|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:11 am Post subject: Biometric Firearms |
|
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/smart-gun-fingerprint-reader-biofire-kai-kloepfer-pushback-firearm-community/?ref=yfp
It's about time someone threw some money into this technology.
| Quote: | | a push for similar guns misfired memorably in the late 1990s. A Colt prototype failed in a major demonstration, and Smith & Wesson dropped its smart gun program after resulting boycotts nearly bankrupted the company |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They've had this on Agents of SHIELD since season 1. Typical reality lagging behind the times |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17246
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apple has the best fingerprint reader I've ever used and it still fails half the time. There are a LOT of hurdles with something like this but I'll be interested to see where it goes.
Any sort of biometric ID that is either a) tied to a government database or b) can't be changed (e.g. sold) is a non-starter though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gumby
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 2500
Location: Inland Empire
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been advocating this ever since I saw it in that Judge Dredd movie starring Stallone.
Bye.
_________________
"This trophy removes the most odious sentence in the English Language. It can never be said again that 'the Lakers have never beaten the Celtics.'" -Dr. Jerry Buss (1985) R.I.P., 33 x M.V.O. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | Apple has the best fingerprint reader I've ever used and it still fails half the time. There are a LOT of hurdles with something like this but I'll be interested to see where it goes.
Any sort of biometric ID that is either a) tied to a government database or b) can't be changed (e.g. sold) is a non-starter though. |
Agree. Also when you need a firearm, it is very likely a time sensitive situation. Any technology between you and being able to shoot needs to be near instantaneous and 100% reliable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | Apple has the best fingerprint reader I've ever used and it still fails half the time. There are a LOT of hurdles with something like this but I'll be interested to see where it goes.
Any sort of biometric ID that is either a) tied to a government database or b) can't be changed (e.g. sold) is a non-starter though. |
Agree. Also when you need a firearm, it is very likely a time sensitive situation. Any technology between you and being able to shoot needs to be near instantaneous and 100% reliable. |
Do you know the rate of gun owners who ever find themselves in an actual "time sensitive situation" (i.e., life or death ... not perceived "life or death", but actual "life or death")? I don't know the answer, but I'm suspecting the number shakes out extraordinarily low ... like in 1/1000 territory.
But I'm interested in better understanding the views of those who feel otherwise, or those who believe that self-defense is impossible without an available firearm ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conker
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 13056
Location: MDC
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I never understood why people buy guns. They seem to be a waste of money.
_________________
(❍ᴥ❍ʋ) ʕʘᴥʘʔ (⌐ ͡■ ͜ʖ ͡■) (┛◉Д◉)┛( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ༼;´༎ຶ ༎ຶ༽ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Conker wrote: | | I never understood why people buy guns. They seem to be a waste of money. |
No need for guns when you have a conker  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | Apple has the best fingerprint reader I've ever used and it still fails half the time. There are a LOT of hurdles with something like this but I'll be interested to see where it goes.
Any sort of biometric ID that is either a) tied to a government database or b) can't be changed (e.g. sold) is a non-starter though. |
Agree. Also when you need a firearm, it is very likely a time sensitive situation. Any technology between you and being able to shoot needs to be near instantaneous and 100% reliable. |
Do you know the rate of gun owners who ever find themselves in an actual "time sensitive situation" (i.e., life or death ... not perceived "life or death", but actual "life or death")? I don't know the answer, but I'm suspecting the number shakes out extraordinarily low ... like in 1/1000 territory.
But I'm interested in better understanding the views of those who feel otherwise, or those who believe that self-defense is impossible without an available firearm ... |
There truly are people who buy guns for home protection knowing (and hoping) that they will likely never need to use it for those purposes. It's a legitimate position, whether you or I may agree with the move or not.
It's not something I would do because I don't believe the benefits of owning a gun for home protection come anywhere near offsetting the undeniable risks of doing so.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | the association wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | Apple has the best fingerprint reader I've ever used and it still fails half the time. There are a LOT of hurdles with something like this but I'll be interested to see where it goes.
Any sort of biometric ID that is either a) tied to a government database or b) can't be changed (e.g. sold) is a non-starter though. |
Agree. Also when you need a firearm, it is very likely a time sensitive situation. Any technology between you and being able to shoot needs to be near instantaneous and 100% reliable. |
Do you know the rate of gun owners who ever find themselves in an actual "time sensitive situation" (i.e., life or death ... not perceived "life or death", but actual "life or death")? I don't know the answer, but I'm suspecting the number shakes out extraordinarily low ... like in 1/1000 territory.
But I'm interested in better understanding the views of those who feel otherwise, or those who believe that self-defense is impossible without an available firearm ... |
There truly are people who buy guns for home protection knowing (and hoping) that they will likely never need to use it for those purposes. It's a legitimate position, whether you or I may agree with the move or not.
It's not something I would do because I don't believe the benefits of owning a gun for home protection come anywhere near offsetting the undeniable risks of doing so. |
I completely understand the desire of some homeowners to own a gun. Even if it's never used for its intended purpose, and it merely functions as an "insurance policy", that's within the realm of reason in my view. Same with the desire for hunters to own a gun. No issues there. Instead, I want to better understand what %age of gun owners find themselves actually using their firearm in an immediate life-or-death situation over the course of their lifetime. In the absence of exaggerated claims (i.e., perceived vs. actual), I expect that number to be extraordinarily low.
Of course, distinguishing between "perceived" events and "actual" events is difficult enough, so I recognize that the effort might be futile. But maybe it's closer to achievable if the threshold involves a requirement that the individual's firearm was actually fired in self-defense during the event in question. That, at least, would eliminate some of the "perceived" threat claims. So given that additional condition, what %age of gun owners in the U.S. have INTENTIONALLY discharged their weapon, outside a gun range setting, in self-defense over the course of their lifetime? And then what's that number divided by the number of firearms in the U.S.
I'm guessing the first number is in the 1/10 of 1% neighborhood ... and the second number would therefore be significantly lower (since the average gun owner owns more than 1.0 firearms).
That said, I'd also like to better understand a few other views:
1. How realistic is an individual's "need" to carry outside the home (excl. hunters or LEOs)? Walmart, Starbucks, Whole Foods, O'Reilly Auto Parts, whatever ...
2. How realistic is an individual's "need" to own multiple firearms (excl. hunters)?
3. How realistic is an individual's "need" to possess an excessive amount of ammunition (again, excl. hunters ... and I'm not sure what would be the consensus re: "excessive", but let's just say 300+ rounds for these purposes)?
Anyway, any feedback based on personal experience would be great ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
A cop's life was saved the other day by a bystander with a gun. So no matter what the percentages are, the important number for that cop and his family is 1.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | the association wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | Apple has the best fingerprint reader I've ever used and it still fails half the time. There are a LOT of hurdles with something like this but I'll be interested to see where it goes.
Any sort of biometric ID that is either a) tied to a government database or b) can't be changed (e.g. sold) is a non-starter though. |
Agree. Also when you need a firearm, it is very likely a time sensitive situation. Any technology between you and being able to shoot needs to be near instantaneous and 100% reliable. |
Do you know the rate of gun owners who ever find themselves in an actual "time sensitive situation" (i.e., life or death ... not perceived "life or death", but actual "life or death")? I don't know the answer, but I'm suspecting the number shakes out extraordinarily low ... like in 1/1000 territory.
But I'm interested in better understanding the views of those who feel otherwise, or those who believe that self-defense is impossible without an available firearm ... |
There truly are people who buy guns for home protection knowing (and hoping) that they will likely never need to use it for those purposes. It's a legitimate position, whether you or I may agree with the move or not.
It's not something I would do because I don't believe the benefits of owning a gun for home protection come anywhere near offsetting the undeniable risks of doing so. |
I completely understand the desire of some homeowners to own a gun. Even if it's never used for its intended purpose, and it merely functions as an "insurance policy", that's within the realm of reason in my view. Same with the desire for hunters to own a gun. No issues there. Instead, I want to better understand what %age of gun owners find themselves actually using their firearm in an immediate life-or-death situation over the course of their lifetime. In the absence of exaggerated claims (i.e., perceived vs. actual), I expect that number to be extraordinarily low.
Of course, distinguishing between "perceived" events and "actual" events is difficult enough, so I recognize that the effort might be futile. But maybe it's closer to achievable if the threshold involves a requirement that the individual's firearm was actually fired in self-defense during the event in question. That, at least, would eliminate some of the "perceived" threat claims. So given that additional condition, what %age of gun owners in the U.S. have INTENTIONALLY discharged their weapon, outside a gun range setting, in self-defense over the course of their lifetime? And then what's that number divided by the number of firearms in the U.S.
I'm guessing the first number is in the 1/10 of 1% neighborhood ... and the second number would therefore be significantly lower (since the average gun owner owns more than 1.0 firearms).
That said, I'd also like to better understand a few other views:
1. How realistic is an individual's "need" to carry outside the home (excl. hunters or LEOs)? Walmart, Starbucks, Whole Foods, O'Reilly Auto Parts, whatever ...
2. How realistic is an individual's "need" to own multiple firearms (excl. hunters)?
3. How realistic is an individual's "need" to possess an excessive amount of ammunition (again, excl. hunters ... and I'm not sure what would be the consensus re: "excessive", but let's just say 300+ rounds for these purposes)?
Anyway, any feedback based on personal experience would be great ... |
I own 2 firearms. One I inherited from my grandfather and a 9mm that I purchased.
I've never desired to carry in Starbucks however, I did carry in my glovebox for a few months when there was a string of car jackinging and muggings at the Walmart near my house. They caught the guys so I took it out of my vehicle and back into the safe.
I have anywhere between 50-200 rounds at any given time. My brother in law and I like to shoot on his property when we get together, we can go through 100 rounds or more shooting at cans and what not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | the association wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | Apple has the best fingerprint reader I've ever used and it still fails half the time. There are a LOT of hurdles with something like this but I'll be interested to see where it goes.
Any sort of biometric ID that is either a) tied to a government database or b) can't be changed (e.g. sold) is a non-starter though. |
Agree. Also when you need a firearm, it is very likely a time sensitive situation. Any technology between you and being able to shoot needs to be near instantaneous and 100% reliable. |
Do you know the rate of gun owners who ever find themselves in an actual "time sensitive situation" (i.e., life or death ... not perceived "life or death", but actual "life or death")? I don't know the answer, but I'm suspecting the number shakes out extraordinarily low ... like in 1/1000 territory.
But I'm interested in better understanding the views of those who feel otherwise, or those who believe that self-defense is impossible without an available firearm ... |
There truly are people who buy guns for home protection knowing (and hoping) that they will likely never need to use it for those purposes. It's a legitimate position, whether you or I may agree with the move or not.
It's not something I would do because I don't believe the benefits of owning a gun for home protection come anywhere near offsetting the undeniable risks of doing so. |
I completely understand the desire of some homeowners to own a gun. Even if it's never used for its intended purpose, and it merely functions as an "insurance policy", that's within the realm of reason in my view. Same with the desire for hunters to own a gun. No issues there. Instead, I want to better understand what %age of gun owners find themselves actually using their firearm in an immediate life-or-death situation over the course of their lifetime. In the absence of exaggerated claims (i.e., perceived vs. actual), I expect that number to be extraordinarily low.
Of course, distinguishing between "perceived" events and "actual" events is difficult enough, so I recognize that the effort might be futile. But maybe it's closer to achievable if the threshold involves a requirement that the individual's firearm was actually fired in self-defense during the event in question. That, at least, would eliminate some of the "perceived" threat claims. So given that additional condition, what %age of gun owners in the U.S. have INTENTIONALLY discharged their weapon, outside a gun range setting, in self-defense over the course of their lifetime? And then what's that number divided by the number of firearms in the U.S.
I'm guessing the first number is in the 1/10 of 1% neighborhood ... and the second number would therefore be significantly lower (since the average gun owner owns more than 1.0 firearms).
That said, I'd also like to better understand a few other views:
1. How realistic is an individual's "need" to carry outside the home (excl. hunters or LEOs)? Walmart, Starbucks, Whole Foods, O'Reilly Auto Parts, whatever ...
2. How realistic is an individual's "need" to own multiple firearms (excl. hunters)?
3. How realistic is an individual's "need" to possess an excessive amount of ammunition (again, excl. hunters ... and I'm not sure what would be the consensus re: "excessive", but let's just say 300+ rounds for these purposes)?
Anyway, any feedback based on personal experience would be great ... |
I am not at all sure that the word need is important.
Also, keep in mind that Americans live in vastly different environments. Rural folks often have nobody to rely on but themselves. I grew up the LA area, so I do understand why many people who live in the cities may not understand that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LJ and OLG, thanks for the feedback. Good points ...
OLG, I'm not trying to litigate the constitutional "right to bear arms", so that's why the "need" to carry a weapon to remain alive, and the "need" to possess excessive firepower, are both of great interest to me. What are those circumstances that trigger the "need" ... you provided a really great example that deals with the first question I asked upstream in the thread, which DMR also highlighted with the "better safe than sorry" mindset that's shared by many when it comes to home protection. It makes sense to me that rural folks who have a higher degree of human isolation might feel more safe with a firearm in their home. I don't think that really explains the "need" to carry a weapon at the Waffle House or the Publix supermarket, but that's also what I'm trying to better understand.
