Arguments against "owner only" gun technolgy

[monotonous_iterancy]

I came across someone advocating technology that make guns compatible with the owner, and only the owner. I read some excellent arguments against that idea here, I believe it was, but I forget what they were.

So what's wrong the idea of limited access gun technology?

 

[browningguy]

It doesn't work.

And the ones that "almost" work don't work all the time. Otherwise you would see all the various law enforcement agencies (and we have dozens of them in the US) and military using them.

 

[Skribs]

Anything that can potentially fail when you need it and prevent the gun from firing is not something I want on a defensive firearm. Internal locks on revolvers are an example of this.

A biometric option would be even worse. I've used biometric devices before, and they work so-so. They can be defeated (Mythbusters proved this) and they fail to authenticate the user. Fingerprints, for example, can change over time, due to cuts, abrasions, and warts. I wouldn't want the device to fail to authenticate me when I need it.

The other problem is this: you might need to have a database on each firearm in order for anyone in your household to use it. There are plenty of articles online about families who have a young teen/late tween use the gun in self defense while the parents are out. I can imagine laws would try to prevent that in certain jurisdictions, because some people believe it's better the child get attacked than have to live with the actions of self defense.

 

[beatledog7]

I've made the argument many times that modern electronic security hardware and software have become so "secure" that even those who are authorized access often can't get in. "Owner only" firearms are a shining example of this.

 

[jack404]

I worked on metal storm here and part of that was a grant from the gov to look at these systems , not one could prevent someone else using it

like ATM theft nowdays , they can clone the electronic signature , heck its even poosible to fool biometric tests , if it had of worked Australia at the time would have adopted it , but the testing we did and the faults with the technology made it a nightmare as i could steal your gun , fool it to think i was you , shoot someone and the gun would give evidence against the owner as it dont know it was fooled

same fear with DNA so easy to steal and place .. throw someones hair brush cleanings into a crime scene and watch that mess

anything that is set to detect something can be fooled buy a copy

and until things change these owner only things are a joke .. either too strong to let the user use it or soft enough to hack

mid point is still too touchy to find reliably

 

[k_dawg]

If such technology was so great, every single LEO would demand they have it on their own carry firearm.

 

[jack404]

its like the micro stamping they tried here on ammo

first time they tried to use it in a court room the case was thrown out as the smearing of the marks made it look like the cops gun did the shooting , but they had video of it all so it was saved , but the marking was condemned soundly by the judge and the Queensland cops tossed it , you can buy it cheap here at times ..

 

[Twiki357]

Another deficiency with the biometric stuff is which hand. If it reads your right hand finger print, what happens if your injured and have gun in your left. I think there was a set up a number of years ago that tried the "Owner only" approach with a ring (or something) that a LEO wore on his finger that activated the gun. Didn't work to well if he switched hands.

 

[Texan Scott]

So if I'm on night shift when someone breaks into the house, my wife can't use my gun? And someone thought that was a good idea?

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

The whole concept reminds me of that old joke: "This is your auto-pilot speaking. The aircraft is now being flown without the pilot's input, it is a marvel of modern technology. Relax and enjoy your flight. Do not worry. Nothing can go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ...."

Any technology like that will have to be every bit as reliable in the real world as a fireram without that system. Otherwise, no one will avail themselves of it. Not the Military, not the cops, not we civilian shooters.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Because one EMP and your gun is worthless...

 

[Onmilo]

The crook simply removes the owner id microchip, ring, wristband, whatever, from the owner.
Usually at the sacrifice of the owners life.

 

[Ehtereon11B]

Great science fiction idea. But for practical use as of right now, no.

 

[U-235]

I'm an engineer and work in implantable medical devices. The devices that I work with are life sustaining, which means the patient could lose their life if the device fails.

The same could be said for a device that only allows authorized users to fire a weapon. If it fails the authorized user could die. Reliability of the device would be of paramount importance. The reliability would have to be proven under real world conditions such as have been mentioned above: What if your fingerprints change? What if your hands get dirty? What if you switch hands? What if you lose the ring with ID chip in it? What if another member of your family needs to use the weapon?

I don't see any current or near future technology that would work to an acceptable level of reliability.