'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: (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.
Re:This solves ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think any parent irresponsible enough to leave their guns out around their kids is going to spring the extra $ to buy a smart gun?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It will take a while to get the old ones out of circulation...
Like 100+ years? A 1911 from 1911 is still a useable gun, and an early AK47 will still be plenty useable in 2050. I doubt that the biometric grip these guys come up with will last like that, however.
Re: This solves ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring the second amendment for a moment... the bigger issue is that the knee-jerk reaction from the gun control advocates call for things that would in no way prevent such incidents.
It's not a matter of there being a no perfect solution... the issue is with attempts at trying to look like they are doing something when in fact they are simply burdening law abiding citizens.
Re: This solves ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. In the 10 years post Port Arthur the murder RATES in AUS and the US declined by almost exactly the same percentage. IIRC they were both within a percentage point of 31%. During that period, gun legislation tightened in AUS and liberalized in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I don't think the parents leaving their ammo and guns around their kids will be the ones buying safe guns. On the other hand, it might be a good excuse for a responsible person to get such a gun so they can leave it lying around for the kids to play with.
And really, trying to create a safety sensitive to fingerprints is overengineered idiocy. A safety incorporating, for example, a combination lock would accomplish the same thing for most purposes and it could be trivially made as a simple and highly
Re: (Score:3)
I was well aware as a child that if I touched my father's guns (without his immediate supervision & permission), any injury the guns might cause would pale in comparison with what awaited me when my father found out.
Re: (Score:3)
Just so.
Teach the kids gun safety, basic marksmanship, and establish clearly that they'll be WISHING that all they'd done is kill a couple dozen people if you ever catch them playing with a gun....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
None, and worse. (Score:2)
Maybe when it gets to the stage that the Mythbusters can't beat them ridiculously easily with photocopies and gelatin, it might be appropriate. Now? Not a chance.
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: (Score:3)
If people use fact-based reasoning even for a few decisions a day entire markets would collapse, there would be social upheaval and politicians would have to run for their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
> This "solves" the major gun issue in the world: kids playing with guns and casual handling of guns.
Is that supposed to be sarcasm? Did you forget your sarcasm tag? That must be the case. Otherwise you're a big fat idiot that should watch less TV news.
Re: (Score:2)
This "solves" the major gun issue in the world: kids playing with guns and casual handling of guns.
Most gun-related deaths are due to improperly stored guns being mishandled by someone else in the household.
If only there was some sort of physical object you could attach to a gun to stop it from firing if the kids got hold of it...something with a "key".
Re:This solves ? (Score:5, Informative)
"Most gun-related deaths are due to improperly stored guns being mishandled by someone"
Totally inaccurate. In the USA, MOST gun-related deaths are suicides. Roughly 20K in 2012. Another 10-11K gun-related deaths are homicides.
There were fewer than 1K deaths by "unintentional discharge" and some fraction of those are obviously due to mishandling by the rightful owner.
I don't see how this solves anything. Very few people are going to buy a firearms with the anticipation that their weapon is going to be found by a kid or an irresponsible adult.
Re: (Score:3)
It's like blowing your optimization budget on the initialization loop of your program. You make that ~2% really fast/efficient/whatever and you feel all warm and fuzzy while the 98% that's left is still a slow steaming worthless pile of crap.
Smart guns address a problem that affects ~2% of the problem with guns, is going to be ungodly expensive, slow to be adopted, practically impossible to enforce, and the first 10 or so generations of it aren't going to work as advertised anyway. And on top of that 90%
Re: (Score:3)
"Can we get to negative numbers of gun deaths?"
Firearms are frequently used in self defense, in most cases with no shots being fired. At least a few of those have to be negative deaths, right?
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: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.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, quick check of the FBI's statistics of such things...
3 police officers were killed with their own weapons in 2011.
Another 60 were killed by firearms not their own.
And about 200 more were shot (but not killed), with no breakdown as to whose weapon did the injury.