VLF ... #florida
Bullets are a proportionate response to punches? I don't know if it's a training issue or a competency issue, but it sure seems like that lucky officer violated policy AND enabled the situation to spiral out-of-control. Where was the backup? Pleading with civilian bystanders to discharge a firearm? FFS, it's insane how far we've regressed in these use of force situations. Regardless, I don't think I'll ever find common ground with those who instinctively look at the world through the lens of someone like George Zimmerman ...
I also refuse to support the worldview of valuing the life of any random person (LEO / public safety or civilian) over the life of any other random person. Therefore, the anecdotal experience of that officer and his family means little to me when, based on the averages, 30 - 35 people were killed that same day in homicide shootings. I hope you're not suggesting that a saved LEO life is all that matters, since they should be more cherished or held in higher regard in our society than regular folks who don't wear a badge. That would be nauseating logic to me. Moreover, in this case you reference, don't forget that the extrajudicial killing by a bystander manages to perfectly silence the other side of the story, so what's the point anyway?
Here's a question that your example raised in my mind ... if that bystander missed and his three bullets instead killed a child standing nearby, who would have been at fault for the child's death in your view? The bystander with the gun in his hand, the guy grappling with the officer on the ground, or the officer himself?
Edit: Apparently, I crossed the streams ... above, I mentioned certain details related to a bystander shooting incident in Florida a couple of months ago. However, I just realized that VLF was likely alluding to a much more recent bystander shooting incident in AZ. Despite that confusion, I stand by the essential point that a bystander discharging a firearm in public is basically a recipe for disaster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | A cop's life was saved the other day by a bystander with a gun. So no matter what the percentages are, the important number for that cop and his family is 1. |
and that same day some kid or kds died due to accidentally firing a gun or having a gun helped them commit suicide when they would not have done so without said gun so readily available.
| Quote: |
The overwhelming empirical evidence indicates that the presence of a gun makes children less safe; that programs such as Eddie Eagle are insufficient; and that measures the NRA and extreme gun advocates vehemently oppose, such as gun safes and smart guns, could dramatically reduce the death toll. Study after study unequivocally demonstrates that the prevalence of firearms directly increases the risk of youth homicide, suicide, and unintentional death. This effect is consistent across the United States and throughout the world. As a country, we should be judged by how well we protect our children. By any measure, we are failing horribly.
The United States accounts for nearly 75 percent of all children murdered in the developed world. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations.
Children from states where firearms are prevalent suffer from significantly higher rates of homicide, even after accounting for poverty, education, and urbanization. A study focusing on youth in North Carolina found that most of these deaths were caused by legally purchased handguns. A recent meta-analysis revealed that easy access to firearms doubled the risk of homicide and tripled the risk for suicide among all household members. Family violence is also much more likely to be lethal in homes where a firearm is present, placing children especially in danger. Murder-suicides are another major risk to children and are most likely to be committed with a gun.
Crucially, these deaths are not offset by defensive gun use. As one study found, for every time a gun is used legally in self-defense at home, there are “four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” A study of adolescents in California found that there were 13 times as many threatening as self-defensive uses of guns. Of the defensive encounters, many arose in confrontations that became hostile because of the presence of a firearm.
In the overall suicide rate, the United States ranks roughly in the middle of the pack among industrialized nations. However, we are the exception when it comes to suicides among children between the ages of 5 and 14, with an overall rate twice the average of other developed nations. This stark difference is driven almost exclusively by a firearm-related suicide rate that is 10 times the average of other industrialized nations..... |
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/06/gun_deaths_in_children_statistics_show_firearms_endanger_kids_despite_nra.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about Biometric Firearms for the public? I don't think it would be a good weapon for policemen.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | How about Biometric Firearms for the public? I don't think it would be a good weapon for policemen. |
I think it depends on how quickly they can refine the technology.
Either way it should absolutely be an option for consumers.
Here is a good read: https://thinkprogress.org/why-you-cant-buy-a-smart-gun-13fab9b145cc#.mths8gdak
| Quote: | Smart guns are equipped with technology that prevent loaded guns from firing in the wrong hands through analyzing the registered owner’s grip, biometrics such as fingerprints, RFID (radio frequency identification) technology that only allows a gun to fire when in close proximity to a programmed ring or wristband, or even an app.
But despite smart gun prototypes being prime for production since 2005, they still aren’t available to buy for law enforcement or civilian gun owners. The answer: politics.
Colt and Smith and Wesson suffered revenue-crushing boycotts after developing their government-sponsored smart gun prototypes. In the years since, gun dealers who have expressed interest in selling smart guns alongside traditional firearms have had to cancel their orders due to boycotts and fears of bankruptcy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
