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.

39 of 558 comments (clear)

  1. This solves ? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:This solves ? by kk49 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It solves (probably poorly) the problem of police officers being shot with their own guns and kids getting shot by guns their stupid parents left accessible.

      --
      You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
    2. Re:This solves ? by TWiTfan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you think any parent irresponsible enough to leave their guns out around their kids is going to spring the extra $ to buy a smart gun?

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    3. Re:This solves ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It will take a while to get the old ones out of circulation...

      Like 100+ years? A 1911 from 1911 is still a useable gun, and an early AK47 will still be plenty useable in 2050. I doubt that the biometric grip these guys come up with will last like that, however.

    4. Re:This solves ? by quietwalker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most of the anti-gun or gun-control measures being suggested appear to have little thought behind them. Assault weapons aren't involved with crime - they're just ~scary~. Massive restrictions on suppressor ownership didn't fix a non-existent assassination problem. So on with these trite changes that ignore the cultural or societal problems that are the root cause of gun issues such as safety and firearms crime. As the parent poster points out, what will this new functionality 'fix'?

      This lack of foresight is endemic in gun debates, and we so often end up spending time, money, political capital and voter interest on or fighting non-functional 'solutions'. We appear to lack answers to even basic questions like "How much time and money is being spent to correct those few situations this technological fix claims value in?" or " Is this an efficient application of our resources?"

      This is not a case of 'every little bit helps' - time and money are finite resources, and they should be spent where they achieve the best outcome. If you had a goal of reducing crimes involving handguns, spending on weapon modifications, regulations, certifications, and registrations may very well achieve your goal. It's not the only way to achieve it though - compare spending that money on education, which also has a statistical association with crime reduction. How about strengthening cultural value of marriage (single-parent homes produce more criminal children, committing more severe crimes, especially when the father is absent)?

      The problem is most gun legislation right now is completely irrational. On one side we have those who are conditioned to be terrified of guns, and on the other, we have people who fear any regulation - even reasonable regulation - as a threat to their way of life, an unacceptable lockdown by big brother. Both scramble for facts, but the heart of both sides is driven by some irrational terror.

      Is asking for a popular democracy to resort to fact-based reasoning too much of a stretch?

    5. Re:This solves ? by moeinvt · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Most gun-related deaths are due to improperly stored guns being mishandled by someone"

      Totally inaccurate. In the USA, MOST gun-related deaths are suicides. Roughly 20K in 2012. Another 10-11K gun-related deaths are homicides.

      There were fewer than 1K deaths by "unintentional discharge" and some fraction of those are obviously due to mishandling by the rightful owner.

      I don't see how this solves anything. Very few people are going to buy a firearms with the anticipation that their weapon is going to be found by a kid or an irresponsible adult.

    6. Re:This solves ? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Can we get to negative numbers of gun deaths?

      We're already there. Firearms are used hundreds of thousands of times per year to prevent or end assaults and other criminal acts. Let's assume that often-studied range of numbers is off by an order of magnitude. It still exceeds the number of murders, substantially. Happily, the only time I've ever had to point a gun at a person, it was to stop him from assaulting my wife and I in the middle of the night. And no need to actually shoot the idiot. I have, though, shot many, many dinners, but some badly injured animals out of their suffering, and enjoyed hundreds of hours of pleasant clay pigeon and target shooting. No gun deaths involved, and possibly one or two negative deaths for your stats.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re: This solves ? by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Ignoring the second amendment for a moment... the bigger issue is that the knee-jerk reaction from the gun control advocates call for things that would in no way prevent such incidents.

      It's not a matter of there being a no perfect solution... the issue is with attempts at trying to look like they are doing something when in fact they are simply burdening law abiding citizens.

    8. Re: This solves ? by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. In the 10 years post Port Arthur the murder RATES in AUS and the US declined by almost exactly the same percentage. IIRC they were both within a percentage point of 31%. During that period, gun legislation tightened in AUS and liberalized in the US.

    9. Re:This solves ? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What gun nuts...

      For the record, this is the point at which most rational, thinking individuals stop paying attention to you. Fortunately, I likes to buck trends.

      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.

      Not if it means sacrificing our freedoms and liberty to achieve it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  2. Great, but who's going to use it? by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  3. Re:Hmmm ... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  4. takes a certain kind of mind -- by washort · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. fingerprint ID for a gun won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  6. They're also going to beg you to buy their product by PseudoCoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  7. Car Analogy by sehlat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A google car which detects whether you're upset and refuses to start even if your wife's water just broke.

  8. Re:I'm looking forward to this development by flatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep, there's no problem that can't be solved with DRM.

  9. Re:I'm looking forward to this development by Dan+Ost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...
  10. Re:I'm sorry by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    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.........
  11. Car Analogy by saynt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If your car doesn't start immediately on the first turn of the key, you die of multiple gunshot wounds.

  12. Car analogy? by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Hmmm ... by zeroryoko1974 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  14. Re: Hmmm ... by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  15. Re:Hmmm ... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't want a safe hammer that doesn't kill people, I just want a smart hammer that won't crush my fingers.

  16. Re:Hmmm ... by Nickodeimus · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  17. Re:I'm sorry by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  18. Another car analogy by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  19. Your aim must be excellent! by zerofoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  20. Re:Hmmm ... by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  21. Re:Hmmm ... by Applekid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  22. Re:Hmmm ... by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  23. yea right by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  24. Re:Hmmm ... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  25. Re:The danger is real. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm a dyed-in-the-wool leftist, but I'll be the first one to say that there is not hate like liberal hate.

  26. Re:Hmmm ... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They are also great for practice. Load at home, not at the range where range time is costing money.

    But don't tell the anti-gun group that target shooting is fun .. 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.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  27. Re:Hmmm ... by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  28. Re:Safety Tools are too expensive by BattleApple · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  29. phallacy by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 5, Insightful
    tired argument

    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.

  30. RE: ownership decline by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 4, Informative
    record sales figures from the past year or so disagree with your decline idea

    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