Smart Guns?

[Real_PhillBert]

Why do I get the feeling that thing would have a horrible trigger on it. Maybe it's just me speculating again.

[kuddlesworth9419]

Just so you know Smart Guns will never be a thing in the US anyway. Reason being there are many states that set a law that will take into effect rendering all non-smart guns illegal when smart guns come onto the market. So no gun company in their right mind will make one and sell it as it would devour their sales. 

 

It might happen eventually though. 

 

Edit: Not this one though apparently. It wouldn't initiate the mandate for some odd reason. It was a New Jersey ruling.

[dalekphalm]

There seem to be a lot of potential problems or limitations with this.

 

First off: The 10" distance thing is both too limiting (What if your normal shooting arm is disabled, and you need to use your other arm to fire the weapon?), and too broad (10" is a pretty big distance, if an opponent gets a hold of it).

 

It's a neat idea, but something like a fingerprint scanner would be far more useful - doesn't limit how you can use your own gun (As long as the scanner is near enough instant as makes no difference - but that's not impossible - see how fast TouchID works), you could program it with all 10 fingerprints, to allow you to use the weapon ambidextrously, and it would prevent ANYONE ELSE from using the weapon, regardless of how close they are to you.

 

Let's say a "perp" overpowers you while you're holding the gun, pins your arm to the ground, and forces the gun out of your hand. This won't save you - he can still fire the weapon at you within 10" of your hand. Of course, a normal gun wouldn't save you either in this situation, but a fingerprint scanning gun might.

 

I just feel like if you're going to go through the trouble of using this type of protection system, you need to make it more effective.

For example, instead of a 10" range, how about a contact glove that has integrated RFID/NFC? You cannot fire the weapon unless you're wearing the special glove, that has to be in physical contact? Serves the same purpose as this "watch" thing, but reduces the downsides.

 

As far as people who do/don't believe in gun control? I have no problem with this type of system existing on the market, as long as it's not mandatory - more choice is better choice. If some people who are really paranoid about accidental discharges or people stealing their guns want to buy this? GREAT! Let them! Especially if they can get the delay to "authorize" the weapon to near instantaneous.

[ThinkWithPortals]

Anywhere outside of my house really. Even inside my house. Robberies happen every day. There is no place that you can honestly say a person who may go crazy or attempt to harm you couldnt get you.

How many mall shootings have there been? Gas Stations? Public Shootings? How many robberies are there where you may be in the house still (i saw a commercial about this and its 80% that someone may still be in the house when someone robs a house).

Its not that i warrant the need for one, or that i constantly get myself into trouble or hang out with the wrong crowd. Its overall protection and protection for those who are around me. I have heard many times about people feeling much safer knowing there is someone there to protect them if something happens (i dont tell hardly anyone i carry, as thats the point).

I see. Never been stateside but it doesn't sound too great.

[cpyarger]

There seem to be a lot of potential problems or limitations with this.

 

First off: The 10" distance thing is both too limiting (What if your normal shooting arm is disabled, and you need to use your other arm to fire the weapon?), and too broad (10" is a pretty big distance, if an opponent gets a hold of it).

 

It's a neat idea, but something like a fingerprint scanner would be far more useful - doesn't limit how you can use your own gun (As long as the scanner is near enough instant as makes no difference - but that's not impossible - see how fast TouchID works), you could program it with all 10 fingerprints, to allow you to use the weapon ambidextrously, and it would prevent ANYONE ELSE from using the weapon, regardless of how close they are to you.

 

Let's say a "perp" overpowers you while you're holding the gun, pins your arm to the ground, and forces the gun out of your hand. This won't save you - he can still fire the weapon at you within 10" of your hand. Of course, a normal gun wouldn't save you either in this situation, but a fingerprint scanning gun might.

 

I just feel like if you're going to go through the trouble of using this type of protection system, you need to make it more effective.

For example, instead of a 10" range, how about a contact glove that has integrated RFID/NFC? You cannot fire the weapon unless you're wearing the special glove, that has to be in physical contact? Serves the same purpose as this "watch" thing, but reduces the downsides.

 

As far as people who do/don't believe in gun control? I have no problem with this type of system existing on the market, as long as it's not mandatory - more choice is better choice. If some people who are really paranoid about accidental discharges or people stealing their guns want to buy this? GREAT! Let them! Especially if they can get the delay to "authorize" the weapon to near instantaneous.

They had a fingerprint controlled one on the cnet page as well. 

[zacRupnow]

Gun safety will not work with wearable peripherals, it has to be done on the weapon itself. Biometrics or print scans.

[cpyarger]

Honestly Palm prints would work. 

[tbroadwater2010]

I see. Never been stateside but it doesn't sound too great.

Yeah. I cant see a reason not to carry one. Its safer for everyone around. 

 

Just like giving everyone on a plane a gun with 1 bullet. Who would hijack a plan when everyone on board has a gun?

[Beskamir]

So how would this restrict people that already don't give a damn about the law?

[cpyarger]

Yeah. I cant see a reason not to carry one. Its safer for everyone around. 

 

Just like giving everyone on a plane a gun with 1 bullet. Who would hijack a plan when everyone on board has a gun?

The guy who straps in and shoots out the window

[dalekphalm]

Yeah. I cant see a reason not to carry one. Its safer for everyone around. 

 

Just like giving everyone on a plane a gun with 1 bullet. Who would hijack a plan when everyone on board has a gun?

Uh.... Having guns on a plane to begin with is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, unless the calibre is so weak as to not be able to pierce the hull/windows. Cabin depressurization CAN kill you.

 

Having a US Marshal on the flight, who is trained to use a firearm in such a very specific circumstance is one thing... Having random trigger twitchy civilians with guns on a plane? Fuck no.

[cpyarger]

So how would this restrict people that already don't give a damn about the law?

You cant stop them. 

[dalekphalm]

So how would this restrict people that already don't give a damn about the law?

Well if said people were trying to steal your gun, they couldn't use it (Assuming they also didn't get said watch).

 

I don't see these kinds of weapons as a total end-solution to all gun crime - these are more about fitting a very specific niche situation - eg: people who want personal biometic protections for their firearms, to prevent random thieves from using their gun if stolen, and to prevent things like their kids accidentally discharging the gun.

[tbroadwater2010]

Uh.... Having guns on a plane to begin with is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, unless the calibre is so weak as to not be able to pierce the hull/windows. Cabin depressurization CAN kill you.

 

Having a US Marshal on the flight, who is trained to use a firearm in such a very specific circumstance is one thing... Having random trigger twitchy civilians with guns on a plane? Fuck no.

Im not suggesting giving everyone a .45 Caliber. Im saying like a .22 or at most a .40. This was just a joke though. Although i should have assumed people would flip out lol

[ThinkWithPortals]

Yeah. I cant see a reason not to carry one. Its safer for everyone around.

Just like giving everyone on a plane a gun with 1 bullet. Who would hijack a plan when everyone on board has a gun?

Point taken. Sensible and practical, but man, that's a depressing way to think.

[dalekphalm]

Im not suggesting giving everyone a .45 Caliber. Im saying like a .22 or at most a .40. This was just a joke though. Although i should have assumed people would flip out lol

I wouldn't be confident that a .40 calibre bullet couldn't pierce the hull or a window - hell, even with a .22, I'd want to see validated testing that proves it would be safe.

 

Even still, I would not trust the general public with guns on a plane. I cannot guarantee how well they were trained, whether it was a weekend safety course 25 years ago that they barely remember, or whether they go to the shooting range every week.

 

At least with someone like a police officer or a marshal, I know that there are minimum requirements for training and hours needed in a shooting range for them to keep their firearms.

[tbroadwater2010]

Point taken. Sensible and practical, but man, that's a depressing way to think.

Yeah it is and i hate thinking that way but it has to be in the back of your mind for safety sake.

[Guest Kloaked]

 

 

Agreed.

 

I feel like the person who came up with this system has no experience with firearm safety at all.

[duncanbullet]

unless you have been robbed at gunpoint and have had your life threatened in front of you, you dont realize how much a gun can do in your favor. Luckily enough im still alive to carry my gun ( i wasnt shot during the incident) 

I think the biometric trigger case is a good one, maybe the only one i see fit in the world of further gun safety. 

[Yog]

Uh.... Having guns on a plane to begin with is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, unless the calibre is so weak as to not be able to pierce the hull/windows. Cabin depressurization CAN kill you.

 

Having a US Marshal on the flight, who is trained to use a firearm in such a very specific circumstance is one thing... Having random trigger twitchy civilians with guns on a plane? Fuck no.

You can't listen to what they say in TV shows. A bullet wouldn't create a large enough hole to depressurized the plane and if you managed to fire off enough to do it (probably take a couple clips) it wouldn't be instant depressurization, it would take a few minutes giving everyone time to grab the drop down masks. Even if you didn't know that you could logically come to that conclusion since air marshals carry firearms and even the best marksman misses in tense situations...they would never risk everyone on the plane by carrying a firearm if it were an actual risk.

[DildorTheDecent]

They had a fingerprint controlled one on the cnet page as well. 

Fingerprint control sounds much better than relying on the watch. 

 

There was a prototype ages ago with fingerprint recognition around the grip and trigger. Or was that a bond film...

[ivan134]

Not trying to be rude or anything, but where do you go or what happens or who do you meet that requires you to carry a gun for protection?

About how much longer would you say you have before your government enslaves you because you dont have guns to defend yourself from them? A lot of people here tell me we're a hairs breadth away from that and I wanna know how it is for other people who dont worship guns like we do.

[dalekphalm]

You can't listen to what they say in TV shows. A bullet wouldn't create a large enough hole to depressurized the plane and if you managed to fire off enough to do it (probably take a couple clips) it wouldn't be instant depressurization, it would take a few minutes giving everyone time to grab the drop down masks. Even if you didn't know that you could logically come to that conclusion since air marshals carry firearms and even the best marksman misses in tense situations...they would never risk everyone on the plane by carrying a firearm if it were an actual risk.

Please show me some evidence for this.

 

I'm not an expert, so I won't claim what will/will not cause depressurization in an airplane - but I'd be worried as fuck if I knew most passengers were carrying. I don't trust them with my safety - with a Marshal, at least I know he's been well trained.

[Crazy Ginger]

Is it really that bad in places? Never visited the states but I can't think of a single place I've been in Europe where I think "I need a gun."

The south side of Chicago is pretty dangerous and I can see why he would want to carry a gun with him. Its not that bad everywhere in the states, but in impoverished area and areas with high rates of lower class residents, crime tends to be a pretty big problem in those areas. The north and downtown areas of Chicago tend to be very safe as those are the areas with many upper class residents while the south and near west side of Chicago can be rather dangerous as many poor people live in those areas and people selling drugs and gangs can be pretty easy to spot in those areas.

[ivan134]

The south side of Chicago is pretty dangerous and I can see why he would want to carry a gun with him. Its not that bad everywhere in the states, but in impoverished area and areas with high rates of lower class residents, crime tends to be a pretty big problem in those areas. The north and downtown areas of Chicago tend to be very safe as those are the areas with many upper class residents while the south and near west side of Chicago can be rather dangerous as many poor people live in those areas and people selling drugs and gangs can be pretty easy to spot in those areas.

Ding, ding ding! We have a winner!

My fellow Muricans seem to not be able to see the bigger picture, but you give me hope. Deal with the poverty issue, which by the way is ridiculous for a country that claims to be developed, and the reason to carry a gun for self defense disappears. People just seem to prefer to propose short term "solutions" instead of tackling the root of the problem. I also dont know whether to laugh or cry when people advocate for censorship whenever there is a mass shooting, and dont want news outlets to give out the naames of the perpetrators because they think it encourages copycats. Its amazing how backwards we have our priorities here.