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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
They believe they have the moral high ground. Righteous indignation is a hell of a drug.
...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.
> 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.
Allow me to disabuse you of the idea that this is a negotiation.
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 his constant attempts 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.
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
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
you are right. there is no negotiation. "shall not infringe" is pretty clear
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same