Slashdot Mirror
New Smart Guns Will Have Fingerprint Readers (computerworld.com)
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.
much
What, did he steal the idea too?
I mean, they patent every other obvious idea.
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.
As so often happens with these things you have to do it more than once. If you really need a gun to work at a moment's notice, owning a weapon that may or may not work when you pick it up seems utterly stupid.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
With our history of smart devices being secure. /s
We are doing things right.
The problem with 'smart' guns is that when you want to use a gun, you REALLY want that gun to fire. A smart gun might not fire 1 percent of the time.... and you might die. So, I will stay with reliable low tech for guns.
18 year old thinks he's the first one to think of an idea and tries to market it
Kid, I hate to break this to you, but they've been talking about making guns with fingerprint readers longer than you've been alive. If people wanted it, it would have been a thing before you were born.
That shrimp from Distric 9
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.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
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.
Because when I'm being attacked and have two seconds or less to save my life, I want to fuck around with a superfluous, unnecessary, battery powered, Chinese made piece of plastic and metal first.
Here's the product demonstration video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T6ANbL3SMw
What if one's hands are still bloody after the first shot and it happened to be point blank due to security reasons, will the firing mechanism still work? Should DNA analysis be a secondary but secure way of shooting a firearm in case the fingerprint reader image is muddy? We must only be a year away from having micro-DNA analyzers for guns... right?
Clearly Asimov needs to update rules to include in this order "if GUN then set-allow-FIRE(); should-I-have-fired()"
These things are usually dreamed up by anti-gun proponents who wish to push this technology into law so they can bury gun owners with regulations and thus restrict access to firearms.
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.
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 also cheeper than my obamacare deductables by far.
No brain, no pain.
Nearly all the people that think that these are a good idea are antigun. When was the last time you saw people that are antigun buying guns? No thanks, my guns work fine without all the electronic crappy they are adding.
You can wait for the cops and they can find your corpse. I'll still be alive, thanks.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
These won't sell. When you add technology that can fail for a variety of reasons to something someone may be counting on their life to use, you get a failing product.
Is this so reliable and worthy that all police forces and military will replace their issued weapons with ones like this? No? OK.
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?
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.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Or that he started his business with the idea of shooting all his college classmates, and thought about what could possibly go wrong, and maybe somebody else wants to do it too.
Even when it becomes mandated ( of course it will in time ) you can take that crap and shove it.
I would have gotten first post, but my phone failed to read my finger print in time...
Why not just a regular gun with a thing you have to pull out to use it. When you pull out "the pin", it uses a built in cellular modem to contact your emergency family members and the police, and uses a built in GPS tracking device to tell them where you are.
That way, if the device utterly fails, the gun does not stop working. And, in any case where the gun is about to be used, the cops will be close by.
This is not new, this fingerprint reader has been worked on for several years by several people and manufacturers. Basically, this kid is doing the same thing that the Texas clock maker did, take a object apart and put it back together in a different pattern. It is not a new idea, it does not work reliably and it is just a publicity stunt.
Passionately Indifferent
This is a smart gun. Did the target move while you were shooting -- that's what mid-trajectory course corrections are for!
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Can we make the police carry these smart guns? That would save a LOT of innocent lives. Wait, what, you mean the police don't want these themselves? Oh.
westworld guns what can go wrong?
Just glue a Life Alert button to it
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
When someone comes up with a system that police officers are OK with using then I'll look into using it. Until then, if a cop won't trust it with his life, why should anyone?
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Unreliable guns would definitely make banks safer.
Why are you gun grabbers so fucking snotty all the time? Do you think it's going to get us to abandon our right to self-defense?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
with a build in camera.
Since he never claimed that every gun owner is responsible, what is your point?
Many people don't even like the concept of the lock added to the S&W revolvers, or the magazine drop safety, simply because any extra moving parts on a firearm could mean the difference in a failure that could save your family's life, or not. Firearms are supposed to have simplistic controls, and be as readily available as possible. The videos I've seen at gas pumps or convenience stores tend to show a guy waiting for a fraction of a second for the armed robber to look away before drawing. Holding your hand on the fingerprint reader long enough for it to register would get innocent people killed.
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.
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 illegal to try to investigate the device and attempt to prove your innocence.
At the end of the day, this won't go anywhere. It's something which will be pushed by the anti-firearm community, but at the same time, even groups like police and military won't have any of it. If it's not good enough for them, then why should us plebs use them?
There's a reason why so little has changed in firearm technology over the last 50 years, and in some cases, even the last 100 years, and it's because what works has largely been figured out and there haven't been any notable innovations to improve on the situation. Even things like electronic ignition systems have been trialled, and largely not adopted, I can only presume because you can't beat the reliability and availability of a spring powered mechanical system in this sort of application.
One of the problems is, I believe, a law in New Jersey that says once they are available they are mandatory. Instead of resulting in a rush to make them, this has so far been a reason to absolutely not make them.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
They believe they have the moral high ground. Righteous indignation is a hell of a drug.
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!?!
"a Colorado 18-year-old who's developing a gun which only fires when its owner's fingerprint makes contact with the pistol grip"
This isn't "new"
I know democrats who own guns. For self defense even. Maybe against republicans. Who knows?
I have a theory that certain people believe that if [i]they[/i] had a gun, they'd shoot people with it, and imagine everyone else would do the same. Logically people therefore shouldn't have guns.
Of course in an ideal world people like the parent should be euthanized.
Microsoft should make the software, it will be bulletproof.
Sorry, the application Gun.exe has crashed, please restart the application.
Application Gun.exe is incompatible with bullet.dll, please upgrade Gun.exe to version armor_piercing_1.0
Application Gun.exe has detected a problem with finger.dll, please replace finger.dll
Application Gun.exe has encountered a problem with child.exe, child.exe has been terminated.
Application Gun.exe has encountered an error with cleaning.exe, user process has been terminated.
Application Gun.exe has weriop239840214809kfs
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 be reliable as possible. Which is why all modern guns are still all mechanical I natural. Well mechanically and sometimes kind of pneumatic, if you count modern gas operated auto loading firearms. But ultimately there just isn't any technology out there that can make a gun that's both acceptably reliable enough to be deadly to your attacker and make sure that only you the one firing the weapon that you own.
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.
Infuriate left and right
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.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
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 reader, I don't want it. I don't want any electronics in or on my gun that could possibly cause it to malfunction when I pull the trigger, period. After 50+ years of experience with electronics, from consumer-grade junk to mil-spec gear, there is no electronic doodad that I'd trust not to malfunction at a critical moment.
If these are so great, let the military and the police use them for a decade or two, then I'll think about following suit.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
> 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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
I had a gun safe with a fingerprint reader unlocking mechanism next to my bed at one time. When it worked, it was kind of cool. The problem is it turns out a lot of things affect the ability of the scanner to read fingerprints. For instance, humidity. So while the reader might work fine one day, on a drier day, it would not work at all. Or vice versa. This made the gun safe useless. If I needed to get in it in an emergency, I needed to get in it immediately. Being delayed a few minutes - sometimes having to go and get a washcloth to clean the scanner or whatever it took to make the lock mechanism open, was inconvenient. Being delayed in an emergency could prove fatal. So I got a different gun safe, and I will never use biometric verification for anything involving firearms again.
18 year old gets famous for "inventing" something that already exists, which fact he could have determined with five minutes spent Googling said fact? High quality journalism there.
just one cotton-picking second!
Smarter guns will be disguised as tools like hammers, telescopes, walking canes, and cross portable so they would collapse away from any discovery as a concealed or covert weapon. You cant bann water pipe or door closer hydraulics. Smart guns disrespect tge right of the people to be armed, a continuation of the office of armiger asserting that free people in their successive lordships will escelate to their rites in principal. What legislators and the like have deluded to exhibit is that regulations and so-called authorities of assertive conscript or mediation only ethicly apply to registeted if not otherwise property utilized in SERVILE MANNERS OF CONDUCT in concert of generally Trust laws or union constructs. Hell, just presenting anyone a sealed document would reduce a free man in a dispute to be mediated as a regulated common carrier in the State vehicle codes cocluding to privilege operation. We see how the courts remedy between two disputing servants or slaves but what about two free men; as ladies and lords as formerly the standard of the colonial subjects to a fief or feud in their rite?
Only works on targets? Good luck with that.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
What if it crashes when you pull the trigger with a grizzly barreling at you?
As an Armed Security Guard, CCW holder, and former Army Soldier - these weapons will almost certainly be a problem in 'the real world.'
In any shooting incident, be it at home or public, you *have* to assume the arriving Police officers will, understandably, force you to drop your weapon. Not set it gently on the ground. Not place it in your holster. Not hand it over - drop it to the ground. Most places this means concrete, tile, asphalt, etc. You won't have the ability to choose a soft spot for it to land, as the command will be given with a gun pointed towards you.
A hard fall such as this will require the internal parts of the fingerprintreader to be verified for integrity.
Twice I have had my duty weapon fall out of the holster - once when the paddle was bumped, once when the cheap holster I was issued had a catastrophic failure (the entire thing came apart). Both falls were from 3-4 feet, and both fell on to concrete with enough force to skip 2-to-3 feet after landing.
Had I been using a 'smart gun' such as mentioned in the OP, I would have been unable to function in my duty as an Armed Security Guard, as my duty weapon would have been in an unknown state of readiness, due to the electronics inside - instead of requiring a simple visual check, a function check, and nothing more.
> 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.
Clearly in this country, they want to make gun ownership more complicated more convoluted and to outlaw with the complexity. Look at the gun laws in NJ: in NJ, they need two references, they may contact your supervisor, they will force you to pay various fees, you will have to wait six month. License to carry a gun is almost never issued to the civilians (only to former military, cops). Oh, by the way, you need to be at least a resident....
That is for a "right".
Driving ... Let's, say you are a Canadian, 21 years, old. You can come to this country to work. You will get your driver-learner permit same day, and you will get your license within a week or a month. You can have your Canadian drivers license.
Clearly, while guns are a right, those in power put efforts to restrict these rights and to make it a privilege, while not changing the constitution. For those who are young enough, driving used to be a right, a right that is not even questioned. You do not need to ask a permit to breathe, you do no need to ask a permit to walk, as long as you dont go on a private property. You never needed to as anyone a permit to ride a horse. It used to be an implied right.
Just because it was so obvious, it was not written on paper, as an amendment to the constitution, it was taken away.
This smart electronic is nothing else but a next attempt to put restrictions on a supposed "right".
Right.....
If and when I pull a handgun for self-defense, I expect 100% reliability that it will fire. My phone has a fingerprint sensor - periodically, or when I get out of the hot tub, it can't read my fingerprint. How do they guarantee 100% reliability that the weapon will still function when it is needed?
So lets just say, for the sake of argument, every gun owner in the land adopts these "smart guns".
What, exactly, is going to stop someone from taking a few lengths of pipe and building their own in their basement?
"Smart guns" will only lead to well-meaning owners dying from "dumb guns".
Funny enough, in New Jersey, when smart guns become available for sale, regular handguns are indeed banned after 3 years. "New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law", in case you are curious. Hence an entire state has a high incentive to make sure biometric safety handguns don't go to market.
We need smart guns, the same reason people need smart phones. Either we can get smart people, or smart gun owners, or smart phones, and smart guns.
A liberal acquaintance of mine told me "the second amendment is stupid, and harmful, because it prevents meaningful conversation. It allows people to take an absolute extremist position and prevents any reasonable discussion about practical compromise."
Fancy words. If the second amendment didn't exist, the immediate "meaningful conversation" would be something like "lets make all handguns illegal across the board and then think up regulations around permitting for people who have some justification for gun ownership beyond "I want one.". This would seem perfectly reasonable to a group of liberal extremists, while being bloody-revolution material for the opposing group.
