• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

MIT Student Adapting Fingerprint Tech for New Firearm

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
When a family member, friend, or LEO attempts to use that gun for self-defense, they will have an inoperative chunk of metal in their hand.

Smart technology like this is really dumb. It restricts the good people but not the criminal who will possess no trick out stupid guns.

What is installed can be removed and criminals WILL do that.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I'm all in favor of new technology. I can even imagine some marginal benefit to a well proven technology that will prevent my gun from being used against me in the very low likely case that it is taken from me.

So I'm sure police officers (up to and including the secret service) who stand a much higher chance of a criminal taking their guns than I do, will be even more anxious for this technology than I am.

Once said police have proven the technology is highly reliable in both allowing the gun to fire when it should and preventing it from firing when it shouldn't, I will probably be wanting to follow suit by buying such a gun of my own.

Of course, and sadly, I expect that once such technology is proven to be of great benefit to professional and highly trained peace officers, it will be deemed to be inappropriate for mere commoners to possess and so I'll never be able to get it for myself.

[/sarcasm]
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
It would keep toddlers from killing their siblings or parents. It would make stolen guns harder to sell or operate.
 

Statkowski

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,141
Location
Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
Had a thumbprint scanner for clocking in and out at my last job (now retired, don't care any more). Fingers ended up getting stained while picking up black walnuts in my yard. Couldn't use the scanner for about three weeks as a result of the staining. Did I mention that black walnut stain cannot be washed off?

Thumb was clean, and dry, and stained brown. Scanner wouldn't accept my thumb at all, for three weeks.

Scanner-equipped handgun? Hah!
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
It would keep toddlers from killing their siblings or parents.

Which in a nation of 320 million persons, we have about 500 total accidental gun deaths a year: kids and adults. This is comparable to the number of children who drown each year in 5 gallon buckets, bathtubs, and other non-swimming pool accidents around the home. Toss in swimming pool drowning and you get more kids drowning around the house than you do total number of accidental gun deaths.

It would make [strike]stolen[/strike] guns harder to sell or operate.

FIFY.

As I wrote above, AFTER such technology is widely adopted and proven by peace officers (and/or military), I'll look to adopt it myself...if such "military style weapons" are permissible to the public.

Of course, if anyone else wants to adopt it for themselves on any different basis, I'm thrilled to respect their right to choose. I will retain my right to choose whether to rely on such guns for my self-defense.

The question is whether you and other Progs will respect my choice if I choose not to use such lock out features on my personal guns. Will you respect the market's choice if many others make the same choice and prefer to continue to buy new guns that don't use such technology.

You are "pro choice" are you not?

Charles
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Among my concerns about this "technology" is that IF it works ONLY for ONE user then either I must have one for EACH and EVERY Family member who I want to be able to defend themselves should the need arise OR choose to only have ONE firearm and NONE of my OTHER loved ones would be able to use this tool in and effort to defend themselves.

What about battery failure? Will the defensive tool but unusable to ANYONE including he person whose fingerprint is in the firearm memory OR will it fail in the EVERYONE can use it if the battery is either removed or dead. Now, about retention of programmed fingerprint, Will the previously programmed print be retained in the event of battery failure or will one have to reprogram the "approved" print with a battery change?

I see MANY issues with this type of technology being applied to limit the functionality of a self defense tool.

OH, the VERY MOST EFFECTIVE method I see in my mind for preventing children from misusing a self defense tool to cause self harm or harm to others is for the "adult" to ALWAYS keep the firearm in their immediate possession! If mom or dad have the gun then the child won't

Side point---- eliminating guns to eliminate suicides or other crimes only results in suicides or crimes by other methods and significant increases in crime rates as the citizenry are prevented effective self-defense and the criminals see the populace as soft easy targets who can't defend themselves!

Another issue--- We ALREADY have certain legislatures and parts of the population MANDATING certain theoretical, unproven, and unavailable technologies such as Firing pin or chamber identification schemes and this BIO-METRIC LOCKING Scheme would almost certainly be mandated and imposed by these same Legislatures despite the draw backs it has be design.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
snip... It would make stolen guns harder to sell or operate.

Are you suggesting that once programed for an authorized user it can't be reprogrammed once sold or given to another 'authorized' person. What happens to the pre-authorization memory in the event of a battery failure? Say an authorized person has a injury that changes the fingerprint so that it no longer matches the one pre-programmed, is the gun now useless to them except as a paper weight or low speed object to be thrown?

