$10,000 Gun Needs Matching Wristwatch to Fire

[djackson_dba]

If arming the weapon relies on a radio waves, I will bet good money that it will be possible to disrupt the connection at range. Results? It will not matter if it uses biometrics, the force or voodoo. It will be possible to disrupt the signal and disarm the weapon from remote. Some buddies and I built an omnifrequency transmitter that would basically shutdown all the cell phones in a room. It is not hard to do.

 

[fflam]

yea around 10ish years ago i herd about this. there was a company trying to make guns for law enforcement and security company's. there gun worked very similar. the user has a band (watch and i think they were trying to get an "implant" but cant remember) if the gun was so close and pointed away from the band it would fire, but if the gun was taken away and or aimed at the owner it would not fire.

no the GP would have no use for this weapon, well most of the GP. but for law enforcement this would put a lot of people at ease. being a ex-security guard, i would of used one of these in a heart beat.

 

[falchard]

For this gun I can buy 20 AK47 and outfit a small mercenary outfit.

 

[falchard]

I'm not worried about someone wrestling an AK47 out of my hands.

 

[rippleyhakd]

for 10k, you can invest in 2x really good combat pistols, AND 2-3 courses of extreme pistol handling. Weapon retention, combat shooting, self defense.. This is a novel idea, but what happens when you are at home, burglar in the house, you grab your gun.. not your watch, lol..

 

[teraflop122]

One can only say this so many times: this technology is not meant for the general public, it is meant for police officers, guards, and etc. As people have already mentioned, many people in these professions are shot with their own guns.

If this particular implementation is like others I've heard about, the mechanism does not rely on proximity alone. Multiple transmitters and receivers within the watch and gun are arranged in such a way that if the gun is pointing towards the user, even at close range, it will not fire. Think about your ears: sound reaches one ear before the other, telling you the direction of the sound. Similarly, radio waves from the watch arrive at one receiver along the length of the gun before the other, telling it whether it is oriented towards the watch (and therefore the user) or away from the watch. Similarly, radio waves from the gun would reach one receiver in the watch before the other, telling the watch whether the gun is on the side of the watch nearer the user (and therefore most likely out of the user's control), or on the side of the watch nearer the user's hand.

The technology will probably do what it was designed to do- reduce the likelihood of an officer being shot by his own weapon- but I'm not saying it is the most cost effictive way of achieving this goal. I think a few of you have made convincing arguments that it is not.

 

[elkad]

Useless. What if I need to use my other hand? What if I'm in the shower and my wife has to pick up the gun? What if I'm busy trying to retain my gun in a takeaway situation and my watch gets torn off my arm?

Same problem as the magnetic rings, or assorted attempts at bio-locks. Until it works for anyone in my family with either hand, instantly, it's useless.

 

[Guest]

the thing looks so typical that any rogue on the street will recognize it, knock you over the head and steal both, weapon and watch(if there is any rogue interested in a .22)

why don`t they build a system with an RFID-chip implanted in someones palm, and a reader in the gun? a gun that does not show its abilities so obvious, and that is not a toy?

 

[JD13]

Yeah, if you like Laser Tag...

[citation][nom]homrqt[/nom]at least it looks kind of cool[/citation]

 

[dmwright]

I can see it now, the attacker takes the gun and tries to fire the weapon at the victim by putting it near the watch. While the victim hides his/her hand behind their back. "Where's my hand, you can't get near it..." 😛..

 

[Guest]

*****************************************************
FYI: This is NOT new. This has been around and in development for several years. 😉 They've been trying to market this type of thing to Law Enforcement for quite a while, in hopes it could prevent people from taking a gun off a cop and shooting them with it (since a lot of cops shot to death are shot after a struggle for their own gun).
********************************************************

You are correct. Eventually you will see biometrics built into the handgrip of a pistol. The technology is not there yet for biometrics, but it eventually will happen. As a law enforcement officer, it is all too real of a problem with a cop losing his gun after a struggle. Even though we go through hours and hours of training on gun retention, it happens.
I can't see this wireless technology catching on.

 

[brendano257]

In other news...."City cop shot in dark building because of green LED on his gun."

 

[kikireeki]

what if someone hacked it?

 

[loomis86]

Ten grand is too much. At this point, it doesn't really much matter if the technology is useful or not. It's price prohibitive.

But, let's say it was free. I still don't want it.

A handgun for self defense is already marginally useful to the average person. I say this because you have to have it in your hand ready to shoot at the instant you need it. Usually you only get about one or two seconds of advanced noticed that your life is in danger. Many times you never see it coming. the other thing is...from the time you purchase your self defense handgun to the time you actually need it could be 20 years. It's already a nuisance making sure you have fresh ammo in your gun and making sure it's cleaned and oiled and functioning flawlessly. NOW YOU WANT TO ADD A STUPID WATCH AND BATTERIES AND RF TRANSMITTER?

Gimme a break.

The only way I'd ever trust that dam thing is if I put fresh batteries in it everytime before leaving the house, and test fired it after every battery change. But even then I'd still dislike it since I DON'T WEAR A WATCH. I can't stand them on my wrist

NO THANKS.

I'll stick to my snubbie revolver with no safeties whatsoever.

 

[doomsdaydave11]

Although this is overpriced, I would gladly drop $10,000 for mine or any of my family's life.

 

[rambo117]

[citation][nom]CptTripps[/nom]Needs biometrics on the handle and that is all. Screw the wireless crap.[/citation]
/thread

 

[Platypus]

The only real use for this kind of weapon is to reduce the number of accidental shootings from young children. That's probably a parent's worst nightmare. You want a weapon for home defense, but you also can't take it with you to work during the day. Hopefully your locked compartment at home is good enough, and that you are not so foolish to leave it unlocked by accident.

Oh and the price tag on preventing your own child's accidental death? Priceless.

 

[imageraiter]

I would rather have a gun that identifies with implanted nano-machines in my body. That way, no one can use my gun.

Metal Gear Solid 4 anyone?

 

[kenyee]

The stupid politicians will force citizens to buy this crap but *exempt* themselves and the police. That's the way it always goes for stupid ideas.
You buy a gun because it's reliable in a life or death situation. An electronic dumb bracelet is like wondering if your car would start before a sinkhole opens up and swallows it in 5min...

 

[Guest]

I would think that a ring would be a better security device, the ring could contain code that when directly interfaced with the gun allows its use. The metal of the ring would come into contact with the grip during use, during contact either a specific voltage or resistance offered by the ring would allow the unlocking of the firing mechanism, release the grip and the firing mechanism locks into a safety position. One ring per gun. Maybe even a glove, or a pair of gloves that would allow the unlocking and use of the gun, gloves would allow more contact with the gun and allow for use by either hand.

The watch has one fatal flaw on both ends, batteries. The gun battery could be rechargeable and be built into the clip, for the gloves it could be as simple as completing a circuit, the gloves would have to have contact points that match the gun, they should not be standard, and could have ID's built into the gloves. When you grip the gun, the power contacts match, supplying voltage from the grip of the gun to the glove where the ID is read by the gun from 2 different contact points and then firing would be allowed. The gloves would require no battery, and different contact points at different points along the gun, so my glove can't work with your gun and vice-versa. Each pair of gloves would have both the point locations and the ID's as security devices. My glove uses (for example) contact points Z, T, H, and W, with matching contacts on the gun. Your gun uses K, L, C, and 9, so even though we have the same model gun and glove we cannot use each others weapons, If by chance the same contacts are used for 2 or more gun/glove combination's, the ID would disqualify the use of an identical glove.

This is for Law enforcement use, of course. What happens when the watch gets damaged during a chase? The glove scenario would allow the same officer backup in case of injury, his other hand. RF can be jammed, that would render the weapon useless. Having actual contact with the device and the key is the way to go. I think it would be simpler to do too.
What do you think?