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.

Comments

I have one of those watches

[DNS-and-BIND]

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

[maz2331]

Firearms are not at all complex mechanical devices - they are actually quite simple.

Re:Halfway There

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm a socialist

[Anonymous Coward]

You're both ignorant and a fool if you believe that access to firearms makes an iota of difference to suicide rates. I means seriously, your extreme anti gun agenda becomes completely transparent when you make inane statements like that. People here are substantially more intelligent than your echo chamber on the Huffington Post. Go back there for a few years and maybe you'll become knowledgeable enough to post here without looking like a buffoon.

Re:One trusted model per hundred years. Model 1911

[MBGMorden]

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.