×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gun With Wireless Arming Signal Goes On Sale Soon

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-it's-common-sense-don'tcha-see dept.

Security 457

An anonymous reader writes "Armatix has built a pistol that will disarm itself when it is taken away from a watch that sends it a wireless arming signal. The .22 caliber guns will go on sale in the US within months, and the initial price is 7,000 euro. Higher caliber models will follow. To activate the gun, users must enter a pin code on the wristwatch, and then keep it within roughly 20cm of the gun. If the person is disarmed, the gun can't be used against them. Also coming soon this year, civilians will also be able to buy three-shot Tasers, rubber bullets, as well as Heckler and Koch black rifles." This might not be good news for the citizens of New Jersey.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

457 comments

Wait hold on mugger... (4, Insightful)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961490)

I gotta enter the pin so that I can use my gun to defend myself.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (5, Insightful)

ebonum (830686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961514)

Better yet. Sell a small device that jams the signal! Disarm him without firing a shot. Then you can take your time to aim.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (5, Interesting)

happyslayer (750738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961726)

And on the opposite side--send out a signal that authorizes any weapon!

If the authentication takes place only within the watch, then the weapon's mechanism is just looking for an arming signal--probably something simple--and you could mass jam or arm weapons with a strong enough transmitter (I'm thinking of those shopping-cart brake systems that people have been pranking...). Heck, you can even get your own watch, put in your own pin, and steal any weapon and it will work!

OTOH, if the weapons' system is tied to a specific watch, then the failure rate will be through the roof! And, of course, you can disarm everyone easily because the systems are so strict.

As an aside, this would make locating weapons extremely easy--all you have to do is walk around with an RF scanner, searching for watch and/or weapons signals.

I see a big market for jammers, spoofers, RF scanners, and a multitude of other mini-electronic RF products. I better go take some spectrum-analysis classes soon.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (4, Insightful)

e3m4n (947977) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962028)

what if, instead, the gun isn't just listening but also the transmitter making the watch is a passive RFID tag? you could still steal the data much the same way passport rfid collection works, but the likelihood of knowing which tag to use within the short time you disarmed someone and tried to use their weapon against them is unlikely. I don't see much civillian or military use for this. When I need a weapon to fire it needs to be as simple and straight forward as possible. One of my home defense pistols is a .357 revolver simply because there is so little that can possibly go wrong with them.

I do see this being marketed to police who have the highest risk of having their service weapon taken and used on them. I'm not so sure about the whole watch/pin-code concept though. Most people are right handed and wear their watches on their left hand. 20cm is not an overly large distance and while 2-handed shooting is more accurate, there could be cases where the officer has to shoot 1-handed. If they used a passive RFID, maybe fingerless gloves or, if possible, sub-dermal implant would make more sense. I bet these designers got their idea from the 1995 Judge Dredd movie where the gun was bound to the owners DNA

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (2, Insightful)

sskinnider (1069312) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962118)

There is no way in hell any law enforcement or military organization would ever go for this!

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (5, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962096)

Well, I gotta hand it to you; you guys nailed pretty much everything wrong with this idea in the first three posts. The only people who could love this idea are liberal gun grabbers who are afraid somebody might get hurt with a gun. The idea that it would be good for police is equally silly - the added layer of complexity can only further muddy the waters at times when speed and reliability are paramount. I already mourn for the police officer who will be killed when this system fails.

Guns aren't supposed to be safe, they're supposed to be dangerous as hell and for a very good reason. The entire mindset that spawned this abortion ignores the most basic natural right to self defense. Said mindset also has an unconscionably low opinion of people's judgments in such situations. It's the same mindset that recommends "passive resistance" for rape victims, as if a woman lying dead in an alley, raped and strangles with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to a cop exactly why she had to shoot her attacker.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30962116)

Unfortunately you are probably dead on in your statement, but it won't be muggers you have to worry about disarming you, it will be government agencies.

This type of legislation / device is a wet dream for those who do not understand the premise or need for the 2nd Amendment.

Civil unrest? The serfs don't agree with you? No worries when they try to resist your commands and actually attempt to revolt, disable their means of meaningful resistance!

