HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Whatever happened to biom...

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:26 PM

 

Whatever happened to biometric locking systems on firearms?

The tech is out there and has been for some time, so whatever happened to the fingerprint locks on firearms? Too expensive? More expensive than 1000 funerals or 1000 shattered families??? This promising technology isn't off the ground yet.... why not?? Surely it would go a long way to preventing Junior from shooting up his gym class with Dad's gun.It would surely put a serious damper on the stolen weapon market also, no??

18 replies, 1667 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to HickFromTheTick (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:29 PM

1. Several reasons

Unreliable - it has to work 100 % of the time in all kinds of conditions and it doesn't.

Can't be back fitted to older weapons.

Now biometrics on gun safes is workable and would keep guns out of the hands of kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HickFromTheTick (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:30 PM

2. Reliability.

 

The consensus is that its a bad idea to complicate something that you may need to function 100% in a life or death situation. The solution to junior finding your gun is to store your guns in a safe if you have kids.

From wikipedia

[edit]
Many firearm enthusiasts object to smart guns on a philosophical and regulatory basis. Gun ownership advocate Kenneth W. Royce, writing under the pen name of "Boston T. Party", wrote that "no defensive firearm should ever rely upon any technology more advanced than Newtonian physics. That includes batteries, radio links, encryption, scanning devices and microcomputers."[30]

In an article in Forbes, information security expert Joseph Steinberg discussed several technological shortcomings with smart guns that might “create new, serious safety issues for gun owners and non-owners alike.” Among them were claims that “biometrics take time to process and are often inaccurate – especially when a user is under duress – as is likely going to be the case in any situation in which he needs to brandish a gun,” “it is not ideal to add a requirement for power to devices utilized in cases of emergency that did not need electricity previously. How many fire codes allow fire extinguishers that require a battery to operate?,” “smartguns might be hackable” or even “susceptible to government tracking or jamming,” and “Firearms must be able to be disassembled in order to be cleaned and maintained. One of the principles of information security is that someone who has physical access to a machine can undermine its security."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_gun#Controversy_and_Criticism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MGMT (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:16 PM

11. given how IRL life-or-death situations work we should WANT guns to jam, and jam often

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:38 AM

16. Yes, or in engineering terms, make it fail safe.

In other words, if the biometric lock is not working correctly, the weapon should be prevented from firing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MGMT (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:36 AM

15. I suppose we should abandon airline travel then.

Because there, humans are travelling almost as fast as a bullet, 35,000 feet in the air, and rely on all sorts of technological marvels to get to their destinations and not die.

If they can make airliners safe enough for the general public to ride on them, they can make biometric locks for deadly weapons with similar reliability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HickFromTheTick (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:33 PM

3. Because it's not a proven technology.

 

If cops adopted it and proved its worth over, say, 5 years, maybe the gun industry and owners will adopt it. Until then, nobody is going to trust their safety to a gun that may fire when it's not supposed to, or not fire when the user intends to.

In the long run, I think safes are the best bet. They only work if locked though. I recommend some sort of subsidy or tax write off for first time safe purchasers. I suspect the gun loathes will hate that though. Doesn't punish and shame gun owners enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:57 AM

13. Really? So your high priority for a subsidy it to gun owners? Lol, ok. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HickFromTheTick (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:39 PM

4. The only time I think it would work is if someone took your gun and tried to

shoot you. It would not have stopped Colorado Springs. It wound not have stopped San Bernardino. It would not stop any of the times that the cop shot someone. It would not have stopped the time the kid pulled the gun from his mothers purse as she would have been close enough for whatever security device to work.

Probably the only time it would work is if someone stole the gun and tried to use it later. But since there has to be a way to rekey the safety device (ring, watch whatever) if it is lost, the idea is mute.

The only way that seems logical is the Australia model. Ban them all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:53 AM

18. Australia did not ban them all btw

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HickFromTheTick (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:40 PM

5. Only one sure fire way to keep guns out of the hands of people who would shoot them

at other people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:53 PM

12. That's a pretty broad statement.

 

Shouldn't it be "keep guns out of the hands of people who would shoot other people for the wrong reason?"

Or do you believe that self defense isn't a legitimate reason to be armed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HickFromTheTick (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:42 PM

6. the NRA did not like it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HickFromTheTick (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:43 PM

8. Because the guy doing the shooting is usually the guy who can unlock it n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HickFromTheTick (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:00 PM

9. The NRA didn't like it.

Neither did the heavily propagandized gunloons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HickFromTheTick (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:08 PM

10. In addition to everything mentioned...

 

... some systems relied on a bracelet and the equivalent of bluetooth for verification.

Such a signal could be jammed by someone with some technical knowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TipTok (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:48 AM

17. I'ma gonna let you in on a secret...

 

as someone whose family business is in defense hardware--what you see there as a flaw is actually something that was pitched to DoD and law enforcement as a design feature: "With this handy-dandy patented Fire-Safe[sup]TM[/sup] function-suppression unit we also sell...you can make sure that all opposing force smart-guns will not function. One flip of a switch and you can render an assailant or hostage-taker's gun inoperable, saving lives and presenting tactical advantage."

I'ma gonna go out on a limb here and say you already knew this however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HickFromTheTick (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:01 AM

14. I mentioned these earlier too, OP (although I didn't know they existed, but to research them)...

 

...and if they already exist but are 'unreliable', a government subsidy to create a solution would get companies lined up to find an answer.

Look at it like this: We know for a fact that the government can get people to do almost anything, and yet for some inexplicable reason, the ONLY debate 'allowed' about this topic is: full confiscation or nothing/stacks of laws. Nothing else.

Thoughtful people look at this situation and ask...why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread