Biometric technologies are bringing new levels of protection to gun owners who carry but don't want them used without their knowledge.
Per Discovery News:
Biometric Gun Lock Has Fingerprint Scanner
(http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/blogs/dnews-files-2014-05-biometric-gun-lock-670-jpg.jpg)
We probably don't need this Pew Research survey to tell us that Americans are split down the middle on the issue of gun ownership. But here it is: 50 percent of us say gun control is more important than gun rights; 48 percent say the opposite. And even though more than 90 percent of Americans who took this poll want background checks, it's not going to happen with money from the NRA opposing it.
But surely no one wants their gun to fall into the hands of a thief or murder, or worse — a child. So how to prevent that?
Engineer Omer Kiyani, who was shot in the face when he was 16 years old, has an innovative solution. It's called Indentilock and it's a biometric lock that attaches to the trigger mechanism and only comes off when activated by an authorized fingerprint. It's similar to how the fingerprint lock on an iPhone works. Except in this case, the lock is FBI compliant and detachable.
This means you don't need to fumble around for a key, should you need to use your gun quickly. And because several people can be authorized to use the device, you can make sure that only adults have access and not children.
Can Felons Get Guns?
The rechargeable lock also glows in the dark, making it easier to locate, should you wake in the middle of the night to the sound of someone breaking in your house.
What many folks, including myself, seem to like about this solution is that it's optional and if you do chose to use it, it disengages quickly.
Also a new product from Intelligun
http://www.intelligun.com/ (http://www.intelligun.com/)
Intelligun® is a fingerprint locking system which completely locks your gun, unlocking it immediately only for you and for your authorized users.
(http://www.intelligun.com/img/gun-diagram.jpg)
No keys, watches, or codes are needed. All you do is pick up and hold your gun normally, and Intelligun® reads your fingerprint, authorizes you, and unlocks your gun right away, allowing only you to use your gun. Right when you let go of your gun, Intelligun® relocks your gun, rendering it completely inoperable.
Expired battery?
Yeah, bump that. This doesn't "protect gun owners". It makes law abiding gun owners dead faster when the technology fails and they can't get access to their firearm in a life or death situation.
"Hold on, Mr. Home Invasion Robber... let me put on my smart watch so I can shoot you!"
Quote from: RiversideLoki on May 07, 2014, 10:11:06 AM
Yeah, bump that. This doesn't "protect gun owners". It makes law abiding gun owners dead faster when the technology fails and they can't get access to their firearm in a life or death situation.
"Hold on, Mr. Home Invasion Robber... let me put on my smart watch so I can shoot you!"
Exactly this. When it comes down to life or death I want as little failure points as possible, add this creates way too many.
Fingerprint sensors can be defeated, they have already found a way to defeat the iPhone sensor.
Quote from: stephendare on May 07, 2014, 11:04:48 AM
so, abandon the iphone sensor?
The iphone sensor is optional. Besides that, guns are a matter of life and death, iphones not so much.
Gun rights on a metrojacksonville thread...oh this is going to be good....
(https://i.imgur.com/NWbTl.gif)
1. Both of those are right handed sensors. There are left handed shooters.
2. Any trained shooter knows that you need to be able to shoot strong hand and weak hand in the off hand position for survivability drills. This defeats that.
3. The intelligun sensor is not an index finger but a middle finger exact placement depends upon grip size not all grips and hands work well this way.
4. Dirt...
Quote from: stephendare on May 07, 2014, 11:25:07 AM
but it can be hacked right?
So therefore it serves no purpose.
Is that right Carpnter?
Keep your pants on stephen, I don't hover here waiting for responses.
No where did I say it serves no purpose, but it is not the end all to keeping a firearm secure and it should not be represented as such. Fingerprint sensors are not foolproof nor are they completely secure. If your finger isn't positioned properly you can get a bad read and the gun would not function, if you have ever used one on a laptop I'm sure that you've experienced bad reads when you swipe your finger. There is not a universal hand size and the placement of the sensor could also be problematic, its position on the grip might be fine for me but it may not work at all for my wife whose hands are significantly smaller than mine are. I could go on, but I think I've made the point I needed to make.
