MIT freshman tries to save lives with smart guns

[sarisataka]

MIT freshman tries to save lives with smart guns

When Kai Kloepfer points his .40 caliber handgun, it fires like any other weapon. But when someone else gives it a try, it doesn’t work. It’s the first firearm with same built-in security as many smartphones.

If the gun is picked up by an authorized user, a sensor recognizes the fingerprint and it will fire.

Guns that only work for their owners used to be the stuff of movies, like James Bond’s gun in “Skyfall,” but Kloepfer thinks he has the technology to make them a reality, reports CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil.

“I think this could be huge. I think it could really be the future of firearms,” Kloepfer said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/smart-gun-fingerprint-reader-biofire-kai-kloepfer-pushback-firearm-community/

Let the market decide if it is a good idea, but I would recommend he try to greatly improve from “relatively reliable.”

One (of several) important questions- if the owner wishes to sell the gun, what is the procedure to wipe fingerprint from memory and authorize the new owner's prints? How can it be protected so a thief could not simply do the same with a stolen gun?

[doc03]

1. Smith and Wesson tried to market smart guns several years ago and the NRA

went on the attack, I know lots of people that wouldn't touch a S&W pistol after that. Then NRA doesn't believe in smart weapons,
what if you have to kill someone and your gun won't fire.

[Straw Man]

3. And why do you think that is?

Smith and Wesson tried to market smart guns several years ago and the NRA

went on the attack, I know lots of people that wouldn't touch a S&W pistol after that. Then NRA doesn't believe in smart weapons,
what if you have to kill someone and your gun won't fire.

Opposition to the development of smart gun technology was and is based solely on legislation mandating that only smart guns be sold once a workable smart gun comes to market. What gun owner would want to trade the choice of literally hundreds of models of handgun for the limitation to one -- count 'em, ONE -- model, which may be a ghastly piece of crap in every way?

And yes, what if you do need your gun and it won't work? Do you see that as a desirable situation?

[doc03]

6. Why would you oppose research on such a gun? Maybe they will develop

a gun that will function reliably and won't cost a fortune with research. That's like the anti-science argument the
Republicans use on everything, they want to shut down research on climate change because they may not like the results.
If smart guns are not tested of course they would always be a ghastly piece of crap. I remember back in the 60s the
auto industry was opposed to seat belts and all sorts of scenarios were brought up about being unconscious and unable to
get the belt off and oh the cost will break us. The tobacco industry came up with all the same bullshit. Wouldn't it be great if a cop's life would be saved because the bad guy that took his weapon was unable to shoot him? What about the intruder in someone's home that tries to kill them with their own gun and it won't fire. Well agreed they will be a ghastly piece of crap like you say if someone
doesn't at least research the idea. Now the NRA has no problem if they do research on a gun that fires ammo at a faster rate
or bullets that are more destructive.

[krispos42]

7. The testing process has a simple solution for smart-gun makers

Competitive shooting.

There are a LOT of people engaged in recreational tactical-style shooting competitions from organizations such as the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA). There are various classes for different types of guns, from a $500 stock revolver to a tricked-out $5000 semiautomatic, and they hold hundreds of competitions a week around the country.

If the "smart" part of this guys gun works, then it should be able to compete with the dumb guns at the shooting range, in competition.

And if it doesn't work, then continuing to develop the technology until it DOES work would go a long way towards making the gun an acceptable tool for life-or-death situations like self defense.

For a relatively paltry sum, an organization that supports and pushes for smart guns could sponsor a smart-gun-only shooting team. Lots of ammo and some travel money is all that would be needed, plus some merchandise and spiffy uniforms. It doesn't even have to be national, first: just start competing in a state. Film and photograph the results, put them on YouTube and a website, and promote the hell out of it.

[yagotme]

8. Don't oppose research.

I oppose the legislation (in NJ, I believe), that REQUIRES, after 5 years after introduction of a "workable" smart gun into the market, that only smart guns may be sold. All that research costs money, and I'm sure the researchers would like to recoup the money they invested into this project, so it is highly likely that the technology will be considerably more expensive for a smart gun than a dumb one. Remember plasma TV's, and the thousands of $ they used to cost? Took a good while before the price dropped down so average Joe could afford one. Imagine mandating everyone buying a plasma before the price could drop to a reasonable level? I like the competition idea, those guys put a lotta rounds downrange. Good way to test battery life, sensitivity of electronics to recoil, etc. A gun is a tool, and a tool that doesn't work is useless. More than, if it means trusting your life to it and it doesn't perform due to some overengineered whizbang gadget that failed, where the plain jane model will work.

[Straw Man]

10. I already explained that. Pay attention.

It's all about the legislation. In New Jersey, once ONE smart gun comes to market, all other guns will become illegal. Capisci? Consumers will have NO CHOICE. Zip. Zero. Nada. Niente. If they want a gun, they will have to buy that gun, regardless of its quality.

Wouldn't it be great if a cop's life would be saved because the bad guy that took his weapon was unable to shoot him? What about the intruder in someone's home that tries to kill them with their own gun and it won't fire.

Wouldn't it be terrible if a gun owner's family members were unable to use his gun to defend themselves because they didn't have the magic ring or the right fingerprint or whatever cockamamie technology the gun requires? Two can play at that game.

Take away the legislation and the opposition goes with it. Develop away, but the mandates have got to go.

[Eleanors38]

13. Your argument means little to the control/ban folks who could best learn from vegetarians...

Yes, the best way to promote vegetarianism is not through complex, expensive regulations of meat processing, or prohibitionist laws, or laws requiring this or that per centage of a meal to be vegetarian. The best way is for vegetarian restaurants to offer up tasty, bountiful, and blue plate priced-food. I am eating at one right now.

Provide a good product, and they will come.

[MrPurple]

2. I've never owned a gun, but not sure I'd want one that could have an electronics glitch

the one time I desperately needed it.

[TupperHappy]

9. Gives a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death" (nt)

[Eleanors38]

14. Or for this old codger, the Pepsi Syndrome.

[pablo_marmol]

4. .......but I would recommend he try to greatly improve from relatively reliable.

Most certainly.

[pablo_marmol]

5. Dave Kopel weighs in here:

http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/SmartGuns.htm

[ManiacJoe]

12. Still a great idea. Still waiting on the tech to catch up.

Lots of problems using a fingerprint reader yet to be solved:
Batteries die
dirty/bloody hands cannot be read
gloves are a problem

How many authorized hands can be recorded?

Now for guns used only at the range, none of this is major problem.