Smart Guns Finally Arriving In US (reuters.com) 333
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Personalized smart guns, which can be fired only by verified users, may finally become available to U.S. consumers after two decades of questions about reliability and concerns they will usher in a new wave of government regulation. Four-year-old LodeStar Works on Friday unveiled its 9mm smart handgun for shareholders and investors in Boise, Idaho. And a Kansas company, SmartGunz LLC, says law enforcement agents are beta testing its product, a similar but simpler model. Both companies hope to have a product commercially available this year.
LodeStar co-founder Gareth Glaser said he was inspired after hearing one too many stories about children shot while playing with an unattended gun. Smart guns could stop such tragedies by using technology to authenticate a user's identity and disable the gun should anyone else try to fire it. They could also reduce suicides, render lost or stolen guns useless, and offer safety for police officers and jail guards who fear gun grabs. But attempts to develop smart guns have stalled: Smith & Wesson got hit with a boycott, a German company's product was hacked, and a New Jersey law aimed at promoting smart guns has raised the wrath of defenders of the Second Amendment. Glaser acknowledged there will be additional challenges to large-scale manufacturing, but expressed confidence that after years of trial and error the technology was advanced enough and the microelectronics inside the gun are well-protected. "We finally feel like we're at the point where ... let's go public," Glaser said. "We're there." "Most early smart gun prototypes used either fingerprint unlocking or radio frequency identification technology that enables the gun to fire only when a chip in the gun communicates with another chip worn by the user in a ring or bracelet," reports Reuters. "LodeStar integrated both a fingerprint reader and a near-field communication chip activated by a phone app, plus a PIN pad. The gun can be authorized for more than one user. The fingerprint reader unlocks the gun in microseconds, but since it may not work when wet or in other adverse conditions, the PIN pad is there as a backup."
"Skeptics have argued that smart guns are too risky for a person trying to protect a home or family during a crisis, or for police in the field."
LodeStar co-founder Gareth Glaser said he was inspired after hearing one too many stories about children shot while playing with an unattended gun. Smart guns could stop such tragedies by using technology to authenticate a user's identity and disable the gun should anyone else try to fire it. They could also reduce suicides, render lost or stolen guns useless, and offer safety for police officers and jail guards who fear gun grabs. But attempts to develop smart guns have stalled: Smith & Wesson got hit with a boycott, a German company's product was hacked, and a New Jersey law aimed at promoting smart guns has raised the wrath of defenders of the Second Amendment. Glaser acknowledged there will be additional challenges to large-scale manufacturing, but expressed confidence that after years of trial and error the technology was advanced enough and the microelectronics inside the gun are well-protected. "We finally feel like we're at the point where ... let's go public," Glaser said. "We're there." "Most early smart gun prototypes used either fingerprint unlocking or radio frequency identification technology that enables the gun to fire only when a chip in the gun communicates with another chip worn by the user in a ring or bracelet," reports Reuters. "LodeStar integrated both a fingerprint reader and a near-field communication chip activated by a phone app, plus a PIN pad. The gun can be authorized for more than one user. The fingerprint reader unlocks the gun in microseconds, but since it may not work when wet or in other adverse conditions, the PIN pad is there as a backup."
"Skeptics have argued that smart guns are too risky for a person trying to protect a home or family during a crisis, or for police in the field."
Cool (Score:5, Interesting)
But let's first issue these only to the police, FBI and Secret Service for a 5 year test.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Name three.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cool (Score:4, Insightful)
From your link:
It is a scenario that, while not commonplace, happens with enough frequency to alarm law enforcement professionals nationwide. Last year, 10 police officers were shot and killed in the United States after a suspect managed to get control of an officerâ(TM)s weapon. Nearly one in five officers killed as part of a crime last year were shot with their own (or a partnerâ(TM)s) weapon, according to the National Center for Law Enforcement Technology - the highest number of such deaths in 18 years.
It happens, it isn't common or frequent.
20% of officers killed as part of a crime being killed by their own gun is quite a lot, probably enough that if the statistic was "20% of cops killed by criminals are killed with (something other than a gun)", there would be calls to regulate that thing.
That said, this tech will have a long road to prove its maturity and reliability before any department is likely to adopt it. And given the general lousiness of most of the tech (trigger locks, lockboxes, etc.) marketed to protect guns, some degree of pessimism is probably warranted here.
Re: Cool (Score:2)
Re: Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
You have fun with that.
I have no problems with such a weapon system existing, however, I'm afraid that even despite the obvious potential problems with them, that gun control folks will push for these to only be the ones allowed, or push for liability for owning and using a regular full mechanical gun to the stratosphere, making it tough for poorer people to insure if they had to....just increased burdens on people like they're trying to do with mandating "safe storage" as law.
Personally, I don't want it if given the choice, I don't want my life to be dependent on whether my hand is wet or something glitches on the gun....or if I don't have my phone working or it is out of power, you know?
I go to the trouble to make sure and fire rounds of my "carry ammo" through my carry guns to make sure there isn't a problem cycling that particular brand and configuration of ammunition.
I don't want to throw "smart gun" variables in there too....if you have to use a gun in self defense...you want the odds as close to 100% as possible that it will go *BOOM* when you pull the trigger, every single time.
CA in fact tried to take registered guns in 2013 (Score:4, Informative)
Nobody is coming for your guns (unless you are shown in court to be a dangerous lunatic...) I live in California, and even here nobody is stupid enough to actually try and take yer guns.
CA in fact tried to take registered guns. They banned firearms with certain names or cosmetic features as part of the assault weapon ban in 1989. They allowed current owners to registers these firearms in order to keep them. Registration involved fingerprinting and background checks. Much later a bill was introduced into the California legislature to rescind this registration and force the fingerprinted and background checked owners of these registered rifles to turn them in. Fortunately the bill did not pass. However it documents an attempt.
The California Legislative Councel's Digest says: 2013 AB 174, as introduced, Bonta. Weapons: grandfather clauses. Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met, are authorized. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.
Note, the CA legislature then tried to scrub the evidence by introducing completing unrelated and different legislation as an amended version of AB 174. An amendment that changes 100% of the existing bill and is on an unrelated subject, funding for some school project or something like that. If you look it up be sure to look at the original version of the submitted the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those concerned people? They wont have the smart guns in there homes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused why a gun enthusiast would NOT want one.
Re: (Score:2)
The enthusiasm for gadgetry is not a universal.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Informative)
If it worked 99.999% of the time (false positive or false negative, mind), I'd love one. Mind, if it worked in the rain. Mud. Underwater. In a sandstorm, or arctic conditions. If it worked if I used the firearm as a club. With minimal maintenance. That's the standard for modern firearms, and should be.
Don't think of smart guns as a car. Think of them as the brakes on a car. You want them to absolutely work when you want above absolutely all other features. All other features, no matter how great, are minor to trivial to negative value.
I avoid smart appliances because they tend to have terrible security. I really don't want malware in a firearm. And I'd expect the first (and only) customers to be people who would be developing malware, jammers, etc.
Also, the summary is misleading. People are annoyed at smart gun development because NJ has a law on the books that if a smart gun becomes commercially available, all non-smart pistols are banned from sale after three years. The New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law does not have reliability, security or price standards. So even if you have a malware ridden death trap, by law, NJ will only allow this model to be sold. Cops would not be forced to follow said law, of course.
Smart gun v2, only fires on authorized ranges (Score:3)
Don't think of smart guns as a car. Think of them as the brakes on a car. You want them to absolutely work when you want above absolutely all other features. All other features, no matter how great, are minor to trivial to negative value.
So you don't have ABS brakes on your car, right, since those have computer control and could fail?
Do the computers in your car only allow it to be used on a test track? Or otherwise when the government authorizes it? Because gun control advocates have already stated that smart tech would be great for sporting firearms, allowing them only to be fired on authorized ranges.
Re: (Score:3)
Gun enthusiast doesn't necessarily mean home defense, it may mean target practice, hunting, other things. So a gun safe can fail too, a safety can fail, etc. Do people really live in fear who are rich enough to afford such things but too poor to move out of whatever hell hole they live in?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If by concerned people, you mean the the State of New Jersey [guns.com], which says the gun dealers can only sell so-called smart guns [npr.org], once the technology hits the market, and effectively bans everything else, then you'd be correct. But this is the same state that also bans hollowpoint bullets, which are vastly less likely to travel through the home intruder you're aiming your state mandated smart gun at ((battery dead) and instead relegates one to using FMJ bullets which are simultaneously vastly more likely to cont
Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
given the odds that anyone would voluntarily buy one of these gimped guns is roughly 0%, that might be the only way for them to move any units.
I'm so glad you assume that you'll be left with a choice there, "citizen". You'll be presented with options alright. Kind of like how the US was presented with "options" for electing a viable Democratic candidate for President.
And you question moving units? With "Think of the Children" damn near being the actual marketing slogan? Give me a break. There are a LOT of anti-gun zealots who are not so zealous anymore of being unarmed in today's America, who also won't stop fucking. They'll be running to buy these things to protect their kids. And fight to mandate them for every citizen. You know, because Children.
Oh, and that's before the smartphone industry infects this product, sponsored and mandated by Amazon Federal Enforcement, with every "smart" gun being cloud-connected with GPS, reporting EXACTLY who/where/when pulled a trigger. Better hope you were shooting "your" gun during the approved times and places there, "citizen". Otherwise, your gun will be remotely disabled.
And I hope we're not calling bullshit on these concepts already. It's rather difficult to look back on the last 10 years and justify your shortsightedness.
Re: (Score:2)
okay, okay, you got me.
it's really too bad though, by nothing more than sheer coincidence my collection was lost just last week in a tragic boating accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Systems like this can often be buggy - which for a law enforcement officer, could result in denying them access to the weapon at a critical moment. One bug like that this which results in the death or serious injury of an officer could well kill the product off.
On the other hand, for non critical uses like sports or recreational shooting, such a system could improve safety and deter theft. I could also see it implemented in laws as a condition of gun ownership.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Informative)
This law was passed all the way back in 2002 in New Jersey. It was part of the Childproof Handgun Law.
The nuts and bolts were that it would be required for all firearms sold (to civilians) in the state three years after smart guns were sold anywhere in the US.
The law didn't have the desired impact; They effectively shut down the introduction of smart guns in the US for more than a decade. These unintended consequences led to the majority of the law's provisions being repealed.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you want to double the weight of the weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you assume guns are only for killing people and self-defense? Guns are used for many purposes other than self-defense. This can include hunting, sport, collecting and other reasons. Self defense requires a lot more training because the last thing you want to have happen is being shot with your own gun.
If you shoot for sport, then a smart gun would add to th
Re: (Score:2)
What part of my post made you assume i was inferring anyone's use case for a gun?
Re: (Score:3)
Err....I've never had ammunition go bad.
I've found stuff I forgot about for over 25 years that shot just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
The next problem I see is a legal one. In stressful situations, people tend to fidget. Fidgeting with a gun while talking to someone can be seen as brandishing. But what about fidgeting with the ring or bracelet?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know, that sounds like the 9V battery in my multimeter or ethernet cable tester. Every time I use my multimeter, I have to replace the battery. Then just a few years later when I want to use it again, it's dead.
I jest, but at the same time, I suspect the most common usage of guns is that they sit somewhere half-forgotten, years at a time.
Re: (Score:3)
No market (Score:2)
Unless government forces it on people it will see no upkeep. Forcing it on people will be hard when police and military will adopt it never ever.
Re: No market (Score:2)
Uptake
Re: (Score:2)
Police get killed by gun grabs. Massad Ayoob once pushed a gun designed to only fire if a magnetized ring was on one of the fingers on the grip. It's as logical an officer safety measure as Lindell retention training is, and might well get some uptake.
