(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Latest Bond movie features weapon we should actually make

15 Nov 2012 02:46 PM   |   17917 clicks   |   Slate
Add Comment
Showing 1-50 of 179 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
Voiceofreason01    [TotalFark]  
Or you could keep your gun secured when you're not using it and buy a $10 trigger lock.

15 Nov 2012 12:12 PM
Reply
labman    [TotalFark]  
Because if someone breaks into my house and is pointing a gun at me, I want my gun to have to verify i'm holding it before I shoot them. Because finger print readers are so accurate that I don't have to swipe my finger several times to use laptops that require them or go into an area that uses fingerprints.

A better solution might be an RFID implant in your palm that it's reading. That way if your hands are dirty or anything like that, it won't stop you from shooting someone/something when you want to.

15 Nov 2012 12:40 PM
Reply
wee    [TotalFark]  
No. If I need a gun to work, I need it to work. Not crash, have dead batteries, reboot, whatever. The worst sound you can hear is a click when you were expecting a bang.

15 Nov 2012 12:53 PM
Reply
Darth_Lukecash    [TotalFark]  
Like you can't disconnect the locking mechanism...

15 Nov 2012 12:54 PM
Reply
NFA    [TotalFark]  
Before the public is burdened with this nonsense, I recommend that it be tested with law enforcement and the military. Once it passes those field tests then and only then should it be considered safe enough for public use.  Those organizations exist to protect the populace, if it doesn't work for them, it CERTAINLY isn't good enough for the general public

15 Nov 2012 01:05 PM
Reply
Shostie    [TotalFark]  

labman: A better solution might be an RFID implant in your palm that it's reading. That way if your hands are dirty or anything like that, it won't stop you from shooting someone/something when you want to.


Man, I can only imagine the Alex Jones' Infowars freakout if the government started requiring RFID chips in gun owners.

15 Nov 2012 01:13 PM
Reply
revrendjim    [TotalFark]  

Shostie: labman: A better solution might be an RFID implant in your palm that it's reading. That way if your hands are dirty or anything like that, it won't stop you from shooting someone/something when you want to.

Man, I can only imagine the Alex Jones' Infowars freakout if the government started requiring RFID chips in gun owners.


You could put an RFID in a ring on your finger. Of course if you forget to wear the ring then you are farked.

15 Nov 2012 01:56 PM
Reply
Sybarite    [TotalFark]  
For absolutely no practical reason, I want to fire one of those crazy drum mag Glock 18s.

15 Nov 2012 02:16 PM
Reply
timujin    [TotalFark]  
This concept has been out for a long time, well before this movie. I remember reading about prototypes back in the late 90's or early 00's. I think they were looking into it for law enforcement at the time, so criminals couldn't take a cop's gun.

15 Nov 2012 02:29 PM
Reply
HailRobonia     
There are ways around this....

1.bp.blogspot.com

15 Nov 2012 02:47 PM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

Voiceofreason01: Or you could keep your gun secured when you're not using it and buy a $10 trigger lock.


Don't use a trigger lock. It's a mechanical finger near the trigger.

15 Nov 2012 02:48 PM
Reply
Englebert Slaptyback     

weapon we should actually make


The tactical hydraulic scoop shovel? Very useful on trains.

15 Nov 2012 02:48 PM
Reply
trappedspirit     
LOL, reboot your gun, are you feeling lucky, punk?

15 Nov 2012 02:49 PM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

wee: No. If I need a gun to work, I need it to work. Not crash, have dead batteries, reboot, whatever. The worst sound you can hear is a click when you were expecting a bang.


Don't I know it:

img35.imageshack.us

15 Nov 2012 02:49 PM
Reply
ProfessorOhki     
metalgearsolid.nl

Heh, what a cute idea.

15 Nov 2012 02:50 PM
Reply
Inigo     
Didn't License to Kill have a biometric-locked gun?

15 Nov 2012 02:51 PM
Reply
madgonad     
This has been available for at least 20 years. The cheapest way to do this is to have the user wear a ring which must be held next to the weapon for it to fire. The NRA lobbied heavily against it.

15 Nov 2012 02:51 PM
Reply
iheartscotch    [TotalFark]  
There's a reason that fingerprint recognizing guns are fiction. Frankly, it's too complicated.

It would also significantly increase the price of firearms. And has no one watched the movie angels and demons? All it takes is someone cutting your hand off to use your gun.

15 Nov 2012 02:51 PM
Reply
hdhale     

wee: No. If I need a gun to work, I need it to work. Not crash, have dead batteries, reboot, whatever. The worst sound you can hear is a click when you were expecting a bang.


Sums up my thoughts completely.

Besides, it would only take a few people getting killed because it didn't work properly for the manufacturer of such firearms to be sued out of business or at least to stop making them.

15 Nov 2012 02:52 PM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

Shostie: labman: A better solution might be an RFID implant in your palm that it's reading. That way if your hands are dirty or anything like that, it won't stop you from shooting someone/something when you want to.

Man, I can only imagine the Alex Jones' Infowars freakout if the government started requiring RFID chips in gun owners.


Wouldn't you freak out?

I certainly would, and the only time I listen to Alex Jones (which has to be done on shortwave to get the full conspiratorial flavor*) is for the comedic value.

*You can listen to a radio broadcast surreptitiously, with no way for the government to know you are listening unless they are very close by.

15 Nov 2012 02:52 PM
Reply
392Zaphod     
This idea has been around for awhile...

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

15 Nov 2012 02:52 PM
Reply
js34603     
This is not the time to talk about biometric gun control.

15 Nov 2012 02:53 PM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

madgonad: This has been available for at least 20 years. The cheapest way to do this is to have the user wear a ring which must be held next to the weapon for it to fire. The NRA lobbied heavily against it.


Little known fact: The police agencies also lobbied against it being a requirement for them. Why is that?

15 Nov 2012 02:53 PM
Reply
Langdon Alger     
give a nerd a challenge from authority and there will be a way around it. Remember: we created an eighth day of the week to fark with you or get even.

15 Nov 2012 02:53 PM
Reply
Kit Fister    [TotalFark]  
They've had this technology for about a decade now. And the problem with it is still that it doesn't work.

15 Nov 2012 02:53 PM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.


That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

15 Nov 2012 02:54 PM
Reply
heypete     

Darth_Lukecash: Like you can't disconnect the locking mechanism...


This.

Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.

Even if the electronics work perfectly, it's trivial to remove the mechanical bits that are controlled by the electronics. Sure, it might stop a criminal who grabs your gun and tries to shoot you (thus making it potentially useful for police officers, assuming they can get the reliability to work) but a thief who steals a gun and thus has time to work on it will find it relatively easy to remove the appropriate bits.

15 Nov 2012 02:55 PM
Reply
Mr. Eugenides     

dittybopper: Little known fact: The police agencies also lobbied against it being a requirement for them. Why is that?


Because when you need to pull the gun and use it, you don't have time for the biometrics to work.

15 Nov 2012 02:56 PM
Reply
Terrydatroll     
I guess they completely missed the Judge Dread movie or 16 others that had guns recognizing dna/fingerprint/vocal commands etc. No, just the James Bond movie. Idiots.

Secondly, I am sure that the guy breaking into my house with is OWN gun won't be able to shoot me because MY gun has palm reading technology. "One moment while I read your palm! Whirr zzzzz zip...OK, according to you palm reading, you have just been shot by a burglar. Palm signing out..whizz..whirr...zzzz..zip."

15 Nov 2012 02:56 PM
Reply
vinnydoz007     
I am the law?

15 Nov 2012 02:58 PM
Reply
iheartscotch    [TotalFark]  

dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.