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961560)

The idea is that the PIN will be entered when the watch is put on. Then you can put the gun where you can quickly get it, knowing that your kids can't use it even if they find it. Obviously the watch should disable itself when the wrist band is opened or torn. I'd worry about the battery life: What good is a gun that you can't use when you need it?

Even more useless... (4, Insightful)

Boogaroo (604901) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961606)

At 20cm the average person WILL move their hand/watch past the authentication range. Will they need re-authentication.
The gun will fire if the attacker has twisted the gun to face the victim because the watch is within range.
The victim will need to fire with their off-hand because they used their good arm to defend against the initial attack. (This happened recently here.) The gun will not fire because it isn't close enough to the watch.

This setup is a recipe for disaster. In the name of safety, we will give up everything that gives us a chance against the bad guys.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (1, Informative)

Jaden42 (466735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961670)

I believe the target market here is peace officers; so their guns cannot be taken from them and used against them. Not you and me.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (5, Insightful)

terraformer (617565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961800)

You're an idiot if you believe this. This company is actively counting on and courting the hoplophobes in order to legislate their products into existence.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961844)

People in this thread seems WAY to obsessed about the scenario which almost never plays out "someone tries to take my gun" vs the scenario that is all too common "children playing with their parents guns".

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (5, Insightful)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961890)

One is a minor problem in need of a solution, the other is negligence which cannot be defeated by any mechanical means.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961940)

What about gun locks, or better yet, a SAFE?

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (1)

DangerFace (1315417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962088)

Great - while you install the gun locks your kids can fall out of the window! Y'know, since you let them just wander around and haven't bothered teaching them basic safety and responsibility. The point Neoprofin was trying to make was that if you're a crappy parent your kids are going to get in trouble, whether it's crossing the street without looking or shooting themselves in the face. And, as far as I'm aware, in most places isn't it currently illegal to put your kids in a safe?

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (4, Insightful)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962144)

Would you let your kids play with a locked gun?

The problem is not that the gun can be fired, it's that if children are old enough to find and play with reasonably stored guns they're old enough to be educated that guns aren't toys.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (1)

theguru (70699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962044)

Yeah, when someone takes my gun away to use it against me, they'll have to use it as a blunt force weapon, because it'll be empty.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (1)

e3m4n (947977) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962064)

children playing with their guns is easily solved with quick access gun vaults; either keypad, biometric, or that finger button hybrid. If they are smart enough to circumvent that then they are smart enough to borrow your watch when you are sleeping, showering, working on the car and dont want to ruin it, etc.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (4, Insightful)

sskinnider (1069312) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962152)

All too common?? I think you have it fairly wrong. It is still not very common for a child to be killed by his own parents gun. Does that small number justify the expense of forcing every citizen to shell out 100X more for a weapon to defend themselves. Education is so much cheaper and way more effective.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (5, Informative)

jesseck (942036) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961924)

Read the article... law enforcement is specifically exempt. This is because the technology is too unreliable for defense / offense, and sometimes people don't have time to enter a PIN or may need to shoot with their other hand. This is for you and me, so we're no longer effective at defending ourselves.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30962108)

If that were really the case you would not be permitted to post this comment.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (4, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961948)

I believe the target market here is peace officers; so their guns cannot be taken from them and used against them. Not you and me.

It's a .22. Peace officers really don't have much use for a .22. This is aimed at the loons who think that the phrase "safe guns" means something (as opposed to "safe gunners").

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (1)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961966)

Parent is correct. The primary market of this kind of weapon is for military and law enforcement because there's a lot of fatalities/serious injuries caused by the bad guy grabbing the weapon from the police officer.

This tech/concept has been is more than a decade old and I used to see it get featured on Discovery Channel/National Geographic every so often for years now.

Here's a paper on it from way back in 1994 [ieee.org] .

Here's an article on it from WIRED back in 2002 [wired.com]

If you Google around, you'll get a lot of results of press releases about similar products since 2000.

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962174)

Did you even click on the last link in the article...the link about New Jersey? The first sentence in that article:

New Jersey on Monday became the first state to enact "smart gun" legislation that would eventually require new handguns to contain a mechanism that allows only their owners to fire them.

