Very few of us who own guns actually want this tech, for a variety of reasons:
* The reliability isn't there. These are weapons. They need to fire in an emergency, when the trigger is pulled, 100% of the time, or as close as is possible. Fingerprint readers don't work 100% of the time, or even close.
One of the major trends in handgun design over the last 40 years has been the adoption of striker fired guns without manual safeties. They are enormously popular. Many people are buying them because they don't want to worry about disengaging a manual safety when grappling with someone, or while injured, and while dealing with an adrenaline dump. A fingerprint reader even less reliable.
The litmus test is probably whether or not you can get police to adopt these. They're more likely to draw their guns, and likely to do so at close range, and if you can somehow make them reliable enough to satisfy police, then ordinary people are likely to start buying them too. But I don't think Police are anywhere close to accepting these.
* Nobody expects them to survive long. Guns are some of the most durable consumer goods you can buy today. With proper care, they'll easily last decades if not centuries. Consumer electronics, on the other hand, rarely survive long. I don't want to buy a gun that will be a brick in 20 years.
Optics tend to have a shorter lifespan, and gun owners accept that as a trade off because it gives them something far more capable than iron sights. And most people still opt to have back-up iron sights so that a dead battery doesn't render their gun useless. But a fingerprint reader doesn't offer much in exchange for the problems it brings.
* A large fraction of firearm purchases are by hobbyists who already own multiple guns. Smart guns aren't interesting to us, since we already need to come up with a way to secure all our other guns.
* There is a fear that once smart guns come on the market, they'll be the only thing we're allowed to buy. (New Jersey actually passed such a law in 2002). Because of this, anyone who tries to develop such a gun faces backlash. S&W tried, and the ensuing boycott nearly bankrupted the company.
* Finally, only about 1% of firearm deaths are accidental. The overwhelming majority of firearm deaths involve someone deliberately shooting themselves or others.
I brought this tech up precisely because of S&W's experience supporting it in NJ; you reminded me of the state and company that took the heat and backed off - thank you
As you're here on HN I'd be disappointed if you found the engineering points insoluble. Although I take your point that you're purchasing for the long haul, perhaps are a hobbyist, and that's cool, engineered solutions gong forward needn't ruin the shooting utility for collectors and hobbyists. Yet there'll always be a market for the old stuff. Firearms are not the only area where the old stuff is collectible and sometimes superior (tube audio amps, LPs come to mind) The social disagreements aren't as easily susceptible to fixing as the engineering problems. The questioner raised the question as if the social factors were subsidiary when in fact they are primary and trump all other considerations.
Comments
Tech like this https://smarttechfoundation.org/smart-firearms-technology/fi... ?
Very few of us who own guns actually want this tech, for a variety of reasons:
* The reliability isn't there. These are weapons. They need to fire in an emergency, when the trigger is pulled, 100% of the time, or as close as is possible. Fingerprint readers don't work 100% of the time, or even close.
One of the major trends in handgun design over the last 40 years has been the adoption of striker fired guns without manual safeties. They are enormously popular. Many people are buying them because they don't want to worry about disengaging a manual safety when grappling with someone, or while injured, and while dealing with an adrenaline dump. A fingerprint reader even less reliable.
The litmus test is probably whether or not you can get police to adopt these. They're more likely to draw their guns, and likely to do so at close range, and if you can somehow make them reliable enough to satisfy police, then ordinary people are likely to start buying them too. But I don't think Police are anywhere close to accepting these.
* Nobody expects them to survive long. Guns are some of the most durable consumer goods you can buy today. With proper care, they'll easily last decades if not centuries. Consumer electronics, on the other hand, rarely survive long. I don't want to buy a gun that will be a brick in 20 years.
Optics tend to have a shorter lifespan, and gun owners accept that as a trade off because it gives them something far more capable than iron sights. And most people still opt to have back-up iron sights so that a dead battery doesn't render their gun useless. But a fingerprint reader doesn't offer much in exchange for the problems it brings.
* A large fraction of firearm purchases are by hobbyists who already own multiple guns. Smart guns aren't interesting to us, since we already need to come up with a way to secure all our other guns.
* There is a fear that once smart guns come on the market, they'll be the only thing we're allowed to buy. (New Jersey actually passed such a law in 2002). Because of this, anyone who tries to develop such a gun faces backlash. S&W tried, and the ensuing boycott nearly bankrupted the company.
* Finally, only about 1% of firearm deaths are accidental. The overwhelming majority of firearm deaths involve someone deliberately shooting themselves or others.
I brought this tech up precisely because of S&W's experience supporting it in NJ; you reminded me of the state and company that took the heat and backed off - thank you
As you're here on HN I'd be disappointed if you found the engineering points insoluble. Although I take your point that you're purchasing for the long haul, perhaps are a hobbyist, and that's cool, engineered solutions gong forward needn't ruin the shooting utility for collectors and hobbyists. Yet there'll always be a market for the old stuff. Firearms are not the only area where the old stuff is collectible and sometimes superior (tube audio amps, LPs come to mind) The social disagreements aren't as easily susceptible to fixing as the engineering problems. The questioner raised the question as if the social factors were subsidiary when in fact they are primary and trump all other considerations.
similar, I recall seeing one where you wear a ring, and the ring's proximity allows the firearm to work.