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.
What gun nuts like you fail to understand is that anything we can do to make it harder for criminals and the irresponsible to use firearms outside of their intended purpose is a good thing.
There is no way of ensuring with perfect precision that nobody uses them illegally, but effective regulations do work. Australia went for over a decade without any mass murders before the recent one. And that, IIRC, didn't involve a firearm.
And sure, they might be hacked, but it's far more difficult to hack one of these firearms than to use one that has not safety features at all. Plus, hacking the firearm cannot be done on the spur of the moment, it requires deliberate action, which means no shooting somebody with their own firearm.
Lastly, if you're that concerned with reliability, you wouldn't be using a semi-automatic, you'd stick with a simple revolver or a blunt instrument.
No, he couldn't have easily stolen the stuff necessary to make the smart guns work. This kind of "thinking" is why the debate will never resolve in a sane way. You can't assume that effective gun control isn't possible, it's been demonstrated to work in Australia, amongst other places. It's just in the US where the gun nuts can't fathom the notion that we don't need perfect to make a difference where things aren't working.
However, and i am prepared for the uneducated shit storm: No one needs a 30 shot clip. (stop reading here if you agree) No you don't. Shut up you drunk hick. You have no reason, and no rational thought in you head, die in a fire. Stop enabling homegrown terrorist you think you can protect us from. You can't. Also, stop making us the most hated country on earth. Just go away. Forever.
Oh, now you just gotta come up with some citation that shows how there are more deaths by clubbing than by semi-automatic assault-style rifles.
You're usually full of shit, but this is a new low for you.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Face it, they bought the gun "to make them safe". They rarely if every train with it. They certainly don't train to use it effectively in a combat situation. To the average gun owner, it is either a magical talisman that wards off evildoers or a universal remote that will stop bad guys at the push of a button.
Whether they buy into "smart" guns or not is simply a matter of how effectively these products are marketed. These consumers were stampeded into the gun store with lurid tales of violent crime. There are even more tales of accidental shootings.
Read the replies to my post. That's some serious hate. Any guess what? NOT A SINGLE ACTUAL CHALLENGE. Please, tell me why you need a 30 round clip. I am yet to hear a single reason. My theory: Small penis compensator. I just can't find anything else. It's like SUV's. They suck on road, they suck off road, they suck gas, they can't haul. Why do people buy them?
Now we're changing it again. First it's "bludgeoning" then it's knives.
The reason deaths are low is because trauma care is so much better.
A more illuminating statistic is the number of people hit by bullets. That number is up by >30% over the same period that you cite.
Interesting that you cite Politifact. Do you know that today a study was published where Politifact evaluated the statements of Republicans and Democrats and found that Republican elected officials were three times more likely to lie? We're talking about your Politifact here, so it must be true, right?
I know, you don't believe me:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-democrats-according-to-new-study/
You are welcome on my lawn.