Smart Tech Reducing Gun Violence Through Innovation Challenge

Making guns, not the criminals who use them the problem… then trying to solve it.


Smart Tech for Firearms is the first in a four-challenge series designed to foster innovation to reduce gun violence. It is a request for proposals from innovators around the globe to submit an idea for technology that, when applied to a firearm, reliably recognizes an authorized user and blocks unauthorized use. At least $1 million will go directly toward innovators.

Source – Smart Tech Foundation

I’m not interested in expensive derpy smart guns that depend on technology that could easily fail or not work as intended.

A useless video with soothing piano music and some people talking about the challenge:

I wonder if that San Francisco police chief would be on board with his officers having smart guns?  AHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH right… but he expects the rest of us to have them to keep us safe.

You have until March 31, 2014 to submit your application to make the world a safer place with reduced gun violence.




Kevin March 12, 2014 at 12:24 am

How about the age old technology of lock and key?


TaoFlederMaus March 12, 2014 at 01:46 am

There’s that antigun buzzword again, “gun violence”.


Mount March 12, 2014 at 02:21 am

A well made video would do a great job of explaining how this technology would help reduce gun violence. After failing to get a response from his recently acquired smart gun, the criminal in the video would proceed to beat or stab the victim to death. That would be one less gun related statistic for us to wring our hands over. Mission accomplished!

I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but the focus should be on reducing crime and violence. Focusing on weapons will get no results. Improve employment, education, and the environment that causes people to think that crime is the only thing that can supply them with what they need, and then you will see a significant reduction in violence.
But tackling those problems is not only too hard, in some cases it would require a group or individual politician to lose some bit of control over society that brings them profit. So they don’t even bother to hide their incompetence to solve the issue, and they point the finger at a plastic box with a spring that is too long. Surely it is that long spring, and not the desperate situations that people are in, that is the cause of all our murder.


TaoFlederMaus March 12, 2014 at 11:33 pm

Yes, it’s not the tool, the the tool holding the tool.


Jim Jones March 12, 2014 at 07:03 am

It’s so fascinating that these endeavors are always initiated by people who know nothing about firearms or its culture. If there was money to be made by creating such a product, a modern day Ronnie Barrett would be toiling away in his or her garage night and day trying to do so. The only way such technology will gain any ground is by getting the government to force its adoption. There is nothing “free market” about that. Wake me up when the army and the beat cops carry those thing. Then, maybe, I’ll be interested. Which reminds me, I’ve got to finally order me that LRAD unit.


Seb March 12, 2014 at 07:42 am

“Smart Technology”

I giggled


jim bob March 12, 2014 at 07:51 am

i am behind this if it can shoot HE rounds and acid bullets. and if it explodes if the wrong person holds it.

“I AM the law. put down your weapons and prepare to be judged.”


st4 March 12, 2014 at 12:14 pm


This. Totally.


Kevin March 12, 2014 at 08:33 am

So why would this stop criminals who use guns for violence from just using the same old fashioned guns they’ve been using?

Yeah maybe this smart gun bullshit technology would stop children of idiots from getting theirs hands on guns not properly stored, but criminals already have their guns…


bob March 12, 2014 at 11:46 am

every firearms training person or company should submit a proposal to them with “use a lock and get proper training” then just FLOOD them to waste their time

when a cop trusts his life to this crap call me


Brian March 12, 2014 at 03:07 pm

Did he say the the accident in Connecticut?


Fake Chris March 12, 2014 at 08:20 pm

This is going to be an unpopular post-

I want a smart gun.

I want a gun that can never be taken and used against me. I want a gun that knows its owner, and is useless to anybody else. I want a gun that is instantly ready for me, but totally inert to all others. I want a gun with a ‘brain’ based on proven-reliable technology that is trusted by police departments and military units.

The smart gun I want does not exist today, and likely won’t exist for many years, decades perhaps.

