handgun manufacturers to include smart gun technology in their weapons."
Which will get struck down by the supreme court the second it hits their docket. Lets just stop pretending like the gun control lobby isn't trying to change the constitution. Because the ONLY way to achieve their goals is to do so. Lets have a vote, so we can all see it fail miserably and get on with our lives.
A lot of people think the framers didn't foresee the advanced weaponry that we have today, and would have never included it in the right to bare arms. This is a ludicrous argument. At the time the constitution was written, they had CANNONS. Cannons are still legal to this day! Later, with the invention of primers somehow the right to bare arms was a bit too much... because if you could just slide a shell into the cannon it was somehow a lot more dangerous than blackpowder. So clearly they never thought of repeating rifles! Ah ha! That's the problem, they never thought people could rapidly fire a gun, over and over... oh wait, let me introduce you to the Girandoni air rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle
It could fire 22 rounds without reloading or refilling the air reservoir. It had no muzzle flash, no smoke, was nearly silent and fired a ball equivalent to a modern 45 acp that was deadly at over 150 yards. This gun was in many ways superior to modern assault rifles and was in wide production and in use by the Austrian army 8 years before our constitution was adopted. There were plenty of Austrian mercenaries carrying them in the states as well and it was a hanging offense to be caught with one by the British military because they were so deadly.
So tell us again how the framers had no idea how dangerous guns would become. Or how in Chicago, where we have the strictest gun laws in the country, the rate of death by firearm is higher than it is in Afghanistan, and active war zone, where it's common for people to carry full auto AK's.
... but before long, I expect that guns which are not classified as "smart" will be illegal for private citizens to manufacture or possess.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
you are absolutely right. This need/desire for "works right every time" is seen in the popularity of the glock style handguns which are the de facto standard for law enforcement. They fire 99.999% of the time when a bullet is loaded. I don't like the DAO because I'm a much better shot with the single action, but I'm in the minority of gun owners.
Or... it was prone to false triggering when cutting certain types of materials, and when it triggers it's destructive to the saw, so it costs a lot of money to fix/replace. Probably fine for a production line where you're only cutting one type of material over and over, but not great for a home woodworker.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
And you're an expert in this with a basis in what?
I can cite numerous cases to document a single individual required 5, or more rounds. In fact, there are cases where 9 shots, including multiple head hits did not put down the assailant.
So lets say 4-5 shots (not uncommon believe it or not). And 2-3 assailants in a house robbery (also not uncommon, especially in board states). You are looking at a bare minimum 8-15 rounds.
Guess how many rounds the average police officer carries. Yup. At least double the above....many 3-4x
***
Oh the small penis argument. I really need to take a picture of my carry gun and my penis. And simply ask, if I am compensating for my small penis? Why do I carry a gun that is smaller than my penis?
With wireless security systems and now wireless gun authorization, criminals will soon learn to carry powerful jammers. Even the crackheads may get a hold of some if they're cheap to build.
Woodcraft carries sawstop table saws. They're gaining popularity. The main turnoff for me is that it can be triggered by cutting wood with high moisture content. The brake can be disabled, but if you forget, a new brake cartridge costs $70, and the blade will usually be ruined. Carbide blades are fairly expensive. And for a dado blade which requires a more expensive brake - total cost could be around $300
And finally who is actually clamoring for "smart gun" weaponry, besides the anti-gun nuts?
Anti-gun nut here (though I'm not really sure I'm the nut), and I certainly wouldn't want "smart" gun either...
;) :)
:)
IMO, smart most things aren't smart...
Smart guns, no thanks, just ban guns (for anything but recreational use).
Smart cars, no thanks, drop research in energy storage and smart driving, just layout electric tracks.
Smart glasses, no thanks, if I needed glasses, simple glasses, contacts or laser surgery would be smarter
Smart cards, smart maybe, if there weren't so slow and not secure,
Smart phones, not really, it's a small tablet with an overpriced phone app
In the interest of entertainment: what smart tech don't you like?
