Would you use a sentry gun for home defense?Why or why not? What features would you need it to have? Is 600 RPM ROF on .22LR overkill or underkill?Would you hook it up to Alexa? Would you hook it up to Ring, Roomba, or whatever it is Amazon is doing these days and let the glowies kill you on the toilet? Would you use the laser pointer to play with your cat?Is having it move in and out of the turret critical functionality so that you don't have to get a dildo AND a sentry gun and it's a two-in-one? As a serious businessman, I need to understand all consumer use cases.As a serious businessman, I just looked at this picture I found on google and saw the keypad - what security features would you want other than anal cavity scans?
>>64823993>Would you hook it up to Alexa>Amazon shut off a man’s smart home devices for a week after a delivery driver falsely accused the customer of hurling a racial slur via a doorbell intercom, the tech giant confirmed Thursday. >Brandon Jackson, who is black, said he found himself digitally exiled by the company on May 25 — less than 24 hours after an Amazon delivery driver dropped off a package at his home and reported him for being racist.https://nypost.com/2023/06/15/amazon-shuts-down-customers-smart-home-devices-over-false-racist-claim/
>>64823993Illegal, counts as a trap.
>>64824035>how to kill your business in one simple trick!
>>64824051Not if it's manually controlled and single fire! >>64824035Many such cases. Is wired the answer?>>64824058It will, of course, shut down and stop defending you if you yell a racist slur. That's just common sense! Or if the attacker yells it.
>>64824035
>>64824165Dr. Evil looking ass.
>>64823993Hypothetically you'd want a sentry turret to have a fairly low rate of fire and as small of a cartridge as suited your needs. The go to counter with a sentry turret would be to spoof it into wasting it's ammunition, so you'd want as much as you could get.
>>64823993The first unavoidable thing is legality. There's no point in converting a completely legal good shoot into a felony without any reason. Sentry guns have two legal aspects:•Trap-status. This can be avoided if it's directly teleoperated instead of being automated. So long as a human is directly activating each individual shooting of a bullet, just as with a regular rifle, it won't be a trap. Of course this also means it won't do anything for you if you're asleep or whatever, but it might still have some use alongside other physical security measures by completely avoiding putting you at any risk.•Machine gun status: for a rando person, the easiest most certain way to avoid this is having it be a single shot, but of course that has the downside of being a single shot. To have it be semiauto but also electronically operated would be legal with enough interlocks but it'd be a brand new de novo court case so you'd have to have a lot of money to fight it, and also put the in the time to actually get the tech details right.Alternatively, someone with an FFL and SOT letting them legally deal with MGs could simply bypass this.Both of these are doable but definitely some new work. After that comes security. No point in being shot by your own gun ever. Zero automation (avoiding trap status) helps, and having a completely physical independent isolated network, with appropriate encryption on top, can probably be made good enough. But that's also non-trivial to get right. Also increases cost, as will the need to have each turret locked in and protected.It's just hard for a normal person to come up with a situation where it's worth it vs the same money put into other physical security measures (armoring up your house basically) plus a regular gun. The wealthy can afford to just have private security, isolated guarded enclaves, etc, same as they always have. Its time may come though.
>>64824130This is correct. I am not a lawyer and the following is not legal advice. The legal case controlling the matter is where a guy tied a shotgun to a tripwire in his house or barn. Home invader (burglar) ran the tripwire, blew his legs off.The legal inquiry is whether you are in imminent fear of death or serious bodily harm and a reasonable person would feel the same under the circumstances. If four dudes wearing plates and running long guns break your door down, you would likely prevail with a manually, remotely controlled sentry gun on a roomba or something. 1. Death or serious bodily harm. Check2. Reasonable - a reasonable person would feel that way against a death squad, so yeah.3. Imminent. They just kicked your fuckin' door in.Castle doctrine applies, I am not a lawyer but in the above fake-ass scenario any decent defense attorney should be able to get you off. The roomba sentry will be used as evidence against you, so it's vital you PRESERVE evidence of the opponents you were engaging. This happens to go missing from time to time.