Why bother with wireless? (4, Interesting)

complete loony (663508) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961680)

Why not use a challenge response system that communicates with low voltage current that passes over the skin. Then you can disable the weapon the moment direct physical contact is lost. Of course you'd need to ensure the current was low enough that it didn't cause your trigger finger to spasm...

Re:Wait hold on mugger... (1)

ascari (1400977) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961734)

Not necessarily: You could always whack the assailant in the teeth with the gun, forcefully throw it at him etc. Of course you could do that with any number of objects that cost much less than $7K. But maybe the robocop factor is worth the price tag to some?

Jam their guns! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961502)

so how long until someone builds a jammer for this??

better not use your other hand (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961520)

it could easily be more than 20cm from the watch.

When disarming someone . . . (3)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961524)

. . . remember to take his watch, as well as the weapon.

Re:When disarming someone . . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961570)

And his credit card. The pin-code is probably the same.

the gun can't be used against them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961526)

Unless the attacker holds it next to the victim's wrist, or knocks the victim out with the gun.

Thank goodness (2, Funny)

StormyWeather (543593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961536)

I was getting really sick of the Heckler and Koch purple rifles. That's progress!

Re:Thank goodness (-1, Offtopic)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961874)

Not only that, but its price in the summary is in Euro's, for an American weapon. Must be targeted to the rush and beck listeners who are convinced super inflation is coming, and our country is going bankrupt, so they are stocking up on gold, guns, and euro's..

Re:Thank goodness (1)

Asclepius99 (1527727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962134)

I thought that was really weird too. Why have the summary tell us this is coming to the United States and here's how much it costs in Euros. Also though it was funny that they give the distance in centimeters rather than inches.

Signal jammer? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961546)

So what if happens if someone uses a signal jammer? Bye bye armed gun?

Re:Signal jammer? (2)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961686)

That was my first thought as well, somehow I doubt this will be used by the police or military...

/Mikael

Re:Signal jammer? (1)

Asclepius99 (1527727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962162)

Somehow I doubt this will be used by anybody. Seems too risky for the police/military and I don't see many people that own guns for self-defense wanting stringent conditions imposed on when they can use their gun even if they're already in danger.

My H&K 91 has always been black (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961554)

What's the big deal?

Re:My H&K 91 has always been black (5, Informative)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961586)

"Black rifle" in this context is slang for a weapon built on the AR-15/10 platform.

Re:My H&K 91 has always been black (1)

AlexCorn (763954) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961870)

"Black rifle" is a misquote of "Evil Black Rifle" which is any semi-auto rifle that is painted black and has a large magazine, like an AK-47 or an AR-15 or an AR-10 or an HK91 or an SKS (with fancy furniture) or a FAL or an M82 and so on. Such rifles also have other scary features like muzzle breaks, flash hiders, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. [youtube.com]

Product in Search of a problem, creating more (5, Insightful)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961572)

Great.

If I go target shooting I have to play "Pass the Wristwatch" to enjoy it as a communal activity and pay 10x as much for the privileged. If want to use it for self defense I have to wear the watch at all times and go through an extra layer of complications. Better yet in that situation if the gun is taken from me as we wrestle on the ground it's entirely likely that the gun will never move far enough to deactivate before I'm shot repeatedly in the chest and the watch and gun are taken.

Sounds like a lot of money to acquire a possibility of safety as well as making previously safe activities more complicated.

Re:Product in Search of a problem, creating more (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961692)

I had the same thought about the inconvenience for self-defense ("someone's out there - now let me put on the damn wristwatch...").

Then I figured it must be really good for law enforcement, where you already wear a lot of paraphernalia for the whole day. When I first read about the idea some years ago, the problem addressed was cops getting shot with their own guns.

Re:Product in Search of a problem, creating more (2)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961738)

I'm still curious how effective it will be given the close quarters nature of an officer having his gun taken in the first place, and just how many departments are willing to take up a system that could leave their officers with an expensive rock in their holsters potentially.