Not to mention that the 1911 grip accessory is just that, an accessory. This would not prevent theft of the gun considering a set of new grips will run you around 10 bucks and the fancy little gadget can just be drilled and cut off. It's completely pointless.
What about a scope that does a retinal scan?
Just stupid on so many levels
Not pointless... not a panacea either. Im sure there will be a market for such weapons. There will be a niche of folks who will want one. Gun manufacturers like everyone else are always looking for popular new features... 8)
The weapon is safe in your holster on your person. For storage, I would select high concealment. It is free, fast, and failsafe. Just my 2.
Quote from: stephendare on May 07, 2014, 01:04:23 PM
Quote from: carpnter on May 07, 2014, 12:11:58 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 07, 2014, 11:25:07 AM
but it can be hacked right?
So therefore it serves no purpose.
Is that right Carpnter?
Keep your pants on stephen, I don't hover here waiting for responses.
No where did I say it serves no purpose, but it is not the end all to keeping a firearm secure and it should not be represented as such. Fingerprint sensors are not foolproof nor are they completely secure. If your finger isn't positioned properly you can get a bad read and the gun would not function, if you have ever used one on a laptop I'm sure that you've experienced bad reads when you swipe your finger. There is not a universal hand size and the placement of the sensor could also be problematic, its position on the grip might be fine for me but it may not work at all for my wife whose hands are significantly smaller than mine are. I could go on, but I think I've made the point I needed to make.
so the position is that if it doesnt end all crime or doesnt prevent all hacking, then its pointless?
I believe the line of thinking is that while it may curb unauthorized uses, it would also be problematic for when you really need it. Too many variables for failure. And electronics can/do fail, like, a lot. Mechanical in these situations are probably the way to go.
I could also envision this ushering in a bunch of other stuff too down the road. Like hacking, DRM, spyware, tracking, etc.
Quote from: stephendare on May 07, 2014, 01:04:23 PM
Quote from: carpnter on May 07, 2014, 12:11:58 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 07, 2014, 11:25:07 AM
but it can be hacked right?
So therefore it serves no purpose.
Is that right Carpnter?
Keep your pants on stephen, I don't hover here waiting for responses.
No where did I say it serves no purpose, but it is not the end all to keeping a firearm secure and it should not be represented as such. Fingerprint sensors are not foolproof nor are they completely secure. If your finger isn't positioned properly you can get a bad read and the gun would not function, if you have ever used one on a laptop I'm sure that you've experienced bad reads when you swipe your finger. There is not a universal hand size and the placement of the sensor could also be problematic, its position on the grip might be fine for me but it may not work at all for my wife whose hands are significantly smaller than mine are. I could go on, but I think I've made the point I needed to make.
so the position is that if it doesnt end all crime or doesnt prevent all hacking, then its pointless?
You have a very bad habit of engaging in the message board equivalent of putting words in other people's mouths. It is childish and contributes nothing to the discussion. I have already addressed your question and will not do so again. Until you are willing to discuss the points made and not engage in ridiculous hyperbole, you are not worthy of a response.
StephenDare!, BT answered your question in reply#15. It is an option for those consumers that see some use in it. Many firearms owners, including those here who are stating their opinion, won't want to use such a device for a variety of reasons.
Firearms owners will point out the flaws in these devices quickly because the "anti gun culture" almost always attempts to legislate the mandatory use of such devices in attempts to circumvent the rights of America's citizens.
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2014, 01:21:29 AM
you mean like the right to a trial by jury?
Or the right to not die by the hand of a home invader/robber/mugger who doesn't care about your rights or the laws.
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2014, 09:00:58 AM
Quote from: RiversideLoki on May 08, 2014, 08:18:34 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2014, 01:21:29 AM
you mean like the right to a trial by jury?
Or the right to not die by the hand of a home invader/robber/mugger who doesn't care about your rights or the laws.
because killing or being killed by that person is the only possibility. Makes sense.
Wonder if that applies to unfair job promotions, botched travel arrangements, assholes in traffic, etc?
I cant imagine why we have anything like courts or laws really. They seem so outdated with this new thinking.
So Riverside Loki, Im not sure what you are saying?
Is it your point that having a fingerprint sensor would prevent you from using your private gun in your private home to defend yourself from the murderous burglars?
I'm saying that it could possibly prevent me from being able to defend myself. This isn't like unlocking my smart phone, Stephen, and no amount of straw-man can draw that conclusion.
What it could do is malfunction, preventing me from defending myself when I need to most, ergo making me dead. Sure, the cops might catch the guy who did it afterwards, but a fat lot of good that will do me. What having a firearm is, is an option to defend myself. It's not the only choice, sure, the last thing a gun owner wants to do is use that gun to kill someone. But there you go putting words in people's mouths.
I swear, you're not even a good troll, Stephen.
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2014, 10:26:31 AM
So if killing someone is the last thing a gun owner wants to do, what on earth do they think a bullet speeding through someone's body can do?
Because all gun owners are just waiting around hoping for the opportunity to kill someone and claim SYG of course.
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2014, 10:26:31 AM
So I suppose you are going to opt out of the iphone sensor and the password option, just in case you need to make an emergency phone call?
I hate to bring facts in to this, but to make emergency calls you don't need to unlock iphones and android phones. You really should drop the analogy, it's not helping.
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2014, 09:00:58 AM
because killing or being killed by that person is the only possibility. Makes sense.
Are you going to reason with someone who's all cracked up and is breaking in to your house with THEIR gun? Maybe have them sit on your couch and ask them about their feelings?
Man, I knew this was going to be a good thread.
(http://media.giphy.com/media/J9lgF7RpdJdIs/giphy.gif)
Bottom line is that when a gun owner uses his/her weapon the only option is to kill. Period.
That always has been my argument with hand guns. Their purpose is to KILL not wound or warn but to kill. Hand gun owners are assuming that they will always have to kill. And if that's not the case it's the impression I get from EVERY hand gun owner I have ever talked to.
It seems to be the only option for them and it disturbs me. For my thinking if I were protecting myself it would be my LAST option to have to kill another human being not my first.
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2014, 11:30:12 AM
are you sure its not for use in a game of canasta?
Anything's possible...
http://www.youtube.com/v/8RW1Yil7ZRk
Diversion and falsehoods, diversion and falsehoods...doesn't this get old for everyone else as well?
Quote from: NotNow on May 08, 2014, 12:22:20 PM
Diversion and falsehoods, diversion and falsehoods...doesn't this get old for everyone else as well?
For once in my entire time on this board, I agree with NotNow... mark it on the calendar.
Quote from: RiversideLoki on May 08, 2014, 12:24:23 PM
Quote from: NotNow on May 08, 2014, 12:22:20 PM
Diversion and falsehoods, diversion and falsehoods...doesn't this get old for everyone else as well?
For once in my entire time on this board, I agree with NotNow... mark it on the calendar.
Does that mean you will be making a kayak launch soon?
Quote from: vicupstate on May 08, 2014, 12:30:55 PM
Quote from: RiversideLoki on May 08, 2014, 12:24:23 PM
Quote from: NotNow on May 08, 2014, 12:22:20 PM
Diversion and falsehoods, diversion and falsehoods...doesn't this get old for everyone else as well?
For once in my entire time on this board, I agree with NotNow... mark it on the calendar.
Does that mean you will be making a kayak launch soon?
That is Noone. In this case you are responding to NotNow.
this won't work for me. I'm right handed and my wife is left handed.
The Kellerman study was revised by himself, Stephen.
QuoteA subsequent study, again by Kellermann, of fatal and non-fatal gunshot woundings, showed that only 14.2% of the shootings involving a gun whose origins were known, involved a gun kept in the home where the shooting occurred. (Kellermann, et. al. 1998. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." Journal of Trauma 45:263-267) ("The authors reported that among those 438 assaultive gunshot woundings, 49 involved a gun 'kept in the home where the shooting occurred,' 295 involved a gun brought to the scene from elsewhere, and another 94 involved a gun whose origins were not noted by the police.") (Kleck, Gary. "Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of Being Murdered?" Homicide Studies 5 <2001>.)
Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html
Annnnd your point being?
I'll repeat myself again for StephenDare!. BT answered your question waaaaayyyy back in reply #15. I have nothing to add to what he said.
I don't keep a gun in my home for the 'Kellerman' reason, for lack of a better term. For every news story you read about an intruder coming into someone's house and being stopped with the homeowner's gun, there seems to be many,many more stories of accidental shootings, usually by children. Where I live, South Carolina, there were three incidents of children shooting there sibling or playmate in about 2-3 weeks time. And those are only the ones I casually came across, there may have been others during the same period of time.
A gun is a VERY, VERY dangerous thing to have in your home. Period. If you don't live in the hood, you almost certainly don't need one for protection. Every adult in the home should decide together if it is a risk worth taking. PLEASE do NOT take this decision lightly.
If you choose to have one, please know where it is at ALL times. It should NEVER be within the reach of a child. Hide the key where even your teenage kids don't know where it is.
I may be killed by a intruder in my home, one day, but at least I won't have to look at my great nephew's/niece's face after they shot someone or got shot, because I absentmindedly did something wrong. That would be a fate far worse than death, in my mind.
Have a good day StephenDare!
Quote from: vicupstate on May 08, 2014, 03:53:53 PM
I don't keep a gun in my home for the 'Kellerman' reason, for lack of a better term. For every news story you read about an intruder coming into someone's house and being stopped with the homeowner's gun, there seems to be many,many more stories of accidental shootings, usually by children. Where I live, South Carolina, there were three incidents of children shooting there sibling or playmate in about 2-3 weeks time. And those are only the ones I casually came across, there may have been others during the same period of time.
A gun is a VERY, VERY dangerous thing to have in your home. Period. If you don't live in the hood, you almost certainly don't need one for protection. Every adult in the home should decide together if it is a risk worth taking. PLEASE do NOT take this decision lightly.
If you choose to have one, please know where it is at ALL times. It should NEVER be within the reach of a child. Hide the key where even your teenage kids don't know where it is.
I may be killed by a intruder in my home, one day, but at least I won't have to look at my great nephew's/niece's face after they shot someone or got shot, because I absentmindedly did something wrong. That would be a fate far worse than death, in my mind.
You nailed it Vic! This is an exercise in risk assessment. A gun IS a dangerous tool. As with any dangerous tool it needs to be operated, maintained, and stored properly. I would feel uncomfortable operating a bulldozer... this machine seems very dangerous and I would not own one. I also know very little about them... I see what they can do... and I am sure if I wanted to... I could learn to operate it safely. But even that does not eliminate all risk... because they are big and dangerous machines.
Stephen should stay away from guns... If I were him I would not associate with those who own them. Stephen has decided that they are too risky for him... and I can respect that.
I think you just illustrated how unlikely it is that anyone would ever be shot with a gun. 8)
Quote from: Apache on May 08, 2014, 05:22:14 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 08, 2014, 05:04:16 PM
I think you just illustrated how unlikely it is that anyone would ever be shot with a gun. 8)
Or that Stephen is actually a Super Hero. What's your hero costume look like Stephen!?
Anyone good with photoshop...? ;D ;D
And all of your lives should be at the whim of criminals because if you armed yourself.... someone could be hurt!
This silliness makes sense to "progressive"s....and they want to force you to accept it.
These are the same people who don't want you to judge all muslims by the actions of a few, but want you to use the actions of a very few to judge all owners of firearms.
No thinking person can listen to this tripe for very long.
I'm hardly hysterical. But I am laughing hysterically at your twists and turns in this thread. And I would be thrilled if you would confine your discussions to a "simple safety device".
What is obvious to the rest of us is that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Well, by your reasoning we should outlaw television, radio, and the internet as well. After all, they weren't around when the Constitution was written either.
The silliness of your arguments are just beyond what should be endured. Have fun with your "murder" rant. You have truely out done yourself in this thread.
OK, you stay out of the jungles of Peru... ;D