Well, that didn't take long

[Mulay El Raisuli]

That's part of the beauty. In order for this magic tech to be accepted in the marketplace, it's going to have to be as reliable as a "normal" gun. A missed grip which fails to activate the weapon won't be acceptable, and the tech will fail in the marketplace. Grandma will never buy such unreliable tech, and Glock will never sully their good rep with unreliable tech.

Back to the drawing board.

That's part of the reason why we don't have to sweat some politard trying to force this on us. They'll never get past the piles of lawsuits / injunctions / etc claiming it's unreliable until it really is reliable (which may never happen, so no need for the drama queens on this issue, imo).

Unfortunately, one has nothing to do with the other. The "marketplace" won't be the driving force behind this. Politicians will. Just as ONE example, the "marketplace" has no problems with us buying pink handgrips for our Glocks. But politicians do. Also, politicians like DiFi & her ilk have no problem forcing bad ideas on us. I'll pass on listing those.

No, SilverTauron has called it perfectly. This bad idea will come, whether it works well or not, regardless of what the "marketplace" thinks of it.


The Raisuli

[neouser]

The Magloc already exists. Similar technology. Although not matched to a palm print, it does require you to wear the corresponding magnetic ring in order to deactivate the built in safety...

http://www.smartlock.com/SLAp08/productsOthers.htm

[OleCuss]

Mulay el Raisuli:

I think you may be missing the point speedrrracer was making.

I think he was saying that we should take the issue away from the anti-liberty types. Instead of fighting biometric requirements we should say that we are all for it and re-define the biometric requirements.

IOW, we determine the standards that must be met in order for the biometric firearm to be a requirement. Set the standards where they should be for such an instrument (roughly the requirements that I set forth above) and tell them that we'd love to have such firearms.

Unfortunately, there is currently no set of technologies which would result in a properly safeguarded and robustly available firearm. We're not even within shouting distance of a viable biometric firearm.

If we do not get out in front of the issue others will. And the others will be happy to mandate a firearm which works only on a range and when you just put the batteries in and your hands are perfectly clean. There will be a timer on the thing so that it won't fire more than one shot per second and no more than 20 rounds per hour. You'll also have an embedded pinger and a built-in receiver so that any cop can key a transmitter and kill every firearm within a 1/4 mile radius. The batteries will be specialized and available only through your police department so that they can simply decline to sell you batteries and you will be SOL.

Seriously, guys. This is an insidious idea which can be morphed and twisted in a multitude of nefarious manners to make it virtually impossible to purchase a viable firearm suitable for self-defense.

I think some real consideration should be given to getting out in front on this one and making sure the tech really would be suitable.

And I'm really not joking. I really do want a robust and reliable firearm which I can have set up to fire only when it is in my possession (or that of my family and a few friends). I would even pay a modest premium to get it.

But if the tech is wrong - I want no part of it.

[OleCuss]

The Magloc already exists. Similar technology. Although not matched to a palm print, it does require you to wear the corresponding magnetic ring in order to deactivate the built in safety...

http://www.smartlock.com/SLAp08/productsOthers.htm

Yep, it's been around a long time.

Pretty suitable for use in places like LA, SF, etc. But you get into a cold climate with -40 degree weather and you are going to wear gloves. I seriously doubt that the system is going to work well with both the gloved hand and the ungloved hand. And it certainly wouldn't work well with a quick switch between gloved and ungloved use.

Also, in defensive handgunning you actually must be able to use the handgun with either hand and if you've been shot you may have to use something other than your index finger which could disturb placement of the ring, etc.

I like the concept but I consider it to be of limited utility and I'd not want to depend on it in a self-defense situation.

Oh, and I might further point out that I don't wear rings (and never have). There are a number of reasons for that, but the upshot is that I don't wear rings and I seriously doubt that I ever will.

[nick]

^^ This OleCuss's (and all of our) high reliability expectations and reasonable use cases will prevent this tech from ever being mandated unless they really work some magic.

If they actually work such magic, we win again.

For those fearing this unicorn, take a page from OleCuss, and don't hold your breath.

Comparing the kind of biometric tech it would take to meet OleCuss's requirements to the kind of biometric tech that actually exists today is like comparing a caveman with a rock to Chris Kyle and his .338.

Lastly, we should encourage the antis in this quest. It will prevent them from focusing on reality (where the rest of us live) and consume their finite resources. Set the expectations (per OleCuss, etc) now, and tell the antis once they can clear that bar we're GTG.

There's one flaw with this logic. - you're assuming that the opposition uses the same logic you do. They don't. Case in point - microstamping is far from being perfect or useful, yet it's mandated in CA. The only reason it's not implemented is due to the patent verbiage in the law, and not the flaws or uselessness of the technology itself.

[stix213]

I already feel safer

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Mulay el Raisuli:

I think you may be missing the point speedrrracer was making.

I think he was saying that we should take the issue away from the anti-liberty types. Instead of fighting biometric requirements we should say that we are all for it and re-define the biometric requirements.

IOW, we determine the standards that must be met in order for the biometric firearm to be a requirement. Set the standards where they should be for such an instrument (roughly the requirements that I set forth above) and tell them that we'd love to have such firearms.

Unfortunately, there is currently no set of technologies which would result in a properly safeguarded and robustly available firearm. We're not even within shouting distance of a viable biometric firearm.

