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.

Comments

Great one more fail

[Maznafein]

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.

Re:Great one more fail

[CrimsonAvenger]

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....

Re:Great one more fail

[Ol Olsoc]

Agree. Besides most of firearm incidents in the US are done by the actual owner of the gun. Statistically the only problem the "smart gun" solves can is already taken care of by responsible gun owners with a safe.

There is a keyword in there.

Responsible

How many people are "responsible",p> Many gun affectionados I know think your idea of storing guns in a safe is the start of the guvernment taking them away. Same for a trigger lock. All of those things slow them down if some thug comes into their house.

Last thing they want is that.

The problem is that responsibility thing. Google boy shoots sister, or girl shoots brother - or other similar keywords, and you'll be treated to a litany.

Far too many people just let loaded guns sit around their house like decorations. In one case a few years ago, a young boy shot and killed his sister. When the police investigated, they found rifles leaned up in the corners of every room in the house - but these piles also had the boy's and girl's toy rifles in the same pile.The photos were disturbing.

So the parents were tried and convicted. Their defense? You got it. Second amendment, their right to stack their real and loaded rifles and their children's rifles in the same place. Their one kid is dead, and the other is living with the fact that he gut shot her and killed her.

My own personal experience with this sort of madness was when my son was in second grade, a child a few houses up from us comes to hte bus stop with a loaded rifle and darn near made a major adjustment to the youth population in the neighborhood. Fortunately a cool headed mother managed to get the rifle off the lad.

Police found the same situation. Rifles and handguns laying around the house. And upon their removal, the father (his wife had wisely left him some time before, was all up in arms about his second amendment rights being violated.

Responsibility. Children have not yet learned it.

Sadly, neither have many of their parents. The recent killing of a range instructor by a little girl with an auto pistol showed all of that. It's s simple matter of physics that a positive feedback loop might occur in a small person not used to such a device. You want a little kid to learn how to use firearms? Use a .22 caliber rifle and have them learn from the prone position. Safest way to keep them unharmed while they learn.

Responsibility. It should be the second half of a right. Sad to say, asking people to take responsibility brings out the knives, as the person who thinks it is a good idea is mercilessly attacked for trying to take their guns away.

This kid who invented this locking/unlocking technology will be eviscerated by the fringe that is controlling the gun discussion today.

Just watch the response to what I wrote. You might be surprised that I own and enjoy using multiple firearms myself.

Re:Great one more fail

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:Great one more fail

[Mr. Slippery]

According to CDC's WISQARS, there are about 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S.

And according to that same source, for 2012, there were 8,974,762 non-fatal accidental injuries from falls. Floors are dangerous. 2,145,927 from cutting or piercing objects, 972,923 from poisoning, 423,138 from fire, 357,629 from dog bites...

Heck, there were 58,363 from "nature/environment", which includes "exposure to adverse natural and environmental conditions (such as severe heat, severe cold, lightning, sunstroke, large storms, and natural disasters) as well as lack of food or water." Nature will hurt you with more probability than guns will.

But yours is a common mistake people make when talking about guns, because they just don't know (or care) about the actual numbers.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Numbers are meaningless without context for comparison. By any rational comparison with other things that can hurt you, firearms accidents are rare.

Re:Great one more fail

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

Been there, done that

[JaredOfEuropa]

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.