Smart guns and dumb people... (Score:2)
I am waiting for the first moron to kill himself or the first child to die in an accident because "the gun is safe".
Re: (Score:2)
Alec Baldwin still would have killed that woman even if it was a "smart revolver".
Re: Smart guns and dumb people... (Score:2)
Why do US movie sets allow unmodified guns? With blanks you can just weld an obstruction in the barrel.
Re: (Score:2)
Because when protocols are followed, it is perfectly safe. Hasn't been a shooting since The Crow, which is when the protocols were instituted. However in Baldwin's fly by night production, which he was all gung ho to get done because he wanted the lead role in his own personal western under his belt, no less than 7 major failures of Hollywood firearms protocol occurred in order for the shooting to happen. There was live ammo on the set that people were using to plink on the set, nono number 1; the armorer w
At first was hoping... (Score:2)
True Race to the Bottom (Score:2)
If a smart gun is smarter than it's owner can it refuse to fire also?
Dumb: DRM introduced into a formerly reliable, effective device.
Dumber: Someone who willingly buys such a device.
Not a high bar, but a smartgunner will always fail to reach it, by definition.
Considering ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What study says that? Did they control for legality of weapon and whether the owner was otherwise involved in significant illicit activity? No? Then the stats mean bupkis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then show me the study that controlled for possible illicit owner activity and legality of weapon in the locale it was in. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the whole point of this next gen smart gun. So that won't happen. Again, statistics show that what is most likely to happen is not that someone will be robbed in a way that allows them to use their firearm, but that a family member will accidentally kill themselves or another in the household. That's what this is supposed to prevent, and if it can prevent that while overcoming any response time issues when fighting off an intruder, why wouldn't you want something like that?
No, proponents of this sort of absurd hobbling of a well understood range of mechanical devices with untold millions of examples in use ... are after any and every method they can trot out to make firearm ownership as onerous, expensive, and undesirable as possible. The gun being described won't have anywhere near the refined computing horsepower of an entry level phone, while even the most expensive ones fail fingerprint detection under anything but ideal conditions, and can get RF-swamped out of somethin
Re: (Score:2)
You're the type that refuses to wear a seatbelt because it might slow you getting out of your car if it falls in a lake or something, aren't you?
Guess some people are just bad at comparing risks
guns are dumb (Score:2)
swords all the way.
Re: (Score:2)
The Lockpick Lawyer will help (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it also mentions a (hopefully detachable) bracelet. you can take the whole thing if you like, though. e.g. with a sword. XD
Must be ready murder at all times (Score:2)
"Skeptics have argued that smart guns are too risky for a person trying to protect a home or family during a crisis, or for police in the field."
Instead, they must all be ready to shoot to kill at any time! It's the American Way!
I'll be interested to see what the police decide (Score:2)
Handguns are defensive tools that are approximately never used, but when you need yours to work, you really, really need it to work. Engineering a smart gun that is approximately as reliable as a modern handgun (unless badly maintained, they're extremely reliable) is a really hard problem.
The basic issues are the same for police as for ordinary citizens who carry a defensive handgun, except moreso. Police are both much more likely to need to use their gun and much more likely to be shot with their own gun
Re: (Score:2)
When a handgun gets used defensively it's suddenly a matter of life safety engineering that it works. A long-running quip in the firearms world is "I'll never trust my life to something with a battery". Pacemaker users seems to be OK with doing just that ...
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, a pacemaker when in a failure state doesn't contribute one way or the other to your demise. Whereas you pull a gun on someone and it goes click cause it won't unlock, that will surely contribute to your demise.
Re: I'll be interested to see what the police deci (Score:2)
The Technology Has to be Perfect (Score:2)
...otherwise, the first time it fails (the gun doesn't shoot for the authorized owner, or does shoot for an unauthorized person) and someone is injured, the liability on the company will be gigantic.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that there is no law mandating usage of Google or Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because there are many laws concerning usage of guns. And smart guns are... wait for it... covered by it because they're guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. How's that relevant to the point of usage of Google or Windows compared to usage of guns?
Re: (Score:2)
There was a law in one state (NJ) that blocked the sale of dumb guns when smart guns became "viable". That law has been repealed because it effectively killed smart gun technology development. No gun manufacturer wanted to deal with the massive public backlash of triggering it.
Re: (Score:2)
They just had to... (Score:2)
They just had to use a Z
details (Score:2)
I can see smart guns being kind-of useful if-- and only if-- the gun is unlocked by an always-on, wearable chip, like the key fob for a car. The idea of a using a fingerprint reader is incredibly dumb. Any idea involving a smart phone app is incredibly dumb.
I don't want to dismiss the concept of smart guns completely, because little kids really do shoot themselves/each other with unattended guns. But I'm not overly hopeful either. We already have a technological solution for the problem: they're called g
Re: (Score:2)
you're probably safety-conscious enough to lock up your damn gun to begin with
I just leave my guns lying around the house and lock the kids in the basement.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see smart guns being kind-of useful if-- and only if-- the gun is unlocked by an always-on, wearable chip, like the key fob for a car.
Even better - the approach that has been very popular with smart gun developers is a ring with a chip inside [buzzfeednews.com]. The person will always be wearing the ring, and it will be held right next to the gun in use.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you could offer a tax incentive for smart guns (like we do for EVs), so that they are cheaper than the non-smart equivalent firearm.
OK, so let's say you offer a tax incentive to purchase a purchase a SmartGunz 9mm 1911 Sentry (the only model they offer for civilians). Retail price: $2195.
Quality 9mm 1911 style pistols (e.g. Kimber, Springfield Armory) go for about $1,000. So you are talking a $1200 tax credit to even the pricing. Maybe a customer would pay a $200 premium for "smart" (I wouldn't but I can imagine some may), you're talking about a $1,000 tax credit to make it competitive, even including a $200 "makes me safer" prem
Wil there be ... (Score:2)
Right (Score:2)
>"Personalized smart guns, which can be fired only by verified users"
Optimistically, theoretically, that is... if they DO fire when needed by even the "verified user". So you are free to bet YOUR life on it.
I am certainly not against the concept- as long as such technology is never forced on buyers. Unfortunately, we all know that is exactly what will start to happen in many areas.
>"The fingerprint reader unlocks the gun in microseconds,
Assuming it has power.
>"but since it may not work when wet o
Re: (Score:2)
And assuming your finger is clean, and that you place it correctly the first time in the heat of the moment when scrambling for your weapon.
As was foretold (Score:2)
Though it's more likely in some renamed Japanese city (2:02 mark) [youtube.com].
Subtitles (Score:2)
I opened the link and watched the video about these guns. For some reason the subtitles were on.
Got a laugh when the guy was demo-ing the gun and going through the 3 authentication methods.
On the 3rd one he said (59secs) "you know, belly or bluetooth". Eh?
Took me a a moment to realise what he'd actually said was "BLE or bluetooth".
Are youtube subtitles machine generated? Or maybe just a non-tech subtitle writer.
I would buy one of these (Score:2)
smart gun owners won't buy them (Score:2)
It's all about reliability. I carry a Glock because it just works, with an incredibly tiny chance of malfunctions. My ex-wife preferred a huge 8-shot
Seriously, my carry gun is a Glock 19, my rifle is a M1A, and my shotgun is a Saiga 12... you're not selling me anything
My 2 cents (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who would actually use one of these "Smart" guns is a complete idiot.
Sure they are OK if you only go to the range and want to look cool with your Hi-Tek 1337 gun but anyone who intends to actually use it in situations that it absolutely, positively MUST NOT FAIL does not have the mental capacity to be owning a gun in the first place.
As another poster suggested, lets issue them to LEOs and the Military for at least 5 years THEN talk about making them available to the average person.
