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
Bone to the bad.

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.



Mechanical "smart" gun

A physical means for preventing unauthorized weapon use.
(+2, -2)
  [vote for,

Much has been made of smart guns that use electronics having a failure point at the batteries.

What if there were a handgun that instead had a mechanical method of arming?

It's important to decide just how failsafe it needs to be. Is it sufficient that another person can't use the weapon if it's dropped? Or must the weapon only ever be useable by one person?

If the former, then a ring on the wearer a key of some kind that activates when touched would be sufficient. Maybe it fits into the trigger mechanism such that the gun is unusable without it - as though it had no trigger.

Or perhaps it's RFID powered by body heat. Without the ring, a pin mechanism prevents use, but with the ring against the weapon, the very small electrical charge plus a code is enough to release the safety, no batteries needed.

Or, there is a wrist bracelet with a pressure key attached. Push the key in, activate the gun. Then if dropped, the key pulls out. However, this idea would mean that it would take precious seconds for the operator to reinsert the key in the field.

Or, there is a combination lock built into the weapon that can be thumb operated. Without the code entered, the gun is inoperable. Holding the weapon keeps the gun in use mode through appropriate gripping pressure. However, if you release the grip, the lock resets and the gun is at safety.

Any of these could also be a backup for battery powered systems, with the battery systems allowing for limited use to an individual, while the mechanical systems work as a failsafe that may not prevent use if the mechanical item is stolen but the battery system has failed.

simpleknight, May 17 2014


       Or maybe just don't have guns?   

       No, that wasn't my fishbone btw.
not_morrison_rm, May 17 2014

       May as well say " not have fire ? "
normzone, May 18 2014

       Interesting bit about that. Many people and municipalities have elected not to have fire, or placed severe restrictions on fire types, burning times, and legal fire apparati. It's almost as if people would rather be safe from the hazards of fire.
WcW, May 18 2014

       Yes, but when you really really want to have fire, it's advantageous to be able to build one.
FlyingToaster, May 18 2014

       /It's almost as if people would rather be safe from the hazards of fire./   

       The problem is that the apparatus for making fire is next to free. If the only fire-making apparatus could be monopolized by a company with a profit motive, they could ensure that fires occurred freely and without legislative prohibiton. Fire is our Prometheus-given right, after all.
bungston, May 21 2014

       [bungston] said that if fire was profitable without regulation, there would be none. This may imply that there is regulation _because_ that increases the profits for companies that build devices that meet the regulatory requirements. Though I agree there may be some other reasons for regulating fire.
scad mientist, May 22 2014

       // It's almost as if people would rather be safe from the hazards of fire.//   

       Actually there are few regulations to prevent the unsafe MISUSE of fire. Any minor can buy gas and matches and misuse them with deadly results.   

       Some proper uses of guns may be for recreation and self defense. A misuse of guns might be using it for committing a crime. The only fundamental difference between fire and firearms in terms of misuse for illegal activity or accidental injury/death is that guns are extremely effective, portable, and convenient, both for their proper use and for their misuse.   

       Anyone know the death and injury rate from kids playing with fire compared with guns? Since fire is easier to get, but not as effective, I suspect there's more injury and less death.
scad mientist, May 22 2014

       And what I'm saying is not really intended as a good argument for or against gun control, but rather to point out that saying one should be regulated or not because of regulation on the other is a very weak argument.
scad mientist, May 22 2014

       Aaaannnd once in a while you stumble over something and go " Did I do that ? "
normzone, May 22 2014

       Oh, and [+] for the concept of the idea, but I don't really like any of the proposed implementations.   

       What about a custom fitted grip that requires proper pressure at each fingertip? Make it so that if any fingertip is possiitoned incorrectly either too long or too short, the gun will not fire. It seem like that could be implemented with a fairly simple and robust mechanical system. The way I understand it, for best accuracy the user holds the gun the same way every time, so after a couple good practice sessions with the gun in unsecured mode, the grip could be locked in. Now it might also be nice if a single gun could support a couple different grips, allowing the user to practice a left- handed grip for use in a situation where they have a big bandage on one finger or something that prevents the correct grip.
scad mientist, May 22 2014

       There is still the substantial statistical fact that the gun that you purchase for the defense of your home is more likely to be used to shoot yourself or one of your loved ones than it is to shoot a burglar. So long as it is in the home it represents a lethal threat to you, your family, and other innocents. And unlike your toaster, which will as happily take toast as electrocute you, the gun sits there as a constant persistent menace to yourself and those you care about. The fact about gun ownership is that owning a tool of murder makes us feel powerful in the face of threats we cannot predict or control. The myth of deterrence is completely rebuked by statistics, instead the thing that are trying to deter is the fear of impotence, the fear that we do not have the mineral to die or kill with adequate dignity should the situation arise. I would "pull my gun and shoot the bad guy" are the words of a child, a baby despot. They are not words that I respect, and as a society they do not deserve the sanction of the law.
WcW, May 22 2014


back: main index

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