>>64826371No, you'd want big ass rounds that are hard to protect against. Running out of ammo is an absolute non-issue beyond cost, because a sentry turret will be a fixed position and you can supply it with as many rounds as it'll take before the barrel burns out (a good chromed 50bmg barrel operating as a semi with spaced fire should be good for at least a few thousand rounds).>The go to counter with a sentry turret would be to spoof it into wasting it's ammunitionNo. There are no criminals (at least in america) with any counter to a sentry turret network, or typical LEAs for that matter. I have no idea what the fuck you're imagining with "spoofing". The only real answers are:•Destroy/blind whatever the operator is using to aim with. This is the most obvious, try to figure out where sensors are and use lasers and smoke and such. This isn't trivial in practice however if the deployer isn't retarded. There isn't any need to have a single sensor, or single type of sensor, or to have them all located by the gun, and environmental design can further help.•Destroy each turret with heavy firepower. Beyond all the obvious downsides, better hope they don't have any deactivated and camoflaged/hidden in reserve.Mostly though if anyone knew a turret network was at some protected property it'd usually be better just to go somewhere else (if criminal) or wait them out/apply other pressure (if government). Attacking into a fortified entrenched position has been suicidal for over a century and turrets wouldn't change that, merely change the amount of human manpower required.
>>64827316Yeah, you're not a lawyer and you're full of shit. Traps are explicitly illegal by law everywhere I know of, and for very good reason. In order to legally take someone's life it's perfectly fair to demand that there be another human who is in the loop making both the determination that the person they're about to kill is the correct person to kill for the correct reason and that they are directly initiating that. Those very qualities also make traps pretty fucking risky to have around your house. If you ever make a single mistake, get forgetful, have friends/family over while you're home or not, etc it could turn bad.If you use a trap you lose in court period. Of course, there isn't any need to have a sentry turret be automated (and frankly that's fucking stupid anyway given the challenges of IFF even for real militaries, why the FUCK would you want to take the infinitesimal risk of a home invasion and turn it into a much higher risk of your roomba sentry having a bug and shooting you?).
>>64827305>To have it be semiauto but also electronically operated would be legal with enough interlocksThat's the killer part because it will be readily convertible to a machine gun, which is stupid, but is the way that anyone with electrically operated firearms have been prosecuted.
>>64827361>Me: you would likely prevail with a manually, remotely controlled sentry gun on a roomba or something.>manually, remotely controlled>Traps are explicitly illegal by law everywhere I know of, and for very good reasonIt's not a trap dumbass if it's remotely controlled and a human is pulling the trigger.Reading comprehension is really hard in these engagement threads.
>>64827390>That's the killer part because it will be readily convertible to a machine gunNo, as a technical matter you could very much make it so that it couldn't be, through both hardware interlocks and actual hardware limits (like making it so the capacity required to activate the solenoid or plasma spark for firing is only physically capable of one shot before needing to recharge). It doesn't need to be perfect anymore then any regular gun, just hard enough. But you'd have to do the engineering and be prepared to actually fight it out in court. In practice it'd need to be someone with a lot of private wealth or a pretty serious company with a serious law budget and enough sales potential to make up for it.>but is the way that anyone with electrically operated firearms have been prosecuted.Can you point to cases? I'm actually not aware of any general electrically operated firearms at all yet, just theorycraft. But again see above, it'd be a case where the details matter. A trivial implementation yeah probably wouldn't be good enough, but it's possible to lock down electronics pretty fucking hard at this point.
>>64827401You're completely right, I did fuck up and misread you and thought you were describing why a trap would be legal. I'm 100% in agreement with you, I think what you describe would be totally fine. In fact I'll even go further then you did: worth noting that in some states you can shoot in defense of property, even if you yourself aren't at risk (burglary).Although I'd be nervous, even using Wireguard tunnels and such, about having something like that be wireless and mobile. It could save money but given the stakes here I sorta feel like it'd be better to just have multiple hard wired fixed emplacements, most homes don't have that many angles of approach, or have one or two choke points between entry and bedroom or basement or wherever you consider your safe room areas to be. It'd also make a lot of design aspects simpler and cheaper, can just throw mass at problems like recoil management.
>>64827460We're good, I was joking when I called you a dumbass because I figured you misread me.>worth noting that in some states you can shoot in defense of property, even if you yourself aren't at riskIt requires an imminence standard at least in Texas. Ex they've got your TV and are about to make an escape through the front door and there's no other reasonable alternative. Question is whether shooting to disable their getaway car counts as a reasonable alternative, but that would have to be litigated.>about having something like that be wireless and mobile.Jammers are a huge problem with well-equipped burglar teams and cartel motherfuckers like pic related. Jam the roomba and eliminate it without retaliation. I agree fixed and wired is the correct route. What I'm thinking is FRT AR on a steel motorized tripod with a dazzling laser and a 120-round Norinco drum. Remote control both firing and aiming. Figure out some way to engage the laser remotely as well.Or maybe nix the laser and just zero the camera sight (maybe a wired digital night vision scope with RCA out, ex a Pulsar N550?), because that might look "exotic" and test juries don't like exceptional weaponry at least in test cases.
>>64827361>If you use a trap you lose in court period.But all your enemies are dead, so at least you got that goin for you.
>>64827338>No, you'd want big ass rounds that are hard to protect against.I agree. Realistically if shit gets so bad you need manually operated sentry guns or the law changes and traps are legal then the baddies will be rolling shields and plates. Punch through both with something nasty or AP.>I have no idea what the fuck you're imagining with "spoofing"Probably assuming it is motion-detecting and they can decoy it with a toy car or something.>Destroy/blind whatever the operator is using to aim with. Dazzler will fry cameras.>Destroy each turret with heavy firepower.Gonna need a lot of firepower if the turrets aren't built with weight restrictions. Realistically unless you can bring serious AP (M993 and above) or a .50 cal to bear a 1/2" AR500 gunshield on the sentry will block most rounds indefinitely.
>>64827483Yeah jammers are a concern, and not because of cartels but because they're insanely lowtech, just pumping out a shitload of EM noise is easy and people do it accidentally all the time. Like, even just by using cheapshit power supplies for something (big neon signs and such were notorious for this back in the day). And all typical consumer available radio is quite lower power and has zilch resistance to jamming. So even rando criminals now use it just for things like alarm systems and cameras.Motorized 2DOF would be doable, the picky details would be more on the software side, getting the right ballistics given sensors, targeting, and aiming. Though there's a lot of open source software available for the various components of this. From an operator perspective it'd probably be a lot better if it could normally identify human targets, highlight them for selection, and aim itself. So the operator in charge of system activation, arming, target selection, and then firing, with manual aiming only as a fallback.As far as gun, like I said above a manual would be the legally easiest. To use a semi-auto of some kind would just be a way bigger ask though obviously more effective. It might even be best in that case to use shotguns, hell just to have a big set of barrels and fire a dozen 12ga at once. Remember we're fixed emplacement, so we're not bound by human physical limits here for weight or recoil.Not sure on what purpose a vis laser would serve? If we want a laser for the system aiming part IR would work just as well or better.>juryThat at least I think wouldn't matter. This would be a question of law, not facts, so up to a judge.
>>64827534>Not sure on what purpose a vis laser would serve?Dazzler like a 200mW LA-12 Glizzy. These cause immediate blindness (with permanent effects afterwards) and would reduce the ability of opfor to return fire on the sentry or your other shooters if it's a team effort (ex wife controls the sentry, you're also prosecuting the hypothetical cartel hit squad from another angle).An IR equivalent would just cause blindness but not actually trigger the blink reflex, so that defeats the dazzling rationale and just opens you up to legal exposure after-the-fact if any of the perps survive.>This would be a question of law, not facts, so up to a judge.I agree, I'd try to get this scenario bench trialed because it's very technical anyway. It will look very fucking shitty in the news. I don't trust the jury to not be intimidated.>AREA MAN USES REMOTE CONTROL MACHINE GUN SENTRY TO GUN DOWN FOUR TEENS (omitting the full battle rattle and long arms) WHO TRIED TO STEAL A TELEVISION FOLLOWING VIRAL TIK TOK TREND.
