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.
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."
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.
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."
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.........
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?
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?
"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.
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
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
"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.
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.
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."
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.