That is a possibility; but, as it stands, even the cheapest guns I know about are $250-$350. That's a huge investment for poor people.

The real goal is probably to increase the cost of all firearms; so it's expensive for everyone but rich people.

15 Nov 2012 02:58 PM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

timujin: This concept has been out for a long time, well before this movie. I remember reading about prototypes back in the late 90's or early 00's. I think they were looking into it for law enforcement at the time, so criminals couldn't take a cop's gun.


Actually, no.

New Jersey enacted a version of the law that requires all handguns sold in the state to be "smart guns" 3 years after their attorney general decides they are commercially available and safe to use. The police are exempt from the requirement.

Every version of it I've heard proposed at the state and federal level exempts police and military.

Gee, I wonder why?

15 Nov 2012 02:58 PM
Reply
Englebert Slaptyback     

dittybopper


Don't use a trigger lock. It's a mechanical finger near the trigger.


Huh?

My trigger locks have pieces that pass behind the trigger. Even if someone tried to move the trigger by applying force to the lock, he probably wouldn't be able to crush that piece enough to get the trigger to move.


This all assumes the locks are used...

15 Nov 2012 02:59 PM
Reply
Terrydatroll     

dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.


The sad thing is that if poor minorities could not afford guns then 97% of America's gun problems would disappear. 92% is black on black anyway, so I really don't see a problem.

15 Nov 2012 03:00 PM
Reply
EdNortonsTwin     
ts3.mm.bing.net

Here's my trigger safety right here.

/take a hunters safety course to heart and you'll be just fine.

15 Nov 2012 03:01 PM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

iheartscotch: dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

That is a possibility; but, as it stands, even the cheapest guns I know about are $250-$350. That's a huge investment for poor people.

The real goal is probably to increase the cost of all firearms; so it's expensive for everyone but rich people.


GUN CONTROL AND ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION: THE MELTING-POINT CASE-IN-POINT

15 Nov 2012 03:01 PM
Reply
pir8p3t3     
it doesn't matter what you make illegal when it comes to guns. Criminals will just make their own because it's easy and cheap.

don't believe me? check out this rural Pakistani villiage that makes aasault rifles and semi-automatic pistols with techniques that haven't changed much since the Iron age.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VGpPU zzIio

The only thing any Anti-Gun legislation ever prevents is a law abiding citizen protecting themselves.

15 Nov 2012 03:01 PM
Reply
cgraves67     
It's not a BAD idea, but there are too many bad things about it.

What happens if it runs out of batteries?

Does it lock when the wrong person grabs it or does it unlock when the right person grabs it?

Gloves?

How easy is it to reprogram? Would it be a hinderance to reselling it person-to-person?

Presumably, you would need licensed software and a USB cable or something similar in order to reprogram it. Criminals are *never* able to get ahold of illegal copies of software, right?

15 Nov 2012 03:02 PM
Reply
SirDigbyChickenCaesar     
Latest?

blogs.smithsonianmag.com

15 Nov 2012 03:02 PM
Reply
Avonmore     
This is such a stupid idea. What if your hands are grimy or dirty? What if you're in some major type shiate and have blood all over your hands? Are the biometrics still going to read? At least RFID will work, though I still think that's a lousy idea too. I firmly believe gun control laws need to be strengthened, but I still don't want to prevent any theoretical baddies from using my weapon at the expense of preventing my theoretical allies from doing the same.

15 Nov 2012 03:03 PM
Reply
ChipNASA    [TotalFark]  
WEAK

That can be outdone for $7.... 12 gauge zip shotgun.

15 Nov 2012 03:04 PM
Reply
Mock26     

Shostie: labman: A better solution might be an RFID implant in your palm that it's reading. That way if your hands are dirty or anything like that, it won't stop you from shooting someone/something when you want to.

Man, I can only imagine the Alex Jones' Infowars freakout if the government started requiring RFID chips in gun owners.


I am so tempted to start an online petition requiring RFID chips be imbedded in the hands of gun owners, just to see Alex's head explode!

15 Nov 2012 03:05 PM
Reply
padraig     

heypete: Two guns that I own came with magazine disconnects: they wouldn't fire if the magazine was removed. Naturally, those were the first things I removed and the guns have run perfectly and without issue since then.


Not being a gun owner myself, why did you feel this was something that you needed to do ?

15 Nov 2012 03:05 PM
Reply
ArcadianRefugee     

pir8p3t3: it doesn't matter what you make illegal when it comes to guns. Criminals will just make their own because it's easy and cheap.


This. And because "hacking guns" won't become a black market business itself.

15 Nov 2012 03:06 PM
Reply
Mr. Eugenides     

Voiceofreason01: Or you could keep your gun secured when you're not using it and buy a $10 trigger lock.


If I'm keeping a gun by the bed I'd rather have a biometric gun than a gun and a trigger or action lock. Either way, you have to take the time to "activate" the gun.

There are certainly some engineering issues though. When off, it would have to be off because you couldn't allow any battery drain at all given you wouldn't be able to use more than 1 or 2 button batteries to power it. It would have to be weather proof and small enough to fit in the grip. I'm sure there's no problem from an engineering standpoint though.

The liability would be enormous though and I doubt any lawyer would allow such a thing to be sold.

15 Nov 2012 03:07 PM
Reply
Ego edo infantia cattus     
Yeah, because I want a gun that I can't use when I get a cut on my hand or the batteries run out. Also, computerizing personal weapons is a Honorable idea as far as civil liberties go. What's to keep people of authority from making a remote kill switch and requiring it by law? It wouldn't prevent violent crimes, as the criminals would just illegally modify their guns back to what they are today. It would add jail time, it's been proven that that isn't a strong deterrent. The only viable use I can see for this is for police officers. They tend to get killed by their own guns.

15 Nov 2012 03:08 PM
Reply
farkmedown     
Think of the liability lawsuit the first time one of these fails to work for someone trying to defend his family.

/I hope the legislators are held personally liable.

15 Nov 2012 03:08 PM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

Terrydatroll: dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

The sad thing is that if poor minorities could not afford guns then 97% of America's gun problems would disappear. 92% is black on black anyway, so I really don't see a problem.


I do see a problem, because not every poor black person is a criminal. Yes, crime tends to be concentrated in that demographic, as I've pointed out numerous times on Fark, but I've *NEVER*, *EVER* advocated a blatantly racist "Hey, our problems would be over if we prevented blacks from owning guns" viewpoint.

That's just farkin' wrong, sad or not.

15 Nov 2012 03:08 PM
Reply
Mock26     

EdNortonsTwin: [ts3.mm.bing.net image 300x208]

Here's my trigger safety right here.

/take a hunters safety course to heart and you'll be just fine.


You should use your middle finger. Seriously. I forget the name of this style, but the idea behind it is to lay your index finger alongside the barrel, pointing forward, and use your middle finger to fire. The idea is that humans have the innate ability to point their middle finger accurately at just about anything. It is not good if you are trying to shoot coins or nail that bull's eye ring, but for larger targets it is supposed to be quite accurate.

15 Nov 2012 03:08 PM
Reply
Ethertap     

iheartscotch: dittybopper: iheartscotch: It would also significantly increase the price of firearms.

That's the real reason behind it: So poor minorities can't afford them.

That is a possibility; but, as it stands, even the cheapest guns I know about are $250-$350. That's a huge investment for poor people.

The real goal is probably to increase the cost of all firearms; so it's expensive for everyone but rich people.


There's a pawn shop on the way home from work that has a banner advertising $99 9mm pistols. That's pretty cheap, although I'm guessing that the guns are pretty crappy.

15 Nov 2012 03:09 PM
Reply
Showing 1-50 of 179 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined