New Smart Guns Will Have Fingerprint Readers (computerworld.com) 425
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal described the International San Francisco Smart Gun Symposium, and the "Mark Zuckerberg of guns," a Colorado 18-year-old who's developing a gun which only fires when its owner's fingerprint makes contact with the pistol grip. But it looks like he'll have competition. Lucas123 writes:
Armatix LLC's new iP9 smart gun will go on sale in the U.S. in mid-2017 and...will have a fingerprint reader that can store multiple scans like a smartphone. The iP9 is expected to retail for about $1,365, which is more than twice the price of many conventional 9mm semi-automatic pistols...
The company's previous product was a smart gun which only fired when it was within 10 inches of radio waves emanating from its owner's watch, but they had trouble attracting buyers. Armatix now also hopes to interest shooting ranges in a gun which only fires when its built-in RFID system recognizes that it's pointing at a shooting target.
The company's previous product was a smart gun which only fired when it was within 10 inches of radio waves emanating from its owner's watch, but they had trouble attracting buyers. Armatix now also hopes to interest shooting ranges in a gun which only fires when its built-in RFID system recognizes that it's pointing at a shooting target.
gloves? (Score:2)
Re:gloves? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gloves are only one of many problems with this re-tread idea. If fingerprint enabled guns are such a great idea, then they obviously should be adopted first by the police and military. That has zero chance of happening, because the real goal is not "safety" but to make guns more expensive and less reliable thereby disincentivizing ownership, while giving liberals talking points about how the NRA is unwilling to accept "common sense" gun restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...and can you show that your fingerprint reader is 100% reliable?
For most cases, having to rescan a fingerprint isn't a problem. For a gun, if it doesn't go bang when you pull the trigger, you might be dead. That's a rather strong disincentive for this kind of system.
Re: (Score:2)
The fingerprint reader would also be used for shopping the Ammo Store.
Re:You're being silly (Score:5, Interesting)
The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns.
You need to talk to some liberals. I live in the SF Bay Area, so I talk to plenty of them. Some lean libertarian, and support (or at least tolerate) gun rights. But most lean authoritarian, and think guns should be completely illegal for private citizens. No one, absolutely NO ONE that I have ever met, thinks all we need is to close the "gun show loophole" and then everything will be hunky-dory. Politically, it is always about "just one thin little slice", but the real goal is the whole salami.
Re: (Score:3)
The goal, by and large, is to stop the mass shootings and suicides.
Mass shooting are less than 0.1% of gun deaths, and are the least likely to be stopped by gun control. Norway, with very tight restrictions on firearms, had a far bigger mass shooting that has ever happened in America. Mass shooters go to extreme measures to acquire guns, they plan and execute their attacks dispassionately, and they tend to use "assault" weapons. Most "normal" shootings are with handguns, and are unplanned and emotionally driven.
Focusing on the 0.1% instead of the 99.9% is silly when the
Re: (Score:3)
The right wing didn't want blacks to have guns.
false
Re: (Score:3)
You might survive the pills and get help. You probably won't survive the gun shot to the head.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: You're being silly (Score:3)
Re:You're being silly (Score:4, Insightful)
And what possible difference would it make if we did? Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army?
Police are needed to maintain a police state. And no matter how many police you have, they are always greatly outnumbered by the people, which is why it is vital for police in a police state to have automatic weapons and for the oppressed people to have nothing but their limp dicks.
An armed populace makes enforcement of a police state impossible by default.
Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?
Apparently you haven't noticed [cnn.com] his [foxnews.com] constant [cnn.com] attempts [politico.com] to do just that. Which would make you either uninformed or willfully ignorant. As a college-educated NRA member, I am neither. Please remember this the next time you deign to talk down to us.
Re:You're being silly (Score:4, Insightful)
The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns.
Well, Hillary Clinton thinks the Supreme Court is incorrect, and that we don't have the individual right to own guns. That what she says to her money people when she hopes the press isn't listening. She's also said she'd consider confiscation, a la Australia. And the left is cheering her lying, corrupt self into office - not least because they agree with her on this - the constitution is there to be "reinterpreted," as Clinton puts it.
Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army?
What does that matter? That's not why millions and millions of Americans own guns. They use them for sport, for hunting, and - as record numbers of recent buyers are showing in research - for self defense, especially in the context of social unrest. That's EXACTLY what the founders had in mind when they said that the government could not be allowed to have the monopoly on keeping and bearing arms: so that individuals could exercise their own rights to do so if and as they see fit. For whatever reason they see as appropriate. A standing army being necessary for the country, it's not to be considered justification for infringing the people's rights to their own tools of self defense. Sound familiar?
Stop caring so damn much about your precious firearms and start doing something about oppression brought on by wealth inequality.
Ah, I get it. Because someone else is prosperous, your right to vote is being oppressed. Or your right to assemble, or freely speak. Or your ability to go to school. Or your ability to ... which ability is it that you're being denied because someone else has money, again? It's not a fixed-sized pie, dude. If it was, we'd all be living in total poverty. But we're not. The standard of living has never been higher in human history. The "poor" live better than the vast majority of humanity ever could have dreamed.
Wage slavery? Get rid of nonsense like Obamacare, which went out of its way to entrench the system that prevents you from shopping across state lines for health insurance, and went out of its way to keep such services expensive by carefully avoiding tort reform at all costs. Or... do you mean that people who haven't trained themselves to do something valuable are finding it hard to move on in life? Yes, getting rid of our ability to defend ourselves will definitely fix that. We can only do one thing at a time, right?
Voter disenfranchisement? Yes, this is a real problem. We have millions of dead an ineligible people registered to vote. Every time a vote is cast in one of their names, that disenfranchises a person who is voting legitimately. When the Clinton campaign spreads around information, as we've just seen, about how to get illegal immigrants into the voting booth, that disenfranchises people who play by the rules. Definitely a serious problem, I agree. But the disenfranchising actions of voters mostly as encouraged by liberal activist groups go largely unprosecuted because that task would fall to the very party in power that encourages the crime. So, we have to live with it. Steps to mitigate it, like having to show who you are when you vote, just like you have to when you cash a government check, are considered "racist" by disingenuous people who know perfectly well it's not, but there you have it.
Hell, there are folks who matter talking about taking away women's right to vote.
They only "matter" in the sense that you're enjoying mentioning them. There is nobody with any prospect of infringing that liberty calling for that. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who certainly leans towards infringing constitutionally protected liberties and says so out loud, to great applause from the usual would-be little tyrants on the left.
It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?
He kno
Re: (Score:3)
You just described a huge majority of the folks that make up the military. Maybe in the Army and Marines you have a useful percentage of trained infantry and other combat troops. But in the Air Force you'd be looking at maybe 1:100 if not 1:1000 actually having any kind of combat training beyond the joke of basic training. I would expect the Navy to have similar numbers to the AF in terms of combat training. In the end only a small chunk of the military would actually be usefully trained to fight, maybe 20%
Re:gloves? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: gloves? (Score:4, Insightful)
Allow me to disabuse you of the idea that this is a negotiation.
Re: gloves? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll accept a fingerprint lock on my firearms.
In exchange, all other restrictions must be dropped, period. Suppressors, full-auto, burst, magazine size, pull weight, barrel length, caliber, school zones, bars, right to carry, .380, Saturday night special, storage in cars, loaded in cars, castle laws, public service use... everything. got it?
And then you get to say something like
Why, Yes Honey, that IS a pocket bazooka in my pants!
Supply and Demand - where is the demand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in NJ they tried to pass a law to force gun shop owners to stock these "smart guns" and it failed. If people wanted these, they would stock them. For something as important as a firearm the added complexity of fingerprint readers simply increases the likelihood of failure when it is needed. These features aren't safe, they are dangerous and potentially deadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like it would be useful in an environment like a gun range where you aren't relying on it for safety. They need to get the cost down of course.
It might not have to be 100% reliable to be safer than carrying a normal gun either. Quite a lot of people, especially cops and people with children get shot by their own guns. At some point preventing that outweighs the danger of it not working when you need it.
Useless for any occasion (Score:3)
Seems like it would be useful in an environment like a gun range where you aren't relying on it for safety.
