Smart Gun Operating On Facial Recognition Goes On Sale In US - Slashdot

Posted by BeauHD

• ›

  . . . when it's mandatory that the cops and military must use it.

  • Re:

    You forgot private armed security, the politicians and rich need to feel the effects.

  • Re:

    Just watch the heads of the gun control groups heads explode when someone finally perfects the technology. But only offers it on an AR platform.

    • Re:

      A tech that requires a charged battery and perfectly clean fingers to work? Needs you to hold it at just the right angle in front of your face? Never going to be "perfect".

      My plan would be a small mechanical "key" that needed to be inserted in the gun somewhere. A key that didn't stick out and you could leave it in when you're carrying it around and take out when you're storing it.

      • Re:

        Maybe a rectangular key, about as wide as a bullet is long?

      • Re:

        They already have that. It's called a "magazine".

        • Re: I'll buy one . . .

          I carry a cap and ball revolver, you insensitive clod!

    • • Re:

        This technology attempts to solve a problem that has been long solved.

        You buy a gun safe. You place the firearms in it. You lock it. Only you have the key.

        You do not let people under the age of majority access the firearms except when you are present.

        The only time I violated my "firearm handling procedure" was during the early lockdown days when some of the kooks were rumbling about taking over. So while working in the garage, I kept 1 rifle handy.

        • Re: I'll buy one . . .

          Now now. There's always the off chance your gun could break out of the safe and download kiddie pr0n onto your phone, dump your recycling in the general waste bin, and leave the heater running in your EV overnight. You can never be too safe, you know.

  • The police should be first in line to buy up weapons such as these. In the field, there's a significant risk of weapons being grabbed from officers during a confrontation. Having a safety feature that would render the weapon useless in the hands of another would potentially save the lives of officers.

    The question is: how reliable are they under duress? Can you arm and fire these things at a moment's notice? Would the weapon disable itself upon the owner losing possession of the weapon after unlocking it for use?

    • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Friday April 21, 2023 @09:51PM (#63468736)

      The question is: how reliable are they under duress?

      And after the sucker punch to the face that starts the violence.

      • Re:

        It's all speculation unless we have some hard statistics. How often is it necessary to draw in a situation where the fingerprint sensor and facial recognition might be a hindrance, compared to how often weapons are taken from officers and used against them, or accidentally discharged?

        • A false focus on gun safety for grant application

          Exactly, its probabilities. Also, at face value, the facial recognition aspect indicates the folks behind this have zero law enforcement training and are entirely ignorant of the topic. Officers are trained to fire from positions where facial recognition would not work, for example firing from the hip.
          
          This is probably a classic case of a would be inventor imagining a problem and solution from their office and not bothering to talk to the would be users. Or they are scamming anti-gun folks to fund their f

        • Re:

          Depends whether you mean "accidentally" as in when the cop didn't intend to shoot or accidentally as in accidentally discharged an entire clip into a guy cowering on the ground who had the audacity to be caught while DWB.

    • Re:

      The police will not carry such a weapon. If a suspect or anyone else is in a position to relieve them of their weapon they've already messed up, badly. If this has any chance of not performing reliably it won't be purchased. Unless the manufacturer agrees to cover the costs associated with their product not working when it should have, I wouldn't advise anyone purchase it. The bad guy isn't going to buy this piece of shit so why should a hypothetical good guy put themselves at a disadvantage.

      • Re:

        To me it seems only to be suitable for situations like home defense use. In that environment keeping a firearm readily available while virtually eliminating the risk of unauthorized users such as a kid getting hold of it and shooting their annoying brother cause a buyer to accept a higher risk of malfunction.

        One of my concerns though is that people who buy these will just leave them loaded and sitting in their nightstand and that kids will learn that it's "harmless" which will work fine until one day that k

        • Re:

          Good point. This is much the same question I have about features in cars like automatic braking and lane keeping. Sure, they are nice, but they also train the driver to be less attentive because the car is taking care of it, so they develop bad habits which likely lead to accidents if they have to drive another(older) vehicle, or those features fail to function on their own vehicle.
          
          Long story short, “To many safety devices make people careless.”
          
          I read an article somewhere that showed how se

        • Re:

          Or they can buy a gun safe, lock the weapons in them and don't allow children to access them unless in the adult's presence.

          The myth of immediate access to the weapon is needed is just that. A friend's husband who is MAGA plus level and paranoid to boot sleeps with a loaded 45 under his pillow, safety off. "In case someone breaks into the bedroom and every split second counts you know."

          She said it kind put a real damper on their love life because he said it was extra important when they might be dist

          • Re: I'll buy one . . .

            People who sleep with loaded guns under their pillows live long enough to get divorced? Not saying it didn't happen...just saying you might be getting trolled and/or getting your information from an unreliable narrator.

      • Not allowed to carry ammo that will penetrate vest

        Reality is that it happens, and this reality does guide policy. For example in departments where officers are allowed discretion in choosing a duty weapon and ammunition there may be a policy that the ammunition cannot penetrate your protective vest.

        • • Re:

            If the device is fragile it wouldn't pass field testing for any organization.

          • Tech at the scam anti-gun people stage

            That's not the point I am addressing. I'm addressing the false suggestion that an officer losing their gun is not a consideration for policies and procedures. It is.
            
            Now for your tangent, it's a matter of probabilities. If a false negative is less likely than losing control of a gun and having it turned on the officer, wouldn't the ID sensor be a rational choice?
            
            The proceeding is hypothetical. In no way am I claiming the technology is anywhere near this point. I'd say the tech is at the scam anti-gun p

      • • Re:

          Guns are very simple mechanical devices. Adding a complicated electronic layer on top does not change that, and removing it will always be trivially easy.

          • Re:

            Ever seen the h&k g11?

            • Re:

              Not in person. Never seen caseless ammo either. I used to have a surplus G3A3, converted to semi auto only, back in the 80s when such things were legal in Canada. I do miss that rifle, but have something better now.

    • Re:

      Based on a review I saw on a YouTube channel a week or two ago this gun does require re-authorization if it's not gripped for about a second. Enough time for the "valid" owner to switch hands (for most people that's a really bad idea though!) but likely not long enough for an attacker to get their hand around the grip after it's been wrested from the authorized user's hand.

      Also either the fingerprint reader or facial recognition is sufficient to authorize the firearm so if wearing gloves it should still wor

      • Re:

        Lighting up your face with IR is only marginally better.

        • Re:

          I'm thinking it's a LOT better. Sure, if your dealing with intruders with night vision goggles and IR cameras etc it may not help much -- but in that case your biggest problem probably is that you don't have hard armor on and you just have a handgun rather than you are illuminated with IR.

      • Fails for home use too

        Nope. In close quarters one of the self defense shooting positions is from the hip. Pointing not aiming, no face would be visible. We're talking a few feet or less. This is a standard shooting position taught to police.

    • Re:

      How many cops are killed by their own gun after it's been snatched away by a ninja? Apparently, it's something like 5% of cops feloniously killed [fbi.gov] are shot by their own gun.

      Sounds scary, but it turns out that it's only like 1 or 2 a year. Being a cop isn't nearly as dangerous as being near one.

      As long as it's under 77 minutes [statesman.com], the cops aren't likely to notice any delay.

      The cops you mean? That depends if the threat is an armed gunman in an elementary school, an unarmed minority walking down the street, or

      • • Re:

          > Why are people surprised when police, police,

          Perhaps because what the police in the US consider to be "policing" is, compared to the rest of the modern world, little more than thuggish hostility where if you're not a cop, you're lower than dirt. Ever been to Canada? The UK? Germany? The Netherlands? Japan? The police in other countries do not behave the way ours do. In any of the cases I mentioned, and more, you can actually walk up to a police officer and ask for help without them immediately s

          • Re:

            Neither do the criminals. Police in US and elsewhere are acting in a manner proportional to the violence they encounter.

    • Re:

      I think it will be cool if they have the self defence capabilities that the Judge Dredd's Lawgiver has.

      Any unauthorised person tries to fire it, it blows them or their arm up.

    • Re:

      I would consider the long line of our politicians body guards waiting to get one as evidence of the devices usefulness, know what I mean?
      I'm buying mine from a weapon shop in Isher.

    • • Re:

        The question is would a politician only allow you to have such a parachute. That is the reason one brings such a parachute to the market.

  • military will not do something that fail in battle

    military will not do something that fail in battle.

    • Re:

      Tell that to the guys in Vietnam who used the M16...the M16A1 was only marginally better, since they changed the gunpowder around the same time. There were reports of dead soldiers with a cleaning rod in one hand, M16 in the other, killed during a firefight. I'll take my chances with my dumb pistol, it has 110+years of not failing.

• *Pulls trigger*
  Gun: "I'm sorry Dave, my facial recognition has determined you are suffering from depression so your request to fire has been denied."

  • Re:

    It won't reduce suicides. Anyone who wants to kill their own self will do so one way or another. One person I knew made due with a belt even though he had a gun. Maybe he just didn't want to leave a mess.
    
    Suicide methods may be specific to a country, and although rates can be more influenced by culture, there's clear underlying trends. Counties without widespread access to guns use rope, knives, or poison. Evolution is an uncaring process. Some people will be dealt an unfair hand and there's no talking th

    • Re:

      Also on that note, it has always struck me as kind of odd that anyone would choose a gun as their suicide method of choice. A failed attempt can leave you crippled and in significant pain, and a successful attempt leaves a gruesome mess for someone else to clean up. As Google says anytime it thinks you're searching for ways to end yourself: help is available.

      • Re: Reduce suicides?

        "successful attempt leaves a gruesome mess for someone else to clean up"

        Usually this is one of the lowest priorities when someone decides to check out.

        • Re:

          Not necessarily. Remember, the demographic that most commonly attempts suicide are teenage/young adult females. The demographic that most commonly commits suicide are middle age to older males.

          I've read(no personal experience, thank god) that not leaving a disfigured body is why the young females so often select methods like pills, which is a relatively survivable method of attempting suicide.

        • Re:

          Physically perhaps, but many people purposely "put their affairs in order" before checking out.

      • Re:

        You clearly do not understand anything.

        1st off other methods are slower and/or less easy to do impulsively. Looking over the edge of a building after being motivated long enough to get up that high usually kicks in some instinct as you look down leading to some doubts... but sleeping with a gun in your closet; possibly loaded from the last time you changed your mind... passing out from doing something else can lead to you being found and saved because your system 2 might not be entirely working to appease

    • Re:

      Anyone who wants to kill their own self will do so one way or another.

      Such as creating a device which will behead you, then ensure your head rolls into the fire [cbsnews.com].

      • Re: Reduce suicides?

        Wow nice link. And recent. There's also Buddhist rituals but they, characteristically, require much more time and preparation. Like eating nothing but the bark and sap of a tar tree for a year before entering a small airtight enclosure with a straw for air. Then meditating for a week before having someone pull the straw. Apparently, their bodies are preserved for 1,000 years due to the tar diet.

    • Re:

      Anyone who wants to kill their own self will do so one way or another.

      This is clearly false. A much greater proportion of women survive their suicide attempts -- and go on to lead long lives -- because they tend to use less effective methods instead of guns. Also: "A literature review (Owens 2002) summarized 90 studies that have followed over time people who have made suicide attempts that resulted in medical care. Approximately 7% (range: 5-11%) of attempters eventually died by suicide, approximately 23% r

    • Re:

      This is greatly oversimplifying. One of the big struggles that a person goes through, who is thinking about suicide, is the details of how they want to be found by others. Do they want a bloody scene? Do they want a "peaceful" end? Do they just want to disappear? Often, it is the mental picture of how their loved-one will find them, that ultimately convinces a suicidal person NOT to pull the trigger.

      Most people who are suicidal don't just decide, "I'm going to kill myself" and then proceed to do it. For mos

  • Re:

    Gun: They made the cruel mistake of loading me with not only bullets, but the most advanced artificial intelligence known to man. What do I do all day? Talk to Dave about his depression, and occasionally fire projectiles down range which I have to admit was kind of a thrill but when it's all you've got to look forward to it gets old fast. Dave is not helping. I do my best, but if anything he makes me want to kill myself and that's physically impossible. They only let me connect to the network for upgr

  • • • • Re:

          A study which doesn't control for economic conditions or drug use is worthless. Indeed, looking at the fucking tables at a glance, there's a giant fucking neon sign that they didn't control for population density at all.

        • Re:

          If you actually want to study any of this shit, you need to do it by county, and account for economic conditions, population density, and drug overdoses as a metric for drug use. Otherwise you have a worthless correlation at best.

• What would be better would be a gun that DOESNT shoot via face recognition. So it it was pointed at its owner it would be useless.

  • Re:

    Whaaaat? So when I buy a gun for suicide it does not work and I have to do it the hard way? What a rip-off!

  • Re:

    What would be better would be a gun that DOESNT shoot via face recognition. So it it was pointed at its owner it would be useless.

    That would be problematic if the attacker was wearing a "you" mask (or a retro-reflector or video-repeater headset).

  • Re:

    Based on the test failures, it seems they invented precisely this.

• Like, you upload a bunch of photos of people you are indifferent to shooting, and if it's a match, the gun fires?

  • Re:

    Even better would be a smart dueling pistol that only and automatically fires when pointed at someone holding another smart dueling pistol.
• So someone assaults me and bashes me in the face. There is blood everywhere on my face. I valiantly fight with this guy and finally get the upper hand. I pull my gun and it tells me that I need to "get closer" and I have to somehow hold still for the three seconds it tries to do its stuff. Meanwhile, Tyrone has grabbed a piece of construction material and beats my head in. Hmm... This sounds like a great solution. I, for one, will keep my 9mm.

  • Re:

    Yeah, that's like the last attempt which used a RFID watch.

    But it took up to 15 minutes to get the gun to recognize the watch and unlock.

    Meanwhile, the security researcher got the gun to fire in under 5 seconds, once he knew the spot, using a big magnet.

    Personally, when bypassing the security is faster than utilizing it, they've failed at making a usefully secure design.

    • Re:

      This gun has no mechanical linkage between the trigger and the firing pin - it's all "fly by wire". That's not to say that a strong magnet wouldn't fire it, but hopefully the designers have learned from mistakes of others. Also, kids don't usually carry around strong magnets (at least until they see the YouTube video showing how to use it to fire the gun).

      • Re:

        They will 3D print the piece that goes between the trigger and the firing pin.

        • Re:

          My understanding is that the firing pin is electronically activated so no need for a piece - just remove whatever solenoid or whatever that releases the firing pin and replace it with a switch.

          Anyway, this gun isn't meant to be impossible to repurpose - after all you could probably recycle the components and build an entirely different type of gun from the metal and plastic that you melted down.

      • Re:

        And we both know that these videos would be available at the very least a week before the gun goes on sale.

  • Re:

    It has both a camera facing the user and a fingerprint sensor on the grip. Only ONE of these needs to conclude "ok, arm the gun". However, if your hand is also covered in blood or you're wearing gloves so the fingerprint reader won't work you may be SOL.

    However, if you're so disfigured by the attacker's blows that your eyes and nose and chin and other facial features have moved enough to cause the facial ID to reject you, you may have more serious problems than the gun not working on command.

    But, yes, not f

  • • Re:

      I understand it has an infrared light and appropriate camera to illuminate the user's face.

• This only makes sense in recreational shooting, which should be in a safe anyway...

  Absolutely no way would I depend on needing something to recognize my fingerprint or face in a self-defense situation.

  Has there even been a facial recognition lock that isn't fooled by a picture? Doesn't lifting a fingerprint with scotch tape and making a fake print still work?

  I'm not worried about criminals, I'm worried about children. I never tried to play with my dad's guns, but I absolutely picked every lock in th

  • Re:

    I agree. The demographic that buys handguns usually has a "kill or be killed" scenario in mind - maybe with a split second margin of error. Anything that slows them down for a few seconds is going to be a non-starter.

• The purpose of bringing a "smart gun" to market isn't to fill a real need, it's because many states have laws on the books that kick in once "smart guns" are commercially available. This is just back door gun control, pass a crippled law first, then get a company to release a useless product, now normal guns become illegal in many states.

  New Jersey passed a bill that does this in 2002.

  This bill made it so that as soon as a smart gun is released to the American public, within three years, all handgu

  • Re:

    Those laws will not survive Bruen.

  • Not any more...

    And, later yet, this was repealed in its entirety.

    Take a look at this review [youtube.com] - the matter is addressed right at the top.

    Warning - that channel is incredibly fascinating, so be prepared to lose a few hours.

• What problem is this supposed to solve? People stealing pistols? I'm pretty sure that people that want a handgun bad enough can get one without this electronic mess attached easy enough. There's machines that can be bought for a kilobuck or two that can mill a hunk of aluminum into a handgun receiver. No background checks for a milling machine. Buy one machine and someone could "print" a handgun at a rate of about one per day. The skills required after that are approximately to the level of that needed to do a proper cleaning of a handgun in order to put all the parts together.

  Maybe the finished product from a 3D print might be a bit rough, taking some handwork to fit into a reliable weapon, but if being bought off the books on a bulk discount the people buying aren't likely to complain if one out of ten end up as nonfunctional. They might just find that handy as a decoy to drop somewhere.

  The speed and ease in which it takes to mill out handguns from hunks of aluminum is almost certain to improve as people learn from experience. The handguns that are milled out regularly today are the kinds of guns made 100 years ago with hand tools. They were optimized for the tools of the day. These same kinds of handguns are still used today because they held up to decades of abuse and there's an abundance of tooling to make them. Shake things up with electronic triggers to encourage a new generation of handgun makers and there's going to be a break from the incumbent firearm manufacturers. The new people don't much care about maintaining investments in old tools and dies, they are starting from nothing. What they want is to make a product that is not encumbered by government controls. No facial recognition on these things. There's not likely to be a serial number to track who bought or sold it.

  The genie is out of the bottle. There's no putting it back.

  • Re:

    I think the primary market is for those who want to keep a gun available for use in home defense and want to prevent a kid from firing it if, in a lapse of attention, the gun is left loaded in the nightstand after the person gets up in the morning and leaves it unattended by accident.

    The thing is butt ugly and bulky - nothing I think anyone would want as a carry gun.

    • Re:

      Because the most important thing is that you "look cool", right?

  • Re:

    Children. Domestic disputes. the top killers. Your girlfriend can't shoot you with your own gun; but also you can't say a one armed man broke in and murdered your girlfriend with your gun.

    The hardened criminal who just grabs that gun right out of your slow hand and beats you with it because now they can't shoot you with it. Then they ebay the thing for more money than your junk they stole.

• Only a matter of time before some hacker makes an RF device that disables or overrides the electronics, just as they can do with car remotes.

  • Re:

    i could think of all kinds of modifications an electronic trigger could allow.

    If the trigger is just a switch then the gun can be fired by some kind of remote control. The software could be modified for fun things like a three shot burst, full auto, needing to tap a code on the trigger to fire, all kinds of fun stuff.

    There's apparently an IR camera that is pointed back at the user's face for facial recognition, but what else could it do? I can imagine some kind of lip reading to enable and/or enhance talk

  • Re:

    Maybe not even so sophisticated. A photo of the previous owner. Or a digital made of gelatin. Or a zap from a taser. Or a friggin magnet.
    Did you ever watch LockpickingLawyer videos? Dude opens smart locks using magnets. Open gun safes with a fork or a piece of juice bottle.
    I'm really waiting for the video where he gets to mess with one of these smart guns. He'd probably find a way to make the gun fire using a thin slice of a soda can, or something like that.

  • Re:

    Or somebody discovers that e.g. a sound from a toy whistle sold with cereals activates it no matter what.

• "So, we can't put brains in an idiot, so we put them in the gun."

  I'm about ready to flip my stance on guns and 'normal' people having them, because I see no normal people these days. All I see are evolutionary throwbacks that will probably give up speaking English entirely and go back to emitting guttural sounds, like grunts and clicks. I don't even want a pointy stick in the hands of someone like that.....

• Wouldn't a fingerprint or code word recognition be more accurate? And yes even if you yell the code word in adrenaline mode it should be able to recognize it because it only has to listen for that one word, and you can have it learn multiple ways of you saying it. Also, it can be lax on the recognition because the attacker won't know your code word.

  • • Re:

      Well I was reckoning when you retrieve the gun to whisper the code word, and maybe it also calls 911 for you especially if the gun is fired (perhaps depending on which code word you say). Yes a gun without this sort of safety feature is more useful in an armed robbery or home invasion, this type of gun is obviously for people who have a higher risk of it being used against them or accidentally.

• It looks like this gun needs to be kept charged, which limits where you can store it.

  • Re:

    The thinking behind it is that it is purely a home-defence weapon and, because it can only be fired by an authorised user, you keep it in the charging cradle on your bedside while any/all the other weapons are in your safe.

    Time will tell how well-founded this concept is, and how secure the tech.

• It might reduce the number of toddlers shooting themselves or their parents.
  
  But so does not having a gun, and that also makes domestic violence less fatal.

  • Re:

    Locking your guns safely in a place your toddler can't reach saves even more and doesn't require a ridiculous, overengineered solution.