My point there is that nobody will ever agree on what "reasonable" means. It is impossible to find agreement, in this context. Which brings me to my main point:
Eventually, private gun ownership will be abolished in America.
This is a simple matter of sociology. The greater the population density, the greater the fear of one's neighbors, and hence the greater the public interest in weakening one's neighbors. This is the reason that most crowded countries have disallowed civilian gun ownership: it has nothing to do with the state of civility of their culture but everything to do with how crowded their cities are (which is where most of the voters are).
There are exactly two reasons why this hasn't already happened to America: 1) we still have an extremely high rural population (especially compared to countries that have disallowed gun ownership), 2) we have the second amendment.
The migration of our citizenry from rural to urban areas continues, however, and so the political winds on that front continue to shift. Eventually, the city-dwellers will have the raw numbers, and their natural fear of strangers will drive them to take everyone's guns away. Of course, this will just produce more attractive targets and invite more violent crime, but those facts will not overpower the emotional response one has to being surrounded by strangers, and needing to walk by them every single day.
The process will be slow. Slow enough to prevent revolution. But it will happen.
My family and the police don't want to know every time I go hunting or to the gun range, dumbass.
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...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
they don't work 100% of the time. Gloves, dirt, sweat, ect. When you pull the trigger, a weapon needs to work. Period.
Also this does nothing for the aftermarket/AR DIYers.
We are just going to have to live in a world with guns. Whether that means allow them or don't allow any like the UK, its going to have to be one or the other....and the US is to big to outlaw them without giving criminals a major advantage.
or inflammatory. Not sure which. The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns. 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? Stop caring so damn much about your precious firearms and start doing something about oppression brought on by wealth inequality. About Wage Slavery. About Voter disenfranchisement. Hell, there are folks who matter talking about taking away women's right to vote. And all I can get out of 40% of the country is some nebulous fear of 'Bama commin' for yur guns. It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have? Hell, since 'Bama took all the guns what's left for Crooked Hilary to take?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
or a pistol? The guns that scare the libtardos (because they're used over and over in mass shootings) are either "hunting" rifles (if /. allowed css fonts I'd make those quotes bigger) or used for target practice. If you were planing on using them against the United States Military when Crooked Hilary gets elected it'll be too late by then. You and your AR-15 don't stand a chance against a modern mechanized army with supply lines and tactical training. If freedom's your bag start trying to figure out the wealth inequality problem. Money is freedom. It's the only thing that really matters. People don't oppress you for the hell of it. They want your money.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you don't usually use one of those to scare off a bugler, you use a pistol (to be fair, the AR-15 _was_ designed from the ground up for killing men, but I digress).
Put it on your target shooters and "hunting" rifles. That way when some depressed teenager reaches for it (either to shoot themselves or someone else) it doesn't work. Good friend of my brother's, Amazing singer, killed himself that way. Temporary chemical depression that coulda been treated. But pulling the trigger's real, real easy...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This would work well for that. Put it on AR-15s and the like. Also could stop a lot of suicides.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The funny thing is that this kid isn't old enough to legally buy the gun he is using in the build.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
At long last, 2000 ad technology is coming true!!!
Gun enthusiasts don't want them.
Police and military won't take them.
Non-gun people aren't going to spend that kind of money.
It doesn't make any sense other than as a propaganda tool.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
> They believe they have the moral high ground. Righteous indignation is a hell of a drug.
This reminds me of the quote by C.S. Lewis:
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 scanner being a disaster in a crisis situation like a home invasion, you don't have the time for that nor want to rely that a gun you might have not touched for a while still has power enough to enable the fingerprint scanner. Similarily if you go hunting, it would REALLY REALLY SUCK to travel for hours to find out your fingerprint friend has no power or just decides that environmental conditions mean your fingers are now invalid.
So said fingerprint scanner gun would never be a gun you would use in real life, making it pointless to shoot at the range,
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You have NO IDEA how effective the finger scanner will be.
