Then what points are you talking about?
Originally posted by jaden101
They're mostly done by similar enterprises. Prototypes made by individuals or small businesses. Some have different methods. Identilock covers the whole trigger and is physically removed like the old steering locks on cars.
The safe gun technology retrofits weapons in the handle and is similar to the one you posted. It claims much more reliable fingerprint technology than current iPhones. Unsure of the cost to the user to get it retrofitted though.Like any technology, costs per unit will lower upon scaling up of production. Reliability will increase also but like any mechanism won't be 100% reliable.
I understand the potential of a delayed unlock potentially causing danger in say a home invasion scenario but that is something geofencing could accommodate. It would negate the need for a fingerprint unlock in the home or within other designated areas. It's purpose is to prevent unauthorised people from using the gun which would in turn stop stolen guns from being used or at least put another barrier in place. This also brings to mind another option of "smart guns" where an owner can disable a gun remotely if they find it has been stolen as they can do with phones now.
Lots of options when it comes to using technology to make guns safer in a myriad of circumstances. It can help prevent kids accidentally discharging weapons and killing or injuring themselves or others. It can help prevent gun suicides of owner's family members and perhaps prevent the suicide from happening at all allowing the suicidal person to get help (gun suicides are more "successful" than other methods).
There's no one answer to helping prevent gun deaths of any type.
There are tons of ways to tackle the issue from all angles. Gun culture, mental health, access to weapons, gang culture, organised crime, drugs, poverty.
The problem is a lack of real commitment to tackling it.
As I said previously though, America isn't really good at tackling the social or health care aspects but it is tremendous at technological innovation and implementation. Play to your strengths.
Originally posted by Silent Master
If you talking about things like mental health and access to weapons. I've addressed those multiple times already.If you're talking about something else; be specific, as is in point 1) and 2)
So we're just going to go through our last cyclical debate again?
You seem to be of the opinion that if something isn't dirt cheap and 100% reliable from the get go then it's not worth pursuing.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Of course I would demand that it actually works. If your phone's security doesn't work, you're slightly inconvenienced. if your gun doesn't work. you're dead.
Yet you ignored the example I gave where the technology is supposedly far more reliable than the iPhones
You also ignored the fact that it would have no more or less chance than any other part of the gun not functioning.
You also ignore the fact that the situation you are describing is extremely rare in that most shots fired in anger aren't someone being surprised and needing to quickly reach and unlock a gun before being fired upon.
For every gun used in home defence to shoot an intruder there are 7 gun assaults or deaths in the owner's home, 11 suicides and 4 accidental deaths. That doesn't include weapons being stolen and the resultant deaths. It doesn't include an owner's relatives using the gun to shoot others outside the home.
237,000 guns were reported stolen in 2016. What if you could render them useless remotely at the push of a button. Would that have an impact on gun murders that are not mass shooting related?
Originally posted by jaden101
Yet you ignored the example I gave where the technology is supposedly far more reliable than the iPhonesYou also ignored the fact that it would have no more or less chance than any other part of the gun not functioning.
You also ignore the fact that the situation you are describing is extremely rare in that most shots fired in anger aren't someone being surprised and needing to quickly reach and unlock a gun before being fired upon.
For every gun used in home defence to shoot an intruder there are 7 gun assaults or deaths in the owner's home, 11 suicides and 4 accidental deaths. That doesn't include weapons being stolen and the resultant deaths. It doesn't include an owner's relatives using the gun to shoot others outside the home.
237,000 guns were reported stolen in 2016. What if you could render them useless remotely at the push of a button. Would that have an impact on gun murders that are not mass shooting related?
I gave examples where it was applied to guns and proven not to be reliable, if you have any examples of these technoligies being reliable when applied to firearms. post them.
I actually made the proposal of a scanner or user ID system for guns back then:
There were very valid concerns regarding viabilitdy of such tech on a wide scale implementation. I do still hope that, one day, such tech would exist and would not be both highly dependable and not so easily circumvented.
Originally posted by Silent Master
I gave examples where it was applied to guns and proven not to be reliable, if you have any examples of these technoligies being reliable when applied to firearms. post them.
I already did. I also addressed the fact that no technology is 100% error free including normal mechanical guns without any added technological safety features. I also addressed the fact that reliability increases with investment and repeated manufacturing. As does lowering costs.
If we were to apply yourl reticence to any other field there would be no advancement in safety in anything.
You also haven't addressed any of the wider aspects of the discussion that I brought up. Are you simply averse to the concept of using technology to make guns safer out of some ideology?
I don't want fingerprint technology unless we know it won't ever get someone killed. Like it not working when somebody needs it.
No technology can be perfect, but the chances of it not working should have to be the same as or lower than the chance of a normal gun jamming.
Setting aside the chances of the tech failing when somebody needs it....even worse would be if criminals found a way to circumvent it. Because if they could find a way to allow them to use a gun they shouldn't be able to...they'd also have a way to deactivate the guns of law abiding citizens.
Actually to me, just that risk alone makes it not worth it. With the current guns today there is no capacity for any criminal to rob a bunch of gun owners of their ability to use their weapons.
Wow a new low for CNN:
CNN’s Misinformation Campaign Continues | ‘An Up-Close Look at the AR-15’
Uh Oh! Facts and Stuff!
Facts about the Parkland Killing.... Lefties Narrative takes a kick to thier TransNuts
Originally posted by darthgoober
If it makes people feel safer, that's a constructive purpose. If it's fun to take to the gun range to shoot, that's a constructive purpose. If you need to shoot an multiple armed intruders, yes that's also a constructive purpose.
I would feel safer with a nuclear warhead. #ButMah2ndAmendment!
Originally posted by Silent Master
Sorry, but you in fact haven't listed any examples where this technology has been reliable when applied to guns.I have no problems with the reasearch contiuning, but until it is proven reliable and sufficiently hack-proof. I'm 100% against it being made mandatory.
I gave the Tom Lynch example that has a fingerprint recognition more reliable than the iPhone.
No one is suggesting it be made mandatory before the technology is sufficiently reliable anyway.
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't want fingerprint technology unless we know it won't ever get someone killed. Like it not working when somebody needs it.No technology can be perfect, but the chances of it not working should have to be the same as or lower than the chance of a normal gun jamming.
Setting aside the chances of the tech failing when somebody needs it....even worse would be if criminals found a way to circumvent it. Because if they could find a way to allow them to use a gun they shouldn't be able to...they'd also have a way to deactivate the guns of law abiding citizens.
Actually to me, just that risk alone makes it not worth it. With the current guns today there is no capacity for any criminal to rob a bunch of gun owners of their ability to use their weapons.
Again, by that logic you wouldn't have any safety advancements in any field. Have airbags in cars malfunctioned and injured and killed people? Yes. Does that mean they should never have been implemented?
Your second point is as I stated it should be. Having no more a chance of failing than any other part of a gun. That comes with investment and R&D.
Your third point is retarded. I don't see how circumventing one safety feature would give a criminal the ability to prevent someone else's weapon from working.