Would programming of the authorized print be limited to manufacturers ONLY or would they be field programmable? IF field programmable how would one keep the procedure secure so as to not be available to anyone with INTERNET ACCESS?

I see a huge amount of cost, risk, inconvenience and frustration in a scheme as such.

OH, if field programmable ANYONE authorized or not would be able to simply reprogram the authorized print and then MOST of your stated goal is now unattainable!
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
It would keep toddlers from killing their siblings or parents. It would make stolen guns harder to sell or operate.


that is why toddlers have caregivers ...


last time i check the firearm does not kill siblings or parents or ...


ipse
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
And any hacker worth their salt will figure out an EMP gadget to turn off the ability of the reader, weapon nullified. They can already hack into insulin pumps and cardiac pacemakers.

You'd have to be really dumb to think this kind of thing would work as intended.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
And any hacker worth their salt will figure out an EMP gadget to turn off the ability of the reader, weapon nullified. They can already hack into insulin pumps and cardiac pacemakers.

You'd have to be really dumb to think this kind of thing would work as intended.

uh, hillary does...

just saying
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
And any hacker worth their salt will figure out an EMP gadget to turn off the ability of the reader, weapon nullified. They can already hack into insulin pumps and cardiac pacemakers.

You'd have to be really dumb to think this kind of thing would work as intended.

uh, hillary does...

just saying
Seriously doubt that she does, but that won't stop her from lying and promoting it as better than sliced bread.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Seriously doubt that she does, but that won't stop her from lying and promoting it as better than sliced bread.

Reminds me of the old Al Gore story. Big Al wanted to do away with the NOAA. Why? "Because," he said "we already have 'The Weather Channel'."

'Big Al,' they said, 'where do you think the Weather Channel gets their data?'.

Big Al: (crickets chirping)
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
A detailing of the issues with so-called smart gun technology:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20161014/smart-gun-glitches-confirm-gun-owner-concerns

A prototype using a Glock 22, developed by 19-year-old inventor Kai Kloepfer, has a biometric fingerprint sensor, similar to the one in a smartphone, built into the grip and aligned to approximately where the shooter’s middle finger would rest. The prototype takes approximately a second and a half to recognize a fingerprint and unlock the gun. In order for the gun to continue to be available to fire, the shooter’s finger has to remain aligned with the sensor. The sensor can’t recognize a wet fingerprint, and the gun isn’t designed to work for persons with dirty hands or who are wearing gloves. The modifications to the gun also mean that the magazine capacity is downsized from 15 rounds to nine. All of these raise concerns about the viability of the gun as a weapon in a critical defensive use situation.

Gun owners have additional legitimate reasons for viewing “smart” gun technology with reservations.

Radio frequency ID (RFID) access or token-access “smart” gun technology comes with its own kinds of glitches. This is based on the firearm remaining locked and unusable unless an authorized user’s token (like a watch or ring) comes within a defined proximity of the enabled gun. In November 2014, the New Jersey Attorney General issued an opinion on the Armatix iP1 handgun, a “smart” gun utilizing RFID technology that retails at around $1,800. The iP1handgun is paired with a wristwatch containing an RFID chip that enables the functioning of the gun. The watch must be situated within 10 inches of the gun in order for the gun to fire. The opinion concluded that “as a matter of design, the pistol may be fired by a person who is not an authorized or recognized user.” Provided the gun is “situated within 10 inches of the enabling wristwatch, it may be fired by anyone,” including an unauthorized individual who simply maintains possession of the gun within 10 inches of the authorized user’s wrist, or an unauthorized user who forcibly takes both the wristwatch and gun.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla

"....takes approximately a second and a half to recognize a fingerprint and unlock the gun. In order for the gun to continue to be available to fire, the shooter’s finger has to remain aligned with the sensor. The sensor can’t recognize a wet fingerprint, and the gun isn’t designed to work for persons with dirty hands or who are wearing gloves."

The perfect storm for entering the region of the recently departed.

1 1/2 sec has been said to be the relative length of a deadly confrontation - no cite provided.

Way too many opportunities for the [strike]smart[/strike] dumb phone to malfucnction.
 
Top