Tierney Unveils Bill Calling for Smart Guns

[AEA]

As I recall, the one in the Movie didn't work the first time either!
Took a second grab on the grip (placed exactly correctly) to work.

[sjfcontrol]

Somebody would develop a smart-gun jammer...

[Rifleman55]

Nobody is asking the most important question. Do smart guns exist? As far as I can tell they do not.

Although they may in the future. = http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulleti ... egin/18647" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They had a booth about them at the NRA show in Houston, I didn't take time to check them out.

[Texasrpbrock]

So will I need to stock up on AA or AAA sized batteries to keep the darn thing operating?

[mamabearCali]

no no no....when the LEO's choose to carry them I will consider adding one to my arsenal

[suthdj]

So does the smart gun in the hands of a dumb person make the person any smarter?

[The Annoyed Man]

Or a dead battery at a most inopportune time....

They could make them like the "shake it" flashlights.

Just shake your gun up and down for two minutes prior to attempting to operate.

it would be funny if it wasn't a dangerous situation.

You could be pistol whipping him while you're charging the battery. Of course, by the time it's charged, you won't like have to shoot him......so it's a win/win, right?

[Texasrpbrock]

Makes me think of those "shake weights". Protect yourself and your family while getting rid of that droopy arm fat....

[baldeagle]

OK TAM and Texasrpbrock, enough is enough.

[Jaguar]

Or a dead battery at a most inopportune time....

They could make them like the "shake it" flashlights.

Just shake your gun up and down for two minutes prior to attempting to operate.

it would be funny if it wasn't a dangerous situation.

You could be pistol whipping him while you're charging the battery. Of course, by the time it's charged, you won't like have to shoot him......so it's a win/win, right?

There is a Mad TV skit, I won't link to it but when I see a "shake it" flashlight I think of that skit.

[G.A. Heath]

Where I work the timeclock has used biometric technology for years. Our first used a code and scanned the hand (shape) while our current scans a finger print. The older unit was more reliable it worked about 95% and had no false positives (Due to the code). The current one worked about 80% of the time at first and has mis-identified employees often. The solution to mis-identification reduces the effectiveness of the unit to about 70% of employee efforts to clock in working the first two or three times, but we still get misidentifications about once a week, some times once a day. The technology for biometric identification on handguns would have to be cheaper than our time clocks which would mean that it would be even less effective. As someone who has used biometric identifiaction systems for years I can honestly say that I will NEVER willingly own a firearm that uses the technology.

[EEllis]

Where I work the timeclock has used biometric technology for years. Our first used a code and scanned the hand (shape) while our current scans a finger print. The older unit was more reliable it worked about 95% and had no false positives (Due to the code). The current one worked about 80% of the time at first and has mis-identified employees often. The solution to mis-identification reduces the effectiveness of the unit to about 70% of employee efforts to clock in working the first two or three times, but we still get misidentifications about once a week, some times once a day. The technology for biometric identification on handguns would have to be cheaper than our time clocks which would mean that it would be even less effective. As someone who has used biometric identifiaction systems for years I can honestly say that I will NEVER willingly own a firearm that uses the technology.

That assumes the tech would be the same as used by your time clock which it wouldn't be. There is tech that would be 100% just too invasive or requires additional devices and other tech that is very close to being 90% right now. I believe there will be a time when smart guns will be effective and a great tool. I just don't think they should ever be mandatory but that doesn't mean I will ignore facts to combat the risk of that happening.

[G.A. Heath]

That assumes the tech would be the same as used by your time clock which it wouldn't be. There is tech that would be 100% just too invasive or requires additional devices and other tech that is very close to being 90% right now. I believe there will be a time when smart guns will be effective and a great tool. I just don't think they should ever be mandatory but that doesn't mean I will ignore facts to combat the risk of that happening.

Actually it doesn't assume anything, biometric identification is not exact and can not be exact without a MAJOR leap in technology. The intention is to use a digital system to measure an analog (real world) item and determine if it is the same. To do this you have to sample various points of data for comparison. The original can have a near infinite number of points that can be sampled while the technology can has a very finite number it can sample. DNA testing is not a 100% science, you can potentially get an exact match due to the limited number of Alleles that are tested an compared. The statistics say its a long shot but it is possible, so we have to keep in mind that to make something more reliable we have to trade off accurace when we look at a technology that measures a biometric data sample that is subject to change (finger/palm print) due to moister in the skin, skin damage due to cuts or bruises, and any number of other potential issues. So if we want to increase the security of the device we have to trade off reliability. Biometric technology is not at a level now to produce a functional system to reliably secure a firearm while not making it a potential hazard to the owner, nor do I believe the technology will get to that point any time soon. Ask anyone certified to do fingerprints for law enforcement, consistant results can be elusive at times even under controlled conditions.

[gigag04]

That will be great when that new Boeing UAV thing that flies around and knocks out electrical power from above with an EMP comes by.


http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/boein ... -1C6663618" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[sawdust]

.....Actually it doesn't assume anything, biometric identification is not exact and can not be exact without a MAJOR leap in technology...

.... so we have to keep in mind that to make something more reliable we have to trade off accurace when we look at a technology that measures a biometric data sample that is subject to change (finger/palm print) due to moister in the skin, skin damage due to cuts or bruises, and any number of other potential issues. So if we want to increase the security of the device we have to trade off reliability. Biometric technology is not at a level now to produce a functional system to reliably secure a firearm while not making it a potential hazard to the owner, nor do I believe the technology will get to that point any time soon. Ask anyone certified to do fingerprints for law enforcement, consistant results can be elusive at times even under controlled conditions.

Recently. I had difficulty in renewing my driver's license because the finger-print scanner refused to make a match - I have carried a major scar on one thumb pad for the past 20 years. The other nine prints matched, but that wasn't accepted. As someone who has been a part of several cutting-edge technologies, I can say that whenever we allow "technology" to be the sole arbitor of a process, we will be on the losing side in countless ways.

So, I will never trust no stinkin' "smart gun".