We've already cut education down to almost nothing. What you're observing TODAY are the fruits of that effort- a stupid population that continues to elect fact-free politicians. They in turn continue to seek more power and money for themselves, necessitating further education and cuts.
let's try some equivalency treatments...
"There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 4 cylinders in their car's engine" "There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 3 pairs of shoes" "There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 2 children" "There's no reason for any civilian to have more than a $50,000 salary" "There's no reason for any civilian to have [anything that can't be justified by a specific need]" ETC
It's called Freedom, people. It's what America is supposed to be about.
And before douchebags start dragging all the political bullshit in, I support the firing of pretty much every politician currently in office. Scrap the 2 parties completely for all I care. Let the womerns have all the birth control and abortions and the men have all the liquor and dope they want. Whatever. Freedom is the only way forward.
Also for the record, I can disprove that suggested penile association with photos.
I don't want "smart" technology. I want anyone and everyone to be able to use my guns - quickly and reliably, to defend against intruders.
shortages everywhere, and manufacturers / distributors can't keep up with the demand level to the point that they are now unable to build their annual stockpile for the hunting seasons ahead (they usually start stockpiling in the spring/summer months to meet the fall demand) so there will be more shortages later this year
Just like putting breathalizers in cars so if you're drunk the car won't start, so you pay the kid up the street $5 to take the breathalizer so you can drive.
Cept instead of paying a kid you simply cut off and use the gun owners hand.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Huh? They sell it just fine, and it has saved some fingers!
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I will be unopposed to this as soon as the NYPD and LAPD convert over 100% to "smartguns". If they are opposed to smartguns (and really, they have a hell of a lot more reason to be in favor of them than I do), then I can't see why the technology should be imposed on the general public.
Legislate this crap into guns and I'll start a business removing them.
If this is such a great thing, shouldn't the police and military be the first ones to test the implementation?
Use of legal machine guns in crimes is extraordinarily rare. The only time i know of was back in 1988 and it was a cop that killed a drug dealer/informant.
First, it must be named something like ED-209.
Second, the Fourth Directive should be totally mine.
No, it just means that the people who own guns are buying a lot more guns.
If you check for yourself, you'll find that the percentage of Americans who have guns has dropped precipitously.
That doesn't mean there are fewer guns sold, just that the guns are in fewer hands. But let's face it: if owning one gun hasn't made you feel safe, and owning three guns hasn't made you feel safe, it's doubtful that owning 10 guns will make you feel safe.
You are welcome on my lawn.
see subject
A safe GUN? You must be joking.
You are being threatened, you try to shoot, the recognition fails, rendering you defenseless, and you are killed by your assailant. Your family is going to OWN that company.
But you can be sure that immunity for these companies will be built into any law requiring these devices.
Biometrics - or really, much of any electronics - on/in a firearm is laughable at best.
* There is absolutely no market for it. Governments and police won't want them (one more thing to break) and there's a negative market for such things in the firearms industry.
* Biometrics are not yet consistently reliable. They are environmentally sensitive - temperature, moisture, etc. - and easily broken or bypassed.
* Anything with circuitry on a board does not belong on a firearm due to how a firearm works. Car analogy: Putting electronics in a firearm is like launching a car with an air catapult. It won't be terribly reliable as a car after a while.
* It will be easily bypassed on stolen guns, defeating the single biggest purpose it has: keeping guns out of criminals' hands.
But let's address the most non-scientific question here: where is the actual market for these guns? Surely a business looking for crowd sourced funding has more than just "look, here's a perfect world" funding information, yes?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Guns have their place, and it's very important that people that need them know what they are doing. Your point about needing guns to work every time you pull the trigger... well, sure you want that to happen, but some minimal amount of uncertainty would not be the end of the world for people that own guns for target practice, or blowing off steam, or non life-and-death situations. If everyone really needs to be armed where you live, I suggest a new neighborhood.
I"m not sure this is true. I purchased my Delta Unisaw before the sawstops were available but if i was available i probably would have bought one. If i owned a cabinet shop or other business with employees using table saws i would definitely use one. The saw isn't all that more expensive and table saw related injuries are pretty common (and nasty.) Unlike the "safe gun", i think the sawstop is an improvement over a normal table saw.
"Smart guns" don't actually prevent the wrong people from firing them, they enable the correct person(s) to fire them. As such when the electronics fail the gun won't work for anyone. The bigger issue is then that EMP type devices could disable guns (think of simple kitchen-tech). Criminals would love this - disable YOUR gun but theirs is an illegal one that works. And of course the police won't be required to use the smart guns for exactly this reason - criminals could remotely disable them.
Ugly and expensive guns that are less reliable are a really lousy idea. It isn't even settled that safeties should be on guns or not. There is some real though that gun safeties increase accidents.
Adding components to a weapon usually degrades the weapon in every way. Further we would need a new agency to determine if new safety measures meet the codes or if the safety devices have been altered and we would end up with one more expensive , nightmare, agency. And you can bet your last penny that the new agency would want a fee to inspect your gun safety so we would end up with a lot of armed people driving to the inspection address. Really it is silly nonsense.
This is my only concern with the saw. If false triggering could $170 or so on rare occasions would be bad but not nearly as bad as amputated fingers (or worse.) How wet does the wood have to be to trigger it?
He's correct about the numbers of deaths by bludgeoning vs assault rifles. The numbers are very low. Most of the killings are by handguns. You can easily google for it but here is one source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-more-people-were-murdered-knive/
There's already a "smart" gun. Its called a shotgun. Handguns are dangerous, largely because it's relatively easy for the user to shoot themselves, or accidentally shoot someone else with one. When was the last time you heard about an accidental death (or even a homicide) involving a legally-obtained shotgun?
IMHO, most guns (and ammunition) other than shotguns should be stored in locally-managed, locked & guarded arms depots, perhaps adjunct to local police stations, or even better, dedicated organizations (militias), to be used for civil defense, in the event of an invasion or (god forbid) civil war. If there was such a system of militias in place, I might actually be interested in exercising my 2nd amendment rights, since it would serve a useful purpose,in that it would reduce the ability to justify the existence of a standing army (the true reason for the 2nd amendment). As it is, I have no interest in guns, and even less in the politics surrounding them.
Or, if your hands are simply dirty, or the gun handle is dirty or smudged.
Anyone who thinks for even a moment that this will make guns MORE safe has clearly not considered the threat model and thought through the consequences.
This is going to end very badly. It's only a matter of time.
BTW, the purpose of owning guns generally is not "feeling safe" because we are all more likely to die by our own hands than at the end of a murderer's gun barrel. Check the CDC stats for causes of death in America - homicides of any kind, including but not limited to gunshot deaths, are the 14th or 15th most frequent cause of death, whereas cancer and heart disease are the top killers. Smoking kills far more people. Car accidents kill far more people. Suicide even kills more than all homicides of any kind.
Back to the "feeling safe" thing - most of my friends and kin have guns for sporting purposes such as hunting or target shooting. Protection from attackers is simply a side-effect of the sporting-related ownership. People buy more guns to use them for different purposes, say a new rifle for long-range hunting or a small pistol for cheap target plinking, or whatever different product to fit into the particular niche of the owner's collection. I seriously doubt anybody compulsively buys guns out of fear, unless it's the fear that they will be unavailable in the future due to tyrannical fascists.
Fund this please while I spend my money getting rid of gun control yes voters.
Got Code?
For many gun owners a ban and confiscation of their guns is a red line that the leftists really should not want to cross. There will be armed resistance and there will be civil war. It's not something any of us want but i'm not sure the left understands how serious an issue it is.
