grandfather of Sandy Hook victim works on safe gun tech..

Post Reply New Topic

but will it be accepted by society or quashed?


http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2 ... .cnnmoney/

Biometrics - especially fingerprint readers - are not security devices. They are convenience devices. Biometric locks, whether they're on tiny gun safes or nuclear facilities, do nothing to increase security - and in many cases substantially decrease security.

Please explain. I can see how people may say it would decrease security of the home, as it would make access to the weapon less expedient, but why would it not secure the weapon from going into the hands of the person with the required fingerprint? Especially with handguns, it seems like this could reduce the number of suicides and domestic violence incidents. I am pretty sure that there are more gun related suicides than there are gun related homicides.

A) the cases themselves are almost always a complete joke
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIJFQO4DIxw[/youtube]

B) Bypassing a fingerprint lock is ridiculously simple, universally
http://www.networkworld.com/slideshow/1 ... trics.html



If you own the gun, or live in the same place as the person who owns the gun - chances are you're going to have access to the gun - so I fail to see the point here. Unless you're talking about little kids or something here - but then again why does it have to be biometric?

I don't assume that everyone who lives in a residence with a gun has access to that gun. Many people have guns in homes that they do not tell other residents about, for various reasons. If this biometric technology is available and it is known to have flaws, what is the harm in trying to correct those flaws? Why is the only response to deny the problem? Instead of trying to defeat or ridicule attempts at reduce the number of deaths and injury from guns, why cannot gun advocates participate in finding a way to make the possession of guns safer, beyond the attitude that more guns will solve the problems? The world, specifically the US is not the dangerous "bad guy with a gun" place that the NRA and the gun industry pimp. More people are injured or killed by guns as a result of accident or suicide than by a "bad man with a gun." Why do we keep trying to deny that reality and paint life as more dangerous than what it really is in order to sell guns?

If someone wants one of those and would feel better with it, fine. Personally, I don't believe I want or need one.

How many is "many"? What kind of data do you have to back that up? Do you even anecdotally know of any situation where this is the case?



I'm not denying the problem, I'm recognizing that biometric technology *is* the problem. There is a reason that 0 safe lock manufacturers that are known for making good locks have biometric locks in their product line (talking about Abloy, Kaba Maas, S&G, etc). Biometric locks, no matter the implementation or underlying technology, are cheap parlor tricks that don't actually add any security to the implementation.

Even the $3k+ hand geometry readers that they use to secure nuclear reactors, hospital pharmacies, and the server that hosts this website (which I obviously have a ton of familiarity with) don't add any additional security to the doors that they "protect". Biometrics is about convenience, not security.

If you want to secure a firearm (or anything else) in your home where you will presumably be gone for long periods of time, a small lock box isn't going to work - and neither will a biometric lock.

People don't kill people accidentally that often, it is a deliberate act so what good is new locks for guns? Mandating biometric tracking and locks are invasion of privacy and infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Guns are not the problem and there is no more regulation needed of them.