'Smart Gun' Firm Wants You To Fund Its Prototype 558
Lucas123 writes "After striking out at getting private investors to fund a new prototype, Safe Gun Technology (SGTi) is hoping it can generate $50,000 through a crowdfunding effort to build an assault-style rifle with fingerprint biometrics technology. Handgun and shotgun prototypes would follow shortly thereafter, the company said. SGTi, which is using the Indiegogo crowdfunding site for its Fund Safe Guns campaign, has so far raised just over $1,600. Several companies are working on developing smart gun technology, which can identify an authorized user through fingerprint, handgrip or RFID recognition techniques. Last week, a Massachusetts congressman submitted a bill that would require all U.S. handgun manufacturers to include smart gun technology in their weapons." I'm looking forward to the best car analogy that anyone can come up with on this topic.
This solves ? (Score:5, Interesting)
What problem does this solve?
I realize that stolen guns are a big item in criminal circles, but my guess is these will be "hacked". Additionally, if these guns prove less than reliable (doesn't fire by the "owner"). And finally who is actually clamoring for "smart gun" weaponry, besides the anti-gun nuts?
Re:This solves ? (Score:3, Interesting)
It solves (probably poorly) the problem of police officers being shot with their own guns and kids getting shot by guns their stupid parents left accessible.
Car Analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
A google car which detects whether you're upset and refuses to start even if your wife's water just broke.
Car Analogy (Score:3, Interesting)
If your car doesn't start immediately on the first turn of the key, you die of multiple gunshot wounds.
Car analogy (Score:2, Interesting)
In most US states you can just go out and buy a gun, no licence needed to own or use it.
Such a gun licence, with or without a prior test, would do away with the discussion about buying guns a shows, you don't have licence, no sale.
Re:This solves ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the anti-gun or gun-control measures being suggested appear to have little thought behind them. Assault weapons aren't involved with crime - they're just ~scary~. Massive restrictions on suppressor ownership didn't fix a non-existent assassination problem. So on with these trite changes that ignore the cultural or societal problems that are the root cause of gun issues such as safety and firearms crime. As the parent poster points out, what will this new functionality 'fix'?
This lack of foresight is endemic in gun debates, and we so often end up spending time, money, political capital and voter interest on or fighting non-functional 'solutions'. We appear to lack answers to even basic questions like "How much time and money is being spent to correct those few situations this technological fix claims value in?" or " Is this an efficient application of our resources?"
This is not a case of 'every little bit helps' - time and money are finite resources, and they should be spent where they achieve the best outcome. If you had a goal of reducing crimes involving handguns, spending on weapon modifications, regulations, certifications, and registrations may very well achieve your goal. It's not the only way to achieve it though - compare spending that money on education, which also has a statistical association with crime reduction. How about strengthening cultural value of marriage (single-parent homes produce more criminal children, committing more severe crimes, especially when the father is absent)?
The problem is most gun legislation right now is completely irrational. On one side we have those who are conditioned to be terrified of guns, and on the other, we have people who fear any regulation - even reasonable regulation - as a threat to their way of life, an unacceptable lockdown by big brother. Both scramble for facts, but the heart of both sides is driven by some irrational terror.
Is asking for a popular democracy to resort to fact-based reasoning too much of a stretch?
Re:This solves ? (Score:1, Interesting)
This line of thinking constitutes a "taking" under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. Thus banning guns would require their owners to be compensated. Not to mention the fact it would violate the "in common use" statements underlying US vs. Heller. The common, misguided thinking of those who believe making something illegal will somehow enforce compliance.
There are 300 MILLION firearms in private hands in the USA alone. Enough that each was used once and only once in a crime, the criminal supply alone would be met for CENTURIES. Do you honestly believe that people are going to willingly hand over valuable, durable property on the say-so that guns now have to be smart? I wish you luck with that.
I'll consider adopting a smart gun when the police and military do it wholeheartedly first to prove it works. The liability alone in a case where a smart gun goes "Click!" instead of "BANG!" is enough to give lawyers wet dreams of both genders. Guns are simply mechanical objects and derive their reliability from being such. I have 100+ year old rifles that function perfectly fine and are valuable pieces of history. How do you retrofit a Mosin-Nagant bolt action? A rifle, by the way, far more powerful than any modern assault rifle.
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:4, Interesting)
30 round magazines are very useful for taking down packs of coyote or wild dogs. But you don't NEED a reason to own a high capacity magazine You don't need to have a reason to own a speed boat or a 200mph motorcycle either, and there is even less of a reason for those than a high capacity magazine.
Re:This solves ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can we get to negative numbers of gun deaths?
We're already there. Firearms are used hundreds of thousands of times per year to prevent or end assaults and other criminal acts. Let's assume that often-studied range of numbers is off by an order of magnitude. It still exceeds the number of murders, substantially. Happily, the only time I've ever had to point a gun at a person, it was to stop him from assaulting my wife and I in the middle of the night. And no need to actually shoot the idiot. I have, though, shot many, many dinners, but some badly injured animals out of their suffering, and enjoyed hundreds of hours of pleasant clay pigeon and target shooting. No gun deaths involved, and possibly one or two negative deaths for your stats.
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:4, Interesting)
But don't tell the anti-gun group that target shooting is fun
Re:This solves ? (Score:4, Interesting)
What gun nuts...
For the record, this is the point at which most rational, thinking individuals stop paying attention to you. Fortunately, I likes to buck trends.
anything we can do to make it harder for criminals and the irresponsible to use firearms outside of their intended purpose is a good thing.
Not if it means sacrificing our freedoms and liberty to achieve it.