I'll give you the stupid population, but the part about cutting education down to nothing is simply not true. Spending in the US is only down about 4% from the peak of 2009. The avg spending (2011) was $10,560 per pupil and is higher than everywhere else in the world.
Right. That's always the answer: "The statistics are wrong".
If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that the research regarding gun ownership was done by a Swiss organization that does work for the gun industry.
First, the argument was, "There can't be a decline because guns are flying off the shelves". But when a gun "flies off the shelves it becomes part of the statistics used to measure gun ownership".
Yep, you're one of the "Statistics are wrong" guys.
You are welcome on my lawn.
A smart gun will only be viable if it provides something else besides a lock on the function of the gun. For example, http://tracking-point.com/ adds something people might want (but maybe not at the current price.) Electronics in the gun could in some cases be beneficial but it's hard to imagine any scenario where it made a gun more reliable since most modern handguns are pretty damn close to being 100% reliable. Without a great new feature smart guns will go nowhere and even with some sort of magical new feature they probably still have little chance of success.
Once the feds get wind of something like this they will *mandate* it, so that you will have unreliable pieces of crap that the average guy can't afford anyway. 'we didn't take your rights... '
Safe-Firearms company to consumers: "I trust you to be able to protect yourself. I really do. Here let me put this on *your* firearm to protect your children."
Safe-Firearms company to law enforcement: "We want to protect the police when they are in the vicinity of firearms, so we have developed this device that will deactivate all firearms in the area, except the special law enforcement/military models."
Safe-Firearms company to nanny state: "Contract Complete."
I know I am stretching this to the extreme, but I seriously want to be able to protect myself when necessary. I don't want any type of electronics on my home defense firearms. I especially don't want the equivalent of an OnStar engine kill switch on my firing pin.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
The brake can be disabled, but if you forget, a new brake cartridge costs $70, and the blade will usually be ruined. Carbide blades are fairly expensive. And for a dado blade which requires a more expensive brake - total cost could be around $300
Yeah. $370, ouch! That's gotta be like umpteen-times more expensive than the cost of surgery to re-attach one or more fingers. Did I mention.... "ouch"?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It's like you Hulk out, and pick up a car, and throw it into the ocean. ...What? It's not my fault you don't understand the analogy.
No thanks! I prefer to wear shooting gloves, which would make fingerprint detection useless.
Most people that regularly use saws go their entire lives without losing digits, but often deal with crappy wood .
I'm not in favor of major gun restrictions, but Jesus fucking Christ on a cracker, why is it that every second or third vocal opponent of gun control has a god damned Rambo delusion?
I've lost track of the number of "scenarios" that result in someone pretending they could mow down a wave of attackers with their Big Manly Gun.
In the scenario you linked with that poor vet, even IF he had been keeping a gun on himself, they JUMPED him and beat the crap out of him before he could do a damn thing. They were predators who knew exactly who they were attacking, and unless he was known to wander around with a gun on him at all times, how in HELL would a bigger clip have helped him? Hell, I can see them freaking out and shooting if they saw him reaching for a gun, in which case, congrats! His right to bear arms got him killed! More likely, they'd have rolled him and those thugs would have had ANOTHER gun to use on some poor sonovabitch. Your fear-mongering scenario is utter crap.
And if "multiple assailants" want your ass dead, they're bringing guns, in which case your 30 round, 60 round, or 100 round gun means less than crap. You may get a handful of shots out at one or two of 'em, but the rest of 'em will mow you down. Hell, they'd probably just do a drive by on your house, gun you down when you're stepping out, fat lot of good your gun would do you.
If your "multiple assailants" are a small group of thieves that broke into your house in the middle of the night, either a shot or two will either scatter 'em, since they're coming for your money, not your life, they're gonna soil themselves and open up with whatever they have while running away, or they're gonna rush your ass while you're missing them, and even if you put one down the others will get you and may even shoot you with your own gun for taking one of theirs down.
