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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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..."
I have eczema on my hands. I have no discernible fingerprints year round due to it. What am I to do? I guess the ADA won't cover me and my 2nd amendment rights.
And how do you get the grizzly to wear the RFID tag?
Have gnu, will travel.
> 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.
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.
Allow me to disabuse you of the idea that this is a negotiation.
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.
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
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
Last time I checked we wouldn't be fighting against a modern, mechanized army. Not just because a large portion of said Army would walk out the day after being ordered to attack citizens, but the simple fact that their families would be EXTREMELY vulnerable to an irate, heavily armed portion of the population if they were break their oaths and turn on the citizens of the country. Most would just simply refuse to act rather than follow orders.
But are we really different than the German population was 80 some years ago, or any other population throughout all of human history whose gov't went bad? I bet even around, say, 1930, there were plenty of Germans who thought that a significant portion of their military would go AWOL if their gov't turned completly tyranical. And lets say a huge portion of our military did break off and fight against the gov't. We have this giant stockpile of nukes and many other kinds of nasty weapons, plus I doubt Russia or China will just stand idly by while America fights Civil War 2 amongst all of this leathal shit, and while we have our tentacles dug in deep all over the globe politicaly, economicaly, and militarily. If we ever do have another civil war, the entire world is going to suddenly become an unimaginably scary, dangerous place to be, far worse than any other time in human history.
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 two have little to do with each other.
If we thought we could get the right wing to pay for mental health services we'd all shut the hell up about guns.
Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, Syed Farook, and Anders Breivik had no criminal records. None of them were under psychiatric care. If you rounded up a million crazy people that might be a danger, they wouldn't have been on the list. It was only after the fact that everyone agreed that they were nuts.
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.
Here ya go. The trouble with suicide by gun is just how easy it is, which is to say, "85 to 91 percent of firearm suicide attempts are fatal".
You might survive the pills and get help. You probably won't survive the gun shot to the head.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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 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% at the very best, but I would expect more like 10%.
A more critical issue in my mind is when fighting overseas the military is able to limit its exposure as much as possible so that only the teeth and a well protected perimeter is all that is visible. That is not the case within the USA. Most bases I've seen are essentially wide open to infiltration and have impossibly more perimeter than can be defended. The military is also pretty gung ho on gun control on its bases so that even if there are enough small arms to go around and defend the perimeter they are almost entirely locked up in an armory. The personnel also mostly live off base on the local economy and so they and their families are vulnerable. Also the utilities for each base are usually coming from the local community and don't have meaningful backups where they can be protected.
The right wing didn't want blacks to have guns.
false
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
thats kind of the point. if someone wants to kill themselves, let them!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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
I thought liberals were all big about assisted suicide. Why take away a method that is 85-91% effective, that doesn't even require the expense of a Dr of Euthanasia?
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..."