I mean come on, if they really are that much better why would you want to bad guys to be able to use them before the cops do? Think about all those times that an officer's gun gets stolen in a struggle and used against them. Just imagine how many officer's lives could be saved if they had to use this tech on duty!
Re: My 2 cents (Score:3)
I don't get it. I enjoy going to the gun range. I have no intention of ever using a firearm other than at the range or out hunting, never. There are no circumstances where my weapon must absolutely not fail. If it does fail in my use cases, that's fine. Why does that make me an idiot?
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who would actually use one of these "Smart" guns is a complete idiot.
Sure they are OK if you only go to the range and want to look cool with your Hi-Tek 1337 gun but anyone who intends to actually use it in situations that it absolutely, positively MUST NOT FAIL does not have the mental capacity to be owning a gun in the first place.
As another poster suggested, lets issue them to LEOs and the Military for at least 5 years THEN talk about making them available to the average person.
I mean come on, if they really are that much better why would you want to bad guys to be able to use them before the cops do? Think about all those times that an officer's gun gets stolen in a struggle and used against them. Just imagine how many officer's lives could be saved if they had to use this tech on duty!
I prefer to live in a society where you absolutely must NOT EVER need to use a firearm and ownership of such would be just for recreational purposes (as well as the few farmers/park rangers who would have need to use one in a professional capacity).
Also this is a society where LEOs do not regularly carry firearms, many police will finish their careers never having qualified for, let alone carried a firearm.
can't believe a game predicted this (Score:2)
metal gear solid iv: guns of the patriots
in that game, you needed to be injected with nanomachines to be authorized to fire any gun
I'll scratch (Score:2)
Love their website. Low-budget, anyone? The company is "Copy.Paste marketing". Yeah, I'd say they are.
What I really question about their product, or at the very least their designer: ya notice the firearm in the picture? Missing something: sights. Whomever put the website together didn't even realize the image they used wasn't of a properly assembled firearm.
They clearly didn't set up an ambidextrous safety on the weapon. Fuck you to the lefties, or weak-hand rightly, even when 1911-style pistols have had t
Re: (Score:2)
What statistics? Did they control for legality of gun owned or whether the person owning the gun was a drug dealer or engaged in other significant illicit activity? No? They the stats in question are completely and utterly worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the studies done control for gun or owner activity legality. Also, those studies include suicides, which so called SMRT guns would do exactly fucking dick about.
Re: (Score:2)
Because all suicides are the legal owner of the weapon? This is an absurd position to take.
Re: (Score:3)
"Third, it is possible that the association between a gun in the home and risk of a violent death may be related to other factors that we were unable to control for in our analysis. For instance, with homicide, the association may be related to certain neighborhood characteristics or the decedent’s previous involvement in other violent or illegal behaviors. Persons living in high-crime neighborhoods or involved in illegal behaviors may acquire a gun for protection. The risk comes not necessarily from
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if I'm walking around the woods in a drizzle and come across a large kitty cat eager for a me-snack, and reach for my trusty side-arm, only for it to not work because my hands are wet, I'm supposed to pull out my cell phone, unlock it, navigate to the SmartGunz app, type in my PIN, and hold it up to my gun to unlock it via NFC, all before kitty pounces and takes a chunk out of my neck?
And this is what you call "probably fine?"
Yeah, no thanks. I'll take the bear spray in my left hand and Kimber .45 in my
Re: (Score:2)
So you are fantasizing about the technology? Real designs typically use a ring with a chip inside.Holding the ship right against the gun would seem to be an extremely reliable method.
Re: be interesting to see how they develop (Score:2)
The reliability problem is keeping things charged.
Re: be interesting to see how they develop (Score:2)
The scenario you present does seem plausible for someone in your situation and thus makes for a reasonable objection to the system as planned. I wonder if perhaps you'd be willing to entertain a compromise where the gun is automatically unlocked when in the presence of another chip? So a smart gun could be unlocked with fingerprint, app, or chip?
Obviously, the bulk of people who own guns are not facing the wrath of nature but that of other humans, and that is the area of concern these efforts are trying to
Re: (Score:3)
So if I'm walking around the woods in a drizzle and come across a large kitty cat eager for a me-snack, and reach for my trusty side-arm, only for it to not work because my hands are wet, I'm supposed to pull out my cell phone, unlock it, navigate to the SmartGunz app, type in my PIN, and hold it up to my gun to unlock it via NFC, all before kitty pounces and takes a chunk out of my neck?
Neither you nor anyone replying to you seems to have read or understood the summary.
If your hands are wet, you type the unlock PIN into the PIN pad on the weapon. It's integrated into the weapon, is waterproof, and doesn't care if your hands are wet or dry or gloved or covered in mud. If those things are common for you while randomly hiking in the woods (and they most certainly are not), then you should spend some time at the range practicing unlocking via the PIN pad and immediately aiming and firing unt
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps things are different where you are, can't remmber the last time I was walking around the inside of my home and I came across a large cat eager to snack on me.
I see them on a monthly basis. 200+ lb Mountain Lions. I can assure you, they will fuck you up and turn you into cat shit.
Rural So. Cal. This isn't the jungle. I don't go ANYWHERE without a pistol.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people that want to ban or restrict things are unable to view circumstances outside their personal lives. If they don't have the use case, they can't imagine anyone else having it.
Re: (Score:2)
So this 3x has been debunked. The Kellerman study where that came from used bad data. When all available data was looked at, it was found that "home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman’s study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim’s home". IE - they were NOT murdered with there own guns.
Re: (Score:2)
You know she's going to do everything possible to force it on California. When was the last time the handgun roster was updated?@
That's solvable. Get an ID in AZ. All you need is a legit street address and they'll give you one. Then... no more waiting period.. No more restrictions on what you can buy... And a simple drive back home with all the goodies.
Fuck this state.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was thinking too! I can see why traditionally, gun advocates would have concerns. This is a technology that needs to "just work", because nobody wants a gun that might not properly ID their fingerprint in a crisis situation because some watch battery in it died, or they had gloves on from being out in the ice and snow when they were attacked, or ?
But for home defense, I like the idea that if someone did manage to steal my gun, he or she can't use it to cause anyone else more harm. I also lik
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I mean, we were collectively holding our breath all these years! This will make such a huge difference to everything! Hurrah!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pause Mr. Rape! I need to:
- go home and get my gun
- unlock my gun safe
- find bullets and/or unlock bullets
- load gun (hey, I'm responsible; odds for accidents are HIGH)
- place in purse (no places in my outfits...why are there no tampon guns?)
- come back
- remember to carry purse (but most rapes are NOT purse carrying situations)
- take out gun quickly without shooting myself
- remember to take the safety off (I may be in a panic, don't surprise me! give me time to react!)
- aim my gun nervously while trying to
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty easy to spot some who doesn't understand anything about guns. They say stupid shit like this, because they don't know that the entire operation from "grabbing the gun by the grip from it's in-bag holster" to "firing" takes about a second for even a half trained individual.
While requiring no eyes on the gun, leaving person to actually keep threat in line of sight, evaluating its actions and acting on them as necessary. I.e. dodging if target is lunging for the person.
Not to even mention the "rele
Re: (Score:2)
a) Have an in-bag holster
b) Feel the need to practice blind fast-draw from said holster
Re: (Score:2)
The kind of life where you practice things that you need to do in an emergency? You know, not Florida Man life?
Re: (Score:2)
>9/10, it looked like a really good fashion accessory, but I there were some minor problems with user experience!
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that bike safety device that was cheaper with a subscription that wouldn't work if you didn't pay the said subscription?
Re: (Score:3)
If these become common then cops will get a safety system that won't allow them to be fired at cops. Then the system will be hacked by criminals so the guns won't fire at criminals. Then what?