Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Owner Identification System

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    When are we getting these:

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5953844.html

    Or do we already? I saw something like it on FutureWeapons. Smartguns.

    Or something like what they had in that movie "Shoot 'Em Up" where it identified the gun's owner. No comments about that movie now.

    Granted, it'd have to work *all* the time, with *no* delay, but still. I'd love the comfort of knowing that my gun only works for identified users. Better than a child lock, and when I'm open carrying I have the piece of mind that if someone takes my gun I can safely begin kicking them where the sun don't shine and take my gun back while they try to figure out why it doesn't go "bang".

    and before you say "Well what if you're in a situation where one of your friends has to use your gun?"
    A) They're probably already a recognized user
    B) That's a pretty lousy situation if they have to use *my* gun
    C) A lot of my friends already have their own guns

    And I know someone is going to throw in "I don't want those to exist because then the government will *require* them to be on all guns when some moron Democrat decides they're the best thing since sliced bread or serial-stamped bullets". Again, yes, that'd suck, especially if the device doesn't always work.

    Thanks,
    --Fox

  2. #2
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    What if you get shot through the hands, spinning your gun across the room to land at the feet of a complete stranger? As the murderer places his gun to your head, I bet you wish the stranger could shoot yours, huh?

    Anything that prevents a gun from discharging is preventing it from working as intended. Anything that can go wrong....WILL. I refuse to add more crap that could. I don't even have a retention strap on my holster because it could possibly prevent ME from getting it out.

    I once bought a brand new car, then took the engine out so nobody else could drive it. Make sense?

    What's the point of buying something to use, then creating ways to keep it from working?

    If somebody is quick enough to take your gun out of its holster without you being able to at least entrap his hand while you shoot them with your backup, you are in violation of the first rule of carrying a weapon.

    Always be aware of your surroundings.

    I have become almost ambidextrous. I have learned to pick things up in stores, push shopping carts, and numerous other things left handed. I rarely keep my right elbow away from my pistol. I often rest my arm on thepistol grip when at checkout counters or any other confined spaces where people are close to me. This both obstructs the weapon from a straight pull from the holster, allows me to feel anything fishy without having to constantly watch behind me, and also allows me to quickly entraptheirhand between my elbow and my side if I feel somone grasp my pistol. Always have a plan. It may get shot to hell, but at least you'll have one.

    I have too much crap to pay attention to now. I don't need something else like a weaponI.D. system to worry about.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    Superlite27 wrote:
    What if you get shot through the hands, spinning your gun across the room to land at the feet of a complete stranger? As the murderer places his gun to your head, I bet you wish the stranger could shoot yours, huh?
    Is the stranger the murderer's buddy? If he doesn't have a gun of his own, why hasn't he already run in fear for his life at the first sound of gunfire?

    I'm also not sure my gun would survive a direct hit to the grip, which I assume is where the bullet hit if it got shot through my hands as you said. If it was strong enough to knock it across the room, it probably mashed up my magazine well enough to cease operation of the firearm itself. I suppose the round in the chamber would still fire. But really, if he shot me in the hands and I'm disarmed, he's already firing at me, and clearly hit me. The follow up shot should have already hit me in center of mass before the gun hit the ground and long before some bystander, who by some off chance isn't running for his life and has taken it upon himself to acquire a loose firearm of questionable functionality to defend my life, gets a chance to pick it up, aim, and fire. Just running the scenarios from a logical point of view.

    Superlite27 wrote:
    I once bought a brand new car, then took the engine out so nobody else could drive it. Make sense?
    No, but having a key to start it does.

    I also never said you must install these when they exist. I just asked where they are. You can do what you want. I like the concept. I'd implant an RFID chip in my wrist to interact with the mechanism. I can see myself losing some wristband.

    Playing Devil's advocate: What would suck is if I got shot right in the wristband or wrist and destroyed that chip, and suddenly the gun stops working. Or if someone developed a jamming frequency to prevent the firearm from communicating with the chip. I guess that's where the thumbprint scanners idea would work, but when I grip my pistol, neither of my thumbs are actually pressed against the grip itself.

    So yeah. I didn't say I'd instantly go out and install one and use it blindly. I said I like the concept and would be great if it worked.

    Besides, when it messes up you draw the revolver in your ankle holster that never gets any use.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    Requiring a computer to operate a firearm is not good. There is no such thing as a computer that has 100% uptime. Don't even be hypothetical about it... it doesn't exist.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    Requiring a computer to operate a firearm is not good. There is no such thing as a computer that has 100% uptime. Don't even be hypothetical about it... it doesn't exist.
    Yup. "Blue screen of death" would take on an even heavier meaning with this stuff.

    "Not Reading ID Chip. Not Reading ID Chip. Not Read......"

  6. #6
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    If I fired a round and it ricochets off of the bad guy's gun and hits mine disabling the identification computer, can I still purchase a cup of coffee at that particular store?

    If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry friggin' Christmas!

    Hypothetically, we can think up hypothetical situations till we hypothetically die of hypothetical old age.

    Oh, I think the idea behind it is sound: Keep a person who takes my gun from using it on me.

    But I think the cons of putting it into use far outweigh the pros.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I don't have a problem with developing technology like this, provided I get to make the decision about whether I want to use it or not. It is a fact that as soon people started saying this was technically possible, some states right away wanted to force all new guns to be equipped with it.

    The actual technology is just engineering and machines. You wouldn't want your life to depend on it until it was thouroughly tested and found to be reliable, so at first it would be just be a gadget. But of course politicians are perfectly happy to put your life at risk, if not by an outright ban, then by making your weapons less effective or vulnerable to remote shutdown by police.

    So it's not the technology that bothers me, it'sour "philosopher king"rulers that scare me.

    If you can make me a reliable and shutdown-proofed Judge Dredd gun that really works and meets my standards, I might give one a look. For now I'll stick with Mr. Browning.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, , USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Maybe we should suggest that they outfit the police with these firearms. After all, more cops are killed by their own handgun than citizens, right? That's the perfect place to use the technology where it will do the most good for the least cost.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    This is the kind of crap people in CA, IL, NY, NJ, and MD come up with--and will probably endorse with some kind of idiotic legislation. All because they read it in a book, magazine, or saw online (therefore, must be true!)...or because they saw it in a movie...



    If people were serious about it, and tote it's reliability, not subject to flaw or jamming, then it should be installed on every weapon used by the local jurisdictions law enforcement officers--every single damn one of them (the weapons, not the LEOs)--also include protective details of governors. If that works (or concurrently), install on every single federal LE agency weapon--FBI, BATF, US Marshals, DEA, etc...then install on every single military weapon, deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or other hellhole where we are arranging some extremists' meeting with Allah and 72 virgins (or is it Virginians?)



    Once that is accomplished and it is 100% reliable--I'll consider having one on my weapon (probably a safe queen).



    Until that happens--nof'n way....

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here and There, Washington, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    I don't think I like the idea of my guns fuctionality being interfered with by remote. Though, when the cops catch the mass murderer with a jamming system, they can tack an extra 2 years onto his death sentance.

    If it worked perfectly, being enabled whenever I want and being disabled whenever I want, then I'd consider it.
    I get very annoyed if my carry gun fails to fire correctly even once (it did stovepipe at the range once), and adding anything that makes failure more likely is a bad idea usualy. I have noticed that many newer guns have even fewer mechanical safties than older ones, I assume because they were found to be unecessary. Simplicity is usualy proportional to reliability.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    SIGguy229 wrote:
    SNIP...we are arranging some extremists' meeting with Allah and 72 virgins (or is it Virginians?"
    If you like to blow up buildings in NY and go to heaven to see 72 Virginians, you won't like it. They will likely all be armed and led by guys like this, and they've been waiting for you to give them something to practice on...





  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Soon after any such system becomes available and perhaps something may already exist to do it, there will be a system that can defeat and render unusable any firearm with user ID on it. Criminals will certainly figure it out, and law enforcement will want it too. The proof of this is you will see the police exempt from the requirement.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    West Valley, Utah, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    "If you build a better mousetrap, someone will build a better mouse."

    Nothing is going to be 100% secure, there will always be a way around the security mechanisms. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to become more secure. We should have options available to us, but since our number one security device is between our ears it should be up to us to decide which options to use.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    The problem with that argument is that there really is not any large desire for these kind of security systems, except by certain governmental bodies. The only point for demanding such a system is to make it harder on the law abiding to defend themselves with the possibility of being able to render people defenseless at will and from a distance.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Exactly, putting electronics into an otherwise functional weapon isn't making a better mouse, it's making a worse mouse.

    The perceived benefits of having a gun that can only be fired by authorized users is outweighed by the vulnarabilities such a device introduces. Make no mistake, so long as the technology exists to disable such device remotely, it will eventually become a law or a regulation that such technology is included, at least in some states if not federally.

    Again, the technology is not to be feared, it's how the antis will try to use it against you. The defense is a "dumb" gun.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    West Valley, Utah, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    I was refering to the electronics in the gun to be the 'mousetrap' and the bad guys being the 'mouse'. I wouldn't want to have a 'smart' gun that could be rendered useless by accident or on purpose (EMP). I agree that putting electronics in there for the purpose of restricting who can use it could be very problematic. But if/when this technology gets widespread I would like us to have the 'option' to NOT use it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    Just remember: Any moron can complicate things. It takes a true genious to make things SIMPLER.

    The more things there are that move, the more things that can break.

    Your rifle can jam, your artillary might not have the right coordinates, your mortar can malfunction, your rocket launcher could sputter, your pistol could have a failure to feed....................

    ..........pick up a pointy rock. Let's see that S.O.B. jam!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Batteries not included?

    I'd never purchase/own a firearm that has hardware in or on it whose purpose is to make it not fire. Remember, the loudest sound a firearm can make is "click" when you pull that trigger.

    --MuzzleBlast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •