Slashdot Mirror


High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

An anonymous reader writes: Kai Kloepfer is a 17-year-old high school student from Colorado who just won the Smart Tech for Firearms Challenge. Kloepfer designed and built a smart gun that will only unlock and fire for users who supply the proper fingerprints. "The gun works by creating a user ID and locking in the fingerprint of each user allowed to use the gun. The gun will only unlock with the unique fingerprint of those who have already permission to access the gun. ... According to him, all user data is kept right on the gun and nothing is uploaded anywhere else so it would be pretty hard to hack." The gun can have up to 999 authorized users, and its accuracy at detecting fingerprints is 99.99%. For winning the challenge, he won $50,000 in funding to continue developing the smart gun. Some of the fund have already gone toward 3-D printing portions of the prototype.

23 of 600 comments (clear)

  1. Great one more fail by Maznafein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just what I need in a firearm. One more area that can fail epically. Also yet another battery to carry and eventually run out of.

    Call me crazy but none of my firearms accidentally go off.

    --
    <happiness>beer</happiness>
    1. Re:Great one more fail by BringsApples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that one important thing that this will help end is children, showing each other their dad's cool gun(s), accidentally shooting each other. Or worse, taking the gun to school. I'm all about some guns, I own many. But I also have kids. I keep my guns in a place that keeps my kids safe, but will cost me a few extra seconds to retrieve, in the event of a break-in or something. This would allow me to keep those guns in a "faster" location.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    2. Re:Great one more fail by cellocgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Call me crazy but none of my firearms accidentally go off.

      Standard answers apply here:

      1) Yet
      2) You're not everyone
      3) Many policemen would far prefer that their gun not be useable if someone takes it away from them.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    3. Re: Great one more fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you NEED a gun, waiting on a good fingerprint read could be life threatening. Apply the same tech to a fire extinguisher and see what people think.

    4. Re:Great one more fail by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet Another Responsible Gun Owner Shoots His Own Penis
      At least five American men have shot off their penises since 2010.

      Note that this new "smart" gun won't save you from doing this.

      Note also that an average of one such accident per year in a land of 300+ million makes it less common than being struck by lightning. So when we get that lightning problem under control, I can turn my attention to the "shooting my own penis off" problem....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re: Great one more fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a bad analogy. Let me first say I own multiple guns and would not own one of these for many of the same concerns about reliability and not seeing a need for safety theater when statistically it's not a problem worth worrying about. That said, user error when using a Fire Extinguisher doesn't the same impact as a gun so comparing the two in that manner is silly.

      What I will say is I don't understand why folks are against the development of these sorts of things. As long as it's not government mandated as the only way to get a usable tool then let it compete in the market. If it is reliable and functional enough it will succeed if it isn't it won't depending on what people want. Additionally, for those die hards even if it succeeds in the market and replaces previous models there are still plenty of normal mechanical only 1911's and .38 specials out there that can found on the used market.

    6. Re:Great one more fail by knightghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget the 2.5m crimes avoided through firearm self defense each year.

      Gotta have both sides to make an accurate measurement.

      Besides, a tool is a tool. Car, kitchen knife, chainsaw... each is a great tool but also constant injury and death.

    7. Re:Great one more fail by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would you accept a report by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center that concludes there are 67,000 valid defensive uses of a firearm each year, making it slightly more likely that a firearm will be used for defense rather than for committing a crime? Reality probably lives somewhere between the points (VPC and NRA), but in either case - it's more than the criminal use of firearms.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Great one more fail by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If gun ownership were more tightly controlled, those 14000-19000 nonfatal injuries and the hundreds of fatal injuries from accidental shootings would be reduced by at least an order of magnitude - lives would be saved.

      The number of firearms accidents is statistical noise. Anyone making a great hue and cry about them is clearly not actually concerned with gun accidents, but is trying to use them to veil a prohibitionist agenda.

      If gun ownership were more tightly controlled, the 60,000 to 2,500,000 annual incidents of firearms self-defense (yes, huge error bars) would be reduced -- more people would be murdered, raped, and robbed from. Lives would be lost.

      Also, of course, enforcing a prohibition law ipso facto means locking people in cages for acts that do not credibly threaten the rights of others. Liberty would be lost.

      Here in the civilised world...murder rates and prison populations are proportionally tiny compared to the USA.

      Folks in Mexico, Philippines, and Brazil might take exception to being called "uncivilized".

      Yes, we have more violence than other wealthy nations. We also have more of a problem with an unaddressed legacy of slavery and segregation, ongoing racism, ongoing economic injustice, and lack of access to useful mental health care than those nations do. Those factors have far more to do with our violence problem than access to firearms does.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  2. When you abolutely, positively need a gun now! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This one will insist on checking your fingerprints first.

    As soon as the Police and Military adopt these guns,I'll start considering doing so.

    Until then, my old-fashioned guns will have to suffice.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:When you abolutely, positively need a gun now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This one will insist on checking your fingerprints first.

      As soon as the Police and Military adopt these guns,I'll start considering doing so.

      Until then, my old-fashioned guns will have to suffice.

      As much as I understand your sentiment, I think this type of security would be good for all those accidental deaths from the kids who get their hands on a gun that should have been locked up.

      The discussion about "Anyone who'd purchase this gun is already going to keep it locked up." is a separate issue.

  3. But what about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...the deaths caused by an innocent person not being able to defend him- or herself with such a gun due to no battery of malfunctioning electronics or software? Why is this risk not taken into consideration?

    1. Re:But what about... by amosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because that incredibly small number of theoretical deaths is miniscule compared to the large number of REAL deaths caused by accidental/unauthorized use of guns.

  4. 999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > The gun can have up to 999 authorized users
    This really bothers me. What current memory hardware stores stuff in base 10? Just either use a byte or the wordsize of the device and be done with it!

    1. Re: 999 by ameoba · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're using a 3-digit LED display, yes.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  5. If You are Too Incompetent by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are too incompetent to control the use of your own gun, then you should not have one. Period. Take the money you were going to spend on this smart gun and take a basic gun safety class.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:If You are Too Incompetent by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Take the money you were going to spend on this smart gun and take a basic gun safety class.

      If it's priced like the existing smart guns (Armatix, etc.), you'll likely be able to buy a week at Gunsite or similar training program, where you'll also learn important stuff like identifying/using cover, off-hand shooting, clearing malfunctions, retention, and tons of other skills that will be far more useful than an electronic lock.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  6. Been there, done that by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is certainly not the first time someone came up with this idea, nor the first time an actual implementation was made. This article and the award sounds like a publicity stunt, and it has all the usual elements: young wunderkind, technical gadgetry to solve some social or politically charged issue.

    And other posters here are right: the last thing you need is a weapon that fails when you need it most. If you want a weapon that's safe at rest, get a gun safe with a fingerprint scanner so you can get at it quickly when needed. And if you really want a gun that is disabled when it's taken away from you, I'd go with a simple mechanical solution like a pin on a lanyard that will lock the gun when removed. But in reality, if you've pulled out your weapon with intent to use it, you want nothing to stand in the way of a shot being fired when you pull that trigger.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  7. Re:99.99%, eh? by amosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are totally right. Because most of the guns used in America are used to prevent people from being "stabbed by a crazy" or shot by a terrorist.

    Oh wait. Yeah, I can live with the 1/10,000 chance because THOSE THINGS NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPEN EXCEPT IN YOUR IMAGINATION. Or do you think the "liberal media" is covering up the hundreds of thousands of people who use guns to prevent themselves from being stabbed in our (incredibly safe) country every day?

    (Bears aside - and you're usually not in a quick-draw situation against a bear. Well, maybe YOU are, Rambo, but most of us aren't.)

  8. Re:Reliability is key. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Guns must not be simply reliable. They must be infallible. They must work instantly, every time. Otherwise, any gun is useless.

    See how fucking idiotic that sounds?

  9. Left unmentioned about smart guns by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is that none of the politicians demanding them, most of whom are big city liberal politicians, are saying "well if we had smart guns, of course we'd let all law-abiding citizens carry in public." It's just a measure intended to further lock down legal gun ownership disguised as a way to keep criminals from using stolen weapons. Even though theoretically smart guns should make it easier for police to account for gun crime, the people pushing this aren't going to let up because their goal isn't even really to balance freedom and security.

  10. Re:Not comparable by mariox19 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Human beings have been "barely domesticated." When you manage to domesticate the average criminal, we can talk about domesticating the best defense against one.

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  11. The other question that needs to be asked by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Was that 99.99% test done on a fire arm that has been used much?

    If you check out the pics in TFA, you'll see that not only didn't they test fire this the hundreds of thousands of times it would take to come up with that claim of accuracy - This "proof of concept" wouldn't ever work in a real gun.

    Apparently, this genius 17YO knows so little about the functioning of an actual gun that he simply filled the receiver with electronics (because nothing important goes in all that empty space) and produced what amounts a gun-shaped fingerprint reader. Because, y'know, who needs all those silly little things like springs or hammers or firing pins or magazines to also fit inside a working gun?