That said, $10,000 is an awfully expensive solution when most departments can get Glocks with a volume discount in the $300-400 range.

Re:Product in Search of a problem, creating more (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961872)

Thats right. No one is going to wrestle the gun out of a cops hands, then walk away and shoot him from a distance. I would put good money that most instances of a cop getting shot with his own gun, he is still trying to wrestle it away from the assailant, and most likely has both hands on or near it in order to apply sufficient force.

Re:Product in Search of a problem, creating more (3, Insightful)

bencoder (1197139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962192)

Well of course, if the gun can't be remotely disabled then it is safer to try and get it off them(gender-neutral singular them) as soon as possible.

In this case however, if they've got a hold of your gun then you can simply back off and then the attacker may attempt to shoot, before discovering that it's disabled and that will give the LEO an advantage.

It makes sense that police officers would behave differently with a weapon like this.

Re:Product in Search of a problem, creating more (2, Interesting)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962020)

>and just how many departments are willing to take up a system that could leave their officers with an expensive rock in their holsters potentially.

Oh, but of course the POLICE, CIA, FBI, and MILITARY would be exempt! And, oh... the murderers and robbers and such would be exempt too, since they won't have to purchase legal guns like we law-abiding citizens do.

I am not anti-technology... I think such research is a GOOD idea. But wireless? No. Mandated by law???? No.

don't worry, though... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961576)

you still don't need a code to beat the disarmed person to death with the gun.

You can take my gun out of my cold dead hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961580)

But you can't use it against me now! Ha!

Why a complicated transmitter/receiver combo? (2, Interesting)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961590)

Wouldn't a fingerprint scanner on the grip be more reliable and safer in case you were disarmed?

Re:Why a complicated transmitter/receiver combo? (3, Insightful)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961600)

Unless you're wearing gloves, or your hands are dirty, or the battery dies...

Re:Why a complicated transmitter/receiver combo? (2, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961608)

No. Fingerprint scanners are not reliable, and would be useless if you're wearing gloves.

I can actually see this for crowd control weapons, hostage negotiations, and other law enforcement firearms, where the gun would be activated as the officer goes on duty much as they'd release the safety when drawing their weapon.

Just what I needed (3, Interesting)

OpenSourced (323149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961592)

Just what I needed, a gun that will stop working when the batteries run out (I suppose that will be the behavior). Anyway, I suppose that can be useful for prison guards and similar. Till the inmates learn to take the watch with the gun, of course.

price? (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961594)

7000 euro seems a little steep for a handgun. Especially a .22lr. You can buy a S&W 22A or Beretta U22 Neos for under $300, even at today's elevated prices.

Re:price? (1, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961704)

7000 euro seems a little steep for a handgun.

Hell, here in the US, you can buy a stolen piece for the price of a bag of rock cocaine.

I think it's in the 2nd Amendment.

Sorry but how? (1)

skirmish666 (1287122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961602)

At the end of the day how is this a bad thing for the people of New Jersey? Any person except the owner of said gun is unable to use it (yeah, unless you steal his watch as well) - children and home intruders included. Worst case scenario: there are less handguns in New Jersey because of the price of these new weapons. Sorry, I really don't see the downside here.

Re:Sorry but how? (1)

e3m4n (947977) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962182)

if its for the purpose of home defense then its the equivalent of suffering a severe asthma attack but having your inhaler disassembled and locked in a medicine cabinet. You might not have the extra 3-5 min to arm your weapon. Its not any safer than locking your weapons in a quick access vault. If they really want to get to it they will sneak your watch when you take it off to shower or whenever. Safety is a multilayer process including education. As far as home intruders, its already been mentioned that 2 persons wrestling for the weapon would leave it within range or working even if the assailant prevails in obtaining it.

I hope its not all about 'think of the children' because there are much more realistic solutions out there. Honestly who is making sure the damn liquor cabinet and medicine cabinet are equally protected. More children are killed by abuses of these locations than firearms.

Plz think of the children. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961618)

I hope all the kids in schools get at least one of these, that way they can shoot bullies in schools. It would be preferrable if they get two so they can be Bruce Willis cool and shoot em on the side two at a time.