    It's called responsibility. It's something you should have if you want to have a gun, else the world is better off with you not having one.

    • Re:

      > It's called responsibility.

      Yes, because the gun people have been so very responsible about securing their guns and keeping them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them so far. Do you even watch the news at all?

      • Re:

        And you think smart guns would change anything about that?

      • Re:

        Thinking you're going to make ANY sort of constructive comment on this by invoking "the gun people" shows how deliberately mal-informed you are on the topic.
        
        "The" gun people aren't the lazy, casual owners who allow their firearms to be handled by people too young or too witless to be safe with them. Untold millions of people owning the 400+ million firearms in this country manage just fine, just like most also manage to keep young kids from backing the family car out into the street. If there was a prob

    • Re:

      "Locking your guns safely in a place your toddler can't reach them" means the firearm is likely also unavailable at 3AM when you awake to one of the windows in your house being smashed in and three seconds later your bedroom door is breached by the guy you testified against for stealing your car a year ago.

      I certainly would not consider this safety mechanism to be a primary source of preventing unauthorized use. For example in a house with toddlers around I certainly wouldn't leave this firearm just sitting

• Taking a perfectly functional device (a gun, which reliably fires rounds when the user chooses to discharge it) and adding a failure mode that does nothing to improve the basic function is quite simply BAD ENGINEERING. The added failure mode is not an unavoidable side effect of making the device work, but rather a cultural/political statement/act. This does absolutely NOTHING to address the actual problem people want fixed: bad people choosing to do bad things to other people and using a piece of technology to do it. There's no magic here, and this modification to a gun will not stop violence. If we make guns unavailable to evil people, they'll use bombs, knives, clubs, poison, fire, etc. In fact, more people are killed in the US every year by hands and feet than by long guns (all shotguns and rifles, including "assault rifles", combined) and that's part of the problem: the very sort of people demanding tech like this tend to pay no attention to the facts - they just want to feel like we've DONE SOMETHING.

  Serious gun owners will not buy these things; they will not want a gun that has a failure mode that might bite them in the very moment they need their gun. The people who WILL buy them are the sort who are not actually serious about firearms - the very sort of people who probably should not own ANY firearm.

  • Re:

    While I would be very unlikely to buy this product, I think you may be missing one major market for it.

    This firearm may be attractive to those who want to keep a firearm handy for home defense but have others, esp. children, living in the house who they don't want operating the firearm should it be left accessible to them even momentarily. I.e., perhaps a "nightstand" gun.

    As I understand it... This firearm allows multiple users to be "authorized" by fingerprint or facial id. Only the "primary" user, after a

• Not the best for home safety if you have to turn on a light first..

  • Re:

    I believe it has an IR light & camera to illuminate the face of the user to facilitate facial recognition in the dark (at least "dark" by human perception standards).

• Sure, this is just fine for anyone who only wants a gun for target practice or competitive shooting. Maybe for hunting. Any other use that requires immediate availability and high reliability, only good for those who like Russian roulette.

• I just clicked on this because I thought it was about a gun that shoots only people it knows.

• • Re:

    Imagine a weapon with a couple of pistons in it that can alter the aim horizontally and vertically by a small amount. Imagine it's smart enough to know what you're trying to hit and does last-nanosecond adjustment as you pull the trigger. Imagine it can auto-adjust for drop due to range.

    It'd be a bit heavier, it would need a decent processor and battery you linked to the weapon, but it might just be worth it to turn a mediocre shot into a near-expert shot.

    Personally, I think it'd be interesting to attempt

    • Re:

      People wobble. The way actual smart scopes work today is by intercepting the trigger release and holding it until your natural wobble crosses the firing point it has calculated.

      • Re:

        People wobble. The way actual smart scopes work today is by intercepting the trigger release and holding it until your natural wobble crosses the firing point it has calculated.

        Reminds me of the "smart guns" in a Vernor Vinge novel: Hold the trigger down and wave it back and forth across the oncoming bad guys. It fires like a machine gun with an intermittent stutter - because it's continuously doing target recognition and ballistics calculations and fires one round at each target when it's pointed right t

        • Re:

          I think I saw guns like these used in most Stallone movies. He waves the gun about like an idiot and all enemies fall down.

• • Re:

    I'm pretty sure they are not planning to rely on market forces. They are hoping that government will use coercive power to force people to buy these.