pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
User specific guns.
#1
We've seen user specific guns a few times in the movies..., you know, where you either had to voice print or palm print to use it? The most recent iteration is Skyfall, the new Bond movie.

Anyway, if such technology existed, and I think we'll see it sooner than later, would you support laws mandating use of such technology?

Why or why not? What pros/cons are there?

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#2
JustinHEMI;51194 Wrote:We've seen user specific guns a few times in the movies..., you know, where you either had to voice print or palm print to use it? The most recent iteration is Skyfall, the new Bond movie.

Anyway, if such technology existed, and I think we'll see it sooner than later, would you support laws mandating use of such technology?

Why or why not? What pros/cons are there?

Justin

I definitely think its an awesome idea. I also definitely think the government should stay out of it. It should be completely up to the free market and consumers to decide.

As an example...the government might say its required so children cannot use the gun. However, in our latch-key society, we've seen in many news articles lately how that school aged children have been able to effectively protect themselves using a gun. It would be one of many examples where on the surface it sounds like a good "law" but could have bad effects in certain cases.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#3
No, I would absolutely NOT support requiring a firearm to be "user specific".

I resist "technology" as much as I can because it is often the stepping stone to something sinister.

The "good" of such a device could probably be counted on one hand, where the "bad" would very much outweigh the "good".

And I don't count "if it saves just one life" as a "good reason" for anything - gun related, or not.
Reply
#4
I actually have a reason aside from anti government mandate. Much the same as I am not a fan of a manual safety or a palm safety on a carry or home defense gun, what if, based on the circumstances of the moment, the only grip you are able to establish is palm over the mag well and pinky on the trigger? Would you want your last ditch effort at saving your own life thwarted by not touching a sensor somewhere on the gun?
The law? The law is a human institution...
Reply
#5
Good points. And since it would be battery powered, what if the battery died?

I agree, this would be one of those "common sense" "feel good" laws, that wouldn't do law abiding gun owners any real good.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#6
Computers and sensors fail. Moving parts fail. I want the least amount of fallible parts in my guns.
TheWolff, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#7
csmith;51210 Wrote:I actually have a reason aside from anti government mandate. Much the same as I am not a fan of a manual safety or a palm safety on a carry or home defense gun, what if, based on the circumstances of the moment, the only grip you are able to establish is palm over the mag well and pinky on the trigger? Would you want your last ditch effort at saving your own life thwarted by not touching a sensor somewhere on the gun?

Maybe you could just push a button and call OnStar for help?
Reply
#8
The gun would require batteries to power the electronics to run the thing, unless you shoot it often and a spring tensor can "recharge" the thing when you take it out to the range.

I would like the feature to be available if I wanted to buy such a trigger-lock, but not mandatory.

Plenty of people share their guns. I do not but I think many households do. "Dad" may have bought it but mom, junior and sis all use it at the range and all 4 might need to use it in a time of emergency, and they screw up configuring it so it's inoperable when it's necessary to use it. [It's up to a parent to decide when a responsible age has been hit that their child can be trusted to defend themselves if need-be. I would hope that includes a VERY consistent observation of the rules of firearms safety.]


Someone breaks into my house and steals a weapon, I can at least have a little trust that it can't be used in a homicide---but that all hinges on how defeatable the electronics are.

And for trigger locks I would imagine there would be YouTube videos popping up everywhere on how to remove the locks because some states won't make these kinds of locks mandatory, so the knowledge will be out there for people who acquired a gun with this type of lock and want to rid their gun of it.

It takes a LOT of engineering to make a mechanism very difficult to defeat.
Reply
#9
Didn't NJ or one of those states already pass a law requiring that technology once it's been invented?
Reply
#10
The only reason to pass laws requiring it is that it's not a viable technology. If it was, people would buy it willingly. The company that is developing it lobbies to have laws passed requiring it, not because it's a good idea, but because if it's required by law, you'll make millions. If it's such a great bit of tech, police departments would be required to have it on their duty weapon. Do you really think any police department would use such a potentially lethal tech on their guns? It's a pipe dream by the company making it. It's likely it will never be a reliable safety.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Reply








Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.