I'll support your right to bear arms, but not to indulge in that macho bull-crap American Action hero mindset. That horse hockey does more harm than good. Guns are dangerous tools with specific but limited uses, and indulging your Super Hero delusion is NOT helping the cause.
Frankly, with that mindset, you're probably more dangerous to your family than the thugs you're afraid of.
Don't do it. If there's a market for this product, it will stand on it's own.
Any tool that is meant to protect you and your loved ones, but can't provide protection any longer after you're dead is a broken tool.
This is broken by design only to appease opponents who are either misguided or overzealous about a bad solution to a perceived problem, or are simply attempting to hinder your rights through obfuscation.
Don't do it.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
This technoilogy is and the law submited for it are as good as the law proposed to have breathalyzer ignition interlocks put into all new cars.
Do you want to have to blow into a tube everytime you want to start your car, too?
I am not impressed by the pro and con arguments for gun ownership in this thread. Is it that hard to make a solid case either way?
W.r.t. the technology at hand: I guess it could be interesting to explore, but I don't think this addresses any big ticket item in the actual discussion in society...
There is a very good reason why it can't get funded: it's a stupid idea.
When it comes to guns, they are the absolute last, desperate response when your life is in danger - when it's literally their life or yours. When it means you may live or die based on whether or not your gun functions, do you want a gun that you know will go bang when you pull the trigger? Or do you want a gun that might go bang, depending on how well the biometrics are working that day, whether or not your hand is sweating, if the batteries are charged, if the software is correct...
There have been so many "smart gun" companies and they have all failed for the same reason: They are creating a product that NOBODY except the anti-gun lobby wants.
Even if they DO manage to create and market a so-called "smart gun," they can expect that the very first time someone attempts to defend themselves with one of their guns, and the gun malfunctions, that the surviving family will sue the "smart gun" manufacturer out of existence.
I'm talking about the thing triggering every once in a while because someone forgot to disable the brake to cut damp wood. If it was actually triggered by my hand touching the blade, of course I wouldn't mind paying $370.
I am all for these if having a smart gun also includes open carry and the ability to take it anywhere including schools and government buildings. It is for my personal use and I am responsible for any damage caused from the gun. Anything less will not make it worth purchasing one.
I'm not an expert, but I did read the readily available information. Probably did more research than some people who actually bought the thing.
First, the saw DOES have an override if you think you're going to be cutting wood that wet, you can disable the system. The reports I've seen is pretty much 'very'. Hauled in fresh from the rain, for example, or wood so green a chainsaw would be more appropriate. Most of those with such trips were like 'duh, I should have known better; it's not good to cut into wood that wet anyways!'.
The system is quite ingenious, but is destructive, though not to the saw itself. It's designed to survive the activation of the safety system without damage, but due to the forces involved you have to replace two parts to return it to full operation - a brake cartridge and the saw blade itself since the way it works is the brake basically explodes into the blade on a trip. Oh yeah, and it's possible to operate it without a brake cartridge in place, though it should be obvious that it's operating like an old table saw, quite willing to remove fingers and such.
The brake cartridge is $70-90 depending on model. A quick search shows that circular saw blades, contractor grade, run $40. Then again, blades are disposable items. So the cost for a trip would run between $75 (cheaper 10" cartridge, EOL blade), to $130(More expensive 8" cart, New blade).
I don't read AC A human right
Funny thing about that is while it's a great product they are guilt of the same crap the smart gun people are trying. When they initially developed the sawstop they spent quite a lot of effort trying to lobby for regulations requiring it. When that failed they went back to more traditional marketing methods, failed for quite some time. The product is now finally gaining popularity, in the amateur woodworking market. Also, the problem solved by this is only half of the issue with table saws, most injuries are caused by kickback, not by people accidentally amputating fingers. Obviously a safety mechanism preventing amputations is still nice though...
Yay, the Sawstop of guns!
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.