Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Technology

Smart Guns Finally Arriving In US (reuters.com) 333

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Personalized smart guns, which can be fired only by verified users, may finally become available to U.S. consumers after two decades of questions about reliability and concerns they will usher in a new wave of government regulation. Four-year-old LodeStar Works on Friday unveiled its 9mm smart handgun for shareholders and investors in Boise, Idaho. And a Kansas company, SmartGunz LLC, says law enforcement agents are beta testing its product, a similar but simpler model. Both companies hope to have a product commercially available this year.

LodeStar co-founder Gareth Glaser said he was inspired after hearing one too many stories about children shot while playing with an unattended gun. Smart guns could stop such tragedies by using technology to authenticate a user's identity and disable the gun should anyone else try to fire it. They could also reduce suicides, render lost or stolen guns useless, and offer safety for police officers and jail guards who fear gun grabs. But attempts to develop smart guns have stalled: Smith & Wesson got hit with a boycott, a German company's product was hacked, and a New Jersey law aimed at promoting smart guns has raised the wrath of defenders of the Second Amendment. Glaser acknowledged there will be additional challenges to large-scale manufacturing, but expressed confidence that after years of trial and error the technology was advanced enough and the microelectronics inside the gun are well-protected. "We finally feel like we're at the point where ... let's go public," Glaser said. "We're there."
"Most early smart gun prototypes used either fingerprint unlocking or radio frequency identification technology that enables the gun to fire only when a chip in the gun communicates with another chip worn by the user in a ring or bracelet," reports Reuters. "LodeStar integrated both a fingerprint reader and a near-field communication chip activated by a phone app, plus a PIN pad. The gun can be authorized for more than one user. The fingerprint reader unlocks the gun in microseconds, but since it may not work when wet or in other adverse conditions, the PIN pad is there as a backup."

"Skeptics have argued that smart guns are too risky for a person trying to protect a home or family during a crisis, or for police in the field."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smart Guns Finally Arriving In US

Comments Filter:
  • Cool (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vinegar Joe ( 998110 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2022 @07:06PM (#62165727)

    But let's first issue these only to the police, FBI and Secret Service for a 5 year test.

    • Lots of police get shot with their own gun in a tussle.
      • Lots of police get shot with their own gun in a tussle.

        Really? Name three.

        • Re:Cool (Score:5, Informative)

          by l0n3s0m3phr34k ( 2613107 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2022 @08:30PM (#62166045)
          This was only 8 days ago. [nbcnews.com] This article names four [gothamgazette.com], Robert Parker, Patrick Rafferty, Richard Guerzon and Keith Williams. But those four were killed in as a pair, with a gun from one of them each, so I suppose technically that would only be two more "with their own gun". But it took longer to write this up than to find that info, and there are quite a few more like this on the web.
          • Well then, police should welcome smart guns then, right? Of course we all know they won't, and why should anyone be forced to use them when the police won't?
  • Unless government forces it on people it will see no upkeep. Forcing it on people will be hard when police and military will adopt it never ever.

  • I am waiting for the first moron to kill himself or the first child to die in an accident because "the gun is safe".

    • Alec Baldwin still would have killed that woman even if it was a "smart revolver".

      • Why do US movie sets allow unmodified guns? With blanks you can just weld an obstruction in the barrel.

        • Because when protocols are followed, it is perfectly safe. Hasn't been a shooting since The Crow, which is when the protocols were instituted. However in Baldwin's fly by night production, which he was all gung ho to get done because he wanted the lead role in his own personal western under his belt, no less than 7 major failures of Hollywood firearms protocol occurred in order for the shooting to happen. There was live ammo on the set that people were using to plink on the set, nono number 1; the armorer w

  • If a smart gun is smarter than it's owner can it refuse to fire also?
    • If a smart gun is smarter than it's owner can it refuse to fire also?

      Dumb: DRM introduced into a formerly reliable, effective device.
      Dumber: Someone who willingly buys such a device.

      Not a high bar, but a smartgunner will always fail to reach it, by definition.

  • That far more are killed with their families own firearms, then from intruders, these make sense. Hope to modify my handguns or will buy one of these.
    • What study says that? Did they control for legality of weapon and whether the owner was otherwise involved in significant illicit activity? No? Then the stats mean bupkis.

      • If you don't know this, then you've been willfully ignoring the statistics that have been discussed ad nauseum for years. It isn't our job to educate you. Educate yourself.
        • Then show me the study that controlled for possible illicit owner activity and legality of weapon in the locale it was in. Go ahead, I'll wait.

  • swords all the way.

  • So now if you steal a gun you need to steal the owners finger too? That can get complicated fast
    • by znrt ( 2424692 )

      it also mentions a (hopefully detachable) bracelet. you can take the whole thing if you like, though. e.g. with a sword. XD

  • "Skeptics have argued that smart guns are too risky for a person trying to protect a home or family during a crisis, or for police in the field."

    Instead, they must all be ready to shoot to kill at any time! It's the American Way!

  • Handguns are defensive tools that are approximately never used, but when you need yours to work, you really, really need it to work. Engineering a smart gun that is approximately as reliable as a modern handgun (unless badly maintained, they're extremely reliable) is a really hard problem.

    The basic issues are the same for police as for ordinary citizens who carry a defensive handgun, except moreso. Police are both much more likely to need to use their gun and much more likely to be shot with their own gun

  • ...otherwise, the first time it fails (the gun doesn't shoot for the authorized owner, or does shoot for an unauthorized person) and someone is injured, the liability on the company will be gigantic.

  • They just had to use a Z

  • I can see smart guns being kind-of useful if-- and only if-- the gun is unlocked by an always-on, wearable chip, like the key fob for a car. The idea of a using a fingerprint reader is incredibly dumb. Any idea involving a smart phone app is incredibly dumb.

    I don't want to dismiss the concept of smart guns completely, because little kids really do shoot themselves/each other with unattended guns. But I'm not overly hopeful either. We already have a technological solution for the problem: they're called g

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      you're probably safety-conscious enough to lock up your damn gun to begin with

      I just leave my guns lying around the house and lock the kids in the basement.

    • I can see smart guns being kind-of useful if-- and only if-- the gun is unlocked by an always-on, wearable chip, like the key fob for a car.

      Even better - the approach that has been very popular with smart gun developers is a ring with a chip inside [buzzfeednews.com]. The person will always be wearing the ring, and it will be held right next to the gun in use.

    • I suppose you could offer a tax incentive for smart guns (like we do for EVs), so that they are cheaper than the non-smart equivalent firearm.

      OK, so let's say you offer a tax incentive to purchase a purchase a SmartGunz 9mm 1911 Sentry (the only model they offer for civilians). Retail price: $2195.
      Quality 9mm 1911 style pistols (e.g. Kimber, Springfield Armory) go for about $1,000. So you are talking a $1200 tax credit to even the pricing. Maybe a customer would pay a $200 premium for "smart" (I wouldn't but I can imagine some may), you're talking about a $1,000 tax credit to make it competitive, even including a $200 "makes me safer" prem

  • ... delete kits like the ones for the Hillary Hole [justapewreviews.com]?

  • >"Personalized smart guns, which can be fired only by verified users"

    Optimistically, theoretically, that is... if they DO fire when needed by even the "verified user". So you are free to bet YOUR life on it.

    I am certainly not against the concept- as long as such technology is never forced on buyers. Unfortunately, we all know that is exactly what will start to happen in many areas.

    >"The fingerprint reader unlocks the gun in microseconds,

    Assuming it has power.

    >"but since it may not work when wet o

    • And assuming your finger is clean, and that you place it correctly the first time in the heat of the moment when scrambling for your weapon.

  • Though it's more likely in some renamed Japanese city (2:02 mark) [youtube.com].

  • I opened the link and watched the video about these guns. For some reason the subtitles were on.

    Got a laugh when the guy was demo-ing the gun and going through the 3 authentication methods.
    On the 3rd one he said (59secs) "you know, belly or bluetooth". Eh?

    Took me a a moment to realise what he'd actually said was "BLE or bluetooth".
    Are youtube subtitles machine generated? Or maybe just a non-tech subtitle writer.

  • for conceal and carry. It would ease my fear of the gun being lost or stolen.
  • I've done enough carrying, shooting, and training to know. These "smart guns" might attract a few new gun owners, but nobody who is serious about guns will buy one.
    It's all about reliability. I carry a Glock because it just works, with an incredibly tiny chance of malfunctions. My ex-wife preferred a huge 8-shot .357 Magnum revolver, because she didn't want to train to clear malfunctions.

    Seriously, my carry gun is a Glock 19, my rifle is a M1A, and my shotgun is a Saiga 12... you're not selling me anything
  • My 2 cents (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PinkyGigglebrain ( 730753 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2022 @09:08PM (#62166161)

    Anyone who would actually use one of these "Smart" guns is a complete idiot.

    Sure they are OK if you only go to the range and want to look cool with your Hi-Tek 1337 gun but anyone who intends to actually use it in situations that it absolutely, positively MUST NOT FAIL does not have the mental capacity to be owning a gun in the first place.

    As another poster suggested, lets issue them to LEOs and the Military for at least 5 years THEN talk about making them available to the average person.

    I mean come on, if they really are that much better why would you want to bad guys to be able to use them before the cops do? Think about all those times that an officer's gun gets stolen in a struggle and used against them. Just imagine how many officer's lives could be saved if they had to use this tech on duty!

    • I don't get it. I enjoy going to the gun range. I have no intention of ever using a firearm other than at the range or out hunting, never. There are no circumstances where my weapon must absolutely not fail. If it does fail in my use cases, that's fine. Why does that make me an idiot?

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Anyone who would actually use one of these "Smart" guns is a complete idiot.

      Sure they are OK if you only go to the range and want to look cool with your Hi-Tek 1337 gun but anyone who intends to actually use it in situations that it absolutely, positively MUST NOT FAIL does not have the mental capacity to be owning a gun in the first place.

      As another poster suggested, lets issue them to LEOs and the Military for at least 5 years THEN talk about making them available to the average person.

      I mean come on, if they really are that much better why would you want to bad guys to be able to use them before the cops do? Think about all those times that an officer's gun gets stolen in a struggle and used against them. Just imagine how many officer's lives could be saved if they had to use this tech on duty!

      I prefer to live in a society where you absolutely must NOT EVER need to use a firearm and ownership of such would be just for recreational purposes (as well as the few farmers/park rangers who would have need to use one in a professional capacity).

      Also this is a society where LEOs do not regularly carry firearms, many police will finish their careers never having qualified for, let alone carried a firearm.

  • metal gear solid iv: guns of the patriots

    in that game, you needed to be injected with nanomachines to be authorized to fire any gun

  • Love their website. Low-budget, anyone? The company is "Copy.Paste marketing". Yeah, I'd say they are.

    What I really question about their product, or at the very least their designer: ya notice the firearm in the picture? Missing something: sights. Whomever put the website together didn't even realize the image they used wasn't of a properly assembled firearm.

    They clearly didn't set up an ambidextrous safety on the weapon. Fuck you to the lefties, or weak-hand rightly, even when 1911-style pistols have had t

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"

Working...