Because it's an added layer on top of a system that already sometimes fail (guns jam or sometimes safeties will not release), and furthermore it's an electric system requiring power to function - I can guarantee it will increase the failure rate in successful access to gun for self defense.
To put that in real world terms, lets go for a very low figure and say the increase in failures means there are twenty more women raped in a year. Why would you be for that? Doesn't sound like a good tradeoff to me.
In reality of course the increase in allowed raped would be much higher because it would be mostly females purchasing a "smart" gun, misled by people like yourself into thinking they are better in some way... it's kind of like you are just one step removed from raping them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Self defence is not the only use for handguns. The lower reliability of these smart guns is a moot point if your using them for self defence.
The stock Glock grip doesn't work too well in my hand either. Of course I know I can get all kinds of different backstraps, with and without beavertail, and other options to adjust it to my preference. I do believe my next purchase may be a 1911, though, perhaps the Ruger version.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Just because a few people behave outside the boundaries of society doesn't mean we have to ban the tools that those people use.
A truck was deliberately used in another country recently as a weapon. It was registered, the driver was licensed. Why haven't there been calls to ban trucks?
Because certain people that decline complex thought have marketed, or bought into the marketing of guns as the symbol of absolute evil.
Here's a place I think you would love:
Free Healthcare,
Free Room and Board,
Free nutritious meals ( 3 per day )
Free Gym Membership,
Free Education,
Only the Police have Guns,
Where is this you say?
U.S. Prison. Liberal Paradise.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
I talk to plenty of them. We've got our nuts. Our version of the alt-right. We ignore them, same as the right. They're much less loud and much less potent since they lack a fox news equivalent ( MSNBC isn't even close, they're still pretty conservative on economics outside of Rachel Maddow who's got her hands full defending gay rights).
:P
The goal, by and large, is to stop the mass shootings and suicides. If we thought we could get the right wing to pay for mental health services we'd all shut the hell up about guns. You do know it was the Black Panthers and fear of the Bloods and Crips (remember Colors?) that made gun control a thing, right? The right wing didn't want blacks to have guns. Reminds of of one of the funniest things I've ever seen: A bunch of alt-right douche bags thought they'd go scare some Muslims by cruising by their church with their AR-15s; apparently unaware that the Nation of Islam was something a little different
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Dealers that have offered smart guns along side regular guns have almost been bankrupted by the gun owners refusing to do business with them. People that truly appreciate fine guns will hate this idea. And the price problem is a real killer as well. What we need to get through to the public without being rude is that many, normal people, should never touch guns. It is rather like some people with a skill saw, a table saw, or a chain saw. they often know that they should not handle such tools for various reasons but we all know people that simply screw up around mechanical devices and if they get near guns bad things are almost certainly going to happen. Some people easily get distracted. Some people get too angry, too easily. Some people just lack mental co-ordination and fail to foresee a bad situation approaching. It reminds me of a teen with skates on trying to trim a hedge with a chain saw. You just know that that big ouch is looming over him. Some people are just willing to assume way too much risk. In my humble opinion no gun should have a safety on it. There is nothing wrong with being aware that one instant of careless handling may take your life or the lives of others. If by mood, or lack of intellect you can not maintain that at the top of your thoughts you should never touch any gun.
The touch sensor on my iPhone doesn't work if there's the least amount of water on my thumb. Now this isn't a huge problem for me, but if I had to defend my family and the gun wouldn't fire because my fingers were wet or had a foreign substance on it (say grease from food I was eating)... that's a whole different story.
You do realize that it's a very dangerous idea to buy a gun that you only ever shoot when you need it right?
Unlike in the Walking Dead - guns to shoot tiny laser guided bullets. It takes a lot of skill to not only operate the gun in a safe manner, but also to actually hit what you're shooting at. If you only pull the gun out "when you have to" - it likely will do more harm than good.
Any responsible gun owner should practice with at least 100 rounds every few months at a bare minimum.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
That's much more than twice for most of the guns I own. The only one that comes close was a stainless Beretta 92; the latest one I bought is actually less than 1/3 of that price - and I don't buy the really cheap guns.