And a couple thousand more were "assaulted" with firearms, but not actually injured. I'm not even sure what that means, unless it's the count of officers who got shot in
Great, but who's going to use it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure anyone who feels the need to own or carry a gun is also pretty damned adamant about having it reliably and unquestionably work when they actually need it. The first time one of these things fails (even in a test) will be the last time anyone buys one.
Re: (Score:3)
How can the electronics claim to be 99.99x% reliable, when the batteries it relies on aren't?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
News for you, bunkie. When your life depends on it, you don't use a Taser.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
in terms of requiring all gun owners to have such
It's interesting how rampant gun fan's paranoia is. This story isn't about forcing everyone to have the technology, it is about a company trying to get funding to develop the viable first version. It's like you won't even entertain the idea that the technology could exist or be trialled. Maybe some people might even want to buy it if it works. Is that so terrible, so frightening?
HANDgun (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just hope no one sells one to Armand Assante.
After (Score:2)
When is the government going to mandate smart cars, smart kitchen knives, smart tree branches, smart rocks, smart lightening bolts, smart light sabers [towleroad.com], smart hammers, smart chainsaws, smart door knobs, smart electrical outlets, smart rivers, smart rain, smart earthquakes, smart bridges, and most importantly, smart politicians?
Re: (Score:2)
The government shouldn't regulate things period.
You are confused. Perhaps you're European or perhaps you've spent too much time listening to journalists.
It is the GOVERNMENT that is supposed to have a limited role and few rights.
You are confusing the liberties that free men should have with the expectation that the government is free to interfere with yours.
It's the role of government as nanny that needs to be justified, not the other way around.
takes a certain kind of mind -- (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is the sort of thing that sounds like a great idea to people who don't know much about computers or guns, and the ways that they can fail.
Maybe that's what they're counting on. What dictator wouldn't love to EMP a rebel army and disable all their weapons?
How to do this (Score:2)
Proposal : the only validation method I think is usable is an implanted RFID tag with encryption. I don't think these exist yet, the current ones that can be implanted can be "cloned" because they emit a fixed data string when queried.
Why not fingerprints/palmprints? Validation is too slow, too many ways for the sensor to get obscured or some other failure to happen to cause the gun to not register the user instantly. Also, fingerprints/palmprints can be hacked easily.
Anyways, it would use implanted RFID
Re: (Score:2)
fingerprint ID for a gun won't work (Score:3, Insightful)
Fingerprint ID for a gun won't work for obvious reasons. You can't guarantee fingerprints can be read if your finger is dirty or injured. Further more when you need to pull a trigger on a gun you need it to go off right then and not have to mess around with it.
Lots of government money has already been wasted on this concept only to conclude its not practical
Good luck fellas (Score:2)
I won't be contributing.
All this will do is add a piece of technology that is more prone to breakage than the gun itself. One purpose of the weapon is to defend yourself, almost always, quickly. The last damned thing I want on my gun is another locking mechanism that could fail when I need it most.
They're also going to beg you to buy their product (Score:5, Insightful)
Because nobody in their right mind is going to want a "smart" gun. I advocate for smart gun owners. In fact, I help train them. It is much more effective than the "smart gun" will ever be, and the cost will be about the same. Trying to fix stupid with technology is a losing bet.
Reliability is a sticking point when people ask advice for which gun to buy. You want it to shoot every time you pull the trigger. I'm not going to add a layer of uncertainty to a life-critical mechanical device. What if I need to use it during the winter when I'm likely to be wearing gloves? Or if it's raining and my hands are wet? No thanks; we'll pass.
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.
Additional extra smart Features - (Score:2)
Lets look at some extra smart features
a) RF signal to disable the gun around schools, malls and movie theatres
b) ID + location beacon that is transmitted for 1 hour after any firing
c) write only GPS time and location log of all firings. Anything within 5 minuts and 50m is logged as single event with total rounds fired count
d) Friend of Foe ping with identification.
e) remote disable using secure key, this must be active on all privately owned guns
f) ability to turn off features (a,b,d,e), but the gun will t
If so much money is wasted... (Score:2)
do your own damn homework! (Score:2)
I'm going to start a kickstarter to send me on a research expedition to Aruba.
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.
... and the sharks say (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
That is one interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but by no means the only one. There is quite a spirited debate over what the intention of that was and whether it should apply to tanks, grenades, land mines and nuclear weapons just as much as it does to guns.
Missing the obvious solution.. (Score:3)
Fingerprint approaches just are not going to work, because the environment is insufficiently controlled.
Why not either design the assault rifle to use a small implantable RFID key device, that is coded to you and works every time? If it's implantable, it's always there..
That strikes me as a simple and elegant solution. You're always going to need a battery, but the power level might be low enough to measure the lifetime in years.
*shrug*
Another approach would be to code the ammunition not the rifle, and electrically detonate it. That way you could have a fresh "battery" every time. Likely cost prohibitive, however.
There's a few hundred million weapons in the US now anyway, millions more sold every year. I think the horse left the barn some time ago.. making this kind of moot.
If I ran the kingdom in light of the above, I'd have mandatory practical firearms training for every high school student. That'd make too much sense, though..
Car analogy? (Score:5, Insightful)
You leave work late one evening. You notice a group of trashy teens across the parking lot, but see similar groups often enough so think nothing of it. You start walking toward your car, and as soon as you've gotten committedly-far from the safety of your office building, the teens start moving quickly toward you. You notice two now have knives out.
You start running toward your car, and make it with a good 10+ second buffer before the thugs reach you. You press your thumb to the door lock and...
Bzzzt. Damn that paper cut you got right after lunch! You try again: Bzzzt. Third time: Bzzzt.
The thugs reach you, stab you 27 times, rape a few of the new holes, and take your iphone and wallet. They leave you to die, which you obligingly do roughly twelve minutes later.
Whether you "like" them or not, if you acknowledge that guns have any legitimate use, they need to just plain work when needed. Period. No papercuts preventing them from recognizing your fingerprints, no batteries to die, no "instant background check" to take 30 seconds to verify that you haven't started taking Prozac in the past few days.
And if you don't think guns have any legitimate purpose, well, too bad - Because the authors of our constitution did.
Kickstart It! (Score:2)
For a Pledge of $1000, Jaqen H'ghar will kill 3 people of your choosing using this product. Just don't waste it on the wrong 3 people that could have ended the book series quickly.
it takes... (Score:2)
Car analogy time...legal responsability (Score:2)
Not going for 'funny' points here, but still.
In plenty of juristictions, you can be in trouble if you're in possession of car keys whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.
(BTW, are they not the same thing? Why the distinction? But I digress...)
How would this work with a 'smart' gun?
Your car keys are on the table when the cops bust the bar. You've just finished your 10th strong drink. No problem; someone (sober) in your entourage was going to drive you home.
Your 'smart' gun, (why do I dislike that te
I bet the people who would fund this... (Score:2)
are not gun owners.
I can't imagine any reason that I would want their project to succeed.
Assault Style (Score:2)
to build an assault-style rifle
Much like the double rainbow guy, I can't help but ask...
"What does it mean? I don't know what it means..."
Really. What the fuck is an assault-style rifle? Have we not muddled the language enough yet?
An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that is designed for tactical operations.
An assault weapon is a semiautomatic rifle that is specifically named in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, or has a certain combination of cosmetic features specifically identified in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons B
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. Go to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (or the newer one, if you prefer), and you'll find a list of rifles that CANNOT be considered "assault weapons". If you take one of those rifles and add the cosmetic features you mentioned, they're still NOT assault weapons.
Another car analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Car:
A woman is crossing a dark parking lot at night; she sees someone in a hoodie on the other side of the parking lot. The person in the hoodie obviously notices her with a predatory pause and tarts moving towards her Her car is between them. She runs for the car, the bad guy starts running towards her. She gets in RFID range; the car notices the keys in her purse. She reaches the drivers side of her car just as the bad guy reaches the passengers side. She opens the door because the RFID has authorized it. The bad guy opens the passenger door, because the RFID has authorized it.
Isn't she happy she had the RFID?
Gun:
You get into your house. You hear a crash from the bedroom. You run to investigate. A burglar has just successfully opened your gun case. He tries to shoot you; the gun fails to go off. You rush over. You struggle. You get in RFID range. The gun goes off during the struggle, and you're shot.
Aren't you glad you had the RFID?
Re: (Score:3)
RFID keys are not uncommon on new cars now. Our new car has one (and it's not particularly high-end). What you suggest there is plausible, although the sensors may be sensitive enough to tell which door you are at. I'm not sure about that. I'll have to try it sometime.
We've been annoyed by it once when my wife wanted to leave her purse (with car keys) in the car. The car won't actually let you lock the doors in that situation because it realizes that the key is still present.
In case you're wondering the ign
yea right (Score:5, Insightful)
Last week, a Massachusetts congressman submitted a bill that would require all U.S. handgun manufacturers to include smart gun technology in their weapons."
Which will get struck down by the supreme court the second it hits their docket. Lets just stop pretending like the gun control lobby isn't trying to change the constitution. Because the ONLY way to achieve their goals is to do so. Lets have a vote, so we can all see it fail miserably and get on with our lives.
A lot of people think the framers didn't foresee the advanced weaponry that we have today, and would have never included it in the right to bare arms. This is a ludicrous argument. At the time the constitution was written, they had CANNONS. Cannons are still legal to this day! Later, with the invention of primers somehow the right to bare arms was a bit too much... because if you could just slide a shell into the cannon it was somehow a lot more dangerous than blackpowder. So clearly they never thought of repeating rifles! Ah ha! That's the problem, they never thought people could rapidly fire a gun, over and over... oh wait, let me introduce you to the Girandoni air rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle [wikipedia.org]
It could fire 22 rounds without reloading or refilling the air reservoir. It had no muzzle flash, no smoke, was nearly silent and fired a ball equivalent to a modern 45 acp that was deadly at over 150 yards. This gun was in many ways superior to modern assault rifles and was in wide production and in use by the Austrian army 8 years before our constitution was adopted. There were plenty of Austrian mercenaries carrying them in the states as well and it was a hanging offense to be caught with one by the British military because they were so deadly.
So tell us again how the framers had no idea how dangerous guns would become. Or how in Chicago, where we have the strictest gun laws in the country, the rate of death by firearm is higher than it is in Afghanistan, and active war zone, where it's common for people to carry full auto AK's.
Re: (Score:3)
Either you're kidding or you don't have the remotes clue how the US constitution works. Read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws [wikipedia.org] which were used to keep the poor and minorities from voting for nearly a century. Preventing someone from expressing their constitutional rights via red tape is no different than outright banning it all together.
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:4, Insightful)
How about they make a safe "Hammer" or "club" since these kill more people than all rifles every year? Oh right, because rifles are big loud scary objects!
Re: Hmmm ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or cleavers. Just recently a man walked up to a guy on the street and started hacking away at him. Not even rolling cameras slowed him down
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't want a safe hammer that doesn't kill people, I just want a smart hammer that won't crush my fingers.
Re:Safety Tools are too expensive (Score:4, Informative)
Woodcraft carries sawstop table saws. They're gaining popularity. The main turnoff for me is that it can be triggered by cutting wood with high moisture content. The brake can be disabled, but if you forget, a new brake cartridge costs $70, and the blade will usually be ruined. Carbide blades are fairly expensive. And for a dado blade which requires a more expensive brake - total cost could be around $300
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Sub-machine guns have shoulder stocks for stability and recoil management. Most SMG-styled weapons that can not fire fully automatically are carbines, and fall under the "rifle" classification. Something like the Micro-Uzi, lacking a shoulder stock, is called a "machine pistol". If modified for semi-automatic operation it would just be a pistol.
Another factor with SMG's is that they are, by definition, capable of fully automatic fire. As such, they are not available to the majority of the US public with
The last time i heard of one was by a cop (Score:3)
The govt publishes these numbers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
An "assault rifle" is usually just a magazine fed hunting rifle. There's nothing particularly special about such weapons. They just look big and scary because they don't have any wood trim and they come with a pistol grip.
Although professional shooters are the best and most appropriate beta testers for this kind of new technology. This stuff should not be forced on the rest of us until cops are fine with it.
Re: (Score:3)
What really get's my goat is that in Dianne Feinstein's most recent attempt at an assault weapon ban, she specified barrel shrouds as a prohibited feature of assult weapons. A barrel shroud's primary function is to protect the user from getting burnt by a hot barrel or gas tube. It would take a semi-competent weapon designer about 20 minutes to draw up a design to circumvent that restriction. It's just embarrassing that our legislators trying to ban guns don't know how the hell guns work and are too chea
Re: (Score:3)
For the curious, the AC is referring to Rep. Diana DeGette's statements at a forum, where she said
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
The Denver Post has an article and video. http://blogs.denverpo [denverpost.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:4, Funny)
There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 9 rounds in a firearm.
Not 8, not 10, but nine, right? Please explain how you've arrived at that number. Be specific.
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:Hmmm ... (Score:4, Interesting)
But don't tell the anti-gun group that target shooting is fun
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need a 30 round magazine
and
There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 9 rounds in a firearm.
The beauty of our Constitution is the government doesn't have the power to tell citizens what they need. Indeed, it's the other way around. How would you react if the government proposed to ban certain words or phrases because you don't really "need" to use them in everyday speech?
hedwards (Score:3)
And you're an expert in this with a basis in what?
I can cite numerous cases to document a single individual required 5, or more rounds. In fact, there are cases where 9 shots, including multiple head hits did not put down the assailant.
So lets say 4-5 shots (not uncommon believe it or not). And 2-3 assailants in a house robbery (also not uncommon, especially in board states). You are looking at a bare minimum 8-15 rounds.
Guess how many rounds the average police officer carries. Yup. At least double the ab
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
phallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
let's try some equivalency treatments...
"There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 4 cylinders in their car's engine" "There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 3 pairs of shoes" "There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 2 children" "There's no reason for any civilian to have more than a $50,000 salary" "There's no reason for any civilian to have [anything that can't be justified by a specific need]" ETC
It's called Freedom, people. It's what America is supposed to be about.
And before douchebags start dragging all the political bullshit in, I support the firing of pretty much every politician currently in office. Scrap the 2 parties completely for all I care. Let the womerns have all the birth control and abortions and the men have all the liquor and dope they want. Whatever. Freedom is the only way forward.
Also for the record, I can disprove that suggested penile association with photos.
Re: (Score:3)
And that's exactly what the Senate Gun bill that would ban "assault' weapons did.
Mini-14s are banned if they look one way, and legal if they look another way. Both are weapons that can handle 30 round clips and will kill people, but the look is what makes one dangerous, and one not.
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I assume they're looking at the police and military market since assault rifles are restricted class III items in the US for civilian ownership and not overly cheap.
Class III items are full-auto, which are police and military weapons.
And they're not expensive because they are inherently more costly. They are expensive because any weapons manufactured after 1986 are still banned for civilian possession. The capped supply, along with the non-liquidity of the weapons themselves due to transfer costs and requirements (including may-issue permission from your local sheriff or police chief, good luck unless you're well connected), are the cause of how expensive they are. A factory fresh military Colt M4 doesn't cost anything more than a consumer Colt M4.
That's fine for TPTB, of course. Because civilians that can afford such expensive toys are doing well enough that they're on the side of the status quo, and aren't exactly going to take up those arms in a revolution when the army will defend that status quo.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, since mags can rather easily be 3D printed and don't fail until after multiple reloads, any and all attempts to ban 30rd mags is utterly doomed to failure. For that matter, stamping them out of sheet metal or using molds ain't exactly rocket science either. So pretending that banning the sale of 30rd mags will do fuck all means you've been doing way too much LSD. Not even marijuana could make you that moronic. Now get off the drugs, and stop fucking yourself with your 3d printed Obama butt plug.
Re:The danger is real. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool leftist, but I'll be the first one to say that there is not hate like liberal hate.
RE: ownership decline (Score:5, Informative)
shortages everywhere, and manufacturers / distributors can't keep up with the demand level to the point that they are now unable to build their annual stockpile for the hunting seasons ahead (they usually start stockpiling in the spring/summer months to meet the fall demand) so there will be more shortages later this year
Re:I'm looking forward to this development (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, there's no problem that can't be solved with DRM.
Re:I'm looking forward to this development (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you haven't thought things through.
"Locks" like what is being suggested here is simply another point of failure on a system that is optimized to have as few failure points as possible. No one that knows anything about guns will willingly buy this.
Re: (Score:3)
I genuinely believe that weapons should be "locked" to their owner.
And that the owner must be required to wear special jewelry, have on no gloves, and have a perfectly clean gun (and fingers!) in order to defend himself, right? And if the owner is out of town and his wife wants to use the gun to save her life? Hold on, Mr. Home Invasion Rapist Guy, I have to get my husband on the phone so he can use his iPhone app remotely to help me re-program this gun I'll be using to keep you from assaulting me.
I want to be able to toss one of my guns to someone to whom it's not "lo
Re:I'm sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
That most gun owners don't WANT this type of tech, that could potentially bork and not allow you to fire at a critical moment.
A gun works JUST fine now....simple, mechanical, etc.
And by the way...can those folks in MA either vote out said congressman putting that bill forth, or just contain such laws to your state if you want them that way?
Sheesh, if this type thing comes about, I guess we'll see more efforts like recent ones, to have states certify guns make and labeled for "in state sales only" to get around the Feds being able to mess with and regulate them.
Re:I'm sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm...seems this company can't figure out what the problem is....
That most gun owners don't WANT this type of tech, that could potentially bork and not allow you to fire at a critical moment.
A gun works JUST fine now....simple, mechanical, etc.
It sounds like they just figured out who their customers really are. It's not the gun owner, it's the gun opposition.
The campaign is a call to arms (pardon the pun) for the clueless, emotional, never-took-history masses to fund them, so then they can then impose the technology on the gun owners against their will by lobbying for laws to require it, which is step 2 of the plan.
Bonus points if they can get the law to require only "certified" smart gun technologies, of which only SGTi will have the required certification.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like they just figured out who their customers really are. It's not the gun owner, it's the gun opposition.
Brilliant business plan there - build a product that no one wants except people who would never buy your product.
No wonder they're trying to crowdfund instead of going the VC route.
Re: (Score:3)
You're worried this is an insidious plan on the
Re: (Score:3)
The campaign is a call to arms (pardon the pun) for the clueless, emotional, never-took-history masses to fund them
You are now the wikipedia example of the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
Those that support gun disarmament that actually have a clue are not going to contribute to this. They won't contribute to anything that will enable continued gun manufacture. In other words, they don't want guns to be safer, they want them to be gone.
The emotional side of that crowd really believes a safer gun can save lives. Those that wish to force disarmament aren't really interested in the criminal side, obviously, because if they were, they knew abolishment won't get guns out of the hands of criminals
I'm waiting for the first lawsuit (Score:3)
You are being threatened, you try to shoot, the recognition fails, rendering you defenseless, and you are killed by your assailant. Your family is going to OWN that company.
But you can be sure that immunity for these companies will be built into any law requiring these devices.
Re: (Score:3)
To much focus on semi-auto. .357magnum Ruger GP100 myself) and a bolt action in a heavier rifle caliber to that list.
You should probably add a revolver (I like the
Re: (Score:3)
If I was to add a non semi auto weapon to my group it would be a breach break single barrel shotgun so I could get the 7" rifled inserts to shoot any type of ammo there is.
Re: I'm sorry (Score:3)
That, mounted on a drone with Argus and some facial recognition software and we have the perfect "killer app".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And I know even more children who would be alive if the FBI/BATF didn't use incendiary gas grenades. And one rogue LAPD officer too. One can decide if the latter would be beneficial. But the former would have.
Re: (Score:3)