new technology?

[ieszu]

I know it is just a movie, but I just finished "Shoot Em Up" (the new movie with Clive Owen), and I saw something in the movie that piqued my interest. They make mention of a device that wold not allow a gun to fire because the fingerprints did not match the owner's. I know this is generally referred to as "Smart Guns", and I was just curious if anyone had heard of this tech getting beyond laboratory settings.

Not that I am in favor it, just curious what the current status is on it.

 

[strat81]

Hopefully the status is DOA.

I don't think I would EVER trust any type of biometric firearm. We had a biometric time clock at my old job...the thing worked maybe 50% of the time for me.

 

[Packman]

after seeing my friend's computer refuse his fingerprint, necessitating a shipment to the manufacturer to unlock it, I'd rather not have such technology on any of my possessions. I've seen gunsafes with thumbprint ID pads. Wouldn't it be terrible for it to go belly-up when something goes bump in the night, denying you your gun?

And, I WANT my friend to be able to pick up my gun and shoot it when I hand it to him. If you don't want someone shooting a gun of yours, there are other more rational steps than biometric lockout.

 

[Superlite27]

I'm a staunch believer that any ignoramus can make things more complicated. It takes a true genious to SIMPLIFY.

The more things a piece of equipment has, the more things there are that could break.

A gun that breaks when you need it most is nothing more than a really expensive paper weight.

(A paper weight you won't need for very long if you do truly need it.)

 

[SoCalShooter]

I have to agree with packman here the technology is not where it should be and should definitly not be on any of my guns. it does not work well on my laptop. The technology has a finger print scanner in the grip of the weapon.

 

[RNB65]

The idea of a Biometric handgun is so stupid on so many levels. What happens when the BG comes after you in January? You have to take your gloves off before you can defend yourself? What if you fall down and scrape your fingertips? What happens when the battery dies at the moment you need it most?

Biometrics is quite effective as a form of computer authentication, but it has to be used under ideal conditions. If the skin on your fingertips is too dry or cracked the reader may not be able to get a good reading. Also, there are some people who have such fine ridges on their fingertips that commercial fingerprint readers can't read them at all. Iris recognition is a far more effective biometric than fingerprints. Perhaps all handguns should be equipped with a iris scanner?

 

[mekender]

i believe that IL has already passed a law that will require this to be implemented once the technology is available

 

[230RN]

I practice hauling out my guns at home using plastic clones.

It's rare that I get the same grip even though I'm practising slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

I also wonder what the lag times are between application, scan, recognition, and the OK to fire signal. Even 200 ms would be too slow.

And my son and I switch guns around a lot.

 

[ieszu]

I knwo that IL has passed the law, as well as Kommie-California and NJ. That is one of the reasons I was curious.. I hadn't heard it brought up in a while, and wondered if there was something new that has come out of the tech field.

 

[Car Knocker]

I know that IL has passed the law, as well as Kommie-California and NJ.

And I wonder why law enforcement agencies in those states are exempt from complying with these laws? Is it possible that LEOs distrust this technology?

 

[NukemJim]

I knwo that IL has passed the law,

Can you please give a reference for the above?

I was not aware of that bill making it out of the legislature let alone being signed by the Govenor.

As always I could be wrong.

NukemJim

 

[Jimmy Dean]

I know that Taurus Firearms was working on it a few years ago. The company is unfortunately under new management, so I do not know the status of that line of research.

I like the idea, I know that the previous owner of the company was unwilling to sign off on it until it reached a rather high standard of reliability.

 

[PercyShelley]

Was it Taurus? I know that someone was looking at this at one point.

Anyhow, same old story as a lot of really whizbang stuff; guns are not a happy place for complicated electronics to live. Guns get damp, both from firing and from palm sweat. Guns get hot. Guns undergo rapid acceleration. Guns vent particulates other assorted crud.

Now, picture what would happen to a PC and a scanner if you did that to them.

 

[JWarren]

Jimmy Dean wrote:

I like the idea

You like this idea???

Will you still like it when your wife has to protect herself with your gun, but it won't work? My wife and I both use all of our guns. With this technology, that ends that. Just hope that she grabs HERS when someone is coming in.

And you like how it would effectively kill the re-sell ability of firearms?


I think anyone who likes this does not have other people in their family, and/or has never been in a situation where they had to defend their lives or property.


-- John

 

[ieszu]

I am not sure where I read the info about IL...I think I read it in a newsletter the JPFO gave out while I was in Gunsmithing school.

The law stated that when such a technology became technologically feasible, then it would be required on all new handgun sales.

I could be wrong. I know California passed such a law a few years back, and NJ passed it about the same time.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

I said I like the idea. Yes. Also, the way it was being worked on, more than one person would be able to fire the weapon.

I like the idea for the same reason I like the fact that my gun has a key lock on it. Granted, keeping it locked when not in use would greatly slow down my ability to use it when needed, but doesn't keeping your gun in a lockbox in the dresser?

I mean, provided that the system where to be made efficient enough to work....95% of the time at least, I had my wife, my kids, myself, and maybe my closest of buddies, able to use the gun, I would feel much more preferable doing that than carrying a firearm that if someone manages to disarm me, they are able to turn against me provided that they where not supplying one of their own. I would rather that IF I am disarmed, tehy turn the gun on me and pull the trigger...I would love to see that look of shock as they throw the gun at me tryin to do what damage they can.

Yes, prefferably, I would want circumstances in our world to be that there is no need for any type of protective systems, but then again, I would prefer a world where I could walk down the street unarmed and fearless and they only guns I felt the need to own would be my huntin rifles.

 

[keeleon]

Will you still like it when your wife has to protect herself with your gun, but it won't work? My wife and I both use all of our guns. With this technology, that ends that. Just hope that she grabs HERS when someone is coming in.

Not to defend it, but you would most likely be able to add anyone to it you wanted to, not just yourself. Which would of course defeat the point. All of my kids that the "gubment" is trying to protect from me would be programmed into it anyway.

Oh wait, you have to have so that an attacker doesn't take your gun from you! Because no one who could steal a gun would EVER be able to reprogram it.

And that isn't even mentioning that it is a technical nightmare. I have used biometrics in computers, and while they are kind of neat and "futurey", they can be very frustrating.

It makes for good movies, but I don't see it ever really happening. MAke the criminals do it first, how about that?

 

[JWarren]

Jimmy Dean wrote:

I mean, provided that the system where to be made efficient enough to work....95% of the time at least,

Personally, my life and the life of my loved ones is worth more than a 5% failure rate.

I like the idea for the same reason I like the fact that my gun has a key lock on it.

That's fine. Its a personal choice. I just hope that you don't support legislation pushing YOUR choices on the rest of us.



-- John

 

[ServiceSoon]

Maybe they could make smart guns a requirement for criminals. Oh wait, that wouldn't work. How long until somebody hacks one of these smart guns?

 

[ColinthePilot]

How long until somebody hacks one of these smart guns?

How long after i bought one with the "Required" system would i have it removed and chucked in the garbage? As soon as I got home. Same with the gun locks that are "required by law" to be sold with all handguns in some areas. long gone.

 

[32winspl]

I have a computer. It usually (as you said, 95%) does what I want it to do. Really sucks when it doesn't, or takes longer than usual. The remote for my TV is super-reliable, except when the battery gets low or the contacts inside begin to get dirty. Then I have to push twice, or push harder (I know, I know). My life has been made easier and more convenient by electronics in so many ways, and because I've become so accustomed to them (electronics), when they don't work, it sucks. If my life, or that of a family member depended on them, and they failed to work, it would really suck.
There is a company, or was a few years ago, that produced a magnetic lockwork system that worked inside the firearm. In order for the gun to fire, you had to be wearing the proper magnetic ring. It probably worked just fine, but when is the last time you saw a firearm so equipped, or even heard of it?

 

[CountGlockula]

 

[DPris]

Remember the much ballyhooed Smart Holster that Uncle Mike's announced about five years ago for law enforcement?
Died a quiet death within about a year of that announcement.
The technology does not yet exist to make that holster 100% reliable, and without that no cop (or sane non-cop) would hang their life on it.
Same with firearms.
Denis