Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Toys

Smart Gun with Minicam and Biometric Access 616

Posted by michael
from the saturday-night-special dept.
StrawberryFrog writes "Ya well no fine, those crazy South Africans are at it again, this time with a "intelligent firearm". You may have heard of guns with fingerprint recognition before, but this also uses a laser to ignite the propellant, has multiple barrels and incorporates a minicam to record as evidence what you are shooting at. It's a very different gun design, and one that depends on electronics to make it work."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smart Gun with Minicam and Biometric Access

Comments Filter:
  • by Phoenix823 (448446) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:20AM (#5517620)
    X10 enters the firearm business.
  • by Malicious (567158) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:21AM (#5517625)
    Now to ensure my clone never gets his hands on my gun...
    • Well you dont have to..the article never mentioned this but what is the lifetime of the batteries? I mean you may have just bought the gun and by the time you bring it home just the GPS would have drained it a bit...then your clone will have to buy a Microsoft(R) Kwik-E-Charger :)
      • by afidel (530433) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @04:44AM (#5518365)
        I would guess these will be like police radios now, use lead acid batteries that can take the huge number of recharge cycles. That way you just put the gun and the radio in a charger stand at the end of your shift and pick them up the next day. Because they are biometrically signed you might not even have to lock them up (anymore than they already are by virtue of being in a police station). Here in the states though I doubt they will catch on. Police officers lives depend on their sidearms every time they go out, jamming a bunch of unproven electronics into a violent container doesn't sound like my idea of high reliability. Unless these are field proven by something like the isrealie police I don't think many departments here would buy in.
  • Thinkgeek? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jmays (450770) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:22AM (#5517629)
    What I want to know is when Thinkgeek will be carrying these ... any bets?
  • by Graspee_Leemoor (302316) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:22AM (#5517633) Homepage Journal
    Red LED display of number of rounds left. (Preferably facing the user when held, so no-one else can see it).

    graspee

  • by wileycoyoteacme (319236) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:22AM (#5517635)
    Great, can't wait to see the headlines: Dumbass kills self while trying to take picture, family sues gun manufacturer.

  • Oh no (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Adam9 (93947) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:24AM (#5517638) Journal
    Now script kiddies are going to h4x0r guns.
  • Backup (Score:5, Funny)

    by Citizen of Earth (569446) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:24AM (#5517642)
    It's a very different gun design, and one that depends on electronics to make it work.

    You might want to carry a revolver in your sock for when the OS crashes.
    • Re:Backup (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You may not if it weighs a considerable amount... "Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work you can always throw it at him." - Boris the Blade, Snatch
  • "ya well no fine"?

    am i having a stroke and losing the ability to decipher english? what does this mean? ;-P
    • Re:ya well no fine (Score:3, Informative)

      by CaseyB (1105)
      This says [tripod.com] it's South African for "I'm bored".
    • Re:ya well no fine (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nurf (11774) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @02:57AM (#5518061) Homepage
      Heh. Actually, it is spelt "Ja well no fine". It has a bunch of uses, and is a sort of catchall phase for some people.

      It can be used to indicate agreement about something that will soon be done. "Ja well no fine, let's go sort it out" would be a classic use.

      It is a sort of shorthand. "Ja" = "Yes". "Well" is used as in English meaning as a scatting word "welllll", or to mean that things (or you) are well. "No" indicates that nothing is wrong (as if the other person had asked if there was a problem), and the "fine" is to back this up.

      "Ja well no fine" = "Yes all is well, no really, it's fine"

      or

      "Ja well no fine" = "Yes! ummmm... no, definitely, it's fine!".

      The second use would be when you have made a strong decision.

      It's hard to pin down, but I think that will do as a start. The link some other guy posted about it meaning "I'm bored" is just wrong, in my opinion.

      There. I bet you wished you never asked. :-)
  • Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by molrak (541582) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:25AM (#5517651) Homepage
    It's also a gun easily disabled by an electro-magnetic pulse, which is especially relevant since the military now has EMP bombs.
    • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Christopher Thomas (11717) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @03:25AM (#5518149)
      It's also a gun easily disabled by an electro-magnetic pulse, which is especially relevant since the military now has EMP bombs.