A) as another poster noted, the whole reason you go to a gun range is to get more better at shooting the guns you have, so that if you need to (or want to) use them for real later - either quickly like self defense, or more methodically like hunting - you know how well you can aim with them, what realistic distances are, how much kick to absorb or correct for...
B) Which leads us to a fingerprint scanne
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm interested in the product. I imagine others are as well who want to keep a gun at home outside a gun safe but still unusable by an untrained person who might find it. Could be children, could be a colleague rummaging through your desk (with permission), could be the woman who comes every two weeks to clean your house.
There isn't any situation where I'm going to snatch up a gun and want to fire it instantly. I'm simply too afraid of killing the wrong person to do something like that. I'm not a
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is if you move your hand and break contact, you're out of luck till your finger matches up over the reader just right again. That just right is a tough thing to make happen cheaply. I can't tell you how many times I've had to re-profile my finger for my laptop to register the presence some of the time, nor how many times I've had to swipe my finger for it to be identified. The technology just doesn't seem to be there to do it reliably even without considering dirt, gloves, band-aids that might be pr
Re: (Score:3)
I would sell these guns to prisons and court houses where guards are often overpowered by the prisoners in close quarters. But of course, I'd still require the guards at the main entrance to carry normal guns.
Re:Supply and Demand - where is the demand? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a gun. These features would make it potentially not deadly.
And that's the point. It will make them not deadly on its own accord without consulting the owner. A gun that doesn't go bang when the owner needs it to go bang is not a gun to be trusted.
And I say this as some one who believes there needs to be stricter gun controls in the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
This really is similar to the argument about autonomous cars. Will a smart gun result in fewer unintentional fatalities outweighed by the different fatalities it may cause?
You have NO IDEA how effective the finger scanner will be. How about we take a look at that first, see what kind of tech they actually put into it, and then make choices based on that? In much the same way you don't buy a car with known faulty brakes, just don't buy a gun with a scanner that is known to be unreliable.
Re:Supply and Demand - where is the demand? (Score:4, Insightful)
You have NO IDEA how effective the finger scanner will be.
Well lets start by talking about gloves. And we'll follow that up with a nice does of "has to work 100% reliably in all weather conditions, temperatures and surface cleanliness as well as doing so in less time that takes a human to pull the trigger".
Also I deal with industrial control systems and I see on a daily basis what it takes to build electronic shit that is small and can take the rough and tumble of real life. And even then that stuff needs regular maintenance and fails regularly.
And yes I realize that finger print technology will reduce deaths. But it does so by bricking the device.
Re:Supply and Demand - where is the demand? (Score:5, Insightful)
It may reduce deaths by the gun's owner, while causing more deaths OF the gun's owner.
So, no, we have no real idea whether it will cause a net reduction in deaths. We can be pretty sure it'll produce some change in the identities of the people killed though.
One trusted model per hundred years. Model 1911 (Score:5, Insightful)
> You have NO IDEA how effective
That's a problem when your life, and the lives of your family and buddies depends on 100% reliability.
By far the most popular handgun ten years ago was the model 1911. So named because it was first made in that year, 1911. 20 years later, it had been proven extremely reliable so that's what professionals and careful civilians caried for almost a hundred years. Besides handguns, almost all trusted guns, from shotguns to ship cannons, were designs from John Browning or Samuel Colt. If you aren't Browning or Colt, we're not trusting our lives to your "clever", more complicated design.
After about 75 years of different people trying, Gaston Glock came up with a design which might rival the 1911, so after it was proven in military and police testing and proven in the field for 25 years, a lot of people switched from the 1911 to Glock. That's the switch, from a model that stood the test of time since 1911 to somethinf better only 90 years later.
Take your "you have no idea if it'll work" and do the USMC testing to it - bury it in wet sand, pull it out, and see if it fires reliably, every time. Keep that up for 25 years and maybe we'll trust our kids' lives to it. Until then, save your "maybe it'll work, maybe it won't" for video games.
Re:One trusted model per hundred years. Model 1911 (Score:5, Informative)
For a user of moderate skill? Yes, the Glock is better. I say that as someone who owns a semi-custom 1911 that cost me just shy of $3000. A 1911 just tends to be more temperamental. You can get them to be mostly reliable, but even the best tuned 1911 is still merely on part with an out of the box $500 Glock when it comes to reliability. The thumb safety also takes more training to get used to vs the Glock's point-and-shoot. The magazine well on the Glock, being a double-stack, also makes mag changes faster, and the magazines hold more making mag changes less frequent.
Granted, the 1911 does feel better in the hand, points more naturally, and is generally a heck of a lot more accurate, but there's a reason 95% of all police departments carry Glocks.
I'd consider the 1911 akin to a sports car. In the right hands you can get a lot more performance, but for your average driver they'd be better served by a Camry with an auto-transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish all criminal actions would backfire and kill their perpetrators.
I wish all statists would have to endure their own nanny coercion.
I wish all liars would be incapable of telling the truth at any time.
I wish all /. commentors had to listen to their own stupitdiy 24x7.
Re: Supply and Demand - where is the demand? (Score:4, Insightful)
Home invasion? We don't all live in pristine gated communities where these things never happen. If you listen to most people after they experience an home invasion they typically start by saying "we didn't think this could ever happen here". Be prepared, not a victim is the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Be prepared, not a victim is the point.
This is OT but a while ago I heard a story on NPR about gun owners who had pulled the trigger in the moment of crisis. The interesting thing about it was that while they were trained for action they seemed to have no training/support for the psychological aftermath of doing what they did. And were almost in a living hell because of it. This is not to say all people and all situations will be like this, but I have never heard it mentioned before what happens after reality sinks in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
PTSD is something only the living suffer from, though.
Re: Supply and Demand - where is the demand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it greater or less than the trauma of what would have happened otherwise? An extreme example, but I'm pretty sure every rape victim would rather live with the effects of killing their assailant rather than of the rape they would have committed.
Re: (Score:2)
Home invasion? We don't all live in pristine gated communities where these things never happen.
Gated communities are common targets for burglars, because they know you have stuff worth protecting.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Where is the demand? When you're randomly attacked by angry men who simply want to bash your head against the pavement for fun. Luckily Zimmerman's firearm not only saved his life to when he needed it, but proved the point that commercial firearms for self defense will be needed for decades to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Several million times a year, guns are used to deter or prevent crime. Most of those are merely showing the gun or announcing its presence. Very very few of these make the news, because they are boring. But they work because guns are simple and effective. If all guns were smart guns, they'd bo so unreliable that very few criminals would be deterred by them, and crime would skyrocket.
On, and all your police would be be effectively disarmed too. Unless of course you think police (who commit more crimes o
Re: (Score:2)
On, and all your police would be be effectively disarmed too. Unless of course you think police (who commit more crimes off-duty than conceal carriers) are more responsible than "civilians".
You know that LEO will get themselves exempt from having to use these weapons, right? Which is funny really because if you want to convince me that the technology is effective, require LEOs to use it and keep using it for 10 years or so. Go ahead, I'll be waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
You must live a very sheltered life in some concrete jungle if you can't imagine the need for a firearm.
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell us when a consumer firearm is needed?
How about when some crackhead or tweaker thug is breaking into your home, and the police are 5 minutes or more away?
Tweaker breaks in, you shoot; tweaker is dead. Then you call the cops and have them dispatch a hearse to haul the dead tweaker away.
Other scenario...
Tweaker breaks in, you call police, tweaker kills you and your family because you had no defense, tweaker flees. Cops arrive and dispatch a hearse to haul off you and your family's now lifeless bodies. Tweaker repeats the process the next night
Re: (Score:2)
When I want to have some fun. This is the thing the pearl-clutching gun-grabbers consistently overlook: lots and lots of people think that hunting or target shooting at the range, or plinking, or simply going out in the woods/desert and shooting the fuck out of old washing machines or whatever is a ton of fun. Sure, sometimes we tell ourselves it's to protect our homes and families from home invaders or the zombie apocalypse or big government run amuck, b
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming the predator isn't big enough that you just piss it off by hitting it with a stick.
