According to the inventor, they only fire when an “authorized” person pulls the trigger. I know nothing about guns or biometrics, so I was curious what you smarties would think about this product. Would you buy one, Would you test one out? Do you think it’s a terrible idea?
Lots of unproven technology and a hefty price tag (the launch addition was $1900). No thanks. We will eventually get there but it will take awhile. We don’t have kids at home and I trust the dog so I feel no urgency to get one.
From almost a year ago.
The usual argument is that anything, anything, that reduces reliability is anathema, given the importance of a successful first shot once the decision has been made to shoot. And given the baleful consequences of a failed first shot due to gun malfunction.
The argument can often be overblown, but compared with many arguments over guns it has an unusually large kernel of truth within the usual outer fluff of BS.
I have trouble getting touchscreens to work. If the biometrics aren’t infallible, forget it.
Gun manufacturers have been developing “smart” guns for decades. The problems are many. For starters, there’s essentially no market for them. The only way they’ll sell significant numbers is if people are forced to buy them. Secondly, they would need to work perfectly. Any reports that the gun doesn’t fire when it should fire - or vice versa - will quickly make gun owners skeptical of the technology.
My prior post from a 3ish year old thread:
I believe my points will remain valid, both pro and con (although this new model is in a perfectly functional caliber at least!) , but I’ll sum up the biggest issue with a self-snip:
But absent substantial political changes or financial investment, it does nothing to address the millions of existing weapons, most of which will last decades (or longer) with even the most basic care. So . . . it’s worth looking at, I just don’t think it will be an effective answer. We will probably be looking at generational changes in attitudes making a big difference in legislation before the existing weapons are old enough to be replaced.
An actual concern I have about the new guns of the OP isn’t about reliability (will wait and see), cost (mentioned in the onebox quote, but I don’t like putting firearms only in the hands of the wealthy but expect it to go down if it gets popular), but the fact that it’s geared at first-time buyers. So this is a measure that’s working to increase the number of new households with guns, and marketed as being SAFE in a household with children.
No matter how good the biometrics are (and I’m not throwing shade, I hope and expect them to be good) something or someone is going to screw up and a child will be hurt. Will that same child be hurt if a conventional firearm is purchased instead? Most likely! Especially if the safety features prevent the new purchaser from doing the sort of training and family discussions that I always advise for a household with a new gun.
But would the gun HAVE BEEN in the household if it wasn’t advertised specifically to those new buyers, and in marketing that touts that safety? That’s my biggest worry.
Similar to my prior post linked above, I’d love it if this was sold to a high-ish profile private security company for mutual advertising for a fixed period. That’ll help establish a baseline of reliability, build buzz, and place the risks of testing on full, trained adults who could consent to be such. Practical? Probably only in a limited sense, but I’d feel better that way.
Still, I’d rather the technology get developed, tested, and moved forward with rather than the increasingly only all YES/NO dialog that has evolved on the subject (not as bad here despite complaints, but unsurprisingly, sites with a sharper focus on the subject elsewhere online do not normally seek any sort of middle-ground).
I like the idea, but in addition to having some doubts as to the reliability of the technology, I’m not spending that much more to have that on a firearm. But I’m not hostile to the idea. I do think some gun owners are outright hostile to the idea because there’s a few states who passed laws saying once this kind of technology is available it would be required on all new gun purchases. I think New Jersey was one of those states, but I don’t know if those laws are still in effect.
New Jersey, yes, and it was cited it the OP’s article.
So drinking and carrying should be illegal?
I’m not a gun owner, but my daughter’s right index finger (at age 8) can unlock my Samsung Galaxy S20.
I’m not that keen on biometric auth. It is also marketed as infallible, when there are actually points of failure.
It has its place - place your finger on the red glass oval to open the door to get into work - but sometimes, that placement needs to be done a frustratingly large number of times, especially if it raining and the glass is now wet.
I’d not buy a gun at all anyway, but a biometric one would be the bottom of my list.
Because guns are perfect without the technology, so any misfire could only be caused by said “smart gun” technology?
Thus my suggestion that that the testing be worked on outside the household of new gun owners with children, a perfect storm of risk IMHO. I will point out that the OP’s article specified much work had been done on the biometrics including wet/moist hands and grips. But I share the concern.
Except reliability has two sides. A device that doesn’t work when it’s supposed to is unreliable, but so is a device that does work when it’s not supposed to. And current firearms have a really, really high rate of working when they’re not supposed to, with tragic results.
These guns are probably significantly more reliable, overall, than current handguns. Perfect? Of course not. Nothing is. Is the increase in reliability worth the price tag? Probably not, though that’ll come down in time.
How many of those cases are truly the firearm not working right, vs. operator being a doofus (at either maintenance or handling)?
But back on topic, it will likely still be a while before these gain wide acceptance. As mentioned, like with self-driving, the slightest hint of unreliability even if far better than the statu quo will get a very negative reaction. And like ParallelLines said, selling this as a “safe” alternative can have an effect contrary to safety in some cases. It’ll take a while yet.
Depends on how you define “operator”, of course. If Gary Grown-up buys the gun for himself, but his five-year old child grabs it and accidentally shoots themself, is the “operator” Gary or the child? It should be Gary, which means that the child shouldn’t be able to be the operator. Which is what guns like this attempt to achieve.
I concur. But this is an idea that needs more development, too many police officers have been shot with their own guns. for one issue.
IIRC, some states do have laws against that.
I found a website that lists in what states you can’t carry and be legally inebriated, which states say you can’t carry and drink at all, and which states don’t address the issue.
In Which States Can You Concealed Carry and Drink Alcohol? | USCCA (usconcealedcarry.com)
Considering how temperamental the fingerprint sensor is on my iPhone and that it would have a battery that could run down, I wouldn’t trust my life to a fingerprint sensor on a gun working correctly when there’s a home invader kicking down my door.
The video I linked to shows the gun is plugged into power in it’s nightstand “holster”.
The fingerprint pad is right under the fingertip when you grip the gun.
There’s also a face recognition camera in the back in case you’re wearing gloves, your hands are covered in “goop”, etc.