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 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."
How about they make a safe "Hammer" or "club" since these kill more people than all rifles every year? Oh right, because rifles are big loud scary objects!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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
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.
Yep, there's no problem that can't be solved with DRM.
Then you haven't thought things through.
"Locks" like what is being suggested here is simply another point of failure on a system that is optimized to have as few failure points as possible. No one that knows anything about guns will willingly buy this.
*sigh* back to work...
That most gun owners don't WANT this type of tech, that could potentially bork and not allow you to fire at a critical moment.
A gun works JUST fine now....simple, mechanical, etc.
And by the way...can those folks in MA either vote out said congressman putting that bill forth, or just contain such laws to your state if you want them that way?
Sheesh, if this type thing comes about, I guess we'll see more efforts like recent ones, to have states certify guns make and labeled for "in state sales only" to get around the Feds being able to mess with and regulate them.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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
An "assault rifle" is usually just a magazine fed hunting rifle. There's nothing particularly special about such weapons. They just look big and scary because they don't have any wood trim and they come with a pistol grip.
Although professional shooters are the best and most appropriate beta testers for this kind of new technology. This stuff should not be forced on the rest of us until cops are fine with it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 "Rifles" do not kill more people then hammers, clubs or knives. Handguns, however, are a different story... I wonder if they classify SMG as handguns?
Or cleavers. Just recently a man walked up to a guy on the street and started hacking away at him. Not even rolling cameras slowed him down
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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!
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.
I don't want a safe hammer that doesn't kill people, I just want a smart hammer that won't crush my fingers.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
sub-machine guns are basically handguns that are fully automatic capable and (usually) have additional furniture to accommodate fully automatic operation. All of the various SMGs out there fire handgun ammunition. For example, the Uzi that everyone's seen on tv and movies fires 9mm rounds. Typical handgun ammunition doesn't go much more than 1200 fps. There are some handgun ammo's out there that buck this general rule of thumb, but this still doesn't compare to what rifle ammunition frequently does - and that's reach 2500+ fps. A true select-fire machine gun uses rifle ammunition.
Hmm...seems this company can't figure out what the problem is....
That most gun owners don't WANT this type of tech, that could potentially bork and not allow you to fire at a critical moment.
A gun works JUST fine now....simple, mechanical, etc.
It sounds like they just figured out who their customers really are. It's not the gun owner, it's the gun opposition.
The campaign is a call to arms (pardon the pun) for the clueless, emotional, never-took-history masses to fund them, so then they can then impose the technology on the gun owners against their will by lobbying for laws to require it, which is step 2 of the plan.
Bonus points if they can get the law to require only "certified" smart gun technologies, of which only SGTi will have the required certification.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Not necessarily. Go to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (or the newer one, if you prefer), and you'll find a list of rifles that CANNOT be considered "assault weapons". If you take one of those rifles and add the cosmetic features you mentioned, they're still NOT assault weapons.
Some people are starting to realize that an increasingly large chunk of the population knows that an "assault weapon" is essentially a scary-looking rifle that is functionally the same as any other rifle. So a new label - "assault-style rifle" goes on trial....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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?
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.
There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 9 rounds in a firearm.
Not 8, not 10, but nine, right? Please explain how you've arrived at that number. Be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I assume they're looking at the police and military market since assault rifles are restricted class III items in the US for civilian ownership and not overly cheap.
Class III items are full-auto, which are police and military weapons.
And they're not expensive because they are inherently more costly. They are expensive because any weapons manufactured after 1986 are still banned for civilian possession. The capped supply, along with the non-liquidity of the weapons themselves due to transfer costs and requirements (including may-issue permission from your local sheriff or police chief, good luck unless you're well connected), are the cause of how expensive they are. A factory fresh military Colt M4 doesn't cost anything more than a consumer Colt M4.
That's fine for TPTB, of course. Because civilians that can afford such expensive toys are doing well enough that they're on the side of the status quo, and aren't exactly going to take up those arms in a revolution when the army will defend that status quo.
More Twoson than Cupertino
30 round magazines are very useful for taking down packs of coyote or wild dogs. But you don't NEED a reason to own a high capacity magazine You don't need to have a reason to own a speed boat or a 200mph motorcycle either, and there is even less of a reason for those than a high capacity magazine.
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.
Sub-machine guns have shoulder stocks for stability and recoil management. Most SMG-styled weapons that can not fire fully automatically are carbines, and fall under the "rifle" classification. Something like the Micro-Uzi, lacking a shoulder stock, is called a "machine pistol". If modified for semi-automatic operation it would just be a pistol.