I DO NOT want a smart gun that will run out of batteries when I need it, or that I have to re-grip it three times to recognize my fingerprint, or that will stop working in the presence of a cell phone. I DO NOT want a smart gun that will short out and die when I use too much Hoppes #9 or dip it in a vibe tank or splash it with salt water. I DO NOT want a smart gun that I have to register with its manufacturer or a government entity. I DO NOT want a smart gun that can be remotely deactivated by anybody for any reason.

When these problems are fixed, when I can get a smart gun with all the advantages, none of the current drawbacks, and a solid track record in the field, I’ll buy it. It will be one smart gun among other dumb ones, but I’ll buy it.

So when someone says they want to develop smart gun tech, I say have at it. Bring your designers together and make something cool. Just don’t demand that I adopt it or give up my ‘dumb’ guns, or my freedom or privacy, ever. Do this and you have my full support. Try to force half-baked tech on me, and I’ll fight you all the way.


hydepark March 12, 2014 at 11:22 pm

You sir are in some serious denial if you think when/if they actually do come up with anything remotely resembling what you describe that they wont do all of the things you just said you’re against with it. Optimism can be dangerous.


Fake Chris March 13, 2014 at 10:13 pm

Optimism may be dangerous, but denying optimism because bad things might happen is worse.

I’m quite sure that at least some of the smart guns they come up with are going to have lots of downsides. And you know what? NOBODY will buy them. Companies will spend millions developing the idea and if it doesn’t work well, they’re going to sell about thirteen smart guns to the few idiots who didn’t read the online reviews.

However, if they do make the tech very reliable and foolproof, I expect cops and military will start adopting them. Once that happens, I may be interested.

But until then, I’m not going to tell anybody NOT to research a technology just because the result might suck.


Jim C March 12, 2014 at 10:46 pm

The best argument against this smart technology – as well as other new schemes – is to require police to use the same devices in their everyday use.

If micro-stamping is so vital, shouldn’t the police be required to use it? It certainly would assist in the investigations after a police shooting. Or would there be concerns over casings being used to frame police?

If smart guns are the wave of the future, shouldn’t our tax money go to support it (like overpriced green buildings) and promote it? No one wants a disarmed cop being shot with his own weapon, right?

Why are the flaws for government agencies somehow features for us?

Go Alinsky on them.


hydepark March 12, 2014 at 11:18 pm

Regardless of what anyone comes up with, wouldn’t these technologies still be, eventually, hackable? I mean, I don’t want some yahoo in Starbucks hacking my carry gun in the middle of my breakfast and causing it to go off, possible repeatedly. Wouldn’t this endanger everyone even moreso? Also, as we all know, people who do get ahold of firearms legally don’t always use them for legal reasons. And, what if places had some sort of area device that deactivates these guns and a threat presents itself?

And yeah, I doubt any LEO agency would agree to any of this. It’s just for us subjects.


st4 March 13, 2014 at 01:53 pm

The only smart gun I want is the one from Aliens.


Hunter57dor March 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm

From an IT perspective, with almost ten years in the field, my professional opinion is thusly.

Fuck smart guns. We cannot make them anywhere close to reliable, cost effective, or user friendly in this day and age, or maybe ever. machiens break. more complex machines break more often. how would you like your carry gun that normally has a failure 1 in 1000 rounds, to have a failure of 1 in 50?

the above 1 in 50 number is a BEST CASE scenario when discussing anything computer related. your mileage will vary, and it will suck. you will have a handgun that gets bricked for two weeks before coming back from factory repair. you will have it bork itself every 3rd round, causing much swearing. it WILL be a terrible idea, that WILL get innocent people killed.


dgdimick March 16, 2014 at 05:36 pm

Fake Chris just reminded me about Cell Phone Jammers – They are about $35 out of China and work off of a 9 volt battery. Most cell phones within about 50 feet wont work with them on. So, now,we are going to have “smart” guns, where you need some type of RFDI watch or whatever to make them work for maybe $50 buck the “bad” guys are able to turn your gun off.

I did spend the time to look at their website. The funding rates or so low that you’re not going to see anyone other then your run-of-the-mill funding wholes apply.




Older post:

Newer post: