General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhatever 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??
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hack89
(39,181 posts)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.
MGMT
(24 posts)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
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)In other words, if the biometric lock is not working correctly, the weapon should be prevented from firing.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)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.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)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.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
LiberalArkie
(19,494 posts)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.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)at other people.
MGMT
(24 posts)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?
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)
Warpy
(114,507 posts)Neither did the heavily propagandized gunloons.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... 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.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)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-SafeTM 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.
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...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?