It better come with a built-in video camera or some such for that price.
I would like them to try to ban socks and D batteries. Or butcher knives. Or a baseball bat, or any of the billions of other things that can be used to kill someone.
... is always fucking retarded beyond belief?
I agree that fingerprint sensors are nowhere near reliable enough to use on a device that you are depending on to save your life. Since a significant percentage of slashdotters are hardware and/or software folks, does anyone here have an idea as to how the reliability of these sensors could be improved?
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
is that they can happen to anyone, including the well off. Those "normal" shootings tend to be the lower castes shooting each other. That's why the mass shootings get all the noise. I don't care of two drug dealers blow each other away. If I'm middle class I probably don't care that the occasional kid gets caught in the cross fire. When somebody walks into an upscale theatre and starts blowing everyone away I start caring.
This goes back to my original comment, which is that gun control didn't get anywhere until whites wanted to take guns away from blacks.
Anyway, getting back to your point, you're more or less right. If we actually want to stop gun violence (and violence in general) the solution is to attack wealth inequality and legalize drugs. I'm all for that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There is no such thing as a smart gun.
Because it's only the gun-controllers that keep bringing it up. It's a straw man.
Most gun owners know instead that this a game of incremental erosion of our rights ('common-sense gun safety legislation' in newspeak).
The weapons are supposed to be interchangeable so that anybody can be using them. Once you start distributing them then then you would have to do the imprinting of the weapon, which nobody want to do when soldier have to be ready, the alternative is to have every soldier have their own weapon imprinted to them from the start, but then you can again forget draft only professional army would be doable. The reason is not the technology maturity but simply a question of infrastructure and procedure. Your point stand for police though.
I'm so glad these guns will need software to work. As someone who works with computers every day, I'm very impressed at how software always does exactly what I expect it to every time. So much so that I'm really hoping that something that my life could depend on could also rely on software.
Oh, and radio signals. That's another thing that always works for me in every circumstance.
Oh, and batteries. I have a 100% success rate with batteries, they have never failed on me or anyone else in any circumstance.
Oh, and fingerprint recognition. That always works the first time. I never need to reposition my finger repeatedly, and I have never had it just refuse to read based on temperature of the sensor, more or less blood in my hand, or gods only know what astral plane bullshit affects it. None of that ever happens.
Also none of these things are disturbable by hostile actors in any way. Software has security, so no one ever gains access in an unauthorized fashion, and it is impossible to disrupt legitimate access via any manner of denial of service. Software is immune to this. Likewise, radio can never be jammed, spoofed, or otherwise screwed with. Just as when seconds count the police are only minutes away, when someone has a twelve dollar Chinese jammer than blocks your communication with your gun, the FCC is only weeks away from sending a fine to the perpetrator, or perhaps days if there are local ham volunteers. And there's definitely no problem with having an RF signal that is detectable at some distance, especially if your life depends on your hiding. That's definitely not a problem.
I say, lets bundle up the software, with the radio, and the battery, and then mandate that everyone use it to defend their lives. Nothing can go wrong!
In fact, New Jersey has already mandated the exclusive use of these as-yet nonexistent weapons, the moment they actually exist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Such a great idea! For you, at least. I mean, I'm sure the police and military will stick with old fashioned weapons. They are so traditional like that!
So... do they read fingerprints through donuts glaze or the cop is as good as dead? xD
It makes perfect sense because if they are too cowardly to openly carry then they are likely to be too cowardly to commit crimes so they are not people that society needs to worry about.
A stupid fantasy of pulling a hidden gun on a shocked mugger should not be pandered to by law. Wear the fucking thing on your belt and you won't get fucking mugged in the first place.
Can't see *any* prank potential there.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
which often prevents the iPhone fingerprint reader recognizing my thumbprint. It can take months for my fingerprint to re-emerge. Even when my fingers are fine, they usually have to be placed just right on the sensor for it to work. I can't imagine it working reliably on a gun when I won't have time to reposition my finger, or key in my passcode.
When the trigger gets pressed, the gun requests authorization via cellular or wi-fi from the federal government, and if they give the OK then the bullet fires. /sarcasm
Put the libtards who 'innovate' this in jail already.
They are retarded.
They are the problem.
They are the source of all problems.
Stop selling guns is the much better approach to safety.
It's not "gun controllers bringing it up", it's manufacturers working on them. What do you have against manufacturers developing new products?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Some idiot is going to buy one of these guns and not keep it properly secured, a kid is going to get it, and tragedy is going to occur. Most gun deaths are suicides, but there are a lot of accidents, too. While I'm worried about a product like this NOT working when it needs to work, I would be more worried about it working when it SHOULD NOT.
right, it will save the live of the axe-murderer, and forsake the life of the would-be-murdered
that's a great idea
These finger print readers, as anyone who has used one "on a smart phone" would know, don't do well if you have anything on your fingers at all (grease, water, gloves, etc.). This is the proverbial "magic button" people are looking forward to make their guns secure, yet, unwittingly, unusable. When you have considerable room for error, and there is plenty here, it is effectively useless. I've used a firearm when a would-be burglar attempted to enter my home and I will tell you there is no time for fuck-ups and repositioning your finger while Siri says "I'm sorry, I didn't get that." How little time am I talking about? A window shattered and I was firing before the glass hit the floor.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Why are you trying to compare the number of homicides to suicides? Neither homicide nor suicide saves lives, dummy. Self-defense and defense of others saves lives. When you're trying to run away from the bad guy and I'm running toward you both to take him down, that's saving lives.
90% of suicides don't involve a gun, BTW. You don't need a gun to off yourself, a Chevy will do the job quite well.
Thanks for the info.
Fingerprint reader is good idea. If gun is pointed at someone on fingerprint whitelist, will not fire.
Love, two-thirds of Americans have some tertiary education and a half of those hold an undergrad degree. Now that is just my personal experience, but a good number of these people are complete and utter idiots.
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.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
>>Until then, save your "maybe it'll work, maybe it won't" for video games.
Perhaps. But as a military person, my M4 or M249 may or may not work each time I try to fire. It's pretty common, actually. If my weapon had a fingerprint reader, I really believe that it would function just as (un)reliably.
Whether or not you want guns around. Now that people can print them in their garage, illicitly if need be, guns will stay around.
Your armed populace is worthless and a minor speedbump unless it works together. A few guys with guns are nothing but targets.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you keep on preaching stupidity. Go talk to someone in the military to find out exactly how stupid you have been.
Chile had a VERY well armed population when Pinochet came to power - it didn't help. There are many similar examples.
LOL for that prison bit. :)
It's not "gun controllers bringing it up", it's manufacturers working on them. What do you have against manufacturers developing new products?
I have absolutely nothing against manufacturers developing new gun safety products and offering them on the market. The concern with these "smart" guns is that they'll be mandated by law. This has already happened in New Jersey. The 2002 Childproof Handgun Law says that three years after "smart" guns are available for sale in the US, all guns for sale in New Jersey must be "smart". The law doesn't require that the guns be in any way reliable or have obtained any significant market share, just that they've been available for sale. So if these actually make it to market people in NJ who want reliable guns are screwed. And if any other states, or Congress, passes a similar law, then all of us are screwed.
Actually, I'd have no problem with smart guns if they were really reliable. And there's a really simple reliability screening test we can use: offer them to military and law enforcement personnel. Cops in particular should see a lot of value in smart guns because cops occasionally get shot with their own guns. However, they also need their guns to be extremely reliable, and big departments and the FBI have the institutional resources and motivation to seriously test them. So, once the technology reaches a level where police are not only willing to use smart guns but actively want them then it's fine to mandate them for civilians.
Of course, thanks to the NJ law, civilians are going to fight like hell to keep these things off the shelves, which means that the years of refinement needed to make them reliable is never going to happen. Not in the US, anyway.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.