×

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!

New Smart Gun Company Hopes To Begin Production This Summer

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the smarter-shooting dept.

Technology 632

Lucas123 writes Safe Gun Technology (SGTi) is hoping it can begin production on its version of a smart gun within the next two months. The Columbus, Ga.-based company uses relatively simple fingerprint recognition through a flat, infrared reader positioned on the weapon's grip. The biometrics reader enables three other physical mechanisms that control the trigger, the firing pin and the gun hammer. The controller chip can save from 15,000 to 20,000 fingerprints. If a large military unit wanted to program thousands of finger prints into a single weapon, it would be possible. A single gun owner could also temporarily program a friend or family member's print into the gun to go target shooting and then remove it upon returning home."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

632 comments

I won't be buying one... (5, Insightful)

jsrjsr (658966) | about a year ago | (#43582337)

When I pull the trigger, I want the gun to fire. I doubt this will be reliable enough to depend upon.

Re:I won't be buying one... (5, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#43582413)

Precisely. If there is any chance at all that my gun will simply refuse to fire when I pull the trigger, I don't want anything to do with it.

Re:I won't be buying one... (0, Troll)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#43582457)

Precisely. If there is any chance at all that my gun will simply refuse to fire when I pull the trigger, I don't want anything to do with it.

Do you remove the safety from your gun as well? After all, a defective safety can mean that your gun will refuse to fire when you pull the trigger.

Re:I won't be buying one... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582509)

Yes.

Re:I won't be buying one... (5, Informative)

bellers (254327) | about a year ago | (#43582519)

a spring and a lever have a MTBF measured in millions of cycles. RoHS-compliant electronics made with commodity parts do not.

And I buy guns with as few extraneous safeties as possible.

Re:I won't be buying one... (0, Troll)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#43582767)

a spring and a lever have a MTBF measured in millions of cycles

You fire "millions" of rounds from a single weapon?

[ Picturing you in a firing range, standing shoulder deep in spent shell casings... ]

Re:I won't be buying one... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582567)

what's a safety?

^^^ Glock owners ask

Re:I won't be buying one... (2, Interesting)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year ago | (#43582697)

Not having a round chambered..

I know a guy who carries his fully loaded with a round chambered and doesn't use a holster. I would prefer he didn't chamber that final round or had it in a holster, but I don't see a problem if he wants to carry that way.

Re:I won't be buying one... (3, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#43582597)

A mechanical failure is not the same as refusing to fire "for my own safety" because it doesn't think it's me.

Besides, a rare mechanical failure is what my BUG is for.

With all of that said, I've never had a FTF due to mechanical failure of my firearm - only due to defective ammunition.

Re:I won't be buying one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582727)

safeties aren't designed so you can pull the trigger without discharging, they are designed so allow pistols to be carried cocked and locked. Your booger hook should not be on the bang switch unless you want to fire the gun. Many guns don't have a safety switch because the gun is carried hammer down and a significant pull weight is required on the trigger to cock and release the hammer. Double action only guns cannot hold the hammer cocked. Double action / single action often have a decocker lever to safely drop the hammer before holstering.

Also too a safety is typically a simple mechanical design (with 100+ years of development) that is less likely to fail than complex battery powered circuitry and algorithms.

Re:I won't be buying one... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582787)

Precisely. If there is any chance at all that my gun will simply refuse to fire when I pull the trigger, I don't want anything to do with it.

Do you remove the safety from your gun as well? After all, a defective safety can mean that your gun will refuse to fire when you pull the trigger.

Not all guns have safeties.

Re:I won't be buying one... (2)

Zcar (756484) | about a year ago | (#43582791)

Many popular firearms don't have safeties, at least not manually operated safeties when the shooter needs to do something other than grip the firearm normally and pull the trigger. Glock, Springfield XD/HS2000, Sig Sauer, revolvers in general, etc. do not have such manual safeties. Some of the have a grip safety (XD) which must be depressed by gripping the pistol, or a multipart trigger safety (XD, Glock), but Sig Sauer and revolvers generally rely on a heavy trigger pull (at least for the first shot) as the safety.

In this case, it's presumably adding this on top of any other safety mechanism(s). The concern is it's adding additional points of failure and, probably critically, one that isn't purely mechanical. Defensive firearms have less tolerance to a safety failure than, say, a purely competition one.

