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).