Another factor with SMG's is that they are, by definition, capable of fully automatic fire. As such, they are not available to the majority of the US public without special licensing. You would be hard pressed to find a recent use of a SMG by a civilian in a violent crime. I doubt they even register a blip in the FBI crime statistics.
I genuinely believe that weapons should be "locked" to their owner.
And that the owner must be required to wear special jewelry, have on no gloves, and have a perfectly clean gun (and fingers!) in order to defend himself, right? And if the owner is out of town and his wife wants to use the gun to save her life? Hold on, Mr. Home Invasion Rapist Guy, I have to get my husband on the phone so he can use his iPhone app remotely to help me re-program this gun I'll be using to keep you from assaulting me.
I want to be able to toss one of my guns to someone to whom it's not "locked" if I need help dealing with, say, three pit bulls in a mauling mood. Just fer instance.
How do you feel about locking baseball bats and pipes? Those are used every year to murder far, far more people than are all types of rifles (including ones that have black plastic on them, thus making them "assault" weapons) combined.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It sounds like they just figured out who their customers really are. It's not the gun owner, it's the gun opposition.
Brilliant business plan there - build a product that no one wants except people who would never buy your product.
No wonder they're trying to crowdfund instead of going the VC route.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You don't need a 30 round magazine
and
There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 9 rounds in a firearm.
The beauty of our Constitution is the government doesn't have the power to tell citizens what they need. Indeed, it's the other way around. How would you react if the government proposed to ban certain words or phrases because you don't really "need" to use them in everyday speech?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
To much focus on semi-auto. .357magnum Ruger GP100 myself) and a bolt action in a heavier rifle caliber to that list.
You should probably add a revolver (I like the
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?
They are also great for practice. Load at home, not at the range where range time is costing money.
.. it would ruin all of their arguments about 'guns only designed to kill people'. Last time I checked, guns were designed to shoot bullets. Some bullets are designed specifically to kill people, others are designed to kill animals, and some are designed just for target shooting.
But don't tell the anti-gun group that target shooting is fun
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
If I was to add a non semi auto weapon to my group it would be a breach break single barrel shotgun so I could get the 7" rifled inserts to shoot any type of ammo there is.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 9 rounds in a firearm.
Tell it to any shopkeeper in Los Angeles, you ignorant prat.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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 I know even more children who would be alive if the FBI/BATF didn't use incendiary gas grenades. And one rogue LAPD officer too. One can decide if the latter would be beneficial. But the former would have.
And that's exactly what the Senate Gun bill that would ban "assault' weapons did.
Mini-14s are banned if they look one way, and legal if they look another way. Both are weapons that can handle 30 round clips and will kill people, but the look is what makes one dangerous, and one not.
21st Century Renaissance Man
What really get's my goat is that in Dianne Feinstein's most recent attempt at an assault weapon ban, she specified barrel shrouds as a prohibited feature of assult weapons. A barrel shroud's primary function is to protect the user from getting burnt by a hot barrel or gas tube. It would take a semi-competent weapon designer about 20 minutes to draw up a design to circumvent that restriction. It's just embarrassing that our legislators trying to ban guns don't know how the hell guns work and are too cheap to hire consultants who do.
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.
For the curious, the AC is referring to Rep. Diana DeGette's statements at a forum, where she said
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
The Denver Post has an article and video. http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-house-on-gun-legislation-rep-diana-degette-appears-to-not-understand-how-they-work/93506/
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
Sorry sir, I was busy with my code, just another bug hunt!
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The campaign is a call to arms (pardon the pun) for the clueless, emotional, never-took-history masses to fund them
You are now the wikipedia example of the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
Those that support gun disarmament that actually have a clue are not going to contribute to this. They won't contribute to anything that will enable continued gun manufacture. In other words, they don't want guns to be safer, they want them to be gone.
The emotional side of that crowd really believes a safer gun can save lives. Those that wish to force disarmament aren't really interested in the criminal side, obviously, because if they were, they knew abolishment won't get guns out of the hands of criminals.
There's more than up and down on this issue. Within both up and down there are various types. I apologize for only referring to one specific type.
More Twoson than Cupertino
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.
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.
Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Those in favor of gun control side can't even use multiple national tragedy as an excuse to take away rights from American citizens. Think about how astonishing that is for a moment. This is the country wiling to throw out almost every part of the constitution with just a mention of "think of the children," but children are ACTUALLY dying, and they've got nothing.
You're worried this is an insidious plan on the part of gun control proponents? They aren't that smart.
(Full disclosure: I'd fall closer to the "pro-gun-control" side of things.)
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/
That, mounted on a drone with Argus and some facial recognition software and we have the perfect "killer app".
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.