If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Latest Bond movie features weapon we should actually make   (slate.com) divider line 179
    More: Interesting, golden gun, james bond movies, atomic bombings, personalized medicine, H.G. Wells, New America Foundation  
•       •       •

17917 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 2:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-15 12:12:23 PM
Or you could keep your gun secured when you're not using it and buy a $10 trigger lock.
 
2012-11-15 12:40:27 PM
Because if someone breaks into my house and is pointing a gun at me, I want my gun to have to verify i'm holding it before I shoot them. Because finger print readers are so accurate that I don't have to swipe my finger several times to use laptops that require them or go into an area that uses fingerprints.

A better solution might be an RFID implant in your palm that it's reading. That way if your hands are dirty or anything like that, it won't stop you from shooting someone/something when you want to.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2012-11-15 12:53:36 PM
No. If I need a gun to work, I need it to work. Not crash, have dead batteries, reboot, whatever. The worst sound you can hear is a click when you were expecting a bang.
 
2012-11-15 12:54:40 PM
Like you can't disconnect the locking mechanism...
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-11-15 01:05:05 PM
Before the public is burdened with this nonsense, I recommend that it be tested with law enforcement and the military. Once it passes those field tests then and only then should it be considered safe enough for public use.  Those organizations exist to protect the populace, if it doesn't work for them, it CERTAINLY isn't good enough for the general public
 
2012-11-15 01:13:36 PM

labman: A better solution might be an RFID implant in your palm that it's reading. That way if your hands are dirty or anything like that, it won't stop you from shooting someone/something when you want to.


Man, I can only imagine the Alex Jones' Infowars freakout if the government started requiring RFID chips in gun owners.
 
2012-11-15 01:56:55 PM

Shostie: labman: A better solution might be an RFID implant in your palm that it's reading. That way if your hands are dirty or anything like that, it won't stop you from shooting someone/something when you want to.

Man, I can only imagine the Alex Jones' Infowars freakout if the government started requiring RFID chips in gun owners.


You could put an RFID in a ring on your finger. Of course if you forget to wear the ring then you are farked.
 
2012-11-15 02:16:54 PM
For absolutely no practical reason, I want to fire one of those crazy drum mag Glock 18s.
 
2012-11-15 02:29:14 PM
This concept has been out for a long time, well before this movie. I remember reading about prototypes back in the late 90's or early 00's. I think they were looking into it for law enforcement at the time, so criminals couldn't take a cop's gun.
 
2012-11-15 02:47:46 PM
There are ways around this....

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-15 02:48:26 PM

Voiceofreason01: Or you could keep your gun secured when you're not using it and buy a $10 trigger lock.


Don't use a trigger lock. It's a mechanical finger near the trigger.
 
2012-11-15 02:48:51 PM

weapon we should actually make


The tactical hydraulic scoop shovel? Very useful on trains.
 
2012-11-15 02:49:19 PM
LOL, reboot your gun, are you feeling lucky, punk?
 
2012-11-15 02:49:52 PM

wee: No. If I need a gun to work, I need it to work. Not crash, have dead batteries, reboot, whatever. The worst sound you can hear is a click when you were expecting a bang.


Don't I know it:

img35.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-15 02:50:37 PM
metalgearsolid.nl

Heh, what a cute idea.
 
2012-11-15 02:51:11 PM
Didn't License to Kill have a biometric-locked gun?
 
2012-11-15 02:51:19 PM
This has been available for at least 20 years. The cheapest way to do this is to have the user wear a ring which must be held next to the weapon for it to fire. The NRA lobbied heavily against it.
 
2012-11-15 02:51:54 PM
There's a reason that fingerprint recognizing guns are fiction. Frankly, it's too complicated.

It would also significantly increase the price of firearms. And has no one watched the movie angels and demons? All it takes is someone cutting your hand off to use your gun.
 
2012-11-15 02:52:09 PM

wee: No. If I need a gun to work, I need it to work. Not crash, have dead batteries, reboot, whatever. The worst sound you can hear is a click when you were expecting a bang.


Sums up my thoughts completely.

Besides, it would only take a few people getting killed because it didn't work properly for the manufacturer of such firearms to be sued out of business or at least to stop making them.
 
2012-11-15 02:52:32 PM

Shostie: labman: A better solution might be an RFID implant in your palm that it's reading. That way if your hands are dirty or anything like that, it won't stop you from shooting someone/something when you want to.

Man, I can only imagine the Alex Jones' Infowars freakout if the government started requiring RFID chips in gun owners.


Wouldn't you freak out?

I certainly would, and the only time I listen to Alex Jones (which has to be done on shortwave to get the full conspiratorial flavor*) is for the comedic value.

*You can listen to a radio broadcast surreptitiously, with no way for the government to know you are listening unless they are very close by.
 
2012-11-15 02:52:39 PM
This idea has been around for awhile...

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-15 02:53:25 PM
This is not the time to talk about biometric gun control.
 
2012-11-15 02:53:30 PM

madgonad: This has been available for at least 20 years. The cheapest way to do this is to have the user wear a ring which must be held next to the weapon for it to fire. The NRA lobbied heavily against it.


Little known fact: The police agencies also lobbied against it being a requirement for them. Why is that?
 
2012-11-15 02:53:30 PM
give a nerd a challenge from authority and there will be a way around it. Remember: we created an eighth day of the week to fark with you or get even.
 
2012-11-15 02:53:46 PM
They've had this technology for about a decade now. And the problem with it is still that it doesn't work.
 
2012-11-15 02:54:32 PM

iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.


That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.
 
2012-11-15 02:55:18 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Like you can't disconnect the locking mechanism...


This.

Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.

Even if the electronics work perfectly, it's trivial to remove the mechanical bits that are controlled by the electronics. Sure, it might stop a criminal who grabs your gun and tries to shoot you (thus making it potentially useful for police officers, assuming they can get the reliability to work) but a thief who steals a gun and thus has time to work on it will find it relatively easy to remove the appropriate bits.
 
2012-11-15 02:56:13 PM

dittybopper: Little known fact: The police agencies also lobbied against it being a requirement for them. Why is that?


Because when you need to pull the gun and use it, you don't have time for the biometrics to work.
 
2012-11-15 02:56:34 PM
I guess they completely missed the Judge Dread movie or 16 others that had guns recognizing dna/fingerprint/vocal commands etc. No, just the James Bond movie. Idiots.

Secondly, I am sure that the guy breaking into my house with is OWN gun won't be able to shoot me because MY gun has palm reading technology. "One moment while I read your palm! Whirr zzzzz zip...OK, according to you palm reading, you have just been shot by a burglar. Palm signing out..whizz..whirr...zzzz..zip."
 
2012-11-15 02:58:04 PM
I am the law?
 
2012-11-15 02:58:40 PM

dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.


That is a possibility; but, as it stands, even the cheapest guns I know about are $250-$350. That's a huge investment for poor people.

The real goal is probably to increase the cost of all firearms; so it's expensive for everyone but rich people.
 
2012-11-15 02:58:44 PM

timujin: This concept has been out for a long time, well before this movie. I remember reading about prototypes back in the late 90's or early 00's. I think they were looking into it for law enforcement at the time, so criminals couldn't take a cop's gun.


Actually, no.

New Jersey enacted a version of the law that requires all handguns sold in the state to be "smart guns" 3 years after their attorney general decides they are commercially available and safe to use. The police are exempt from the requirement.

Every version of it I've heard proposed at the state and federal level exempts police and military.

Gee, I wonder why?
 
2012-11-15 02:59:28 PM

dittybopper


Don't use a trigger lock. It's a mechanical finger near the trigger.


Huh?

My trigger locks have pieces that pass behind the trigger. Even if someone tried to move the trigger by applying force to the lock, he probably wouldn't be able to crush that piece enough to get the trigger to move.


This all assumes the locks are used...
 
2012-11-15 03:00:39 PM

dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.


The sad thing is that if poor minorities could not afford guns then 97% of America's gun problems would disappear. 92% is black on black anyway, so I really don't see a problem.
 
2012-11-15 03:01:10 PM
ts3.mm.bing.net

Here's my trigger safety right here.

/take a hunters safety course to heart and you'll be just fine.
 
2012-11-15 03:01:14 PM

iheartscotch: dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

That is a possibility; but, as it stands, even the cheapest guns I know about are $250-$350. That's a huge investment for poor people.

The real goal is probably to increase the cost of all firearms; so it's expensive for everyone but rich people.


GUN CONTROL AND ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION: THE MELTING-POINT CASE-IN-POINT
 
2012-11-15 03:01:14 PM
it doesn't matter what you make illegal when it comes to guns. Criminals will just make their own because it's easy and cheap.

don't believe me? check out this rural Pakistani villiage that makes aasault rifles and semi-automatic pistols with techniques that haven't changed much since the Iron age.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VGpPUzzIio

The only thing any Anti-Gun legislation ever prevents is a law abiding citizen protecting themselves.
 
2012-11-15 03:02:37 PM
It's not a BAD idea, but there are too many bad things about it.

What happens if it runs out of batteries?

Does it lock when the wrong person grabs it or does it unlock when the right person grabs it?

Gloves?

How easy is it to reprogram? Would it be a hinderance to reselling it person-to-person?

Presumably, you would need licensed software and a USB cable or something similar in order to reprogram it. Criminals are *never* able to get ahold of illegal copies of software, right?
 
2012-11-15 03:02:57 PM
Latest?

blogs.smithsonianmag.com
 
2012-11-15 03:03:23 PM
This is such a stupid idea. What if your hands are grimy or dirty? What if you're in some major type shiate and have blood all over your hands? Are the biometrics still going to read? At least RFID will work, though I still think that's a lousy idea too. I firmly believe gun control laws need to be strengthened, but I still don't want to prevent any theoretical baddies from using my weapon at the expense of preventing my theoretical allies from doing the same.
 
2012-11-15 03:04:47 PM
WEAK

That can be outdone for $7.... 12 gauge zip shotgun.
 
2012-11-15 03:05:00 PM

Shostie: labman: A better solution might be an RFID implant in your palm that it's reading. That way if your hands are dirty or anything like that, it won't stop you from shooting someone/something when you want to.

Man, I can only imagine the Alex Jones' Infowars freakout if the government started requiring RFID chips in gun owners.


I am so tempted to start an online petition requiring RFID chips be imbedded in the hands of gun owners, just to see Alex's head explode!
 
2012-11-15 03:05:51 PM

heypete: Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.


Not being a gun owner myself, why did you feel this was something that you needed to do ?
 
2012-11-15 03:06:01 PM

pir8p3t3: it doesn't matter what you make illegal when it comes to guns. Criminals will just make their own because it's easy and cheap.


This. And because "hacking guns" won't become a black market business itself.
 
2012-11-15 03:07:17 PM

Voiceofreason01: Or you could keep your gun secured when you're not using it and buy a $10 trigger lock.


If I'm keeping a gun by the bed I'd rather have a biometric gun than a gun and a trigger or action lock. Either way, you have to take the time to "activate" the gun.

There are certainly some engineering issues though. When off, it would have to be off because you couldn't allow any battery drain at all given you wouldn't be able to use more than 1 or 2 button batteries to power it. It would have to be weather proof and small enough to fit in the grip. I'm sure there's no problem from an engineering standpoint though.

The liability would be enormous though and I doubt any lawyer would allow such a thing to be sold.
 
2012-11-15 03:08:01 PM
Yeah, because I want a gun that I can't use when I get a cut on my hand or the batteries run out. Also, computerizing personal weapons is a Honorable idea as far as civil liberties go. What's to keep people of authority from making a remote kill switch and requiring it by law? It wouldn't prevent violent crimes, as the criminals would just illegally modify their guns back to what they are today. It would add jail time, it's been proven that that isn't a strong deterrent. The only viable use I can see for this is for police officers. They tend to get killed by their own guns.
 
2012-11-15 03:08:06 PM
Think of the liability lawsuit the first time one of these fails to work for someone trying to defend his family.

/I hope the legislators are held personally liable.
 
2012-11-15 03:08:07 PM

Terrydatroll: dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

The sad thing is that if poor minorities could not afford guns then 97% of America's gun problems would disappear. 92% is black on black anyway, so I really don't see a problem.


I do see a problem, because not every poor black person is a criminal. Yes, crime tends to be concentrated in that demographic, as I've pointed out numerous times on Fark, but I've *NEVER*, *EVER* advocated a blatantly racist "Hey, our problems would be over if we prevented blacks from owning guns" viewpoint.

That's just farkin' wrong, sad or not.
 
2012-11-15 03:08:51 PM

EdNortonsTwin: [ts3.mm.bing.net image 300x208]

Here's my trigger safety right here.

/take a hunters safety course to heart and you'll be just fine.


You should use your middle finger. Seriously. I forget the name of this style, but the idea behind it is to lay your index finger alongside the barrel, pointing forward, and use your middle finger to fire. The idea is that humans have the innate ability to point their middle finger accurately at just about anything. It is not good if you are trying to shoot coins or nail that bull's eye ring, but for larger targets it is supposed to be quite accurate.
 
2012-11-15 03:09:32 PM

iheartscotch: dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

That is a possibility; but, as it stands, even the cheapest guns I know about are $250-$350. That's a huge investment for poor people.

The real goal is probably to increase the cost of all firearms; so it's expensive for everyone but rich people.


There's a pawn shop on the way home from work that has a banner advertising $99 9mm pistols. That's pretty cheap, although I'm guessing that the guns are pretty crappy.
 
2012-11-15 03:10:18 PM
Personally, I enjoyed seeing Trump's wig make a cameo appearance.
 
2012-11-15 03:10:45 PM

dittybopper: madgonad: This has been available for at least 20 years. The cheapest way to do this is to have the user wear a ring which must be held next to the weapon for it to fire. The NRA lobbied heavily against it.

Little known fact: The police agencies also lobbied against it being a requirement for them. Why is that?


I would guess: because any technology will fail due to user error or outright flaw some percentage of the time, and that could cost a cop their life.

If I owned a gun (which I don't) I would absolutely not want a biometric lock. It seems like a truly horrible idea.
 
2012-11-15 03:12:24 PM

Mock26: EdNortonsTwin: [ts3.mm.bing.net image 300x208]

Here's my trigger safety right here.

/take a hunters safety course to heart and you'll be just fine.

You should use your middle finger. Seriously. I forget the name of this style, but the idea behind it is to lay your index finger alongside the barrel, pointing forward, and use your middle finger to fire. The idea is that humans have the innate ability to point their middle index finger accurately at just about anything. It is not good if you are trying to shoot coins or nail that bull's eye ring, but for larger targets it is supposed to be quite accurate.


Fixed that for myself.
 
2012-11-15 03:12:34 PM

Terrydatroll: I guess they completely missed the Judge Dread movie or 16 others that had guns recognizing dna/fingerprint/vocal commands etc. No, just the James Bond movie. Idiots.

Secondly, I am sure that the guy breaking into my house with is OWN gun won't be able to shoot me because MY gun has palm reading technology. "One moment while I read your palm! Whirr zzzzz zip...OK, according to you palm reading, you have just been shot by a burglar. Palm signing out..whizz..whirr...zzzz..zip."


Because every time someone breaks into your house you have less than second from the tim eyou grab your gun until he uses his ninja-like reflexes to acquire you in the dark and fatally shoot you? Hell if all the tech did was force you to spend an extra second assessing the situation before making a shoot/ don't shoot decision it might prevent a lot of tragedy.
 
2012-11-15 03:13:07 PM

padraig: heypete: Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.

Not being a gun owner myself, why did you feel this was something that you needed to do ?


Magazine disconnects aren't a substitute for sane gun handling, and in fact they can be dangerous: Someone used to guns with magazine disconnects is the sort of person who has accidental discharges with guns that don't have them. Magazine disconnects encourage laziness, where people won't check the chamber because the gun won't fire without a magazine in it (probably).

You should *ALWAYS* check the chamber of a gun. If you do that, then a magazine disconnect is superfluous: You know there isn't a round chambered because either the gun was truly empty, or you ejected the one round left in the gun when you racked the slide back to check the chamber.
 
2012-11-15 03:13:53 PM

Mock26


It is not good if you are trying to shoot coins or nail that bull's eye ring, but for larger targets it is supposed to be quite accurate.


Don't take this the wrong way, but I could stand on my head and hit a "larger target". That does not mean head-standing is an effective technique; it means the target is so large that it masks the problems with the technique.
 
2012-11-15 03:14:10 PM
I think something similar has been tried. The biggest problem is that technology does not react well with recoil.
 
2012-11-15 03:14:53 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Like you can't disconnect the locking mechanism...


THIS.
 
2012-11-15 03:14:57 PM

dittybopper: timujin: This concept has been out for a long time, well before this movie. I remember reading about prototypes back in the late 90's or early 00's. I think they were looking into it for law enforcement at the time, so criminals couldn't take a cop's gun.

Actually, no.

New Jersey enacted a version of the law that requires all handguns sold in the state to be "smart guns" 3 years after their attorney general decides they are commercially available and safe to use. The police are exempt from the requirement.

Every version of it I've heard proposed at the state and federal level exempts police and military.

Gee, I wonder why?


That particular law or even "every version of it you've heard" doesn't make what I wrote untrue. In the article I was reading, they were talking about using this for cops, specifically because they didn't want criminals taking a cop's gun. Now, this was a long time ago, at least a decade, so maybe the general philosophy is different now, but it doesn't change what I read.
 
2012-11-15 03:15:01 PM

Ethertap: There's a pawn shop on the way home from work that has a banner advertising $99 9mm pistols


sounds like a lovely area
 
2012-11-15 03:15:20 PM

ArcadianRefugee: pir8p3t3: it doesn't matter what you make illegal when it comes to guns. Criminals will just make their own because it's easy and cheap.

This. And because "hacking guns" won't become a black market business itself.


Which is why so many machine-guns (full-auto weapons you pedantic bastards) have been used in crimes since the Federal government went out of thier way to make them expensive and hard to obtain?
 
2012-11-15 03:16:17 PM
use a knife, or a sword

they never jam always ready to use, and scare the shi@t out of most of your common criminals.
 
2012-11-15 03:16:45 PM
I invented a lock for my wife's vajayjay that if the DNA sample from the weewee doesn't match mine it shoots metal spikes into it.
 
2012-11-15 03:17:54 PM
No, THIS is the weapon we need to develop.
scienceblogs.com 
/hot like Leia in a bikini
 
2012-11-15 03:17:59 PM
It is a cool idea that isn't quite technologically mature. Its primary benefit, besides the child accident thing, is if you are disarmed by an assailant. The e-gun owner that wants to be ready at all times could just have the ID tag tattooed on the inside of both ring fingers if they didn't want to be tied to a piece of jewelry or RFID chip.

But from what I've read, the criminal's gun is not normally a stolen weapon, but instead a straw-purchased one. The big conundrum is figuring out how to stop straw purchases.

Terrydatroll: The sad thing is that if poor minorities could not afford guns then 97% of America's gun problems would disappear. 92% is black on black anyway, so I really don't see a problem.


It is odd to see a known troll using arguments that are backed up by an article written from the other side of the issue, although TFA said 90% is gang violence as opposed to "black on black." There are latino gangs, white gangs and drug gangs that fall out of that category. I think black-on-black is only 65% of homicide deaths.
 
2012-11-15 03:20:31 PM
what if the batteries run out?
 
2012-11-15 03:20:48 PM

ProfessorOhki: [metalgearsolid.nl image 800x450]

Heh, what a cute idea.


Came for this, leaving satisfied...
 
2012-11-15 03:22:07 PM

dittybopper: Voiceofreason01: Or you could keep your gun secured when you're not using it and buy a $10 trigger lock.

Don't use a trigger lock. It's a mechanical finger near the trigger.


so... you never learned that you can put a pin behind the trigger and between the trigger guard, thus making it impossible for the trigger to be pulled when the lock is on it?

And why would you put a trigger lock on a loaded weapon anyways. If you've got time to fark around with keys and taking a trigger lock off, you've got time to load the damn thing as well.

If you're using a gun as self defense and keeping it loaded you're not going to have a lock on it at all. Which is one of the big problems with self defense weapons and why people shoot themselves in the foot with them.
 
2012-11-15 03:23:58 PM

Duke_leto_Atredes: use a knife, or a sword

they never jam always ready to use, and scare the shi@t out of most of your common criminals.


Except when this happens.
 
2012-11-15 03:25:31 PM

timujin: dittybopper: timujin: This concept has been out for a long time, well before this movie. I remember reading about prototypes back in the late 90's or early 00's. I think they were looking into it for law enforcement at the time, so criminals couldn't take a cop's gun.

Actually, no.

New Jersey enacted a version of the law that requires all handguns sold in the state to be "smart guns" 3 years after their attorney general decides they are commercially available and safe to use. The police are exempt from the requirement.

Every version of it I've heard proposed at the state and federal level exempts police and military.

Gee, I wonder why?

That particular law or even "every version of it you've heard" doesn't make what I wrote untrue. In the article I was reading, they were talking about using this for cops, specifically because they didn't want criminals taking a cop's gun. Now, this was a long time ago, at least a decade, so maybe the general philosophy is different now, but it doesn't change what I read.


What you read was an incorrect justification for the development of the technology, either by someone who just didn't know what they were writing about, or in order to put one over on the rubes.
 
2012-11-15 03:25:48 PM
Just so I am clear ihis. It is unreasonalbe to expect me to be able to prove who I am when I go to vote because of the undo expense and hardship it may impose on a "poor' person. At the same time not only is that hardship and expense of identification a nonissue when a person exercises their right to purchase a firearm but now they want me to have to identfy myself to the gun I purchased each time I use it.

I suppose I will have to idneitfy myself when I exercise my "right" to Obamacare also. For some reason only when voting is this a bad thing.
 
2012-11-15 03:26:16 PM

Ethertap: iheartscotch: dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

That is a possibility; but, as it stands, even the cheapest guns I know about are $250-$350. That's a huge investment for poor people.

The real goal is probably to increase the cost of all firearms; so it's expensive for everyone but rich people.

There's a pawn shop on the way home from work that has a banner advertising $99 9mm pistols. That's pretty cheap, although I'm guessing that the guns are pretty crappy.


I'm guessing its either a Croatian / soviet surplus number or it's a Hi-point. If its a Hi-point, it's utter crap. If its a surplus pistol; it depends. You can get some neat old pistols for super cheap. Last I knew, you could get a nagant pistol for under $100, the ammunition is very scarce though. But, for a new production pistol anything under $250 is going to be utter crap.
 
2012-11-15 03:26:45 PM

dittybopper: Terrydatroll: dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

The sad thing is that if poor minorities could not afford guns then 97% of America's gun problems would disappear. 92% is black on black anyway, so I really don't see a problem.

I do see a problem, because not every poor black person is a criminal. Yes, crime tends to be concentrated in that demographic, as I've pointed out numerous times on Fark, but I've *NEVER*, *EVER* advocated a blatantly racist "Hey, our problems would be over if we prevented blacks from owning guns" viewpoint.

That's just farkin' wrong, sad or not.


I'm black, I own SEVERAL firearms. I have absolutely NO inclination to commit an act of violence with said weapons.

But thanks for the vote of confidence.
 
2012-11-15 03:26:49 PM

factoryconnection: It is a cool idea that isn't quite technologically mature. Its primary benefit, besides the child accident thing, is if you are disarmed by an assailant. The e-gun owner that wants to be ready at all times could just have the ID tag tattooed on the inside of both ring fingers if they didn't want to be tied to a piece of jewelry or RFID chip.


That use case implies either the gun scans between trigger pull and firing every time (seems like a really bad idea) or uses grip pressure release/application as a flag to reauthenticate (better, but still potentially unpredictable). The "keep a kid from finding it" case works a bit better because you could auth and then have a manual re-lock. That at least ensures that once you're able to fire, the gun won't fail on you but still makes storage safer.
 
2012-11-15 03:27:34 PM
When Daniel Craig gets too long in the tooth to play the secret agent, will they have to manufacture a new gun so Justin Bieber can shoot with it?
 
2012-11-15 03:28:42 PM

padraig: Not being a gun owner myself, why did you feel this was something that you needed to do ?


Good question.

In general, it's because I think that a gun should be able to fire whenever it's loaded and any manual safeties are set to "fire" regardless of whether or not the magazine is inserted. I don't mind safeties that are designed to prevent accidental discharge (e.g. a drop-safety that prevents the firing pin from moving if the gun is dropped but is deactivated when the trigger is pulled, or a grip safety that is deactivated when one is holding the gun), but I dislike mechanisms that don't really serve any safety purpose (a gun with a round in the chamber but no magazine is still loaded and should be handled as such) and add complexity.

In the specific case of the Ruger MkIII .22LR pistol, the magazine disconnect explicitly required unsafe gun handling when disassembling and reassembling (in that it required inserting the magazine, cycle the bolt, and then pulling the trigger to release the hammer). By removing the disconnect, I could disassemble and reassemble the gun without needing to handle magazines at all as I could cycle the bolt (while checking the chamber for any cartridges) and pull the trigger without any risk of inadvertently loading the gun in the process.
 
2012-11-15 03:31:06 PM

factoryconnection: But from what I've read, the criminal's gun is not normally a stolen weapon, but instead a straw-purchased one.


What you've read is wrong. The "time to crime" for most guns seized is on the order of a decade.

The most common way guns get into the hands of criminals isn't straw purchases, or through theft, but through leakage from the legitimate private market, where Joe sells his handgun to Pete, who sells it to Fred, who sells it to someone he may or may not know, etc.

Straw purchases have a very specific meaning: A gun is purchased by Person X specifically for Person Y. A gun purchased by Person X, then sold to Person Y a few years later is *NOT* a straw purchase.
 
2012-11-15 03:31:29 PM

hasty ambush: Just so I am clear ihis. It is unreasonalbe to expect me to be able to prove who I am when I go to vote because of the undo expense and hardship it may impose on a "poor' person. At the same time not only is that hardship and expense of identification a nonissue when a person exercises their right to purchase a firearm but now they want me to have to identfy myself to the gun I purchased each time I use it.

I suppose I will have to idneitfy myself when I exercise my "right" to Obamacare also. For some reason only when voting is this a bad thing.


You think that you don't have to prove who you are to vote? What county do you live in?
 
2012-11-15 03:31:42 PM
There isn't a trigger safety that can stop a gun from killing someone when they want you dead. The safest thing that could done to protect the citizenry from wanton acts of gun violence is to make any use of firearms in the commission of a crime punishable by death. Yes, the death penalty for using a firearm while committing a crime. There has to be a conviction on the crime before this can be enacted, but it would thin the herd a little (there will always be those who will have guns, just less of them).

/any crime will do. It's the gun that counts
//also, register and limit bullets
///
 
2012-11-15 03:32:34 PM
i218.photobucket.com"

These exist but the people on Earth don't know about it. You'll have to join the CDF to find out more.
 
2012-11-15 03:33:09 PM
Slappers only
 
2012-11-15 03:33:36 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: I'm black, I own SEVERAL firearms. I have absolutely NO inclination to commit an act of violence with said weapons.

But thanks for the vote of confidence.


Brothers in arms, we are.
 
2012-11-15 03:36:07 PM
This was a bad idea when it was first suggested around thirty years ago.

Where you have electronics, you have batteries and dozens of components that can fail under various circumstances. Which means that you need a backup system. Easy to do in the case of a holographic sight (backed up with irons) but not so much in the case of a trigger.
Its fail state would leave you with an inoperable gun... and people who want guns do not want that.

/This is the kind of thing that would only appeal to a politician.
/At least until he figures out his guards might be saddled with non-functional weapons.
/As much as it might make for a better world, I suspect "weapons that can only be used by a select group of people" goes against every known purpose for the 2nd amendment.
 
2012-11-15 03:36:43 PM

padraig: heypete: Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.

Not being a gun owner myself, why did you feel this was something that you needed to do ?


Magazine safeties are in very limited use. Basically they serve the function of preventing accidental discharges like when you are cleaning your gun. Pop the mag out and forget there is a round in the chamber, which amazingly a lot of people do. There is also the argument that if you are in a fight over the gun you can just release the mag, making it inert.

Basically they are pretty useless and don't add much to the overall safety of the firearm at all.
 
2012-11-15 03:38:18 PM

id10ts: No, THIS is the weapon we need to develop.
[scienceblogs.com image 355x199] 
/hot like Leia in a bikini


No, THIS is the weapon we need to develop.
i1125.photobucket.com
/Hot like Summer.
 
2012-11-15 03:38:27 PM

392Zaphod: This idea has been around for awhile...

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 260x194]


But unless it can fire grenades, double whammies, signal flares, full auto... and shock the bejeezus out of a criminal that tries to use it... I don't want it.
 
2012-11-15 03:39:31 PM
Am I really the first one to mention The Weapons Shop of Isher?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_of_Isher
 
2012-11-15 03:46:33 PM

Summer Glau's Love Slave: id10ts: No, THIS is the weapon we need to develop.
[scienceblogs.com image 355x199] 
/hot like Leia in a bikini

No, THIS is the weapon we need to develop.
[summerglau.jpg]
.


Seconded!

All in favor? AYE!!!
 
2012-11-15 03:49:25 PM

Terrydatroll: I guess they completely missed the Judge Dread movie or 16 others that had guns recognizing dna/fingerprint/vocal commands etc. No, just the James Bond movie. Idiots.

Secondly, I am sure that the guy breaking into my house with is OWN gun won't be able to shoot me because MY gun has palm reading technology. "One moment while I read your palm! Whirr zzzzz zip...OK, according to you palm reading, you have just been shot by a burglar. Palm signing out..whizz..whirr...zzzz..zip."


The vast majority of homicides are committed with illegally obtained firearms. If we had a perfectly functioning biometric ID on a firearm, these would be eliminated. Obviously, the "perfectly functioning" part is an engineering feat that's likely beyond current technology.
 
2012-11-15 03:53:02 PM

UtileDysfunktion: Summer Glau's Love Slave: id10ts: No, THIS is the weapon we need to develop.
[scienceblogs.com image 355x199] 
/hot like Leia in a bikini

No, THIS is the weapon we need to develop.
[summerglau.jpg]
.

Seconded!

All in favor? AYE!!!




dl.dropbox.com

Soooon...
 
2012-11-15 03:53:05 PM

meanmutton: Terrydatroll: I guess they completely missed the Judge Dread movie or 16 others that had guns recognizing dna/fingerprint/vocal commands etc. No, just the James Bond movie. Idiots.

Secondly, I am sure that the guy breaking into my house with is OWN gun won't be able to shoot me because MY gun has palm reading technology. "One moment while I read your palm! Whirr zzzzz zip...OK, according to you palm reading, you have just been shot by a burglar. Palm signing out..whizz..whirr...zzzz..zip."

The vast majority of homicides are committed with illegally obtained firearms. If we had a perfectly functioning biometric ID on a firearm, these would be eliminated. Obviously, the "perfectly functioning" part is an engineering feat that's likely beyond current technology.


Guns are relatively simple mechanically speaking. In reality, I can't see how you'd implement something like that, not to mention the millions of guns that already exist without them.
 
2012-11-15 03:55:43 PM

padraig: heypete: Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.

Not being a gun owner myself, why did you feel this was something that you needed to do ?


I am a gun owner and can't imagine why he'd feel the need to do this -- unless you do speed shooting competition?
 
2012-11-15 03:56:57 PM

fluffy2097:
If you're using a gun as self defense and keeping it loaded you're not going to have a lock on it at all. Which is one of the big problems with self defense weapons and why people shoot themselves in the foot with them.


Shooting accidents and car accidents have one big thing in common: most are caused by someone doing something monumentally stupid with predictably catastrophic consequences, often for an innocent bystander.
 
2012-11-15 03:59:11 PM

meanmutton: padraig: heypete: Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.

Not being a gun owner myself, why did you feel this was something that you needed to do ?

I am a gun owner and can't imagine why he'd feel the need to do this -- unless you do speed shooting competition?


It breeds laziness.
 
2012-11-15 04:01:24 PM
Ruger MKIII's famously have the magazine disconnect, and everyone takes it off. Screws up the gun to boot.
 
2012-11-15 04:02:07 PM

Terrydatroll: Secondly, I am sure that the guy breaking into my house with is OWN gun won't be able to shoot me because MY gun has palm reading technology. "One moment while I read your palm! Whirr zzzzz zip...OK, according to you palm reading, you have just been shot by a burglar. Palm signing out..whizz..whirr...zzzz..zip."


Apparently the consensus is that this idea won't work, because today's computers take seconds to process a kilobyte of data, all the while making clockwork noises.
 
2012-11-15 04:03:27 PM

meanmutton: padraig: heypete: Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.

Not being a gun owner myself, why did you feel this was something that you needed to do ?

I am a gun owner and can't imagine why he'd feel the need to do this -- unless you do speed shooting competition?


1. Its one more thing to interfere with operation.
You can have a round in the chamber and fire a gun just fine, but if the magazine isn't seated (which is an easy mistake to make) then you got nothing.

2. Its a safety concern and an annoyance.
Some guns like the Ruger MKII require that you pull the slide and drop the hammer at different times during the disassembly procedure. On the MK III you have to insert a magazine (and it has a bolt catch).

/Personally, this grinds my nuts every time I have to clean the thing.
/Getting rid of it is on my list of to-do's.
 
2012-11-15 04:06:44 PM

Inigo: Didn't License to Kill have a biometric-locked gun?


Yep, Q brought it to Bond when he was down in the "Generic South American Country"
 
2012-11-15 04:06:45 PM

Xcott: Terrydatroll: Secondly, I am sure that the guy breaking into my house with is OWN gun won't be able to shoot me because MY gun has palm reading technology. "One moment while I read your palm! Whirr zzzzz zip...OK, according to you palm reading, you have just been shot by a burglar. Palm signing out..whizz..whirr...zzzz..zip."

Apparently the consensus is that this idea won't work, because today's computers take seconds to process a kilobyte of data, all the while making clockwork noises.


Imagine you have a cell phone, and imagine you leave that cell phone in your pocket or in a safe and it goes unused and uncharged for months or even years at a time.
Now imagine that you must pull out that cell phone in an emergency.
If it doesn't turn on and dial out, you will die.

How much faith do you have in your cell phone?
 
2012-11-15 04:07:00 PM

dittybopper: meanmutton: padraig: heypete: Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.

Not being a gun owner myself, why did you feel this was something that you needed to do ?

I am a gun owner and can't imagine why he'd feel the need to do this -- unless you do speed shooting competition?

It breeds laziness.


I saw some of that argument later and honestly, it's a tough pill for me to swallow. But then again, I'm from the school of thought that you treat a weapon you've personally unloaded and verified as unloaded the same you do as if it's loaded -- you never sweep the barrel past someone, you don't walk around with your finger on the trigger, you keep the barrel pointed down, etc.
 
2012-11-15 04:09:14 PM

Inigo: Didn't License to Kill have a biometric-locked gun?


Yes it did and it was like 23 years ago and it looked the same.
 
2012-11-15 04:10:15 PM

Ethertap: There's a pawn shop on the way home from work that has a banner advertising $99 9mm pistols. That's pretty cheap, although I'm guessing that the guns are pretty crappy.


They are probably Hi-point. They are ugly as all hell, and the fit and finish is really rough, but they are actually very reliable and reasonably accurate.
 
2012-11-15 04:13:32 PM

cgraves67: It's not a BAD idea, but there are too many bad things about it.

What happens if it runs out of batteries?

Does it lock when the wrong person grabs it or does it unlock when the right person grabs it?

Gloves?

How easy is it to reprogram? Would it be a hinderance to reselling it person-to-person?

Presumably, you would need licensed software and a USB cable or something similar in order to reprogram it. Criminals are *never* able to get ahold of illegal copies of software, right?


I think it's a neat idea, if the sensor mechanism picks up the right person with more reliability than the chance to jam the weapon normally. It wouldn't be used for long-term securing of a weapon (obviously it can be disassembled to be sold to someone else illicitly), but would be useful in situations where there is a high risk of someone stealing your weapon from you there and then, such as a prison or checkpoint, or to prevent small children in a household from firing it accidentally. Having the chip safe vs unsafe would depend on a risk analysis of having it lock under unauthorized use (but thus letting it fire accidentally if dropped), or having it unlock when picked up by someone with the right bioelectrics/heat signature/pheromone, but at the increased, if limited, risk of a false negative preventing legitimate use.

Power could be provided by a piezoelectric generator, or a watch battery, assuming the sensor technology is ultralow voltage. (For batteries, maintenance would be the same as regularly maintaining your pistol anyway.) The sensor itself wouldn't need to match perfectly, just well-enough that 95% percent of people on Earth couldn't pick it up and use it (5% risk of someone who actually picks up your gun has a similar signature and a false positive. Better than 100% chance of them being able to use it unrestricted). Other considerations could be EM interference, localized hacking, etc, but those could be mitigated through different means.

Look, I'm no expert in any field relating to this, it just seems like a cool idea to me with the right design and expectations of its intended function. I feel any attempt to make them mandatory would be an unwise decision; rather let the buyer decide what his/her/their needs are, and market/innovate accordingly.

/still waiting for my M-8 Avenger Assault Rifle :)
 
2012-11-15 04:16:17 PM
You would still have a problem with legal gun owners accidentally shooting someone while intoxicated. Fortunately there is a solution for this as well. Build a breathalizer into the barrel of the gun. You simply blow into the barrel of your gun. If you are sober, it will unlock for normal use. If you are drunk, it will immediately fire off a round to ensure the problem will never happen again.
 
2012-11-15 04:17:32 PM

Magorn: Because every time someone breaks into your house you have less than second from the tim eyou grab your gun until he uses his ninja-like reflexes to acquire you in the dark and fatally shoot you? Hell if all the tech did was force you to spend an extra second assessing the situation before making a shoot/ don't shoot decision it might prevent a lot of tragedy.


According to FBI gunfight data 90+% of all gun fights are over in less than 3 seconds.....and you want me to give up a third of that time in advantage to the person shooting at me?
 
2012-11-15 04:18:08 PM

ArcadianRefugee: pir8p3t3: it doesn't matter what you make illegal when it comes to guns. Criminals will just make their own because it's easy and cheap.

This. And because "hacking guns" won't become a black market business itself.


It would be interesting when they figure out how to disable guns remotely. Because you know someone is going to give them wifi capability.
 
2012-11-15 04:20:16 PM

MasterPython: It would be interesting when they figure out how to disable guns remotely. Because you know someone is going to give them wifi capability.


Lets do this with police departments and correctional facilities.....then see how long it takes the criminal element to figure it out.
 
2012-11-15 04:23:15 PM

dittybopper: Straw purchases have a very specific meaning: A gun is purchased by Person X specifically for Person Y. A gun purchased by Person X, then sold to Person Y a few years later is *NOT* a straw purchase.


Thank you for the link, but damn that does make the problem even more complicated. I do take exception to this passage:

Critics say that Obama and gun control advocates who cited the report failed to mention that only 7,200 of the roughly 30,000 guns seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were sent to ATF for tracing.

Scott Stewart, an analyst for global intelligence company STRATFOR, wrote that only 4,000 of those were traceable. Of those, 3,480 were linked back to the United States. Using those numbers, 12 percent of the guns confiscated in 2008 were positively traced to the United States.


The statistical conclusion to reach from this, if you treat the 7200 as a representative sample of the 30K weapons, that only 55% of crime-linked guns are traceable at all but among those 87% were traced to the US. Either the writer missed the point of sampling in statistics or there's a lot that he failed to describe about the 22,800 unexamined weapons.
 
2012-11-15 04:31:01 PM
revrendjim:

You could put an RFID in a ring on your finger. Of course if you forget to wear the ring then you are farked.


This. Although not perfect, it would be simple, practical, and inexpensive to implement.
 
2012-11-15 04:31:50 PM

way south: Xcott: Apparently the consensus is that this idea won't work, because today's computers take seconds to process a kilobyte of data, all the while making clockwork noises.

Imagine you have a cell phone, and imagine you leave that cell phone in your pocket or in a safe and it goes unused and uncharged for months or even years at a time.
Now imagine that you must pull out that cell phone in an emergency.
If it doesn't turn on and dial out, you will die.

How much faith do you have in your cell phone?


That's a silly question. I don't trust my cell phone because it's very complicated---it's a general purpose computer---it depends on an unreliable service, and it drains lots of power just to sit there idle. It's also designed by people who don't care how long it takes to power up and figure out what it's supposed to do.

None of that would be true for a biometric gun lock or an RFID lock. We're talking a single-purpose device that can be engineered to perform its function immediately rather than spending 30 seconds booting into Linux. The problem is not unreliable technology, but the inherent miss and false-alarm rate of biometric algorithms.

I have lots of electronic gizmos that I trust to work perfectly even after they spend years sitting in a basement. This includes old computers: I have a Commodre PET CBM from 1978, and despite my immense distrust in the reliability of modern computers, I know this thing will spring to life with a happy cheep-cheep every time I flip the switch.
 
2012-11-15 04:36:15 PM
I didn't read the comments in this thread yet, but this is a amazingly stupid idea. Any gun that is actually usable has to be able to be broken down for cleaning. Meaning, you take it apart. You really think adding parts to control use works for a device that is a) at its essence an extremely simple mechanism and b) made to be taken apart easily?

Besides, the only part of a gun that is difficult at all to manufacture is the barrel, especially the shape of the chamber. Everything else you could make in a garage with hand-tools and a few hours of time. And the barrels in these "smart guns" still have to be normal gun barrels - and have to be removable for cleaning.
 
2012-11-15 04:39:33 PM

way south


Imagine you have a cell phone, and imagine you leave that cell phone in your pocket or in a safe and it goes unused and uncharged for months or even years at a time


Bad analogy with a flawed premise. In general, if you are depending on something to save your life then you damn well better at least inspect it regularly and often to ensure nothing has failed.
 
2012-11-15 04:40:47 PM
This theme has been in a few films. District 9 had a similar concept. The aliens were the only ones that could fire their weapons.
 
2012-11-15 04:42:05 PM

gerrychampoux: revrendjim:

You could put an RFID in a ring on your finger. Of course if you forget to wear the ring then you are farked.

This. Although not perfect, it would be simple, practical, and inexpensive to implement.


...and trivial to bypass. Gun mechanisms are actually a very old technology, easily mastered. AK47 type rifles can for the most part be produced in a home shop or garage (and look like it :)

This article is exactly the same sort of fantasy as a world where guns being banned results in no one (criminals or otherwise) having them. The logical arguments make sense if you accept the first premise of the author, that it's possible to make a gun like in the movie (IN A MOVIE, FFS) that only permits its use by the "real" owner and is foolproof.

In reality, systems that do this have been around for a long time and been sold with varying degrees of success. As mentioned by someone above, they're all pretty trivial to bypass. The only real use for them is preventing someone from grabbing your gun and using it on you during a home invasion or other short term situation.

Anyone having more than a few minutes' time to bypass the mechanism can do so, and thereafter use the weapon. They can even replace or re-set the mechanism so it "only" works for them.

Guns (pistols, rifles, firearms, or whatever) exist and they can't be made to un exist. We can't get rid of all of them any more than we can get rid of the idea of hitting someone with a stick, and we can't make a really hard wish like this author is doing and change the way the technology works, either. We have to live with the fact that this stuff exists, and deal with it.
 
2012-11-15 04:42:36 PM
The only people who would really benefit from this would be LEO and correctional staff and they don't even want it. /price is right fail noise
 
2012-11-15 04:46:35 PM
Judge Dredd did it first.
 
2012-11-15 04:46:59 PM
Stupidest idea ever, obviously thought of by some California tree-hugger who lives where it never gets cold enough to wear gloves.
 
2012-11-15 04:48:33 PM

hdhale: Duke_leto_Atredes: use a knife, or a sword

they never jam always ready to use, and scare the shi@t out of most of your common criminals.

Except when this happens.


Isn't that one of the rules like "Never start a land war in Asia?"

/link probably nsfw for violence and language
 
2012-11-15 04:49:10 PM

lewismarktwo: The only people who would really benefit from this would be LEO and correctional staff and they don't even want it


I would never carry this. I would never be able to wear any glove again to include nitrile while I am searching. Screw that.
 
2012-11-15 04:51:28 PM

Xcott: way south: Xcott: Apparently the consensus is that this idea won't work, because today's computers take seconds to process a kilobyte of data, all the while making clockwork noises.

Imagine you have a cell phone, and imagine you leave that cell phone in your pocket or in a safe and it goes unused and uncharged for months or even years at a time.
Now imagine that you must pull out that cell phone in an emergency.
If it doesn't turn on and dial out, you will die.

How much faith do you have in your cell phone?

That's a silly question. I don't trust my cell phone because it's very complicated---it's a general purpose computer---it depends on an unreliable service, and it drains lots of power just to sit there idle. It's also designed by people who don't care how long it takes to power up and figure out what it's supposed to do.

None of that would be true for a biometric gun lock or an RFID lock. We're talking a single-purpose device that can be engineered to perform its function immediately rather than spending 30 seconds booting into Linux. The problem is not unreliable technology, but the inherent miss and false-alarm rate of biometric algorithms.

I have lots of electronic gizmos that I trust to work perfectly even after they spend years sitting in a basement. This includes old computers: I have a Commodre PET CBM from 1978, and despite my immense distrust in the reliability of modern computers, I know this thing will spring to life with a happy cheep-cheep every time I flip the switch.


So you think that rdfi readers don't need bateries and that the electronic guts will be milspec and not Chinese?
 
2012-11-15 04:55:42 PM

Xcott: I have lots of electronic gizmos that I trust to work perfectly even after they spend years sitting in a basement


But your life isn't dependent on them and the rigors of sitting in a basement are only half of what a firearm might face.
Up until recent years you could still start a mini shiatstorm on gun forums over things like red dot sights. Those aren't much more than a laser diode, some glass bits, and a battery.

You're going to walk up to people who write page after page of argument around what the proper length of an AR's gas tube is supposed to be (because of some little known mechanical bug that might maybe cause the hint of an error... sometimes) and you're going to say "here, put this little black box into your trigger assembly. Don't worry, its legit. I had the government test it!".

I suspect You'll be coming back with tar and feathers on your hat.

/In my line of work, I've seen machines do wondrously unintentional things.
/I prefer bolt action rifles, personally.
 
2012-11-15 05:01:47 PM

wee: No. If I need a gun to work, I need it to work. Not crash, have dead batteries, reboot, whatever. The worst sound you can hear is a click when you were expecting a bang.


Unless you're the one being shot at, then a click is pretty Goddamn awesome.
 
2012-11-15 05:05:56 PM
Mock26:

You should use your middle finger. Seriously. I forget the name of this style, but the idea behind it is to lay your index finger alongside the barrel, pointing forward, and use your middle finger to fire. The idea is that humans have the innate ability to point their middle finger accurately at just about anything. It is not good if you are trying to shoot coins or nail that bull's eye ring, but for larger targets it is supposed to be quite accurate.

Sure, great idea. I love it when the slide slices off most of my index finger.
 
2012-11-15 05:06:57 PM

dittybopper: timujin: dittybopper: timujin: This concept has been out for a long time, well before this movie. I remember reading about prototypes back in the late 90's or early 00's. I think they were looking into it for law enforcement at the time, so criminals couldn't take a cop's gun.

Actually, no.

New Jersey enacted a version of the law that requires all handguns sold in the state to be "smart guns" 3 years after their attorney general decides they are commercially available and safe to use. The police are exempt from the requirement.

Every version of it I've heard proposed at the state and federal level exempts police and military.

Gee, I wonder why?

That particular law or even "every version of it you've heard" doesn't make what I wrote untrue. In the article I was reading, they were talking about using this for cops, specifically because they didn't want criminals taking a cop's gun. Now, this was a long time ago, at least a decade, so maybe the general philosophy is different now, but it doesn't change what I read.

What you read was an incorrect justification for the development of the technology, either by someone who just didn't know what they were writing about, or in order to put one over on the rubes.


Or, again, perhaps that was the initial justification, one maybe the manufacturers were using when prototyping the technology when the article was written and, later, that changed due to feedback from law enforcement.

You seem to be stuck in a "because this is the way it is now, such has it ever been" mentality.
 
2012-11-15 05:07:07 PM
timujin
This concept has been out for a long time, well before this movie. I remember reading about
prototypes back in the late 90's or early 00's. I think they were looking into it for law enforcement
at the time, so criminals couldn't take a cop's gun.


Yeah, and the police immediately got legislation passed banning any kind of automatic
lock-outs for any police issue firearms, forever... (and rightly so!)

i51.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-15 05:19:33 PM

hariseldon: timujin
This concept has been out for a long time, well before this movie. I remember reading about
prototypes back in the late 90's or early 00's. I think they were looking into it for law enforcement
at the time, so criminals couldn't take a cop's gun.

Yeah, and the police immediately got legislation passed banning any kind of automatic
lock-outs for any police issue firearms, forever... (and rightly so!)

i51.photobucket.com


That makes a lot of sense, a cop certainly doesn't want their weapon fritzing out when they need it most. Disturbing they want to make this mandatory for citizens, though, as the same thing is true for them.
 
2012-11-15 05:28:08 PM

meanmutton: dittybopper: meanmutton: padraig: heypete: Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.

Not being a gun owner myself, why did you feel this was something that you needed to do ?

I am a gun owner and can't imagine why he'd feel the need to do this -- unless you do speed shooting competition?

It breeds laziness.

I saw some of that argument later and honestly, it's a tough pill for me to swallow. But then again, I'm from the school of thought that you treat a weapon you've personally unloaded and verified as unloaded the same you do as if it's loaded -- you never sweep the barrel past someone, you don't walk around with your finger on the trigger, you keep the barrel pointed down, etc.


It is a detriment to the use of the firearm as a defensive weapon in the event a situation requires that you reload. Shooting to slide-lock is stupid. If you reload with a round in the chamber, your firearm should still be usable during the reload, and you should not stop observing the situation and reacting accordingly while you reload. A magazine disconnect removes the efficacy of the firearm as a defensive weapon while reloading.

/same applies to offense, but I have never been in a situation where I needed to consider a firearm as an offensive weapon, only as a defensive weapon or a sporting tool.
 
2012-11-15 05:32:47 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: lewismarktwo: The only people who would really benefit from this would be LEO and correctional staff and they don't even want it

I would never carry this. I would never be able to wear any glove again to include nitrile while I am searching. Screw that.


You mean you don't want to get hypos in your fingertips while you search druggies? Why ever not?
 
2012-11-15 05:34:36 PM
Guns have had a variety of safety mechanisms mainstreamed over the years. Many guns have multiple safety mechanisms required to be manually engaged in order fire (i.e. grip safeties). All of these devices increased the complexity of the weapon, therefore increasing the chances for a failure. They also inherently increased the cost of the weapon. I'm sure a similar Fark thread could have been started when "drop safeties" came about as well (had the interwebs existed).

I could forsee something along these lines also coming about, though obviously the technology level would have to be such that implementation led to an acceptable rate of "failure to fire" incidents. I assure you that most legitimate gun owners love nothing more than an excuse to buy yet another weapon and get rid of a safe queen. I would happily purchase such a handgun were it available on the market today.

Of course if you are the type that likes to drive your vintage 1908 Model T without seatbelts, ABS or airbags because it is a more pure driving experience and you can't stand the government trying to tell you how to be safe, then by all means...carry on

/gun owner
 
2012-11-15 05:35:29 PM

way south: Xcott: I have lots of electronic gizmos that I trust to work perfectly even after they spend years sitting in a basement

But your life isn't dependent on them and the rigors of sitting in a basement are only half of what a firearm might face.


My life is dependent on some of them, like the smoke alarm, the CO detector, and most of the embedded systems in my car. They work year after year with minimal maintenance. In particular, the systems in my car are expected to react instantaneously, like the airbag controller and the anti-lock brake controller.

Also, it's silly to talk about the rigors a firearm might face. If I'm using a firearm for home defense, where this kind of gadget would be useful, I'm not going to be carrying it through a jungle or dropping it in a swamp between the bedroom and the landing. If your firearm is going to be used in extreme conditions, just don't use the lock.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2012-11-15 05:37:21 PM

MythDragon: Unless you're the one being shot at, then a click is pretty Goddamn awesome.


Yeah, guess so.
 
2012-11-15 05:42:43 PM

Virtue: Magorn: Because every time someone breaks into your house you have less than second from the tim eyou grab your gun until he uses his ninja-like reflexes to acquire you in the dark and fatally shoot you? Hell if all the tech did was force you to spend an extra second assessing the situation before making a shoot/ don't shoot decision it might prevent a lot of tragedy.

According to FBI gunfight data 90+% of all gun fights are over in less than 3 seconds.....and you want me to give up a third of that time in advantage to the person shooting at me?


I've got to ask: When does that clock start ticking? From when the first shot is fired? From when you first see the enemy? Is that average being heavily weighed down by people who were shot and never even saw the attacker? If you're going to toss out a stat like that, the methodology would be appreciated. Not that 3 seconds sounds unreasonable, but it's too vague to be interesting.
 
2012-11-15 05:51:03 PM

Mikeyworld: There isn't a trigger safety that can stop a gun from killing someone when they want you dead. The safest thing that could done to protect the citizenry from wanton acts of gun violence is to make any use of firearms in the commission of a crime punishable by death. Yes, the death penalty for using a firearm while committing a crime. There has to be a conviction on the crime before this can be enacted, but it would thin the herd a little (there will always be those who will have guns, just less of them).

/any crime will do. It's the gun that counts
//also, register and limit bullets
///


So what happens in those cases where a citizen intends on protecting their home and loved ones and is convicted of assault/manslaughter/murder because they "pursued" the criminal or were not found to be threatened sufficiently to warrant the use of lethal force? They just get snuffed and the criminal walks?

As far as registering and limiting bullets, come at me bro, I'm behind 7 casting molds and have a reloading press. Your stupidity hurts me physically. I use more ammunition in a month than you probably think a law-abiding-citizen has any use for in a year.
 
2012-11-15 05:53:43 PM

ProfessorOhki: Virtue: Magorn: Because every time someone breaks into your house you have less than second from the tim eyou grab your gun until he uses his ninja-like reflexes to acquire you in the dark and fatally shoot you? Hell if all the tech did was force you to spend an extra second assessing the situation before making a shoot/ don't shoot decision it might prevent a lot of tragedy.

According to FBI gunfight data 90+% of all gun fights are over in less than 3 seconds.....and you want me to give up a third of that time in advantage to the person shooting at me?

I've got to ask: When does that clock start ticking? From when the first shot is fired? From when you first see the enemy? Is that average being heavily weighed down by people who were shot and never even saw the attacker? If you're going to toss out a stat like that, the methodology would be appreciated. Not that 3 seconds sounds unreasonable, but it's too vague to be interesting.


Given that the same study found the distance involved in the gunfight tends to be 7-10 feet, I would guess it's when the first guy clears leather.
 
2012-11-15 05:54:16 PM
Apparently in most of Farkistan bad people are pointing guns at you 24/7 and the only way to prevent this is to be better and faster at taking them down before you get taken down. Safest thing to do is to remove yourself from situations like these.

If you have to face a situation like this, I really hope everything turns out for the best.

/Gun Owner
//You guys are silly the world would be worse off if it was COD
 
2012-11-15 06:02:51 PM
If non-biometric-locked guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have non-biometric-locked guns.
 
2012-11-15 06:09:44 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Like you can't disconnect the locking mechanism...


Not when grabbing a gun away from someone and turning on them, you cant disconnect it then and there when it counts, so. yeah. bad argument bro. If someone takes my gun from me, it is sure would be great if they couldn't shoot me with it, that's just embarrassing not to mention painful. So you are correct if someone stole your gun and took it to a home workshop or something yes they can disconnect the locking mechanism, but in any other situation it's a definite plus to have that kind of control.

The problem as some have stated is that an identity check is great but you don't want it to EVER interfere with the operation of the gun, pull the trigger gun goes bang anything else is more risk than a person shooting a gun is going to want to take. The security must be almost completely fail proof. Under what situations would the security make the gun useless even to the authorize operator? That's the big question for gun owners, police officers, and hopefully politicians who consider these kinds of security devices for their officers and constituents.
 
2012-11-15 06:25:58 PM

timujin: hariseldon: timujin
This concept has been out for a long time, well before this movie. I remember reading about
prototypes back in the late 90's or early 00's. I think they were looking into it for law enforcement
at the time, so criminals couldn't take a cop's gun.

Yeah, and the police immediately got legislation passed banning any kind of automatic
lock-outs for any police issue firearms, forever... (and rightly so!)

i51.photobucket.com

That makes a lot of sense, a cop certainly doesn't want their weapon fritzing out when they need it most. Disturbing they want to make this mandatory for citizens, though, as the same thing is true for them.


Also, what happens when the company pushes an update that happens to coincide with someone trying to defend themselves? Do you have to wait for the download and restart to proceed?
 
2012-11-15 06:26:40 PM

Xcott:
Also, it's silly to talk about the rigors a firearm might face. If I'm using a firearm for home defense, where this kind of gadget would be useful, I'm not going to be carrying it through a jungle or dropping it in a swamp between the bedroom and the landing. If your firearm is going to be used in extreme conditions, just don't use the lock.


Target practice means setting off hundreds of explosions that produce heat and chemical contamination right next to whatever mechanism is uses to fire or not fire the bullet.

With the way guns have been built for the past 150 years the whole idea does not pan out. The only way to stop a gun from firing is to stop the firing pin from hitting the primer. So you are going to need some kind of interface that flips on the safety weather by a solenoid to apply a physical safety or make a completely electronic trigger group using either electric primers or a solenoid or similar mechanism to strike the primer.

When you have a mechanical safety controlled by electronics you have the problem that to be safe the gun must have the mechanism locked until the trigger is pulled or else removing the battery defeats the system. And unless the whole trigger group is constructed in some pretty exotic ways you will be able to defeat it in the amount of time it takes to disassemble the upper and destroy that mechanism.

If you have an electronic trigger group you have all the issues of electronics plus you probably need to buy proprietary ammo. There are thick books of proprietary cartridges that are no longer made so I can't see any government agency re-arming their forces with a gun that might be impossible to source ammo for in a few years. And civilians don't want the stuff so I can't see it being made with them in mind.

Until electronic primers become common or caseless electronic guns get way cheaper this is not going to fly.
 
2012-11-15 06:30:55 PM

dittybopper: padraig: heypete: Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.

Not being a gun owner myself, why did you feel this was something that you needed to do ?

Magazine disconnects aren't a substitute for sane gun handling, and in fact they can be dangerous: Someone used to guns with magazine disconnects is the sort of person who has accidental discharges with guns that don't have them. Magazine disconnects encourage laziness, where people won't check the chamber because the gun won't fire without a magazine in it (probably).

You should *ALWAYS* check the chamber of a gun. If you do that, then a magazine disconnect is superfluous: You know there isn't a round chambered because either the gun was truly empty, or you ejected the one round left in the gun when you racked the slide back to check the chamber.


My military buddies all hate them because all you have to do to disable a gun with one is hit the mag release. Granted, that has a pretty miniscule chance of actually happening, but it is still a con without a corresponding pro.

I don't like them because it makes it a PITA to de-cock my gun after clearing it. Pull the mag, rack the slide, check the chamber, drop the slide, then either re-insert an empty mag (which I may need to empty, I tend to keep them full) so I can lower the hammer, or put it away with the hammer back (which I don't like doing).
 
2012-11-15 06:36:13 PM

MasterPython: With the way guns have been built for the past 150 years the whole idea does not pan out. The only way to stop a gun from firing is to stop the firing pin from hitting the primer. So you are going to need some kind of interface that flips on the safety weather by a solenoid to apply a physical safety or make a completely electronic trigger group using either electric primers or a solenoid or similar mechanism to strike the primer.


It's been so long that I can't remember if it was a design, prototype, or failed production, but I remember reading about a gun with a trigger safety much like any other, with the exception that instead of the operators finger disengaging it, it was moved by a magnet located in a ring on the trigger finger. The only real fail points were your standard mechanical failure (no more likely than a failure of any other trigger safety), or enough crud buildup that would keep the magnet from being able to move the safety. I don't think I've seen any 'automatic user-only safety' that I would trust more than that, but I'm still not entirely sure I'd trust it.
 
2012-11-15 06:56:04 PM

wee: No. If I need a gun to work, I need it to work. Not crash, have dead batteries, reboot, whatever. The worst sound you can hear is a click when you were expecting a bang.


This. They work just fine as is.
 
2012-11-15 07:14:24 PM
i want the VIEW TO A KILL cyborg powered by DURAN DURAN
 
2012-11-15 07:30:08 PM

iheartscotch: dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

That is a possibility; but, as it stands, even the cheapest guns I know about are $250-$350. That's a huge investment for poor people.

The real goal is probably to increase the cost of all firearms; so it's expensive for everyone but rich people.


NIB Hi Point $180

And if you're patient you can pick up pistols from Gunbroker.com for under $100 (+$20 shipping +$35 transfer fee), You could go to your local dealer and fund any number of used pistols for under $200. You just can't be picky.
 
2012-11-15 07:36:31 PM

dittybopper: Every version of it I've heard proposed at the state and federal level exempts police and military.


Ironic, actually, when you consider that a fair number of cops are shot with their own guns. This is the exact kind of situation where this sort of device would actually save lives.

But five minutes after a gun is taken from its registered user, all bets are off. Because that's about how long it would take to rip out the "safety" device and turn the gun into a regular "unsafe" gun.
 
2012-11-15 07:39:11 PM

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: iheartscotch: dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

That is a possibility; but, as it stands, even the cheapest guns I know about are $250-$350. That's a huge investment for poor people.

The real goal is probably to increase the cost of all firearms; so it's expensive for everyone but rich people.

NIB Hi Point $180

And if you're patient you can pick up pistols from Gunbroker.com for under $100 (+$20 shipping +$35 transfer fee), You could go to your local dealer and fund any number of used pistols for under $200. You just can't be picky.


I prefer Armslis.com, decent prices and you're dealing with local, private sales.

Speaking of Hi Point, I just kgot one of their new carbines in 9mm. Fun as hell.
 
2012-11-15 07:44:08 PM
So can this device be programmed for me and all of the members of my immediate family who are old enough to shoot guns? Or just me?
 
2012-11-15 07:53:37 PM

Loadmaster: So can this device be programmed for me and all of the members of my immediate family who are old enough to shoot guns? Or just me?


If they managed to make it work for one person (and it was digital) expanding it to multiple users would be trivial. I don't think finger scanners even really output the finger image, they just create some sort of unique hashcode, so each additional person would simply be that key checked against another stored code. You're talking on the order of nanoseconds difference in unlock time added per user..
 
2012-11-15 08:26:38 PM

ProfessorOhki: Loadmaster: So can this device be programmed for me and all of the members of my immediate family who are old enough to shoot guns? Or just me?

If they managed to make it work for one person (and it was digital) expanding it to multiple users would be trivial. I don't think finger scanners even really output the finger image, they just create some sort of unique hashcode, so each additional person would simply be that key checked against another stored code. You're talking on the order of nanoseconds difference in unlock time added per user..



And it has to cost less than $10. You won the contract congratulations!
 
drp
2012-11-15 08:27:52 PM
Only a person who's never actually held and fired a gun could possibly think this is a good idea.

Absolute cluelessness on so many levels.
 
2012-11-15 08:33:04 PM
I love James Bond, but that movie was a giant ball of suck.
 
2012-11-15 08:33:12 PM
A Mark II phaser would be a much better self defense weapon in my opinion. No recoil, the ability to disable a target regardless of size, no ballistics physics, etc.

Then conventional firearms would be for recreational use and hunting primarily, especially if the phaser weren't rediculously expensive. A nice pipe dream.
 
2012-11-15 08:38:00 PM
Stupid article is stupid.

1. The technology doesn't exist.
2. It would be mind-boggling expensive even if it did.
3. No legislation requiring such expensive tech could possibly pass (cue the NRA's "poor people need self-protection, too." campaign).
4. There are more than a hundred million guns in private hands in the U.S. now. If every new handgun had the Bond tech in it, there would still be more than a hundred million guns without it, and those guns wouldn't go away. I own several dozen guns myself, and only a couple of them are less than 40 years old. Several are more than 100 years old, and work like new. Guns don't wear out.
 
2012-11-15 08:41:55 PM

labman: Because if someone breaks into my house and is pointing a gun at me, I want my gun to have to verify i'm holding it before I shoot them. Because finger print readers are so accurate that I don't have to swipe my finger several times to use laptops that require them or go into an area that uses fingerprints.

A better solution might be an RFID implant in your palm that it's reading. That way if your hands are dirty or anything like that, it won't stop you from shooting someone/something when you want to.


It would have really sucked if Bond went anywhere cold, or if he had something on his hands, or if the battery ran out....like because he was someplace cold.... or if he burned his palm......


Really its the stupidest Idea I have ever seen for controlling access to a firearm. I would guess that it would cost over a thousand dollars for a commercial version, would work reliably about 30% of the time and almost never in a crisis situation. I think a gunsmith could also disable it in a few minutes.

The Slate is only interested in it because it would make guns more expensive and more difficult to own. They even get a bit snarky about our right to own a gun not extending to a right to have it stolen....? I wonder if they would be cool with a VTT filter installed on their face which would pre-screen their comments and only allow the politically correct ones to be vocalized.....or a filter going the other way which would monitor the food they tried to eat for fat content and disable their jaw before chewing. Sometimes rights shouldnt be abridged in any fashion because its just wrong to try.
 
2012-11-15 08:46:22 PM

mbillips: Guns don't wear out.


Wha? Of course they do. They are mechanical devices, any kind of use is going to cause wear.
 
2012-11-15 08:48:02 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: dittybopper

Don't use a trigger lock. It's a mechanical finger near the trigger.


Huh?

My trigger locks have pieces that pass behind the trigger. Even if someone tried to move the trigger by applying force to the lock, he probably wouldn't be able to crush that piece enough to get the trigger to move.


This all assumes the locks are used...


I kinda laughed when a brother of a friend asked why I didn't have a trigger lock on my rifle. Then I showed him just how silly that would be on a lever action gun. If I wanted to secure it I'd have to use something more like a mike lock and there is no way I am wrapping something like that around my gun.

And while mine is old enough to count as antique I was at the store earlier today and several companies are still making lever action rifles.

My point is this, there is no perfect method of securing all weapons. Even gun safes can be broken into. They don't exactly have the complexity of bank vaults. No matter what they do to secure the door it doesn't matter when a couple of hundred dollar plasma cutter from harbor freight can just cut the top off the thing. Trigger lock can be removed with a cheap drill and a decent drill bit. palm/finger scanners are stupidly trivial to get around even with a photocopy of a print. Etc and etc.
 
2012-11-15 08:52:44 PM

iheartscotch: Ethertap: iheartscotch: dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

That is a possibility; but, as it stands, even the cheapest guns I know about are $250-$350. That's a huge investment for poor people.

The real goal is probably to increase the cost of all firearms; so it's expensive for everyone but rich people.

There's a pawn shop on the way home from work that has a banner advertising $99 9mm pistols. That's pretty cheap, although I'm guessing that the guns are pretty crappy.

I'm guessing its either a Croatian / soviet surplus number or it's a Hi-point. If its a Hi-point, it's utter crap. If its a surplus pistol; it depends. You can get some neat old pistols for super cheap. Last I knew, you could get a nagant pistol for under $100, the ammunition is very scarce though. But, for a new production pistol anything under $250 is going to be utter crap.


Let me introduce you to the Jennings family's line of fine products.

Compared to a Raven MP-25 or a Lorcin 9mm, a Hi-Point is a precision work of art.

Oh, you can shoot .32 long in a Nagant gas seal; way cheaper than buying the actual Nagant ammo.

Why people buy new production pistols escapes me. You can get a much, MUCH better gun by buying used. Something made out of forged steel instead of plastic.
 
2012-11-15 09:00:52 PM
the point of this is so homeowners with children can pay more... for a greater guarantee of home safety. This is not about stopping criminals, or changing the market composition....

it's about home safety only. Keep that in mind before you knock it.
 
2012-11-15 09:14:49 PM

LookForTheArrow: the point of this is so homeowners with children can pay more... for a greater guarantee of home safety. This is not about stopping criminals, or changing the market composition....

it's about home safety only. Keep that in mind before you knock it.


I can remember when I was first taken to the shooting range with my parents at age 5. I had many conversations with my parents about firearms before that. I don't think that you need to get a biometric safety equipped firearm to not worry about firearms in a home with children. You just need to be a good parent. Those who think they can pay more to avoid being a good parent are among the worst.
 
2012-11-15 09:24:41 PM

LookForTheArrow: it's about home safety only. Keep that in mind before you knock it.


I am aware of that. Being intended for home safety doesn't excuse a product for being poor.
 
KIA
2012-11-15 09:28:01 PM
DRTT, but FTFA:

Maybe biometric guns could reduce the gang violence that contributes more than 90 percent of U.S. homicides, most of them committed with illegal firearms. 

Well, there's your problem right there. Illegal firearms = not compliant with the law. Pass all the laws you want and nothing will change as long as gangs can use illegal firearms.
 
KIA
2012-11-15 09:36:27 PM

Boosterspice: I love James Bond, but that movie was a giant ball of suck.


Thank FSM I'm not the only one. Saw it at the afternoon matinee, was wide awake, almost fell asleep anyway. "Skyfall" sounded SO dramatic and fraught with peril, only... well, you know. Plot holes big enough for... for... anything to get through.

I seriously don't know what movie all of the glowing reviews came from.
 
2012-11-15 09:42:32 PM

mbillips:
Let me introduce you to the Jennings family's line of fine products.

Compared to a Raven MP-25 or a Lorcin 9mm, a Hi-Point is a precision work of art.

I own both a Jimenez 9mm (which is the same family as the lorcin 9.) and a Hi-point. There's a reason they call Hi-point the poor man's Glock.
On the plus side with the Jimenez I get to practice dealing with misfeeds after every successful shot. (And I sent it in to get fixed, they cleaned the ramp at no charge, and... it's even worse now.) I would not suggest this gun for anyone for any reason. There are guns that are just as cheap without any problems. Go to a gun show, or pawn shop
 
2012-11-15 10:08:41 PM

HoityToity: Mock26:

You should use your middle finger. Seriously. I forget the name of this style, but the idea behind it is to lay your index finger alongside the barrel, pointing forward, and use your middle finger to fire. The idea is that humans have the innate ability to point their middle finger accurately at just about anything. It is not good if you are trying to shoot coins or nail that bull's eye ring, but for larger targets it is supposed to be quite accurate.

Sure, great idea. I love it when the slide slices off most of my index finger.


And if you did that with a revolver the gas escaping from between the top of the cylinder and the forcing cone would rip your finger open.
 
2012-11-15 11:52:05 PM
Keeve: you took the gun barrel (oops, meant to say words) right out of my mouth.
 
2012-11-16 01:11:13 AM
HURR I DON'T WANT GUBBAMINT LOCKING ME OUT OF MY OWN GUN
DURRRR
 
2012-11-16 01:39:44 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: Mock26

It is not good if you are trying to shoot coins or nail that bull's eye ring, but for larger targets it is supposed to be quite accurate.


Don't take this the wrong way, but I could stand on my head and hit a "larger target". That does not mean head-standing is an effective technique; it means the target is so large that it masks the problems with the technique.


Israeli commandos use this technique without any problem.
 
2012-11-16 01:55:09 AM

iheartscotch: That is a possibility; but, as it stands, even the cheapest guns I know about are $250-$350.

Ethertap: There's a pawn shop on the way home from work that has a banner advertising $99 9mm pistols. That's pretty cheap, although I'm guessing that the guns are pretty crappy.

Magnanimous_J: They are probably Hi-point. They are ugly as all hell, and the fit and finish is really rough, but they are actually very reliable and reasonably accurate.

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: And if you're patient you can pick up pistols from Gunbroker.com for under $100 (+$20 shipping +$35 transfer fee), You could go to your local dealer and fund any number of used pistols for under $200. You just can't be picky.


Do some reading on Bryco/Jennings/Jimenez. I see them going for ~100 new all the time, and most people agree that you are paying too much. I'll stick to my Walthers and H&Ks because they always work. And, unlike Bryco, they fire the bullet forward and don't explode afterwards.
But I did pick up a couple .22mag double shot "high standard" derringers a while ago, an RG14, and even a titan tiger - only paid a few bucks for each... though none of them can even shoot straight.
 
2012-11-16 02:08:29 AM

Hacker_X: If I wanted to secure it I'd have to use something more like a mike lock and there is no way I am wrapping something like that around my gun.


You can probably take a cable lock and wrap a figure 8 through the lever loop over the stock twice. As long as it has a rubber coating it won't even leave a smudge. I've done it on 3 of mine and it worked well. If you ever go to a community event, look for those free "PROJECT CHILDSAFE" locks. I keep a few in my trunk just in case I happen to be out somewhere and accidentally pick up another gun :)

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: On the plus side with the Jimenez I get to practice dealing with misfeeds after every successful shot. (And I sent it in to get fixed, they cleaned the ramp at no charge, and... it's even worse now.) I would not suggest this gun for anyone for any reason


Perfect! I hadn't perused your post prior to posting my previous post.
 
dh2
2012-11-16 04:04:58 AM

harlock: harlock: Am I really the first one to mention The Weapons Shop of Isher?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_of_Isher

Isher


I'll take Books of A. E. van Vogt for $200 Alex!
 
2012-11-16 05:19:08 AM

whidbey: HURR I DON'T WANT GUBBAMINT LOCKING ME OUT OF MY OWN GUN
DURRRR


I doubt the government would be left in charge of such a system for long.
Every gun dealer and smith would need the means to update the keys, which means the technology will be out there to unlock stolen weapons (assuming we don't just open the thing and replace the trigger group).

/This is used in one James Bond movie to make the hero look like a boss.
/This will be used in a dozen horror films to make sure the monster eats as many teenagers as possible.
 
2012-11-16 07:34:53 AM

ThreadSinger: I think it's a neat idea, if the sensor mechanism picks up the right person with more reliability than the chance to jam the weapon normally


Wrong thinking: the errors would be cumulative because they are unrelated. Say you have a gun that will jam every 500 rounds, and the sensor has a failure to read every 100 attempts, and the average number of shots fired per time you handle the gun is 5, which would put the failure to read rate for the sensor at once every 500 rounds. That means for every 333 pulls of the trigger, it won't go "BANG!".

You just made the reliability of your gun worse by a third.
 
2012-11-16 07:35:31 AM

dittybopper: You just made the reliability of your gun worse by a third 50%.


FTFM.
 
2012-11-16 08:09:39 AM

Mock26


Israeli commandos use this technique without any problem.


Link, please? A real link - no Wikipedia.
 
2012-11-16 08:58:06 AM

Mikeyworld: There isn't a trigger safety that can stop a gun from killing someone when they want you dead. The safest thing that could done to protect the citizenry from wanton acts of gun violence is to make any use of firearms in the commission of a crime punishable by death. Yes, the death penalty for using a firearm while committing a crime. There has to be a conviction on the crime before this can be enacted, but it would thin the herd a little (there will always be those who will have guns, just less of them).

/any crime will do. It's the gun that counts
//also, register and limit bullets
///


Sigh.

If the death penalty deterred crime, Texas would be crime-free.

It ain't.
 
2012-11-16 09:05:58 AM

ThatGuyOverThere:
Mayhem of the Black Underclass: On the plus side with the Jimenez I get to practice dealing with misfeeds after every successful shot. (And I sent it in to get fixed, they cleaned the ramp at no charge, and... it's even worse now.) I would not suggest this gun for anyone for any reason

Perfect! I hadn't perused your post prior to posting my previous post.


There's one more thing I hadn't mentioned about the design of the gun, the slide comes straight back, and it's a compact gun meaning that the slide literally rips flesh off of your hand if you actually manage to get a shot off.

/I bought it when trying to decide on size and caliber for carry. And figured it was a cheap option for a gun I WASN'T planning on using for reals.
 
2012-11-16 09:12:47 AM

Mock26: Englebert Slaptyback: Mock26

It is not good if you are trying to shoot coins or nail that bull's eye ring, but for larger targets it is supposed to be quite accurate.


Don't take this the wrong way, but I could stand on my head and hit a "larger target". That does not mean head-standing is an effective technique; it means the target is so large that it masks the problems with the technique.

Israeli commandos use this technique without any problem.


I...... am dubious towards this claim.
 
2012-11-16 11:56:46 AM
I'll second the demand that this be required for troops and police before there's a hint of requiring it for civilian arms. And how well do you think the M-16 would sell, overseas, with this as an integral part of the rifle? :-P
 
2012-11-17 06:42:52 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: Mock26

Israeli commandos use this technique without any problem.


Link, please? A real link - no Wikipedia.


If I remember correctly I saw it on the Krav Magra episode of Human Weapon.
 
Displayed 179 of 179 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report