Colorado High Schooler Invents Smart Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

[actaeon277]

They already tried fingerprints before.
Blood, dirt, grease, and cuts made them failure prone.
And it still uses a battery.

 

[HoughMade]

Technologies never mature if they are not developed.

I hope he keeps working on it until it's perfect....but that's going to be a while.

 

[pudly]

Technologies never mature if they are not developed.

I hope he keeps working on it until it's perfect....but that's going to be a while.

The problem is that you also need extensive field testing to help find problems and lead towards better solutions. The New Jersey poison pill is retarding development.

 

[Thor]

Technologies never mature if they are not developed.

I hope he keeps working on it until it's perfect....but that's going to be a while.

When it's perfect...in a perfect world.

How many prints could it recognize? If I have 50 family members or co-workers/defenders prints in it how long could it take to recognize/unlock? DNA scan too? What if I want a friend to shoot it at the range? Grampa passes away and all his guns are locked for eternity?
Too many what if's. No thanks.

 

[actaeon277]

The problem is that you also need extensive field testing to help find problems and lead towards better solutions. The New Jersey poison pill is retarding development.

And that's my problem.
Someone wants to develop or own a smart gun.
Fine. For them.
I don't want any FORCED on me.

 

[cosermann]

Interesting concept, what do you all think about it? ...

A handgun is a piece of defensive safety equipment designed to go bag when the trigger is pulled.

Anything that unnecessarily complicates the device, or increases its probability of failure is a dumb idea.

 

[HoughMade]

The problem is that you also need extensive field testing to help find problems and lead towards better solutions. The New Jersey poison pill is retarding development.

I agree with that. Everyone here brings up great points about the potential for problems. That's not a reason to give up, it's a reason to keep at it.

 

[danielson]

Im not sure thats a new concept. I think I saw that on the history channel like 15 years ago, possibly tales of the gun. I guess its not a horrible idea, but I'm not a fan. I'm tired of having to have more and more safeties applied to firearms, instead of the idiots who need them, just LEARNING how to be safe.

Its the HUMAN that needs modified, not the gun. PERIOD...

 

[pudly]

I agree with that. Everyone here brings up great points about the potential for problems. That's not a reason to give up, it's a reason to keep at it.

Unfortunately, the legal system is an active impediment here. These developers will have to do it without the assistance of money that would come from sales and profits. The general reason that people keep investing effort/time/money to build and improve products is that people will buy them. People will not buy these guns.

 

[OakRiver]

Technologies never mature if they are not developed.

I hope he keeps working on it until it's perfect....but that's going to be a while.

My concern is this; in it's infant stages it ends up on the market. NJ has a law banning handguns a year after smart technology is commercially available. So largely untested tech is relied upon for new shooters for self defense. New tech being new tech it is prone to issues and people get injured/killed. Public opinion starts to shift against handguns. Gun control groups now start showing these stats and marching against handguns as a means of self-defense (which is what the Brady campaign et al want)

 

[edporch]

I'm skeptical how something like this gun works in the real world.
Anything on the user's hands that obscure their fingerprints will cause problems.

For example, how would it work with dirt and/or blood on the hand of the user?
Which in a fight to survive scenario is a real possibility.

In the end, i could see this being used as a political tool to limit what kind of gun we can carry, but little else.
And you can be SURE the police, the people who made the law, and those that guard them will be SURE to be exempted.

 

[atvdave]

My finger print reader on my computer doesn't work worth a damn..... I'll pass...

 

[ModernGunner]

Pressing the 'off-safe trigger firmly' and in rapid succession appears to 'unlock' most firearms.

They've been monkeying around with various forms of fingerprint and 'smart guns' for decades now. Don't see those concepts 'improving' any in the next decades.

 

[danielson]

Again, I am very opposed to anything like this. Its the complete wrong direction.
For instance, Mercedes came out with a collision mitigation system, also radar guided cruise control. Both slow and or stop the car for you. IM SORRY, but it might work, and it does. But its a horrible idea. Humans are habitual creatures, and if theyre prone to issues, such as rear ending other motorists, or firing their guns off when they arent planning on it, THE OBJECT is not the issue. Behavior needs modified, and ONLY that will fix the real problem. In the here and now, "technology" will make it seem like the problem is fixed, but in the grand scheme, it will actually makes matters WORSE..

This is an issue all across the board for humans. Its taking the easy way out... Instead of working toward fixing the actual problem, its easier to throw money and technology at it, and pretend the problem is solved.

 

[cosermann]

John Farnam has a relevant post on this I just came across: ?Smart? Guns? | Defense Training International

 

[chipbennett]

No thanks. My wife doesn't have my fingerprint (in addition to all of the other valid arguments). I see no reason why she should be prevented from using one of "my" guns in defense of home (or vice versa), or to carry one of "my" guns outside the home (or vice versa). The same would apply to my girls, when they're old enough.

 

[Drail]

Wait it minute - he gets $50,000 for a device that doesn't even work 100% yet? And relies on a battery? Well, let's see....the Govt. will love it because it will allow them to turn your gun "off". Duracell will love it because they'll sell more batteries. It's not even an original idea. It's been tried for years. It's never been done with enough reliability to sell it. Does it come with a warranty? Probably not. But the best part is - no LEO agency will ever be required to use it on their firearms. Oh no.

 

[Drail]

HoughMade, are your comments sarcasm or do you really feel there is a valid purpose for this technology?

 

[actaeon277]

HoughMade, are your comments sarcasm or do you really feel there is a valid purpose for this technology?

I can't speak for Hough.
But, if someone wants to buy a "smart" gun, I have no problem with it. Their life, their defense, their decision.
I am against someone, or the government, telling me what I can/can't (or need/not need) for my defense.
I can't seem me buying one.
But, why be against someone else buying one?

Some government somewhere wants to mandate the tech, then be mad at that government "servant".

 

[searpinski]

I'll certainly pass. No electronic technology will get between me and the safety of my family. I gladly, however, unlock my phone with a silly fingerprint.