Smart gun? or stupid company? Really doubt this would have saved anyone!
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Smart gun? or stupid company? Really doubt this would have saved anyone!

  1. #1

    Smart gun? or stupid company? Really doubt this would have saved anyone!

    Smart gun company aims to begin production soon - Computerworld

    (SGTi) co-founder Charlie Miller has a message for people who think smart-gun technology wouldn't have stopped Adam Lanza from killing 26 in Newtown, Conn. last December.

    "There was a zero percent chance of stopping him because this technology was not available," Miller said. "Let's think about if Miss Lanza had had our technology on her weapon."

    His first statement about his company is dragging the Newtown events into things.. Yeh so lets think about this.. Miss Lanza bought the guns for herself and he son to use, its been stated she was indulging in prepping with her son for "climactic times" supposedly. So had this technology existed, I have little doubt that Miss Lanza would have her son as "authorized fingerprint" to use her guns.

    Now Many have seen this so called technology before, in Sci fi movies, comic books and various TV shows that try to make it "awesome" - and since most great "gee wiz" inventions seem to start as science fiction before becoming reality well this is another case of same. But the faults, in a movie I saw a "smart gun" that all the good guy had to do was take the thumb of main badguy and use it to shoot the gun. - in counter to some movies where bad guy uses good guy print..

    So how does this "technology" stop authorized users from doing bad things? ahhh it dont.. in fact it wouldn't stop anyone authorized from doing anything stupid.. Its not magic, its not hocus pocus and it doesn't read the minds / intent of owner..

    this guy says it would have been 66% chance of stopping the tragedy.. I say bullcrap on that - since its been stated the guns was purchsed with the plans that both her/her son would be able to use them in emergency/etc situations.

    What is worse is - the technology can, and does fail.. like any mechanical device guns sometimes dont work, but you toss in technology with batteries/etc that can/do block triggers from working.. then you add another failure point.. even if you "pardon pun" Bullet proof the technology to be so good as lifespan of gun, an EMP would destroy the electronics, or batteries would fail. I also doubt any police/military organization would want 1 more thing to add to an already expensive purchase of firearms, which may/may not go bang when the operator (cop/soldier/etc) requires it to go BANG.. so maybe thats where his 66% chance of working comes in to saving lives.. its 66% chance that it wont fire with authorized shooters? :P

    Its been said before, violence, of any sort is a people problem, not a tool issue.. Cars/hammers/falling down stairs/smoking/etc kills many people - but we dont go after that stuff (well some do but not with the vehemence they do over "guns").

    By my own choice I am not a violent person, I hate fighting in any form - yet I know if provoked, I can get violent..tho i do like a decent argument.. saying goes, dont poke the bear and expect a hug ;P

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837
    I think I would just stick with the "Magna Trigger" system that was used by the US Marshals Service!
    Better "Tech" that worked!

  4. I am sure there are some people out there in wonderland who will buy into it. Next they will say they will have a database of all felons and they will be rejected to operate a firearm with this neat micro chip. Yeah and it will also have fuzzy logic and keep people with signs of mental health problems from using a firearm. Also someone who is legally dunk and if your on the Governments no fly list it won't allow them to fire it. And if you try to commit suicide and owe unpaid Federal income tax it will not let it happen. WoW!! what a wonderful idea.

  5. #4
    So that technology just requires that you maim or kill the gun owner if you're not the authorized user? Cut off their finger and tape it to the sensor? Are they assuming that guns are the only way to kill?

    I have a biometric safe at home that scans my finger before it opens. I certainly wouldn't rely on it for quick access. Sometimes takes a number of scans to work - highly susceptible to moisture on your fingers, etc. If this is even remotely similar to the proposed technology, it is utterly ridiculous. Like Dunewolf said, it's "safety" is assuming it to be in a criminals hand and not working. For that case, I can sell a criminal a non-functioning toy gun for $1000 to achieve the same effect.

    My vote is stupid company. Solution in search of a problem...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast