Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
It might be better to just get another gerbil.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


             

Fail Dangerous Smart Gun

Reverts to a regular gun when battery dies
  (+4, -1)
(+4, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

Simple logic really. You want a gun to fire when you need it, but not when a non-registered user is holding it.

If the firearm fails unsafe, then it will only prevent firing when -

a) The battery is charged

AND

b) A non-registered user is holding the gun.

That is, a smart gun can only prevent a non-registered user from using it if it is charged. So charge it if you like.

I would suggest it beeps loudly if it is charged, gripped and biometrics are rejected i.e. it beeps if its not going to fire (battery dead, no beep, fail dangerous - its going to fire).

bigsleep, Jan 13 2017

[link]






       [+] nice one. Patenty.
FlyingToaster, Jan 13 2017
  

       So, all anyone need do is remove the battery before attempting to fire this gun.
Vernon, Jan 13 2017
  

       //So, all anyone need do is remove the battery before attempting to fire this gun.//   

       It could easily be secured by screws i.e. a battery that needs recharging by near-field or cable. But just a simple catch could defeat a kid rummaging through a handbag and accidentally blowing mum's head off.   

       That is the general point of the idea - to reduce the chances of 'trigger only' gun from being discharged by accident (child), by a non-registered user (assailant), or by illegal change of ownership (limited by battery lifetime or ability to extricate power source using specialised tools).   

       It's safer than a regular gun because the worst case is it being a regular gun.
bigsleep, Jan 13 2017
  

       Actually, [bigs], this is not such a stupid idea. I presume that grip recognition is reliable and robust enough to work consistently for the intended user? I only ask because my iPhone thumbprint recognizer doesn't work if my thumb is wet or grubby, and it would only need one case of "she would have survived if her gun had worked" to kill sales.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 13 2017
  

       //I presume that grip recognition is reliable and robust enough//   

       I'm sure you could work on the principle that smudge equals enabled. Basically we are talking algorithms that can securely say 'not fire' rather than fire. Even if that only means preventing 1% of shots then that's an improvement on 100% of illegitimate firings.   

       In short, the technology should be biassed towards recognising non-owners rather than owners. Taken to the extreme this may include a camera that recognises friendly faces. If the technology fails, then sure, a gun owner can off their entire family because it fails and becomes a regular gun.   

       It only ceases to work because its sure it shouldn't. And by sure, I mean 'gun reliability' sure.   

       (We'll get into the driverless car with snow argument later).
bigsleep, Jan 13 2017
  

       [-] Smart guns are an idea promoted by very, very stupid people.   

       // a kid rummaging through a handbag and accidentally blowing mum's head off. //   

       You say that like it's a bad thing. Natural selection in action.   

       Carrying a personal weapon in a handbag should be a crime. In fact, just owning a handbag should be a crime. Even thinking about owning a handbag should be a crime.   

       Actually, lots of things are criminal offences that shouldn't be in a rational system, likewise lots of things are legal (like Hawaiian shorts in sizes above XL) that shouldn't be.
8th of 7, Jan 14 2017
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle