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.

(Fox News)   Sen. Markey (D-redd) introduces legislation requiring that guns use fingerprint technology so only their designated owners can fire them   (foxnews.com) divider line 408
    More: Spiffy, Sen. Markey, Democrats, gun controls, Beretta, The Washington Post Company  
•       •       •

718 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2014 at 12:17 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-20 11:44:48 AM
If there was actual working technology that allowed me to have a gun only I could fire I'd buy one in a second.
 
2014-02-20 11:54:15 AM

sammyk: If there was actual working technology that allowed me to have a gun only I could fire I'd buy one in a second.


You can order these today.

www.thefirearmblog.com
 
2014-02-20 12:04:21 PM
Ok, so I'm trying to think of what could be wrong with this.  The first thought is, what if a husband and wife want to own one gun but either can use it?  But I guess you could give it two fingerprints to recognize?  Or, worst comes to worst, buy two guns?

And I'm sure that the gun could be stolen and eventually "jailbroken," but still, that means they could only use it much later, instead of taking it from you and using it against you right then and there.

Pretty cool.
 
2014-02-20 12:18:28 PM
Can't wait to hear from the NRA how this abridges our freedums
 
2014-02-20 12:19:03 PM
D-redd... Ha! Good one.
 
2014-02-20 12:19:52 PM
Senator Markey actually did something? I wonder who told him he should do this?

/getting back on my chair.
 
2014-02-20 12:20:19 PM

Codenamechaz: Can't wait to hear from the NRA how this abridges our freedums


They haven't quite figured it out, but they're opposed because Democrats.

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action says it is not opposed to the development of so-called "smart guns," but rejects government mandates that require the use of grips with fingerprint-reading technology, according to a post on its website.

"[The] NRA recognizes that the "smart guns" issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology," the group said.
 
2014-02-20 12:20:25 PM
Firearm violence is already declining and there are already millions of guns out there.  This won't help a damned thing.
 
2014-02-20 12:20:42 PM
That's actually a great idea, but I'm assuming it would be prohibitively expensive?
 
2014-02-20 12:21:00 PM
A: I don't want to bet my life on the freshness of batteries.

B: As soon as every police department in the country is using these, I will be willing to think about it.
 
2014-02-20 12:21:08 PM
Congress is just going about this the wrong way. They should just submit a bill banning this technology. The NRA would run a media blitz touting the technology as a way to protect yourself, and you couldn't find a gun without a fingerprint reader in six months.
 
2014-02-20 12:21:24 PM
I wonder how long the battery on one of these printreaders lasts. If it's not an entire year I see some potential for the gun not firing when it is needed.
 
2014-02-20 12:23:09 PM

Codenamechaz: Can't wait to hear from the NRA how this abridges our freedums


You mean how you can never sell your gun?


my safe has finger print scan.  No need for the gun to have it.
 
2014-02-20 12:23:10 PM

Calmamity: A: I don't want to bet my life on the freshness of batteries.

B: As soon as every police department in the country is using these, I will be willing to think about it.


THIS

This sort of crap is putting in the infrastructure to allow for big brother to shut off ALL so-equipped weapons at the flip of a switch.
 
2014-02-20 12:23:27 PM
I think the only explanation for this is one of Markey's staff members played through Metal Gear Solid 4 and gave his boss a synopsis for it and he thought the gun mechanic was neat.
 
2014-02-20 12:24:23 PM
Not helping, dumbass.

QU!RK1019: Ok, so I'm trying to think of what could be wrong with this.  The first thought is, what if a husband and wife want to own one gun but either can use it?  But I guess you could give it two fingerprints to recognize?  Or, worst comes to worst, buy two guns?

And I'm sure that the gun could be stolen and eventually "jailbroken," but still, that means they could only use it much later, instead of taking it from you and using it against you right then and there.

Pretty cool.


It's cool on paper. It's bullshiat in execution with our current level of technology. The technology is obtrusive, exploitable, and doesn't offer a tangible benefit beyond feeling good about doing something about gun violence, even if it's useless.

A similar technology uses a ring or a watch or a keyfob and only arms the weapon when it's near the user. Harder to exploit the scanner and less awkward to use reliably. It's still not something that's been polished, perfected, and can be used reliable 99.9999% of the time, which is what is necessary for a technological requirement for weapon manufacturing for consumers.

It's not a useful solution. There are so many guns in the country and the world that mandating new ones have this specific, highly technical component on them means nothing. Half of the world still uses rifles that are decades old and still functional. Gun collectors have plenty of small arms from before the transistor was invented. The genie is out of the bottle, and a trickle of new guns with electronic security on a consumer level will do nothing.

Now, if we start implementing this technology (and perfecting it) with military issue weapons, we could see a shift in a few decades if those specific rifles and pistols catch on and become popular across the market. This entire thing reeks of a politician hearing about a new technology that sounds cool, looking at a problem that has no clear solution, and putting them together in a gesture to make it seem like he's doing something while ignoring any technical issues that could arise.
 
2014-02-20 12:24:53 PM

dynomutt: Calmamity: A: I don't want to bet my life on the freshness of batteries.

B: As soon as every police department in the country is using these, I will be willing to think about it.

THIS

This sort of crap is putting in the infrastructure to allow for big brother to shut off ALL so-equipped weapons at the flip of a switch.


^^
el oh el
 
2014-02-20 12:24:58 PM

bdMurray: I wonder how long the battery on one of these printreaders lasts. If it's not an entire year I see some potential for the gun not firing when it is needed.


Isn't proper firearm maintenance a hallmark of the Responsible Gun Owner?
 
2014-02-20 12:25:27 PM

what_now: Codenamechaz: Can't wait to hear from the NRA how this abridges our freedums

They haven't quite figured it out, but they're opposed because Democrats.

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action says it is not opposed to the development of so-called "smart guns," but rejects government mandates that require the use of grips with fingerprint-reading technology, according to a post on its website.

"[The] NRA recognizes that the "smart guns" issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology," the group said.


Guns are already very expensive (unless you buy crap). Would I have to destroy the ones I currently own and buy new ones? Would I have to add this device to older guns? I have some that are 70 years old. I am not going to retrofit history.
 
2014-02-20 12:25:37 PM

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: That's actually a great idea, but I'm assuming it would be prohibitively expensive?


It's a great idea. So is Google Glass. No technology should be required for any gun until it's several generations tested both by engineers and consumers. New tech should not be required by law when it's not ready for prime time.
 
2014-02-20 12:27:21 PM

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: That's actually a great idea, but I'm assuming it would be prohibitively expensive?


Same thought here.
 
2014-02-20 12:27:25 PM
Once the cops and the military exhaustively test this technology and find it reliable enough for them to put into every day use then it will be ready to be legislated onto civilian market. After that 300 million legally owned un-smart weapons will magically disappear or something. Of course this dumbass is from Massachusetts.
 
2014-02-20 12:27:26 PM

Calmamity: A: I don't want to bet my life on the freshness of batteries.

B: As soon as every police department in the country is using these, I will be willing to think about it.


Seeing as that gun is more likely to kill someone living in the household (including yourself) the idea of the battery going dead when an intruder is in the house than a regular gun always happy to drop the hammer whenever the trigger is pulled.

How about replacing the batteries when you replace the batteries in you fire alarm?
 
2014-02-20 12:27:43 PM

bdMurray: I wonder how long the battery on one of these printreaders lasts. If it's not an entire year I see some potential for the gun not firing when it is needed.


I'd be much more concerned about the cheap Chinese POS circuitry it will contain.
 
2014-02-20 12:27:50 PM

Bloody William: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: That's actually a great idea, but I'm assuming it would be prohibitively expensive?

It's a great idea. So is Google Glass. No technology should be required for any gun until it's several generations tested both by engineers and consumers. New tech should not be required by law when it's not ready for prime time.


I'm not arguing with you here, I agree.
 
2014-02-20 12:27:56 PM

Prank Monkey: Guns are already very expensive (unless you buy crap). Would I have to destroy the ones I currently own and buy new ones? Would I have to add this device to older guns? I have some that are 70 years old. I am not going to retrofit history.


Almost certainly not. If this came to pass, I'm sure it would only be on the manufacture of new guns.
 
2014-02-20 12:28:10 PM

what_now: Codenamechaz: Can't wait to hear from the NRA how this abridges our freedums

They haven't quite figured it out, but they're opposed because Democrats.

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action says it is not opposed to the development of so-called "smart guns," but rejects government mandates that require the use of grips with fingerprint-reading technology, according to a post on its website.

"[The] NRA recognizes that the "smart guns" issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology," the group said.


Besides, if you can build a gun from these...

ak-builder.com

You can not only figure out a hack to remove the technology but you may think it your patriotic duty to do so.
 
2014-02-20 12:29:33 PM
This isn't a good solution for end times preppers. When there's no electricity you need to be able to reliably draw and fire at a moments notice to kill zombies. Waiting for your gun to recognize you or taking the chance it might not be charged could mean life or death.
 
2014-02-20 12:30:26 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-20 12:30:59 PM

dynomutt: Calmamity: A: I don't want to bet my life on the freshness of batteries.

B: As soon as every police department in the country is using these, I will be willing to think about it.

THIS

This sort of crap is putting in the infrastructure to allow for big brother to shut off ALL so-equipped weapons at the flip of a switch.


THIS...is crazy.
 
2014-02-20 12:32:46 PM
Sen. Markey (D-redd) introduces legislation requiring that guns use fingerprint technology so only their designated owners can fire them

will never catch on unless it can capture/match against the head of a penis

dynomutt: This sort of crap is putting in the infrastructure to allow for big brother to shut off ALL so-equipped weapons at the flip of a switch.


just wrap your finger in tinfoil

kronicfeld: bdMurray: I wonder how long the battery on one of these printreaders lasts. If it's not an entire year I see some potential for the gun not firing when it is needed.

Isn't proper firearm maintenance a hallmark of the Responsible Gun Owner?


electricity isn't in the bible
 
2014-02-20 12:32:52 PM

Bloody William: A similar technology uses a ring or a watch or a keyfob and only arms the weapon when it's near the user.


A bluetooth handshake would probably work really well since virtually everyone has a smartphone on them these days, but we'd need battery technology to come a little farther not only for the gun but for the smartphone. Fingerprinting is a pretty unreliable technology. I remember when the store I worked at got a printer cartridge refill machine, and it took 15 minutes of scrubbing your hands to get into the safe, which used a fingerprint reader.
 
2014-02-20 12:33:04 PM
Clearly a plot by the patriots.
 
2014-02-20 12:33:39 PM
This will result in gun grabbers sawing off your hands, removing the skin, and wearing your flesh like a glove so that they can grab your firearm.

They'll be grabbing your guns by grabbing your guns with the grabbers that you use to grab guns with so that these gun grabbers will be the only ones allowed to grab guns.
 
2014-02-20 12:34:39 PM
Politician announces polarizing legislation that, while having good intentions, is cost-prohibitive with major issues in implementation and has ZERO chance of ever getting signed into law.

More on his solution looking for a problem at 11.
 
2014-02-20 12:36:02 PM

what_now: Codenamechaz: Can't wait to hear from the NRA how this abridges our freedums

They haven't quite figured it out, but they're opposed because Democrats.

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action says it is not opposed to the development of so-called "smart guns," but rejects government mandates that require the use of grips with fingerprint-reading technology, according to a post on its website.

"[The] NRA recognizes that the "smart guns" issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology," the group said.


Ha.  So farking transparent.  "We have no idea, this will probably save countless lives, especially little kids who find guns in the home, but we're against it because reasons.  Just let us figure this out.  Hold on."
 
2014-02-20 12:38:36 PM

Bane of Broone: dynomutt: Calmamity: A: I don't want to bet my life on the freshness of batteries.

B: As soon as every police department in the country is using these, I will be willing to think about it.

THIS

This sort of crap is putting in the infrastructure to allow for big brother to shut off ALL so-equipped weapons at the flip of a switch.

^^
el oh el


Lol le lu le lo
 
2014-02-20 12:38:48 PM

Prank Monkey: what_now: Codenamechaz: Can't wait to hear from the NRA how this abridges our freedums

They haven't quite figured it out, but they're opposed because Democrats.

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action says it is not opposed to the development of so-called "smart guns," but rejects government mandates that require the use of grips with fingerprint-reading technology, according to a post on its website.

"[The] NRA recognizes that the "smart guns" issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology," the group said.

Guns are already very expensive (unless you buy crap). Would I have to destroy the ones I currently own and buy new ones? Would I have to add this device to older guns? I have some that are 70 years old. I am not going to retrofit history.


If your car was built before a certain year it is not required to have seatbelts. Why would this law be any different?  Have you never heard of grandfathering?
 
2014-02-20 12:39:59 PM
a clear violation of our 2nd amendment rights.
 
2014-02-20 12:40:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Have you never heard of grandfathering?


let me tell you of a few isolated cases of grandfathering that were largely struck down by the courts which will obviously be the only possible way such a law would be implemented
 
2014-02-20 12:40:28 PM
Will I get Diane Lane as my sidekick?
 
2014-02-20 12:40:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Prank Monkey: what_now: Codenamechaz: Can't wait to hear from the NRA how this abridges our freedums

They haven't quite figured it out, but they're opposed because Democrats.

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action says it is not opposed to the development of so-called "smart guns," but rejects government mandates that require the use of grips with fingerprint-reading technology, according to a post on its website.

"[The] NRA recognizes that the "smart guns" issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology," the group said.

Guns are already very expensive (unless you buy crap). Would I have to destroy the ones I currently own and buy new ones? Would I have to add this device to older guns? I have some that are 70 years old. I am not going to retrofit history.

If your car was built before a certain year it is not required to have seatbelts. Why would this law be any different?  Have you never heard of grandfathering?


No, just wants to have himself a little shiat.
 
2014-02-20 12:40:44 PM

sprawl15: few isolated cases of denying grandfathering


its important to set your posts up properly mr president
 
2014-02-20 12:40:53 PM

sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: Have you never heard of grandfathering?

let me tell you of a few isolated cases of grandfathering that were largely struck down by the courts which will obviously be the only possible way such a law would be implemented


Well, I guess there's no need to have the rest of this gun thread. What's next in the queue?
 
2014-02-20 12:40:58 PM

KidneyStone: Firearm violence is already declining and there are already millions of guns out there.  This won't help a damned thing.



So don't do anything. Got it.
 
2014-02-20 12:41:11 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Prank Monkey: what_now: Codenamechaz: Can't wait to hear from the NRA how this abridges our freedums

They haven't quite figured it out, but they're opposed because Democrats.

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action says it is not opposed to the development of so-called "smart guns," but rejects government mandates that require the use of grips with fingerprint-reading technology, according to a post on its website.

"[The] NRA recognizes that the "smart guns" issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology," the group said.

Guns are already very expensive (unless you buy crap). Would I have to destroy the ones I currently own and buy new ones? Would I have to add this device to older guns? I have some that are 70 years old. I am not going to retrofit history.

If your car was built before a certain year it is not required to have seatbelts. Why would this law be any different?  Have you never heard of grandfathering?


Yes, I have heard of grandfathering. Just like "assault weopon" and high-capacity magazines in New York. Oh yeah, they had to get rid of those.
 
2014-02-20 12:42:19 PM

Bloody William: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: That's actually a great idea, but I'm assuming it would be prohibitively expensive?

It's a great idea. So is Google Glass. No technology should be required for any gun until it's several generations tested both by engineers and consumers. New tech should not be required by law when it's not ready for prime time.


yeah, that is why i do not trust tehm ther magizine clip fed weapons. blackpowder or nuttin sez i
 
2014-02-20 12:42:28 PM
If it's anything like the fingerprint scanners we have used as verification device at my job, it will take like ten tries before it accepts the fingerprint.
 
2014-02-20 12:42:29 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Bloody William: A similar technology uses a ring or a watch or a keyfob and only arms the weapon when it's near the user.

A bluetooth handshake would probably work really well since virtually everyone has a smartphone on them these days, but we'd need battery technology to come a little farther not only for the gun but for the smartphone. Fingerprinting is a pretty unreliable technology. I remember when the store I worked at got a printer cartridge refill machine, and it took 15 minutes of scrubbing your hands to get into the safe, which used a fingerprint reader.


Again, sounds nice on paper. Isn't realistic or reliable in action.

Bluetooth's great. I use it to listen to music through most of the day through headphones and speakers. I test Bluetooth products. I wouldn't ever want to rely on it for security or protection. It's functional, but it's not as foolproof, failsafe, utterly reliable enough to count on outside of general entertainment and communications. Hell, would you want use a Bluetooth earpiece if it meant you couldn't switch to your phone if it stopped working?

I'm not saying this as a gun enthusiast. I'm saying this as a technologist. Great technology and convenient technology don't consistently translate into perfect or reliable technology. This is new tech that needs to be shaken out a few generations on the market and possibly through military use before we should even consider mandating it as a requirement for all manufacturers of a consumer product. This isn't a call that politicians are qualified to make, and the worst thing you can do with a technology is push it forward just because you thought it looked cool on CSI or whatever other Hollywood bullshiat you should know is unrealistically portrayed.
 
2014-02-20 12:42:59 PM
And when it malfunctions in a pinch I guess you're farked. That's true of the gun itself too but that's a mature, well-proven technology.
 
Displayed 50 of 408 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report