If we do not get out in front of the issue others will. And the others will be happy to mandate a firearm which works only on a range and when you just put the batteries in and your hands are perfectly clean. There will be a timer on the thing so that it won't fire more than one shot per second and no more than 20 rounds per hour. You'll also have an embedded pinger and a built-in receiver so that any cop can key a transmitter and kill every firearm within a 1/4 mile radius. The batteries will be specialized and available only through your police department so that they can simply decline to sell you batteries and you will be SOL.

Seriously, guys. This is an insidious idea which can be morphed and twisted in a multitude of nefarious manners to make it virtually impossible to purchase a viable firearm suitable for self-defense.

I think some real consideration should be given to getting out in front on this one and making sure the tech really would be suitable.

And I'm really not joking. I really do want a robust and reliable firearm which I can have set up to fire only when it is in my possession (or that of my family and a few friends). I would even pay a modest premium to get it.

But if the tech is wrong - I want no part of it.

No, I followed his logic just fine. The problem as defined by Nick.

There's one flaw with this logic. - you're assuming that the opposition uses the same logic you do. They don't. Case in point - microstamping is far from being perfect or useful, yet it's mandated in CA. The only reason it's not implemented is due to the patent verbiage in the law, and not the flaws or uselessness of the technology itself.

Logic just isn't a part of the anti's brain. The tech WILL be wrong. It can't be anything else. Just like microstamping. Yet, the antis will do that is their power to shove this down our throats. Also just like microstamping.

You've no doubt heard the saying, "if you give an inch, they'll take a foot." If we give any credence to this inane idea, the results will not be good.

Which is why the thread belongs back in 2A. (hint, hint)


The Raisuli

[hundreddollarman]

Another anti-gunner pipe dream. A criminal is going to find a way to get a gun, no matter how many laws you throw at them. All this does is hurt the law-abiding citizens who simply want to protect themselves and their families. I don't want to get screwed over because I forgot to reboot my biometric palm reader.

And who's to say that a manufacturer won't design a kill switch that can deactivate a biometric reader remotely? That implication worries me the most.

[OleCuss]

.
.
.
Logic just isn't a part of the anti's brain. The tech WILL be wrong. It can't be anything else. Just like microstamping. Yet, the antis will do that is their power to shove this down our throats. Also just like microstamping.

You've no doubt heard the saying, "if you give an inch, they'll take a foot." If we give any credence to this inane idea, the results will not be good.

Which is why the thread belongs back in 2A. (hint, hint)


The Raisuli

I mostly agree with you, and microstamping is almost relevant to this.

Our people managed to get a reasonable set of requirements inserted into the law prior its implementation. Because we participated in setting up the requirements for microstamping so that any implementation would be affordable - microstamping is not required under current California law.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

I mostly agree with you, and microstamping is almost relevant to this.

Our people managed to get a reasonable set of requirements inserted into the law prior its implementation. Because we participated in setting up the requirements for microstamping so that any implementation would be affordable - microstamping is not required under current California law.

That's what I'm talkin' about!


The Raisuli

[Subotai]

All technologies which can be defeated like unlocking cellphones. So, for $29.95 apiece, I'm your guy.

[SilverTauron]

Mulay el Raisuli:

I think you may be missing the point speedrrracer was making.

I think he was saying that we should take the issue away from the anti-liberty types. Instead of fighting biometric requirements we should say that we are all for it and re-define the biometric requirements.

IOW, we determine the standards that must be met in order for the biometric firearm to be a requirement. Set the standards where they should be for such an instrument (roughly the requirements that I set forth above) and tell them that we'd love to have such firearms.

Unfortunately, there is currently no set of technologies which would result in a properly safeguarded and robustly available firearm. We're not even within shouting distance of a viable biometric firearm.

If we do not get out in front of the issue others will. And the others will be happy to mandate a firearm which works only on a range and when you just put the batteries in and your hands are perfectly clean. There will be a timer on the thing so that it won't fire more than one shot per second and no more than 20 rounds per hour. You'll also have an embedded pinger and a built-in receiver so that any cop can key a transmitter and kill every firearm within a 1/4 mile radius. The batteries will be specialized and available only through your police department so that they can simply decline to sell you batteries and you will be SOL.

Seriously, guys. This is an insidious idea which can be morphed and twisted in a multitude of nefarious manners to make it virtually impossible to purchase a viable firearm suitable for self-defense.

I think some real consideration should be given to getting out in front on this one and making sure the tech really would be suitable.

And I'm really not joking. I really do want a robust and reliable firearm which I can have set up to fire only when it is in my possession (or that of my family and a few friends). I would even pay a modest premium to get it.

But if the tech is wrong - I want no part of it.

The problem is that there is no getting in front of this.

Its like the Bill Ruger logic of agreeing to a 10 round magazine ban to prevent a 6 round ban from being enacted. The Disarmament Lobby's objective is to ban civil ownership of arms by any means necessary. If that means putting a digital padlock on every gun in your safe,so be it. To the anti's whether guns are outlawed or whether they're disabled makes no difference, because the goal is total disarmament. In the UK ownership of "deactivated" firearms is completely legal, because a deactivated firearm is as useful as a stone in defending yourself.

That's why anything less than immediate opposition to ALL technological safety mandates represents suicide for our cause.