Re:I won't be buying one... (4, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about a year ago | (#43582829)

The only safeties on most revolvers is between the ears of the person holding the gun and a heavy-ish double action trigger pull.

Some gun makers have included an internal lock on their revolvers (S&W and some Taurus) which has been controversial, although I've never had a problem with it (I don't use it, either and have never put it in the lock position).

Re:I won't be buying one... (1)

jsrjsr (658966) | about a year ago | (#43582833)

I don't have to -- the only thing remotely resembling a safety on my Ruger Security Six is the transfer bar system. All that does is prevent the gun from firing if you drop it on the hammer.

Re:I won't be buying one... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582807)

But what about the safety feature that doesn't let your gun shoot at people or small animals? Try pointing it at a tin can or target. Guns kill people and we can't let that happen. Save the bunnies too! Smart guns will soon have a feature of A.I., it will talk an assailant into leaving you alone. Just point and click.Don't worry, your assailant is in no danger. It was programmed by master Democrat Campaign Managers, so it will be convincing without being insulting. Worked for the majority of suckers out there, so it's sure to work wonders on an attacker.

Re:I won't be buying one... (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about a year ago | (#43582429)

I would buy one!

I think this kind of technology is really neat, and quite useful.

I just don't want it to be the ONLY option.

But part of my collection? Sure. Sounds cool.

Re:I won't be buying one... (5, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43582475)

"When I pull the trigger, I want the gun to fire. I doubt this will be reliable enough to depend upon."

More to the point: if you want it to be reliable, then the fingerprint technology has to be loose enough to be UNreliable. We already know this. With today's technology, if you want to allow access with fingerprints reliably, you have to make your parameters loose enough that false positives slip in too easily.

Which means that in order to be near 100% reliable for an "authorized" shooter, this thing provably can't do what it's intended to do: reliably block the UNauthorized.

Re:I won't be buying one... (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43582559)

Qualifiers:

When I say "near 100% reliable", I'm not joking. 99.9% just isn't good enough for something I'd trust my life to. But if it approached 99.99%, then it's getting near the reliability of the gun itself, and may be good enough. That's approximately 1 error in 1000 rounds. Even that is pushing what I view as acceptable limits.

And even just given that it's battery-powered, it probably will never reach that goal in the foreseeable future.

As for its intended purpose (blocking unauthorized users), I have no doubt that it would work some of the time. But how often, given that it has to be that accurate for the authorized? I'm not confident that it would be that good at its job. It's a very difficult balancing act, and I would need a lot of convincing.

Re:I won't be buying one... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582771)

You make a good point. Technilogical problems are almost ALWAYS NEVER overcome. Ever! What this company should do is stop working on this and wait until it solves itself somehow. No company has ever had to overcome tech limitations, probably because it can't be done. So they should just wait till Jesus solves the issue, THEN AND ONLY THEN, do this.

One caveat, I don't know anything about the technology or what the company's stuff can do, but I know fingerprint technology elsewhere. That's close enough I think. For example, a fingerprint scanner on a door isn't reliable enough for me in a gun; therefore, this company can't be any more accurate than the same technology for doors (what, I'm supposed to think they did R&D themselves or came up with a unique solution? HA!) and that means no purchase from me. It CANNOT work.

On a side note, I'm glad that this is a forward thinking tech website that truly understands how tech innovation works. Everyone here knows that tech innovation doesn't happen through research it just happens. That's why we all know that any tech innovation in energy tech, batteries, stem cells, nano tubes, and things that aren't ready for production today should be scrapped immediately. They can't work today therefore can't work ever. If only a company could build a better product. Can't happen, though. Welcome to the real world.

Re:I won't be buying one... (4, Funny)

tutufan (2857787) | about a year ago | (#43582499)

Me neither. If a kid finds that gun on the piano, they should pay the price...

Re:I won't be buying one... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43582545)

Who should pay the price? The kid?

Re:I won't be buying one... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582643)

The parents for not being able to pass their genetics down, it is called DARWINISM.

Are you some sorta Young Earth Creationist Control Freak Moron?

Re:I won't be buying one... (4, Funny)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43582747)

If a kid finds that gun on the piano, they should pay the price...

