Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a "fingerprint gun".... it only works if the licensed/registered owner is the one holding the grip. If we made ALL guns with this feature, Newtown wouldn't have happened and responsible gun owners would not have their 2nd Amendment rights infringed upon. Heck, even my crappy laptop that I'm using to write this has this technology built-in, so I know it's not that expensive. It's been 100% reliable every day for years. Think of the accidental kid deaths this could save.
Nothing I've written, nothing I've personally experienced with this technology, nor anything referenced in the above link would lead you to believe it's unreliable. You have an unfounded bias because you're afraid of change.
As self described pro-gun, I'll be honest and say it's not a bad idea. I think it has some problems, but I like that some of the gun control debate is more sophisticated that "BAN BAN BAN!" For starters, I live in an area where we have to deal with serious wildlife (bears, mountain lions, etc). I keep firearms as much for protection from wildlife as I do for protection from criminals. A big part of that means that my family members need to be able to operate the firearms. If you could make a system that somehow prevented people other than members of my family (and allowed me to authorize new shooters relatively easily), I might be in support of that (I'd need a lot of specific details, as well as reliability tests to commit either way). The key here is that the control over who shoots my guns has to be up to ME, not the government. Also, it has to be a pretty foolproof system (something that will not easily breakdown and something that doesn't require unreasonable amounts of maintenance). I give you a lot of credit for thinking outside the box.
Nothing I've written, nothing I've personally experienced with this technology, nor anything referenced in the above link would lead you to believe it's unreliable. You have an unfounded bias because you're afraid of change.
Are you for it or not?
Well considering I use my guns for protecting my home and my family....
No, I'm not for new technology.. With new technology often comes initial failure rates or engineering flaws.
Get back to me when there is years of verifiable testing.
I have clammy hands at times... I like to wear hand protection when I shoot as do most people.. so what about that issue?
Well considering I use my guns for protecting my home and my family....
No, I'm not for new technology.. With new technology often comes initial failure rates or engineering flaws.
Get back to me when there is years of verifiable testing.
I have clammy hands at times... I like to wear hand protection when I shoot as do most people.. so what about that issue?
You're not going to stop to put on a glove when an intruder is breaking into your house. Maybe there's some way to make it work for your specific needs at the range or something.
Of course the fingerprint scanner needs to be tested and proven reliable, which I'm confident it will... my computer is completely reliable with it's small fingerprint authentication window. Not intrusive at all. It's a small price to pay if you ask me.
You're not going to stop to put on a glove when an intruder is breaking into your house. Maybe there's some way to make it work for your specific needs at the range or something.
Of course it needs to be tested and proven reliable... my computer is completely reliable with it's small fingerprint authentication window. Not intrusive at all. It's a small price to pay if you ask me.
I wouldn't be opposed to it if it's tried, tested and proven reliable as the real mccoy. I don't see why anybody else would be either. I just don't think it's practical... How would it recoil with the thumb having to stay placed on the top?
Good idea but like widowmaker says guns in the home are not just for one specific user many times. I could see a print type system where you only add in who you decide can use the weapon. Only problem is implementation. It would take a long time and we have millions of guns on the street without this device. I guess when they chip us all they can put a certain code in our chips that the chip in the gun reads to allow access to certain users.
You're not going to stop to put on a glove when an intruder is breaking into your house. Maybe there's some way to make it work for your specific needs at the range or something.
Of course the fingerprint scanner needs to be tested and proven reliable, which I'm confident it will... my computer is completely reliable with it's small fingerprint authentication window. Not intrusive at all. It's a small price to pay if you ask me.
I think it's a workable compromise since everybody gets what they want: gun owners keep their rights, kids don't get shot accidentally and stolen guns will be rendered useless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
