High-tech gun lock

S

Sylvan DeSisto

Inactive
On the front page of yesterdays local newspaper there was an article on this new High-tech gun lock. What is being proposed is the use of a microchip which is embedded in the grip of a hangun which scans the fingerprints of the user. It permits only the registered owner of the gun to fire it. If the prints don't match the firing mechanism is rendered inoperable. Are they serious! The article goes on to explain how this will do a world of good for everyone who owns a gun because if a gun falls into the "wrong" hands it can't be fired. The First Selectman is proposing that all guns sold to or possessed by registered owners after Jan. 1, 2001 be required to have these scanners. This idiot then goes on to give an example of how a friend's 9mm was stolen while he was sleeping and how he would feel much more comfortable if that gun wouldn't work for that thief-Aah, little to late for that, don't you think! Then the president and CEO of the company that developed this device says, "an aspirin bottle has to be child-proof, so why not a gun?"- How you could compare a firearm to a bottle of aspirin is beyond me!

I was curious to see how others felt about this device and what the reactions would be. I was also wondering how they could actually render the firing mechanism inoperable with this type if a device, couldn't a "thief" just remove it?
 
The increasing support for such a device is purely a feel-good vote getter.

Ramifications:
1) Increase the cost of firearms
2) Liklihood of malfunction: heat (car trunk,etc); EMF; powerloss (requires batteries)
3) Opens the door for a whole new type of lawsuit...wife alone at home raped and killed at cuz hubby's registered gun won't work for her
4) Etc ad nauseum

Pure insanity. I won't do it and no power on earth can make me...Capishe?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
My kitten just clawed my hand...guess my prints won't match anymore. Never mind gloves. Or having my friends use my gun. Or...got forbid! batteries fail.

But...I'd be all for BATF agents using those locks. And the rest of the uniformed thugs, too.

------------------
Even when the fight is lost, take some with you.
http://ddb.com/RKBA
 
The first time a LEO dies because his electronic gadget fails, there is going to be hell to pay. For that matter, if it fails for any law abiding citizen when the gun is needed. Can you say Lawsuit?
If these things become required the price of used, pre-electronic, guns is going to skyrocket.
 
The thief would not be able to remove it because that would be illegal.

The BIGGEST problem with this crap is the pre-requisite of REGISTRATION.

True "accidental" shootings involving children is at a many year low. The only increase in "youth" shootings is among gang banger types. The gangs and drug dealers recruit young people because of their almost total immunity from prosecution and long term incarceration under current law. Ironically, this lack of probable punishment plays a role in the extremely rare cases of non-gang youth homicide. The poor judgement of youth coupled with little fear of punishment make a bad mix. No amount of safety locks will stop it. Some swift sure punishment might. After all, we've had kids and guns for hundreds of years, why is it just now a problem?
 
Mikey, surely you forgot the ;) after "The thief would not be able to remove it because that would be illegal." ;) Right!

Well, this is the kind of law you get when 'deliberation' consists of sound bites and watching TV personalities air their bright ideas about firearms.

Buy more guns, buy more guns, buy more guns ...
 
After reading Cornered Rat's reply, I realized I left out one small thing- "law enforcement officers' serviceweapons would be exempt under the plan." Why can't any of these anti-gunners understand that the criminals are not law-abiding citizens, and all of these "supressions" they want on gun ownership don't mean a damn to them!
 
I'd hate to be a beat cop once commoners' firearms are no longer comparable to what the cops have. It did happen in Russia...make a shank from a 3-sided metal file, stick a militzioner with it, take his TT or Makarov, run with it. In the absence of knowledge about guns, I, as most Russians, pretty much believed that a man with a gun is king, that nothing can be done about him.
Knowing what I know now, I can try against an armed opponent and have some chance...Russikies wouldn't even try. That is also how their uniformed thugs (and their German/Chinese/other counterparts) could keep a thousand prisoners guarded by a couple of vokhrs with rifles...

------------------
Even when the fight is lost, take some with you.
http://ddb.com/RKBA
 
First Look at the facts. the very Idea is to make the weapon less useful for defense. They can call it what they like and some of the Sheeple will belive.

Second they use to have magnetic rings, and a hanmmer block in the weapon. If you weren't wearing a ring the weapon wouldn't fire. That went over like a lead ballon.
Low tech but the same idea.

Third they exsempt the Police from the restiction because they know they are putting you in more danger. And they want to further seperate the People from Law Enforcement. They like when the people distrust the local police because then they can FIX that with Federalazation.

Fourth there will be a booming buisness in disabling the chip while it will still be inplace.
 
I've heard of this security device before, and one of the arguements is that cops could have it so they couldn't be shot with thier own weapons.
And yes, a fingerprint id system on a handgun is a bit ludicrous (...just strap this id console to your waist to make your gun operational...) and some dumb politicians propose this as part of a gun control method when this kind of technology is years away at best.
 
The idea of making the police exempt from this technology is ludicrous when you consider that the very idea of a "smart gun" was born because of a problem the police were having, namely that 16% of all LEOs killed in the line of duty were victims of their own weapon!

------------------
"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once"

[This message has been edited by Karanas (edited March 04, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top