Exactly the kind of situation I want to avoid, which is why I don't have any pianos in my house.

Re:I won't be buying one... (5, Insightful)

DJ Jones (997846) | about a year ago | (#43582507)

"We've dedicated well over 10 years to come up with this solution. We have a lot of people in this company who've put a lot of blood sweat and tears into it and never gotten a penny out of it. If we were in it for the money, we would have been out of it a long time ago. "Our motto is ... if we save the life of one child, it's a miracle to that child and everyone that child touches."

If they were true to their motto they should have dropped the project and donated their funding to a children's hospital 10 years ago.

Re:I won't be buying one... (1)

SupplyMission (1005737) | about a year ago | (#43582593)

Agreed, that's the dumbest motto I've ever seen, from a weapons company. They must think people are idiots if they think anybody will buy that bleeding heart line of bullshit.

Re:I won't be buying one... (1)

losfromla (1294594) | about a year ago | (#43582665)

I am sure the victims and families of the victims of Charles Manson the adult who was once a child beg to differ with the motto as well.

Re:I won't be buying one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582563)

You don't trust technology seen in Bond movies?

Re:I won't be buying one... (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year ago | (#43582631)

Sure it'll be reliable. Just make sure to lift the gun owner's fingerprints and transfer to a gummy bear before trying to shoot this weapon.

I doubt that the fingerprint reader will be able to recognize gummy fingerprints...

Re:I won't be buying one... (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43582795)

Why does it have to be so reliable? The firing range isn't running anywhere. This is a civilian technology, I don't think it will be used in the military.

How about gloves? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582339)

People often wear gloves when shooting pistols. And in combat situations, fingers may get dirty, or even partially damaged or burnt. This strikes me as a REALLY bad idea. Lives will be lost to this.

Re:How about gloves? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43582415)

People often wear gloves when shooting pistols. And in combat situations, fingers may get dirty, or even partially damaged or burnt. This strikes me as a REALLY bad idea. Lives will be lost to this.

colt&etc have been down this road for over a decade now, with wearable tags and other means. 100% accuracy is what they're worried about.

technically it's a good idea if you're napping with the gun in a bad neighborhood and someone else might take it and use it against you. but that's not a good idea in the first place. it's not a bad idea as such, for a target shooting gun it's a great idea actually, so your wife doesn't shoot you in a moment of anger. it's just not a good idea to have in a versatile weapon.

Re:How about gloves? (2)

TrentTheThief (118302) | about a year ago | (#43582433)

Probably not.

Unless a person is willing to become a Darwin Contestant, they won't use it. I sure as hell won't. Fingerprint biometrics are barely reliable in a lab situation. I can't imagine anyone putting up for this sort of crap going out to do some work. It's just more feel-good bullshit from someone who's never pulled the trigger for real.

Re:How about gloves? (1)

linear a (584575) | about a year ago | (#43582555)

Gun doesn't fire. Move finger around trying to authenticate the print ... shake gun a bit ... wiggle finger more ... look at business end of gun to see if finger is in the right spot ... wiggle finger again ........

Re:How about gloves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582635)

Maybe we'd have guns that are smarter than the owners.

Re:How about gloves? (1)

Shotgun (30919) | about a year ago | (#43582465)

I think the real issue in the combat situation is that the WRONG lives will be lost. You generally want some lives to be lost in a combat situation.

Re:How about gloves? (5, Funny)

j-stroy (640921) | about a year ago | (#43582579)

I am sure that duct taping an authorized finger to the scan pad would hack the system. The rest of the authorized individual is redundant.

Authenticating Identity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582341)

Please Wait...... you may now commence firing. Thank you.

But will it blow your hand of like the Lawgiver if you aren't authorized to fire it?

Batteries In A Gun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582349)

Better hope that the battery in your smart gun never runs out of juice.

Re:Batteries In A Gun (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#43582397)

They should make it rechargable. Can use the same energy used to operate the slide but just build a little mechanism to recharge a battery. Still a horrible and stupid idea tho.

Access management nightmare? (1, Insightful)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about a year ago | (#43582353)

I cannot imagine what a nightmare it will be to manage weapons access thru fingerprints into a large military unit.