>>64827504>Dazzler will fry cameras.Yep, but only if you can find them all, they're all turned on, and the system only uses cameras. You can use fiber optic as an extension to a camera to make something that's extremely hidden, there's no need for a single "eye" or for it to be on the turret itself. Cameras and fiber are cheap, having a dozen around with a bunch turned off and only activated if blinded doesn't feel like it'd be much of a lift in the context of something like this.>Gonna need a lot of firepower if the turrets aren't built with weight restrictionsYep. I was using "firepower" broadly here, including thinking about actual "fire" but also creative approaches that might be useful in some situations like backing up a dump truck full of sand through the building and just dumping, or a airport style fire hose just pumping huge amounts of foam in (with a robot to bring the hose to a window or whatever). But as you say the point here isn't that a turret is somehow invulnerable, just that it'd be a very very big pita. And that's always the name of the game really. Your defenses only need to be good enough that you're not worth it.
>>64827560Excellent points. I was thinking break a window, scout using a quadcopter mini-FPV through the window, then back dump truck through a wall that the sentries aren't covering probably because they're focused on first floor windows / doors. Alternatively, portable ladder and breach through roof or second floor windows. Working down is easier than fighting up. Downside for opfor is that they can't realistically get a shield in the building this way so if they're jumped by a hidden turret they're fucking hosed. Plates only cover a fraction of the body and femoral hits will bleed you out in minutes.
>>64827552I wasn't thinking of dazzling or blinding at all anon, purely aiming, so IR of just a few mW and a CCD (or multiple) without the filter so it can see it. The point being this is taking the place of you going out there with your regular gun, not front lines of a war. I'm thinking it through but hard to be really concerned about the attackers returning fire, an armored turret network is either going to be effectively invulnerable (as well as having enormously faster aiming and reaction time) OR the attacking force has armored bulldozers or explosives or some shit and thus you lose regardless (and would with a gun too). If we're switching to some sort of military setting that's a different conversation from what I was thinking, I was purely thinking in terms of genuine, realistic home defense. Something someone could in principle at least build themselves or a startup could do, using standard electric motors, guns, some handiness with metal working, concrete and home decorating, and primarily open source software with some glue. Aim to spend <$5k per turret, excluding time. And combine with home physical security that everyone who cares should be doing anyway: secure door+frame, some level of protection for 1st floor windows, quality self-hosted surveillance, that sorta thing.So>>64827568is getting out of scope. Basically if it's not something I could have a hope of protecting myself from even with a group of us family/friends/neighbors all with ARs (even assuming everything goes perfectly) then I wouldn't be that concerned if the turrets didn't help either. But most of us aren't worth that. Like the old saying goes>You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the other guy running from the bearright?Still an interesting thing and becoming genuinely feasible. I suspect we'll see someone try it in the near future.
>>64827584I was admittedly wargaming a professional cartel-type opponent and not a more realistic gangbanger type opfor. There's no kill like overkill and if you overbuild your defenses to handle big time opponents, small fry will be no match for you.
>traps are illegal because they have a chance to kill someone unintentionally Fair.What if you position the trap in a place that no law abiding person would reasonably have access to without your giving permission, say like inside an air vent? No normal person will worm into my ducts to get into my house and and I will be able to deactivate if I need it serviced.>what if you forget to deactivateSeems pretty negligent to forget so I say its fair to get in trouble.
>>64827621>No normal person will worm into my ducts to get into my house and and I will be able to deactivate if I need it serviced.Doesn't matter. The man is trespassing and trespass alone does not prove imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death. He could just be a gooner and wants to jack off watching your daughter in the shower or something. That's fucked up but is SADLY not a legit reason to kill someone.
>>64827584I'll add one thing I never did think of for some reason in previous discussions of this on /k/ was just having a bunch of 12ga barrels. It's perfectly legal to fire multiple barrels with one trigger action, obviously double guns and such have existed since forever ago. It's loading fresh rounds into the same barrel and shooting them automatically that makes an mg or not. And we're not talking much range for home defense. So just having a bank of a half dozen barrels each firing 00 buck is 48 pellets per activation, and a helluva noise too lol. Would surely have a discouraging effect. Bonus points for having a big speaker system where when you press fire it belts out>OK LADS! FORM UP AND LET'S GIVE THESE SCOUNDRELS A VOLLEY!as the thing goes off.Or what about a turret using a smooth bore black powder iron cannon or carronade with grapeshot? Holy shit the possibilities are endless. Turn your house in an automated age of sailing frigate. Battle hymns start playing as they cross your property line, increasing in volume as they approach the house. Crescendo builds as they break in, the last thing they ever see is the port hole opening.
>>64827631
>>64827621You'd have to check your local law. I have in fact looked in a few places because I was genuinely curious during previous discussions of this, and as far as I can see there are no exceptions. That may or may not be morally correct, the law often isn't, but what I looked at seemed pretty categorical.And seriously, part of the problem here is that it's just really, really hard to actually get into "no normal person" once we start getting into long tails. Like, legally speaking remember that it's completely legal to break into your house against your will... if the person in question has a warrant, or is emergency response and witnesses some imminent risk, or is someone you've authorized even who then finds the key doesn't work and thinks they'll save some time being clever just getting inside somehow sneakily. Once you really start looking at weird cases across hundreds of millions of people it's pretty humbling (or at least for me) how much "oh that'd never happen" turns out to happen.So I can understand the law being kinda cautious on that front. Dunno, the juice doesn't really seem worth the squeeze vs just having physical security and a gun?
>>64827638Not gonna do shit vs even a 9 pound iron ball anon let alone more.
>>64827629I and The Law dont know what they are trying to do while entering my property.
>>64827305I'd wonder if it'd pass muster to use a button for firing and another for actuating the action to the rearward position electronically. Physically design it in such a fashion that the "reload" button is only capable of moving the action rearward(by energizing that circuit and applying power to say a servo) and has to be released to allow spring tension to return the bolt forward. I'd think you could do that in such a fashion that converting it to FA would require replacing the internal components with other ones entirely. Then again the BATFE would probably just argue that a complete parts swap constitutes "easily converted" without some sort of mechanical ROF limiter that's integral to the firing mechanism.
>>64827671Presumptions are rebuttable with evidence. If the man is jorking it in the air vent then that can be admitted into evidence and the presumption likely rebutted.
Would it make sense to have a code or fingerprint reader or something on the controls? Or is it the same as with Cali fingerprint gun - too much of a risk? Maybe code OR FOB?
>>64827676>I'd wonder if it'd pass muster to use a button for firing and another for actuating the action to the rearward position electronicallyNo, that doesn't really change anything inherently, as long as both could be trivially changed in software to be automated. What would be needed is to have something like a hardware controller with a formally verified program that's in ROM so it's unchangeable, maybe with or alternatively an Apple-style locked down in hardware OS with full cryptographic signing, and then the turret also has a formally verified locked code path that requires the signed instruction and provably will then only fire one shot. That it loads the next shouldn't matter, that just makes it semi-auto.>would probably just argueUnder the present court system, where they couldn't win even with FRTs etc, something that's locked down enough to require hardware changes would pass muster. It's not as if tons of guns can't be converted if you know metal working and where to drill a naughty hole, the barrier isn't "it's physically impossible". While in general systems don't bother, we do know how to do pretty fucking hardened electronics and a scanning tunneling microscope to pull a key out of a secure IC element is definitely not easier then mechanical.But doing it right to pass legal muster and getting that certified would be expensive, and probably beyond means of community/individuals, where sticking with manual probably makes the most sense. Though one note of optimism is some of this might actually have military application.
>>64828141Code yes, but biometrics wouldn't be the right thing here. Too non-deterministic for reliability. The ideal would probably be something you wear with RFID or bluetooth and a simple pin for a cryptographic authentication, or a USB key or smart card or the like, so you only have to put in 4-8 digits and it's still secure. "Something you have, something you know". Like a Yubikey for your computer. Needs to be secure enough that nobody you don't authorize can use it, but deterministic and fast so it's reliable when it counts.
>>64827338A sentry turret. A shitty AI scanning for movement that's going to dump a thousand rounds on a bush that looks "kind of" like a human.
>>64830029retard