      The military will always have their own weapons; they won't be stuck using something so failure-prone. This is great for civilian use. It doesn't hamper legitimate uses while making illegitimate ones more difficult to execute and get away with.
      • Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)

        by pi_rules (123171) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @11:37AM (#5519338)
        It doesn't hamper legitimate uses while making illegitimate ones more difficult to execute and get away with.

        This is horrid for legitimate use. You no longer have a cheap detachable magazine, you've got to remove your whole barrel assembly to reload. That's not cost effective. You can't reaload it yourself, and you can't purchase amoo in bulk. When I take a 9mm out to the range for training I'll typically blow through 100 to 150 rounds. I'd need 10 to 15 barrel assemblies to do this. That's not good. Also, remember that whenever you change the tiniest thing about your firearm you will throw off the impact point. In the case of this firearm -every- round goes through a different barrel, meaning each shot will have a slightly different path.

        This alone doesn't promote responsible use. If you can't predict where your round will land you shouldn't be taking any shots. If you can't actually use the firearm for training it's entirely useless for a civilian.
  • by davidj0228 (543196) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:26AM (#5517654)
    a video record of what you're shooting at... hmmm maybe this will be the advance in technology that can bring the gun rights people and the gun control people together. i think accountability is the most important thing; if you are responsible you can have a gun if you want. now only if bullets had these minicams in them so that you can see who shot the bullet when the shooter cant be found
    • That's an insightful comment for about two seconds. Who's going to convince people that these are the only guns you can use? It's like passing escrow laws and assuming those wacky terrorists will update all their commercial software to the latest versions. Good luck getting the NRA to even think about supporting something like this.
    • Nope. We catch almost all the people who kill other people with guns, but they're still dead.

      Stopping the killing is the key to bilateral acceptance.

      Produce a gun that won't fire unless the target deserves it.
    • I did some preliminary research for a project aimed at marking bullets. Its theoretically possible to give every bullet a serial number imprinted on it. But I eventually gave up after talking with people who had been down that road before and got squelched by the NRA

      for example, the best idea was to not mark the bullets but rather the gun powder with plastic micro-taggants (basically a dust whose particles are made up of snadwhiched layers of plastic that form a sort of bar code that can be read under a

    • I was just thinking, I wonder if there'll be bootlegged copies of those images going around, gore gallery style.. if every murder (with those guns) is captured.

      but then again, who'd kill someone with one of these??
  • Not so hot... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Voytek (15888) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:27AM (#5517657) Journal
    The problem with all of these type of technologic "advancements" in firearms is that they miss the whole point of a self-defense firearm. If one is to use a firearm for self-defense, it will be used at the last possible moment - a moment that does not allow for software glitches, hardware bugs, run-down batteries, etc...

    This 'technologizing' of firearms is only viable for certain military applications - useage scenarios far removed from those of civilian owners; yet there are enough dumbass lobbyists and politicians who don't understand that one can NOT ask an attacker to 'wait while I reboot my gun'.
    • And the same thing can happen (a jam, anyway) if you don't maintain your regular firearm as well. Bottom line, if you have a gun for self defence, you have to take care of it. Just like you have to change the batteries in your smoke alarms, the oil in your car, etc. Nothing's perfect... But on the plus side, with barrels like this thing uses, you won't need to clean it.
    • When was the last time a $30 scientific calculator malfunctioned because of a glitch, or hardware bug? The electronics, once properly tested and simplified, will work perfectly, provided they aren't soaking in water. I don't know about how waterproof this gun is, but I know electronics CAN be made almost perfectly reliable. 99.999% reliablilty type.
      • Re:Not so hot... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Camulus (578128)
        There is a difference though. It is not just about trouble shooting electronics. Yes, lets say they make the electronics in the gun really reliable. Now, let's also say you want to practice and shoot 100 rounds a week through your gun. A gun can have quite a bit of kick. So, let me put it this way. Did you drop your calculator 400 times a week and see if it would still work? Soder and electronics are only so strong. Not even to mention that target practice would likely be damn expensive using the ne
    • How many points of failure do you need? This gun is ridiculous.

      Isn't this what most geeks hate about Microsoft... too busy building in every gee-whiz feature, so that they neglect the basics, like stability and reliability? Situation seems pretty analogous to me...

      No chance anyone who trusts their life to a firearm would ever carry one of these.

  • by Chris_Stankowitz (612232) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:27AM (#5517659)
    From the article:

    For a street-legal weapon that complies with civilian laws, it would have a 10-round magazine and fire single shots only, requiring the trigger to be pressed each time.

    So....A "street-legal" gun is one that can only shoot 10 people in about 15 seconds or less? What street would this be? Then again this is being developed in south africa. I guess even warlords have to keep their goons under a tight leash.

    • by Voytek (15888) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:34AM (#5517692) Journal
      Hopefully much less than 15 seconds to shoot ten rounds. But what are you after? A slashdot-like time delay between shots?

      You do understand that guns are still legal in the US, right? Despite the misguided efforts of those who can't read...
    • 10 people in about 15 seconds or less

      Oh no, a ten round magazine is far more terrifying than that. With armor piercing rounds and careful alignment of your shots it will kill at least 20 people! Of course, any competent shooter will have one round in the chamber in addition to the magazine, so there's another two dead innocents. Naturally one should consider using tiny gas dispensers in the rounds for an area effect. Certainly that would be good for 100 or more! At some point the NRA will finally suc
  • good idea... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pummer (637413) <`spam' `at' `pumm.org'> on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:31AM (#5517679) Homepage Journal
    ... but, this would in essence be pointless. There are guns over 100 years old that still work today, and there are millions of guns without this implemented floating around. What kind of stupid-ass criminal would buy one of these when he could steal a gun without this?
    • I can see the next "Ask Slashdot" question:

      If one wanted to design a gun that would last for hundreds of years, what would one have to do?
      • If one wanted to design a gun that would last for hundreds of years, what would one have to do?

        Build it out of rock, obviously. Concrete is just too darn susceptible to water erosion.

    • I imagine that it would have interesting police applications. Every police shooting could be documented so that, if challenged, the cops could show that it was necessary. Also, in a country that favors aggressive gun control laws, this technology might make the difference between being allowed to have a gun and not being allowed to have a gun.

      I do think it's pretty worthless as a military weapon -- when the M16 was released the first ones were notoriously unreliable and it took some time (and a lot of de
    • As opposed as I am to owning a firearm of any type, security measures on guns are a big issue if you're a legitimate gun owner. This would allow you to keep a gun in your house. Hell, just keep it under the pillow. Kids can't shoot themselves, and your gun can't be used to shoot you.

      There are other ways to do it that require less electronics, though.
    • Well the criminal might just have less selection when he tries to steal a gun that he can use. Also homeowners can be more secure against a gun accidentaly being set off by children. Of course this isn't a substitute for proper storage or responsibilty and crinimals are bound to find ways to hack the guns so they can use them but it would make a difference which in the end is all that matters. To use an analogy which probably isn't that great it's like seat belts, they don't eliminate fatalities even whe
  • I don't think so... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FooGoo (98336)
    I'll stick with my H&K.
  • Great... (Score:4, Funny)

    by craenor (623901) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:33AM (#5517689) Homepage
    Now the Chic Geek will be looking to outfit his Segway with a turret.

    Then you can add blue tooth so you can fire it remotely...just make sure it doesn't get hacked.
  • by Travoltus (110240) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:34AM (#5517695) Journal
    I can see it now.
    "This gun has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down..."
  • by rice_burners_suck (243660) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:36AM (#5517703)
    But I bet the idiots who bought 4 large crates of these guns didn't bother to ask about the little red button on the side.
  • by MyNameIsFred (543994) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:38AM (#5517712)
    I don't understand some of the logic behind some of the guns features, for example, the built-in camera. If I'm going to do something illegal, I can put a piece of tape over the lens. And if its recording data on all shots, and taking pictures, how much memory does it have? If I go to the shooting range, and I go thru a couple of boxes of ammo, will I run out of memory? If I run out of memory, does the gun lock up? Regarding the the biometric data locked into the gun. Knowing how fast most other things are cracked, how long till mod chips are available? Somehow this doesn't seem to be the answer to gun crime.
    • by Jeremi (14640) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:59AM (#5517827) Homepage
      If I'm going to do something illegal, I can put a piece of tape over the lens.


      If you want to do something illegal, you probably won't use this type of gun in the first place, you'll use the regular old kind. But imagine that you are a cop accused of shooting someone irresponsibly. Having picture evidence of exactly what they were doing when you shot them could be quite useful to you.


      If I run out of memory, does the gun lock up?


      Why would it lock up? Obviously it wouldn't be able to store any more data without first deleting something else, but it would be up to the manufacturer to decide what it should do. My guess is that they would delete the oldest photo to make room for the new one.


      These guns aren't designed to be criminal-proof, they are designed to be accident-proof, theft-proof, and self-documenting. As the article says, they are designed to be used by government officials and the military, not necessarily by Joe Civilian.

      • As the article says, they are designed to be used by government officials and the military, not necessarily by Joe Civilian.

        Actually the article states: "Van Zyl says when the IFA goes into production it may well be for military applications, which saddens him a little. He's always viewed the IFA in terms of safety, specifically in cases of theft and shooting accidents involving children."

        Sounds to me like they "adjusted" their marketing strategy after realizing that nobody wants an intrusive "nanny-gun"

      • Cops won't use these (Score:3, Informative)

        by The Tyro (247333)
        Nobody who seriously trusts their life to a firearm would use one of these... the FOP membership would revolt enmasse.

        Check this link... NJ put a smart gun law into effect, but law enforcement is exempt. [newstribune.com]

        You may form your own theory about why that is... mine says that this technology is nowhere near ready for prime-time, and police officers know it. They have enough problems with regular guns malfunctioning, and those are simple, blow-back operated mechanical devices that any machinist can make. I
  • Fantastic! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eric_Cartman_South_P (594330) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:38AM (#5517715)
    I can't wait to see all the gun camera images of Cops blasting away Citizens mid-crackpipe-hit showing up on www.thesmokinggun.com

  • by Crasoum (618885) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:45AM (#5517754) Journal
    Or possibly firing in the dark? Maybe even sitting high up in your father's oak tree polishing the gun with your bottle of nu-metal shine the all new gun polisher which also happens to coat the gun's camera in 3 inches of metal nu-ness as you shine and chant "I am the angel of death."
  • Of course, every American will want one. It's our constitutional right.. you know, just in case our government gets out from the control of the people. After all, the government is born of the people, and it's every American's right.. ney, DUTY to take up arms against their government when they have over stepped their bounds.

    So if that happens, well, when the black storm troopers try to take away ma and pa's surburban homestead, we'll protect it.... what? 'central control has declaired use of this firea
  • Something not addressed in the article.....does it fire reliably when the rightful user sqeezes the trigger?

    In matters of home defense, it'd be really bad if it was as reliable as something like a child-proof lighter.

    And then they mention it being for soldiers? WTF! I thought it was for home defense.

    Of course, the area of guns is one of the few areas where I agree with ESR.
  • Here is something odd, how many pictures can be stored in the gun. I mean, realistically, it can't store an image of every single shot ever fired. A criminal could find out that it can only hold, say, 1500 shots, and after shooting someone, go and clear the memory out. Then, he could use the defence that the gun doesn't have a picture of him shooting the person.

    The only way for it to really keep an image of every shot ever fired is to have an unlimited storage. I don't think they've invented the new un
  • Hacking (Score:2, Insightful)

    by drc500free (472728)
    I found it interesting that the rate of fire is digitally controlled... I'm just seeing a these getting modified on the street to shoot automatic.
  • But does it have the five red LED lights on the side ala the Dolph Lundgren I Come in Peace (representing "normal shot" all the way to "super-ultra gasoline explosions! shot")?
  • The more complicated something is the more stuff there is to fail... "hey I'd shoot you but my $#$^ gun just ran out of batteries, can I borrow some double A's" It might also give a new meaning to "blue screen of death"
  • Useless... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by darkwiz (114416) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @02:09AM (#5517875)
    Rather than argue about whether or not we have the right to (or should have the right to) own and use firearms in a mostly unmonitored sense, let us examine how this technology will prevent anyone from actually using this firearm maliciously or accidentally.

    1. Requires at least a thumbprint, possibly a smart card as well.

    The smart card being proximal means that someone could easily use it near you if the thumbprint recognizer false positives. This may seem like a stretch, but odds are the thumbprint devices will have to settle for partial matches - a gun that doesn't fire when you need it to is useless. So if you keep your smart card locked up anywhere near it, genetically similar people (like your children) will probably still be able to use it.

    2. It has a camera on it. It takes pictures of everything you shoot.

    Circumvention device: Chewing gum.

    3. We'll install a GPS device on it to record every position you fire it from.

    That'll go over really well with those who think that gun registry databases are intended to empower the gub'ment to take away their guns when "the time comes."

    What happens when you "lose" the murder weapon?

    4. We'll use specially manufactured barrels and bullets that people won't be able to reload themselves.

    Bull. Where there's a will, there's a way. The only honest motivation for this is to prevent people from using unregulated ammunition. Anyone who wants to kill someone will simply use whatever tool best facillitates it.

    If you don't really care about long range accuracy, you can make a workable gun out of pipe, lead shot and something that goes boom (available in your local grocery store).

    What this all really amounts to is a desire to uninvent something that has nefarious uses. If you really want to protect children, throw irresponsible parents in jail. If you are going to have a gun in the house and not properly teach your children to respect it - lock it up. Children can be taught to respect some basic rules regarding firearms (they somehow manage to not stab each other "accidentally" and to not walk out into moving traffic "accidentally"). If you just TALK TO YOUR F***ING KIDS rather than hide the truth from them, they can and will actually listen.

    However, I understand that some parents are unfortunately incapable of exercising any real parenting skill. It would be nice if we could do something about it, but natural selection seems to be a moot point on humans anymore.
    • Re:Useless... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by renoX (11677)
      1. You're guessing that children have similar fingerprints as their parents.
      I *don't know* but it is not sure at all.

      2. and 3. If you have obscured the camera or lost the weapon, you may have a hard time convincing the judge that you used the gun for self-defense purpose..

      > If you really want to protect children, throw irresponsible parents in jail.

      This doesn't help the victim of the children with irresponsible parents as he is already dead!

      For the victim's POV it is much better to prevent than to p
  • Not a solution (Score:2, Informative)

    by rzbx (236929)
    "...In effect, the curtains will always be open. When your neighbours can see in, you tend to be a lot more careful about the way you conduct yourself."

    I found this line to be quite scary. Next thing you know it'll be against the law to keep your curtains closed. The device is quite interesting and all, but I have object to it. Sure, you'll stop some of the low level crime, but a black market for modifying these things will exist and it will be run by high level criminals. Have they yet to understand t
  • by Aexia (517457) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @02:19AM (#5517924)
    This would be ideal for cops. Now, the next time the police shoot, we'll have photographic evidence that could prove whether it was justified or not.
    • I like that idea too, although I think that still images could be seriously misleading. It takes about 3/4 of a second for a person to see something and then act. A lot can change in that much time. Any photo taken at the moment when the gun fires would not show exactly what the cop saw before he decided to pull the trigger.

      Suppose for example that the "perp" throws his hands up just as the cop fires. The gun would give us a nice picture of the cop shooting a guy with his hands in the air. Good luck to any
  • by DredPirateRoberts (585155) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @02:25AM (#5517943)
    Picture this:

    It's, oh, say... 50 years from now. You're a soldier, say a blue-helmet, supposed to be keeping the peace in some crappy country that's chock-full of gang lords and private armies. You're on patrol with your partner.

    Suddenly, a crack and your buddy is down, choking on his own blood. You take cover behind whatever is available, try to figure out where the fire is coming from.

    Another shot, and your Intelligent Rifle is hit, damaged beyond repair. Shit.

    Luckily, the rifle dropped by your buddy is close. You grab it, jam your thumb into the stock's biometric window. No response. Damn! Covered with dust again, frickin' dirt... Still cowering, hoping you're covered, you wipe the window and try again.

    "BZZZZZ... User's Smart Card does not match profile. Please ensure that you are using the proper weapon."

    You jab the control button to force the gun to authorize a new user, but it's too late. You just got killed by a rifle made in your great-grandfather's day.

    I think some militaries might have reservations about a few of the "features" on these guns. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

  • How am I supposed to pretend I'm Dirty Harry weilding one of those things? No thanks..

  • A lot of NRA types would reject technology like this out of hand. I would not, but I do have a few problems with it.

    Keeping guns out of criminal hands - long term.

    This gun will not do it, and I doubt if any feasible security system could. No matter how well designed, unless it actually wrecks the gun when tampered with, any security system could potentially be by-passed. I doubt if it would take criminals long to figure out how to do it.

    Keeping guns out of criminal hands - short term.

    If the only aim
  • by cybercomm (557435) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @02:29AM (#5517965) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't there an article on slashdot approximatley 3 months ago about a Japanese scientist who could fool 95% of ALL fingerprint sensors (even those that require heat/heartbeat)? According to him all one would have to do is lift a fingerprint, make a PCB mould out of it, pour Jell-o(?) and glue it to his finger, and voila, the owner could get framed for anything. I see no way one could make fool-proof guns these days, as retinal scan or DNA sampling would take too long to authenticate, and in case of emergency, chances are the user would be loong dead/injured/unconcous/kidnapped/tied up... to get any use out of it. I say it is a noble idea, but other than for the army (set a 12 hr timeout so that the gun will work for while soldier is doing his 10 hour patrol or whatnot...) i can see no useful uses.
    • but other than for the army (set a 12 hr timeout so that the gun will work for while soldier is doing his 10 hour patrol or whatnot...)

      What? That doesn't even make sense, man. You've obviously never been in the military. War doesn't stop when you come back from patrol; it goes on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week... and often you don't have to go out to find it-- it comes to YOU, sometimes even while you're SLEEPING. Are you saying no one in camp should have a working weapon? Get real. This would be a GREAT "

  • There is no chance in hell I would own of these. There's just too many things that can go wrong. One example, how does the biometric portion work? Is it instant or do you grab the gun and wait 10 seconds while it validates you? By which time you have been killed by the intruder.
  • The machine sounds nightmarishly complex to me (although, in the design's defense, any semiautomatic weapon is a touchy, sickeningly complex machine - an internal combustion engine that uses ammunition as fuel [well, almost - that description is only completely true for full automatics]). If they find a market for this where it it proves to be superior to conventional designs, it'll still take years to hammer out the bugs. No surprise - the history of firearms is littered with the bodies of soldiers and p
  • by reverseengineer (580922) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @03:03AM (#5518082)
    The suitcase that serves as Reason's power supply and ammo dump is open on the deck next to him, its color monitor screen reading: Sorry, a fatal system error occured. Please reboot and try again.

    -Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
  • would this help this guy? [thesmokinggun.com]
  • I'm on the battlefield, killing the enemy then my battery runs out. Great I feel so much safer. Least with chemical based (i.e. normal guns) least you know there are to work as long as you have ammo

    Rus
  • by x-empt (127761) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @06:03AM (#5518533) Homepage
    Just blast a small EMP grenade nearby and disable everyone using these guns...

    Imagine bank robbers going in and firing an EMP blast to disable the guard's guns.... and then going in with traditional weaponry and shooting up the unknowing guards.
  • by Dirtside (91468) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @02:15PM (#5520012) Journal
    Wouldn't an intelligent gun know better than to go around shooting people? :)
  • by argStyopa (232550) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @04:31PM (#5520605) Journal
    it gives a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".

"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell

Working...