Other Geeky Tech in that article: Automatic scope (2, Interesting)

telomerewhythere (1493937) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961648)

Here is another interesting tech that would be very useful in some contexts, and scary in others.

Burris has built one of the most sophisticated rifle scopes we’ve ever seen. It has a laser rangefinder that can automatically adjust your sights to compensate for the fall of each bullet over long distances. Just point the crosshairs at the target, push a button on the side of the scope, and a bright red dot will show you exactly where the bullet will fall. We were able to easily hit targets at 400 and 700 meters without any experience at long-range rifle shooting.

Critical weakness: pure black target.

Re:Other Geeky Tech in that article: Automatic sco (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961774)

More critical weaknesses - no accounting for muzzle velocity. At 500 yards, a bullet traveling at 4000 fps will not hit the same spot as one traveling at 3000 fps as it's not had time to fall as far. And of course, with any scope there are still the issues of wind and drift incurred by the barrel warming up over repeated shots.

Civilians with rubber bullets? Cops are bad enoug (4, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961650)

Rubber bullets kill, too. In fact, cops shouldn't even be allowed to have them because the perception that they are "non-leathal" just encourages their use -- just like the beanbag rounds. There have been cases where the beanbags come out flat with the edges parallel to the ground, sort of like a frisbee and that the impact at that angle caused severe lacerations. People have died from those, too.

I'm not anti-gun -- I have many myself. I grew up around them, and I am completely comfortable with them. I also know that if I point a loaded gun with real bullets at a person, I better be absolutely willing to kill them when I pull the trigger. Cops and soldiers are trained to know this, too. But they seem to be more than willing to pop off rubber bullets and beanbags for "crowd control," and death has been a consequence a higher-than-zero number of times.

The last thing we need is Joe Bob getting ahold of them and shooting at cats, neighbours, or even robbers. You know all those times that burglars have sued property owners over getting hurt while they're there to rob them? Imagine the lawsuits over "he shot me with a rubber bullet, broke my rib, punctured my lung and now just look at me!" I also envision a slew of YouTube videos of drunk-ass morons popping their friends with these to see what it feels like.

In short, this is pretty much the worst idea ever made.

Re:Civilians with rubber bullets? Cops are bad eno (4, Informative)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961706)

There's already enough to horrify you on Youtube and Myspace with kids who like to play with Daddies Guns to put up badass pictures for their friends to see, and yet people still blame firearms when negligence happens. Every firearm I've ever purchased lays it out plane as day:

1) Know your target and what's behind it.
2) Assume every gun is loaded.
3) Do not aim at or pull the trigger on anything you don't want to kill or destroy.

Re:Civilians with rubber bullets? Cops are bad eno (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961762)

Look on the bright side... Eventually the number of Youtube videos containing drunk-ass morons will decrease :)

Re:Civilians with rubber bullets? Cops are bad eno (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961982)

I also envision a slew of YouTube videos of drunk-ass morons popping their friends with these to see what it feels like.

This is also how I've felt about concealed carry laws... that drunk morons will hurt/kill themselves or people around them. But when it comes right down to it, drunk morons seem perfectly capable of hurting themselves or others even without guns (of any kind).

Summary incorrect - they're not rubber bullets (1)

name_already_taken (540581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962070)

Civilians can already buy "rubber bullets". If you actually read the article and look at the pictures, you'll see that the projectiles in question are not the things usually referred to as rubber bullets.

The difference is that the rounds in the article feature projectiles that are designed to be so soft that they are unlikely to kill. They are almost completely unlike rubber bullets.

Normal rubber bullets are exactly that - bullets made of rubber. These are different because they are not bullet-shaped, and the rubber compound is softer. It's more akin to the difference between being hit by a rubber ball or a wadded up ball of paper.

The plus side, for someone using the koosh-style shotgun rounds is that they're designed to be less-than-lethal, so even if you do kill someone with them, you can point to the fact that you didn't intend to kill them (otherwise you'd have been using lethal rounds) when it comes time for the wrongful death suit from the burglar's family.

Security by Obscurity (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961676)

In a personal defense situation, this is security by obscurity. It will only help as long as the mugger doesn't know what the little red / green light means.

When it comes down to it.. (1)

nanospook (521118) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961696)

Well, if your gun won't fire, I'll just have to beat you to death with it!

Re:When it comes down to it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30961752)

Well, if your gun won't fire, I'll just have to beat you to death with it!

Or just shoot me at point-blank.

Not really practical (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961746)

Looking at their page, it looks like the gun is armed by a fingerprint sensor on the watch, and disarmed when the gun moves away from the hand or after a timeout period. This makes the gun poor in most police and self defense scenarios; you now have to draw the weapon, and put your finger on the watch. Holster the gun for any reason and the gun disarms.

Re:Not really practical (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961834)

The only reasonable market I can fathom for it is the competition shooter who has 8 kids in the house and a lazy safety attitude. Assuming the .22 is worth a damn in the first place. I can't picture this demographic financially supporting production.

Here's an idea... (1, Interesting)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961758)

How about pricing it in Dollars and giving the measurements in Inches. That way us US customers (who is, after all, the apparent market) can actually buy and understand it.

BTW... I'll be damned if I'm going to use a gun that also makes me put on a watch. Imaging having to deal with that in the middle of the night when someone tries to break into your house. Let's see, can I use the watch on my left hand and have the gun in my right? 20cm... let's see... that 2.54 cm per inch, so 20 div... BAM... No, I've been shot!

No thanks... I'll stick with my Kimber 1911. No measurements required and sold for US $. And I'm pretty sure any would be attacker would notice getting hit with it.

Bill

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961804)

20 cm ~= 8 inches

€7000 = $9706.20 at current exchange rates. Call it $10,000 after adding obscure taxes an so on to the total.

I guess quoting the price in Euros makes it sound cheaper.

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961810)

I love my Kimber as well. Low velocity bullets are perfect for home protection and less likely to travel outside your walls while the impact shock is absolutely disabling no matter where you hit the assailant. .45 acp, gotta' love it.

Re:Here's an idea... (2, Informative)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961828)

Statistics on actual shooting deaths from the L.A.P.D. would tend to disagree with you.

There's no replacement for shot placement. The only reason no one has ever been shot 31 times with a .45 in the news is because most of them are single stack.

Re:Here's an idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30962054)

I'm pretty sure the reason no one has ever been shot 31 times with a .45 is because if you hit them with say... the first 3, then you don't have a lot of reason to keep shooting them.

Re:Here's an idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30962156)

As well as the fact that a .45 makes large holes that let in a lot of air and let out a lot of blood.

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962132)

If you don't kill them the first time, at least the shock will take them down, enabling more time for that head shot.
        Publicly released statistics from a skewed organization in the nanny state don't carry much water with me anyway. It falls in the wrong column in the "who can you believe" list.
Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say.
I'm willing to bet most of the .45 shooting deaths around there are by gang bangers who hold the gun in a "fashionable" way, negating much accuracy. Most clips for .45 hold less than 8 shots. If you just had to put 31 into a target you would need a Thompson, 4 clips or 31 armed "gangstas" on a good day.

           

Re:Here's an idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30962196)

Statistics on actual shooting deaths from the L.A.P.D. would tend to disagree with you. .... There's no replacement for shot placement.

And that, my friend, is why I use a 50cal exclusively, for home defense. Everyone gets antsy when limbs start disappearing..

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961920)

In a life or death situation you'd just put the watch on the same arm you're holding the gun with.

World's most expensive .22 (4, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961788)

The .22 caliber guns will go on sale in the US within months, and the initial price is 7,000 euro.

A $12,000 .22 is a completely safe weapon because no one in their right mind would buy one. It's useless for defense unless you're being attacked by balloons, it'll pop those.

Re:World's most expensive .22 (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962040)

I know you're joking, but the truth is that a .22 round is more than capable of killing. Years ago, some people used to use them for deer hunting in some areas, but that smaller caliber was banned for deer hunting here in WI -- just not quite lethal ENOUGH (slow death bleeding out) with (frequently) no exit wound.

And unless you're a gun expert, can you tell the difference between this .22 [gunshopfinder.com] and this 9mm [tripod.com] ? If you believe that simply holding a functional weapon is a deterrent, your enemy probably isn't going to have time to inspect the details...

With a Guarantee... (2, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961794)

All these handicapped munitions come with a guarantee that you will have a higher chance of being killed in a confrontation.
Gun owners know this.
          The only sensible one is possibly the .22, if it is match grade. Nobody smart keeps one for self defense anyway and the safety feature will help ensure that the stupid have another layer of security against kids screwing with it that is largely taken care of with standard safety practices anyway.

Re:With a Guarantee... (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961840)

It doesn't need to be match grade. The vast majority of guys who like to plink with a 22 handgun use a Ruger Mk II and worse. The guy with a Hammerli isn't letting this thing sit out on his night stand or tucked away in his sock drawer.

Re:With a Guarantee... (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961876)

It would be more in line with their aesthetic choice though. I'm a little worried by the enthusiasm towards guns that look like space blasters and the toy like enthusiasm that surrounds them. Admittedly none of this is probably from serious shooters, just guys on the internet with a little too much money to burn.

Strange fascination (-1, Troll)

medoc (90780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961904)

What is it with you americans that you're so fascinated with this stuff? For a member of a normal civilian society in peace, these things are just bad and repulsive.

Re:Strange fascination (4, Insightful)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961976)

Firearms manufacturing is one of the oldest forms of craft and art in the United States as is evident by Pennsylvania's recent push to honor the Pennsylvania long rifle as a storied part of their national history. Furthermore many involve masterful engineering and mechanics as well as providing a fun hobby to enjoy outdoors either in the form of casual target shooting or hunting.

Oh. You just wanted to register your arrogant distaste? I wont be so bold as to presume you're from a nation on another continent that bans ownership to its own citizens but happily exports them to nations around the world, but I will say you'd be surprised how much more understandable the interest is when they're a common and generally harmless part of your existence rather than an evil bogeyman.

Re:Strange fascination (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30961996)

Pennsylvania state history, US national history as part of the Revolutionary War, pardon.

Re:Strange fascination (0, Troll)

StoatBringer (552938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962006)

Don't you know anything? If every citizen is not armed to the teeth, the King of England could just waltz right in, take over and make everyone his slave.

Is that what you want? 'Cos that's what'll happen!

Re:Strange fascination (1)

witch-doktor (1592325) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962092)

What is with you being so close minded, judgmental and groupist? Guns aren't bad and repulsive. Some people are sure, but that's hardly the guns' fault. Unless you are talking about this gun [kalispelcaseline.com]

Another manufacturer down the drain (1)

Theodore (13524) | more than 4 years ago | (#30962130)

"Gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson was awarded a $1.7 million federal grant last year to work on developing the technology and has spent $5 million on development since 1993."

First Colt leaves the civ market, and now S&W is pulling this kinda crap?
So much for the americans, at least we still have Glock, SIG, and FN.

I might not have problems with it if police were also limited in the same way.
Once cops start dying due to this crap...
Oh hell, I was gonna say that the sheep might be persuaded to change their minds, but they'd probably be rallied into even greater attacks on the 2nd amendment.
I wonder how loud people in these states would scream if they had to get a "speedy trial permit" to have their case (of any type: traffic, criminal, civil) heard within a year, or a "free speech permit" to complain about their elected officials.

This kinda stuff brings up the same questions I have with California and cars...
Instead of capitulating to their demands, manufacturers should say "You want us to follow these crazy fantastical guidelines to sell IN your state? Fine, we just won't sell TO your state... No, not even to govt. agencies. No new parts, no spare parts, nothing."

As far as "less-lethal" rounds being available to the public...
OK,,, as long as AP rounds are also as freely available to the public.
Like someone else has said, "less-lethal" rounds will just lead to dumb-asses shooting each other for fun, they needing care for a burst kidney or spleen.

The best way to keep the people safe, is for the people to be armed, and trained in the use of weapons (not just firearms).

Ban guns altogether (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30962184)

Should just ban guns like done in the UK, worked well enough here.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...