Re: (Score:2)
You can google it. Generally .44 cal or higher. Some say .357 is OK if you're a good shot. That good shot part is important if it's a cat. The bear is a bigger target, but good shots count there as well as the effective target that will stop them in their tracks isn't big. You don't just want to piss the predator off with a bad shot or an ineffective load or too small a round coming from a gun any more than hitting with a stick. Just the noise of a shot can be a deterrent for that matter. That's also why th
and when it misreads? (Score:5, Insightful)
Biometrics are not secure (Score:3)
Imagine if you had a password that you couldn't change, and you dropped pieces of it everywhere you go. That's what your fingerprint is.
Not only that, but gun owners don't want additional potential failure points in their firearms. I'm not surprised they couldn't find buyers for their previous watch-radio-wave enabled design.
Re: (Score:2)
Reliability is the big problem here.
Yes, somebody potentially could duplicate your fingerprint to use your gun, but it would be so much easier to just get a "dumb" gun, that it would not really be worth it.
However, this system malfunctioning (or if I forget to take my gloves off before firing) is a much bigger problem because when you need a gun, you really need it and fast,because you usually cannot ask the attacker to take a break, smoke a cigarette while you reboot the gun.
No they won't. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what the safe handgun list in California was for, as well as the "microstamping" law.
If you can make it so difficult to acquire, legally, that the average person doesn't want to be involved due to the regulatory burden, congratulations, you have just restricted and/or removed the right to access that item.
Re:No they won't. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can make it so difficult to acquire, legally, that the average person doesn't want to be involved due to the regulatory burden, congratulations, you have just restricted and/or removed the right to access that item.
Even more troubling is that you can get judges all day long that will happily violate their sworn oaths and ignore that "shall not be infringed" "recommendation" in the US Constitution and rule these "backdoor ban" tactics do not infringe by some unfathomable "logic" they pull straight out of their collective ass.
Anti-gun extremists may celebrate, but they'd better bend over because the same tactics used to go around and/or reinterpret the 2nd Amendment can and surely will be used against the others, some of which you might actually value.
First they came for the gun owners, but I owned no guns...
You know how it ends.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
It goes both ways. The gun rights lobby opposes any and all forms of regulation, even the most common-sense, because they fear exactly the scenario you describe: If the government is allowed any power to regulate guns, that power could be deliberately mis-applied to restrict access.
This is why there has been intense opposition to things like restrictions on high-capacity magazines, or requiring less environmentally-damaging alternatives to lead shot.
The situation is paralleled in abortion, and has a similar
Re: (Score:2)
The gun rights lobby did support sensible restrictions and those passed. Then the anti-gun crowed changed the definition of "sensible" and we (the gun owners) aren't having any of that bullshit.
Slashvertisement much? (Score:2)
The "Mark Zuckerberg of guns"??
Really?
Is Zuckerberg a massive failure too?
Does he champion a product that fleeces stupid investors too? Okay, that might be a draw.
(He said draw, while talking about guns! He should be banned!)
Beautiful, take away the ability to use it the the most common function of self defense but cleverly leave the common use of sick peope available, suicide.
I submit they ought to name this suicidal gun "The Kevorkian, model 666".
It's als
who will buy this? (Score:2)
Would you buy a gun that is as reliable as the fingerprint unlock on your phone? I don't know about you, but I have like 1 in 3 chance of not unlocking at first try. That's a gun that will not fire 1 out of 3 times when you need it.
And have you ever tried to unlock your phone while being just a bit nervous? And can you imagine how nervous you will be if you are in a life-or-death situation?
Re: (Score:2)
I have one of those watches (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it's a fitness band that shows the time. It's supposed to unlock my phone automatically if I'm in range. Since I hold my phone with the hand with the watch on it, and swipe with the other, the band is always in range. I'd say 6 times out of 10 it works OK, 2 times out of 10 there is an irritating delay while it displays the password prompt and figures out it should unlock, and 2 times out of 10 it doesn't work at all and I have to input the password. Not something you want your life depending on.
Firearms are already complex mechanical devices, there is a lot that can go wrong already. 10 minutes after the smart band becomes legislated into existence, evil men will start carrying jammers to interrupt the signal so that other people's (legitimately purchased) firearms can never be fired. Including the police. The criminals, will, of course, not be subject to these restrictions. Not following the law is kind of the definition of what a criminal is.
Re:I have one of those watches (Score:4, Informative)
Firearms are not at all complex mechanical devices - they are actually quite simple.
Re:I have one of those watches (Score:5, Insightful)
And they are that way because we have used hard-won experience earned in blood to spend hundreds of years designing unnecessary complexity and failure points out of them.
Cartridge ammunition small arms are one of the most refined and matured technologies on Earth.
The only - ONLY - consistent reason that people have attempted to add significant complexity back into them is in convoluted, ideologically-motivated attempts to make them less accessible and reliable, and that impetus has always been based on the belief that by doing so, their use will be discouraged.
Notice that nobody hawking these devices ever suggests the military or law enforcement should be mandated to use them. Just the filthy plebs.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not complex, but they are precision - tolerances are tiny fractions of a millimeter. On parts that can wear down over time, or corrode, or get coated in dust. This is why responsible gun owners recognize the importance of maintaining their gun. If you buy a gun for self-defense and just leave it sitting by the bed for ten years, when someone really does come to rob your house it may well just jam. Or explode and take your fingers off.
Re: (Score:2)
A copycat (Score:2)
That's not a smart gun (Score:3)
This [time.com] is a smart gun. Did the target move while you were shooting -- that's what mid-trajectory course corrections are for!
westworld guns what can go wrong? (Score:2)
westworld guns what can go wrong?
When the police accept using one... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hell, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
I categorically refuse to buy any firearm that depends on electronics to fire. A gun needs to work when you need it, with no tucking around.
-jcr
Exactly. I'm an EDC for over 30 years, and there's no way I'd ever carry a gun that needs a battery to function. When I pull the trigger, I don't want a low-battery message, I want it to go "bang", period.
Extra mechanics are rejected (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I do wonder if there were similar objections raised when the safety was first introduced.
Re: (Score:2)
brilliant (Score:2)
It fires only if your fingers are clean and sweat free, if you aren't wearing gloves, and if the battery is charged. Oh, and there is a delay before the gun unlocks.
That makes it ideal for premeditated murder. For self-defense? Not so much.
This is more than just unreliable. (Score:2)
What some people may also miss is that not only is the potential unreliability a problem, there's also a liability in having a firearm logged as only usable by you. It's no different to owning a computer that has been hijacked and used for malicious purposes.
While the physical nature of a firearm makes it less likely be hacked and used in a situation where the owner is framed (for instance), with DMCA making it illegal to investigate a security measure, in a circumstance such as that, it could be completely
The gun industry REALLY doesn't want this. (Score:2)
Smart Guns for Dumb Asses! (Score:2)
How about a gun that, when you pick it up, hold it properly and pull the trigger, shoots a projectile forward in the direction that the gun is pointed?
Now that's a smart gun!
Oh! We have those already!?!
Ignoring the reality of gun use... again. (Score:2)
Too many people see guns are nothing more than a dangerous toy for redneck and right wing a-holes. That's far the reality of it, even if recreation is a part of gun ownership for many. Although I'll not here to try and proselytize the 2A or anything. My point is, is that a firearm is often a safety device as a properly handled weapon can sometimes be the only thing that keeps you alive.
And with that in mind we can also note that as a safety device the most important measure of that device is that it must
Re: (Score:2)
Big surprise, I'm anti most gun ownership claims. I suppose I might consider getting a shotgun if I lived in the woods, but I digress. The issue for me is the attempt to ensure deadliness to the attacker, anyone considered "offensive" or any innocent that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The real goal here should be to find some technology that is convenient to carry, keeps the bearer safe in most of the same circumstances as a gun might, and leaves everyone alive and with no permanent in
Bullshit (Score:2)
Not this bullshit again....
The fact is that 99.999999999% of firearm owners DO NOT want this "feature".
I've said it before and I'll say it again: when I pull the trigger on my sidearm, I want it to go "bang". I don't want a beep or a chime or a low-battery error message, I want it to go "bang", plain and simple. I've carried daily for over 30 years, and I won't carry any firearm that requires a battery to fire.
I don't give a flying fuck how enthusiastic other people are for my gun to have a fingerprint read
Biometric Gun Safe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at those gun safes and rejected them for exactly the reasons you stated. I bought one that uses a quick entry combo. The downside, it requires a battery so it needs to be checked every now and then. Not really an issue since I take it out almost every weekend for a trip to the range.
Train how you fight. (Score:2)
Only works on targets? Good luck with that.
It also come with a convenient backdoor (Score:2)
I suppose no one should be worried about some way of mass disabling the electronics in a freedom zone so they citizen can't use their given right...
Re: Halfway There (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know any gun owners who aren't also college educated professionals. Now that is just my personal experience, it by no means speaks for all legal gun owners. However your (anonymous) comment that gun owners aren't smart is likely just troll bait, but if it isn't then it is ignorant and part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would draw the police to a lot of private gun ranges, where owners who have sufficient property practice on their own.
Also, who would pay for the cellular connectivity? The gun owners? Yes, the anti-gun crowd would like that as it increases the cost of gun ownership.
Re: Halfway There (Score:2)
And what are you supposed to do when you go target shooting? Owning a firearm without learning how to properly use it (and retain that knowledge over time) is not only unsafe, but retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are more irresponsible car owners than gun owners.
Study after study has shown that concealed carriers commit far fewer crimes of any sort than off-duty police.
When you are perfect, let us gun owners know, and we will proceed to the next step in your embrace of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
> Just because you know people who are responsible gun owners does not mean everyone is and the statistics prove it
Sure. We have Chicago.
You can distort the statistics. You can over report suicides as murders and ignore that most murders (and crime in general) happen in a small number of high crime areas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently I missed the part of this story where these manufacturers are trying to take your guns.
And on that subject, how many people have you guys turned out to the polls every time warning that the Democrats were with some imminent plan to take all your guns the second they take office? How did that turn out? Apparently I missed the massive seizure of privately owned weapons that you guys are constantly talking about.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Right. Out of the 330 million people in the US (not counting the broader market, there's "nobody" who wants a gun that can't be accidentally picked up and used by their young children or an intruder. Literally "nobody". Yeah, totally believe you.
They have a niche. You want to prevent them from filling it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are being attacked, its too late.
Depends on what you mean by being attacked. If the bad guy is pointing a gun at your head already then yeah it's too late. But usually you have some time to react in a home invasion robbery, if your house is not completely insecure.
If its not too late, you should run, or hide behind something first.
What, run where? You're upstairs in your bedroom, and you hear the sound of breaking glass downstairs and someone forcing the patio door open. You run? Jump out the window? Leave the kids in their bedroom and just take off running?
If you hear gun shots in the distance and go investigate with your gun out
I personally don't know anyone who is so mentall
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get that 1% of the time the gun might not fire from?
I'm not saying that this wouldn't ever happen, but can you actually quantify the amount of time that would actually end up being fatal for the user?
It's a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I don't know if any studies have been done to figure out the number, but if it is any less than the number of people who *actually* get killed because someone other than the owner of a gun was using it, then it's still a win.
I believe the same
Re: (Score:2)
I will wait for the Marines to adopt one of these devices. If they are confident enough in it's operation, THEN it's good. These people have their lives on the line.
Adoption by a large urban police department would also be a good indicator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also consider anything with electronics in it has to have a power source. Batteries tend to stop functioning at the most inopportune times.
Add to that added complexity of electronic circuitry.
No thanks. If I should ever require a firearm, I want one that functions with reliability and simplicity.
Additionally, criminals tend to have illegally-procured firearms. I doubt if they'll bother with a fingerprint reader.
Re: (Score:3)
And how do you get the grizzly to wear the RFID tag?
Re: (Score:2)
Even when it becomes mandated
People will figure out how to stick a paper clip in the enable solenoid and keep the action unlocked at all times. So we will have spent an extra $1K for something that many gun owners and most certainly the entire arms black market* will have rendered useless.
*Outlaw tampering? Stealing guns and selling them out of the trunk of your car was illegal to begin with. How well did that law work out?