Re:Access management nightmare? (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about a year ago | (#43582493)

I cannot imagine what a nightmare it will be to manage weapons access thru fingerprints into a large military unit.

Slashdot has hit a new low, you did not even bother reading the summary. I quote:

"The controller chip can save from 15,000 to 20,000 fingerprints. If a large military unit wanted to program thousands of finger prints into a single weapon, it would be possible."

Even so, would you really want to have each gun accessible by every person in the unit? What if there was a friendly fire incident? Wouldn't you want to know that the only person capable of firing a weapon was the person it was allocated to? If it could only be fired by one person then an investigation into a friendly fire or non-combatant death could be investigated rather quickly.

Re:Access management nightmare? (1)

Pr0xY (526811) | about a year ago | (#43582711)

Even so, would you really want to have each gun accessible by every person in the unit? What if there was a friendly fire incident? Wouldn't you want to know that the only person capable of firing a weapon was the person it was allocated to? If it could only be fired by one person then an investigation into a friendly fire or non-combatant death could be investigated rather quickly.

That's a good point, but there is a fairly simple solution. You could have the gun record which finger print was approved when it was fired. if storage is a concern, then you could have it only store the newest 1000 rounds or something to that effect.

That way, you can approve the gun for many finger prints, but still know which individual fired recently if there is an incident which requires investigation.

I suppose the major caveat with that, is that you need to store the information properly encrypted to avoid people covering there tracks or worse yet, framing someone. But once again, that's doable.

Re:Access management nightmare? (2)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about a year ago | (#43582751)

From my experience, unless you are in a career field that requires you to have a weapon every single day, you may never get the same weapon twice from the armory, even if you are being armed multiple days in a row.

Re:Access management nightmare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582639)

You should wonder what a nightmare it is to manage weapons access in a large military unit regardless.

Will it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582361)

Will it prevent firing if pointed at a three year old?

Hmmm....

Re:Will it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582511)

how the hell is it supposed to do that? hell it takes a google a huge computational cluster just to tell whether or not a picture has a cat in and it only has what 80% accuracy how is a gun supposed to tell what it is pointed at with a chip for a brain about the size of usb drive?

Speed/accuracy/reliability: pick two (4, Funny)

mcelrath (8027) | about a year ago | (#43582369)

If this fingerprint scanner works as poorly and as slowly as the fingerprint scanner on my Thinkpad, there's no way in hell anyone would want this on a gun.

If on the other hand you want to make sure no one can ever fire the gun, this sounds great.

Gloves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582371)

So these are for warm-weather only conflicts? (Ignoring the many other issues with this idea.)

ty now i have (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582379)

all your fingerprints are belong to us....

Gun Toters VS Smartphone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582393)

Considering many American's can't figure out their smartphones; I wonder how they are going to figure out how to program their firearm.

People I know like their guns to be simple. Fire only when the trigger is pulled and every time the trigger is pulled.

To much to fail and any military will be dumb to u (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582395)

To much to fail and any military will be dumb to use it.

Test it out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582403)

Let the cops and the military be the first to use this technology.

"smart gun" turns in to dumb hammer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582407)

So what happens when a law abiding citizen has been stabbed, blood covering his hand and the "smart gun" being the only defensive weapon in their possession? Will the gun still work or become a useless hammer?

No thanks...I can see the headline now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582427)

"Virus causes gun to fire"

I would have serious reservations... (5, Insightful)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about a year ago | (#43582439)

..about buying this equipment for my guns.

I don't care much about the false positive rate, because I keep my guns locked up. What I need to know before I buy is, what's the false negative rate and the response time? I own some guns for sporting purposes, and a couple of big clunky rifles for hunting. A false negative or a laggy response time on those isn't necessarily a big deal. OTOH my wife and I also have guns for self defense and home defense. A false negative or laggy response time on those could get us killed.

Re:I would have serious reservations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582607)

or it could keep your wife from being shot by you or you by your wife.

Re:I would have serious reservations... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582689)

You and your stupid wife sound like a real pair of nutjob gun freaks.

Do you find it difficult to get respect when you are not carrying your "self defense" guns? Or are they actually penis magnification devices, primarily used for the "look at me, I'm scary, don't mess with me" factor?

"Fire gun!" (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582441)

"You do not have permission to fire this gun."

"sudo Fire gun!"

*BLAM*

Allow a friend to fire? (2)

bogidu (300637) | about a year ago | (#43582447)

That's called 'transfer of firearm' and is illegal in many places thanks to our politicians. Creating technology to circumvent the law sounds like a sticky place to go.

Will it come with background checks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582599)

Will it come with background checks? So when you program "a friend" they get screened before the code is active?

Re:Allow a friend to fire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582679)

What? Even if the friend has a permit for similar gun?

For clarification sake (1)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about a year ago | (#43582741)

I thought that "transfer of firearm" was intended to cover change of ownership ("This gun is yours now") versus handing it over temporarily for the purpose of handling or firing ("Check out my new SIG, want to shoot it?"). Is my thinking here wrong? If so, what am I missing?

Who would use this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582455)

I don't see why anyone would ever buy this. "It's a gun, but it's designed not to work sometimes. And we charge very reasonable rates for it to not work sometimes."

Re:Who would use this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582817)

because you would be forced to by law

laws already on the books in multiple states say that if a company mass produces these then all guns sold in the state must have the tech.

Blue Screen of Death (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582459)

is now real.

how to ban guns in 4 states (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582471)

seed a company to mass produce these. laws already on the books state that all guns must use this tech once someone starts making it. The laws make have no requirement that the tech work, just that someone is selling it in mass production. Seeding such a company, even if there is no real market for it's products, is cheaper than politics.

hah, catchpa OPPRESS

Anyone else hoping for ALIENS smart gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582487)

I was bummed when it wasn't the huge smart gun from ALIENS. :(

Let's rooooooooock!

This won't sell. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582501)

Take it from a gun owner, this will not sell well. Gun owners do not want a safety preventing them from defending themselves. One of the most popular pistols, the glock, has a special "safety" mechanism where you can just pull the trigger and it will always fire, 100% of the time. Responsible gun owners that are worried about their children or others using their guns without permission will simply use an aftermarket trigger lock which costs $5 at the store, or keep their guns in a fast access safe with its own fingerprint reader or combination lock.

Info about glock's "safety": http://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action

I really doubt gun owners will keep this pistol charged and ready to read the fingerprint anyway. Gun safes usually do not have electricity inside and in some states it's a law that any guns must be kept in a gun safe, especially if they have minors living in the house. So it's not like you could just leave this fingerprint gun sitting on the kitchen table. Given this information, I don't see any advantage to the fingerprint gun.

Ho-hum (0)

Smivs (1197859) | about a year ago | (#43582529)

Smivs looks across the pond and shakes his head in despair...

Re:Ho-hum (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582713)

...while referring to himself in third person, like a true neckbeard.

Safety loophole (4, Insightful)

j-stroy (640921) | about a year ago | (#43582535)

This technology could cause accidents by people assuming the safety function is operational, similar to when electric carving knives were introduced they had a pressure activated on switch on the blade.

It may also lead to the assumption that a gun is safe when it can still accidentally fire for other reasons inherent in a firearms mechanism.

EMP Jamming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582557)

I was going to say what happens when the robber invading my home uses an EMP device to jam my gun's microprocessor to prevent it from firing, but then I remembered that EMP jamming devices are illegal to possess and use, and even if he did, it would jam his gun too, because we would be illegal to possess a gun without a fingerprint reader lock. Only a criminal would use such tactics.

what's the backup plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582571)

Is the user going to have to wear fingerless gloves when it's cold? People hate the locks that are built into many handguns because they're just another piece to fail or another little key to lose when you need it the most (which is why my first "upgrade" to my m1911 is to remove the lock that Springfield put into the mainspring housing). How is it going to indicate when the batteries are low?

so how unique are fingerprints? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582573)

If you're putting 15-20K different fingerprints in one gun, what's the probability of false positive matches? We know that false positive fingerprint matches are possible [wikipedia.org], but I haven't seen anything on the odds of different people having sufficiently similar fingerprints.

Untrustworthy when most needed (2)

willoughby (1367773) | about a year ago | (#43582615)

If I really need my pistol to function, and I have blood on my hands, I don't think I'd trust one of these.

Testing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582617)

Its going to need A LOT of testing before anyone is going to trust this system with their lives (Military, Police, Citizens). When you own a gun you to know two things, one that it will fire safely and reliably when you need it to (either at the range or as some nutjob is smashing through your door) and two that you can easily clean & maintain it. I'm having trouble believing that this system will do both of those.

Have the police and military use it first. (1)

JumpSuit Boy (29166) | about a year ago | (#43582623)

Given that most firearms technology starts with the military and then spreads out to the civilan market Congress should require this technology for the military. Also since the police are becoming most militarized they should also use. When it is good enough for the Special Forces and the Secret Service protective details I might consider it.

How ironic.... (-1, Troll)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43582655)

Gun accidents kill hundreds of people EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

There were fewer than 30 ingestion incidents, *EVER*, with buckyball neodymium magnets that led to their being declared a health hazard and banned.

While I know the latter aren't protected constitutionally, doesn't that still strike people as being incredibly inconsistent?

Re:How ironic.... (2)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#43582719)

Then why exactly cars haven't been banned yet?

Even worse, breathing air causes millions of deaths every year, let's ban air!

Yuo Fa1l It!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582657)

BE NIGGER! BE GAY! list of other She had no fear the time to meet between 3ach BSD End, we need you Something done too much formality

I suggest a better feature. (2)

SharpFang (651121) | about a year ago | (#43582677)

Upon pushing the trigger a display on the gun prompts:
Are you sure you wish to fire this gun?
[ok][cancel]

If the gun does not fire ... (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#43582683)

... just peer down the barrel, squinting with one eye, and press then joggle the trigger.

But it is not going to be popular. The thief will simply take the gun from you, and know the cheat code trig-trig-up-down-up-down-A-B-A-B and presto, all the levels would be unlocked.

Smart enough? (1, Flamebait)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year ago | (#43582707)

Would the new "smart" guns have been smart enough to save Trayvon Martin, or a classroom full or little children, or a movie theatre full of innocent people?
*sound of crickets*
Didn't think so.

I'd be more impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43582721)

If it took your fingerprint and lasered a code onto the base of the round fired... fingerprinting you to each bullet fired, and each shell dropped.

Single digit encryption (1)

Lev13than (581686) | about a year ago | (#43582725)

"A single gun owner could also temporarily program a friend or family member's print into the gun to go target shooting and then remove it upon returning home."

Either that or the guy who takes your gun will also take your finger

This is not how SMART is supposed to work. (2)

SharpFang (651121) | about a year ago | (#43582745)

You select the target with your iris and eye gestures, recognized by cybereye or goggles. Target gets a highlight/targetting frame.
You move the gun so that the reticle (based on gun-mounted camera) on your HUD enters the defined targetting frame.
The moment the gun detects the match (reticle enters the frame = the gun is aimed at the target), it fires, hitting the highlit target.

This is how a smart gun is supposed to work. Not some shmancy safety feature.

Yeah this is going to be the stumbling block. (-1, Flamebait)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#43582755)

There was this well trained army veteren prosecutor, well trained too, had many guns at home and the assassin rang the doorbell and shot his wife. And chased him down and killed him before he could get to his gun. But nah, that is not the issue. This fingerprint gizmo is going to be unreliable, have a delay of a few milli seconds, so this us unacceptable. The gun wingnuts live in a fantasy world where the millisecond is going to make all the difference in their world. But in real life, it is going to be some toddler how finds the unsecured loaded hair trigger gun and shoot himself or someone nearby in the real world.

whaat? no comment on brutal finger theft?? (1)

smoothnorman (1670542) | about a year ago | (#43582761)

i'm shocked (shocked!) that there's no long thread about how this technology will promote fingers being hacked off (and worn around the neck along with several others necklace style) by eeevil folk. for instance, here's your precedent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4396831.stm [bbc.co.uk] now... let's get on with our panicking about this aspect, shall we?

chmod 777 /gun/perms (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#43582779)

The problem with this system, as well as the problems with the Lanza reference, are that people were expected to follow a set of rules in order for the system to work as intended. When people don't follow the rules, the system does not work. As soon as someone forgets to disable temporary permissions, or effectively does a "chmod 777" on the smartgun system to "to make it easier to use", it's just as useless as the paperwork system that's been in use.

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...