Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2009-04-17 09:21:03
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6592|Éire
This may have been suggested before, in fact I'd be surprised if it hasn't because it almost seems too obvious - I think it may have even been in Judge Dred. I'll take America as an example because it's a country with a lot of guns and lots of people who like owning their guns.

Suggestion: given that fingerprinting technology is quite advanced and becoming increasingly robust nowadays, the possibility of user-specific firearms using fingerprint ID should be a very real one in the near future. Each firearm would require the unique fingerprint of the owner in order for it to become enabled for use. To prevent convicted felons from purchasing firearms a prospective buyer would have to have their prints checked with the police database prior to purchase. Obviously hacking would be an issue but there is no reason why it should not be possible to design immobilisation fail-safes in the event of people trying to tamper with, or unlock the firearm (they have immobilisers in cars, why not weapons?).

If implemented correctly this system would mean only the legally licensed owner is allowed to operate the firearm. If the gun were stolen or taken from you in a scuffle it would be rendered useless. It would prevent minors from going out and mowing down classrooms full of people, and it would prevent felons from running around buying weapons with fake ID's and shooting people willy-nilly.

The biggest difficulty would be the transition from the old system to the new, a series of armistices would be needed as well as many years of difficult policing whereby the old style of firearms were seized and destroyed on a case by case basis. But these issues aside, on a hypothetical level at least would you accept such a system and if not, why not?
2009-04-17 09:28:45
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6831|Global Command
Great, so instead of teaching my son to target shoot with the .22 calibre rifle I've had for 27 years I get to go out and by some liberal approved pos and spend ten times the normal amount on ammo that the state approves of?

Fuck gun control and the horse it rides in on.

If the bastards spent as much time enforcing existing laws as the do dreaming up new ways to destroy my freedom there would not be such a problem.
2009-04-17 09:45:09
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6592|Éire

ATG wrote:

Great, so instead of teaching my son to target shoot with the .22 calibre rifle I've had for 27 years I get to go out and by some liberal approved pos and spend ten times the normal amount on ammo that the state approves of?

Fuck gun control and the horse it rides in on.

If the bastards spent as much time enforcing existing laws as the do dreaming up new ways to destroy my freedom there would not be such a problem.
I expected this kind of response from a lot of people on here. It seems people want the freedom to use any gun they can get their hands on, a freedom which extends to all criminals and psychopaths too. The system I proposed, though admittedly hypothetical, would only allow for weapons to be operated by the licensed owner - a factor which would surely cut down on gun crime - and yet the concept is not even entertained.

If that's the case America can lie in the bed it has made for itself as far as I'm concerned and I just hope and pray that Europe never go down the same road as America when it comes to gun ownership.
2009-04-17 09:50:05
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6831|Global Command
You are suggesting that all existing guns be scrapped for new state approved ones.
Not on my watch if it can be helped.
2009-04-17 09:53:57
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5913|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Braddock wrote:

This may have been suggested before, in fact I'd be surprised if it hasn't because it almost seems too obvious - I think it may have even been in Judge Dred. I'll take America as an example because it's a country with a lot of guns and lots of people who like owning their guns.

Suggestion: given that fingerprinting technology is quite advanced and becoming increasingly robust nowadays, the possibility of user-specific firearms using fingerprint ID should be a very real one in the near future. Each firearm would require the unique fingerprint of the owner in order for it to become enabled for use. To prevent convicted felons from purchasing firearms a prospective buyer would have to have their prints checked with the police database prior to purchase. Obviously hacking would be an issue but there is no reason why it should not be possible to design immobilization fail-safes in the event of people trying to tamper with, or unlock the firearm (they have immobilisers in cars, why not weapons?).

If implemented correctly this system would mean only the legally licensed owner is allowed to operate the firearm. If the gun were stolen or taken from you in a scuffle it would be rendered useless. It would prevent minors from going out and mowing down classrooms full of people, and it would prevent felons from running around buying weapons with fake ID's and shooting people willy-nilly.

The biggest difficulty would be the transition from the old system to the new, a series of armistices would be needed as well as many years of difficult policing whereby the old style of firearms were seized and destroyed on a case by case basis. But these issues aside, on a hypothetical level at least would you accept such a system and if not, why not?
I don't think it's something I would support because it would probably be difficult to pass on guns from one owner to the next, as well as the fact that it would probably be possible to get around in some way.
There have been attempts at similar projects that I have read about, but they failed for many different reasons. One was for the shooter to wear something( like a ring) that would signal to the gun that it was the correct owner, but that was dropped because it got in the way of the shooter's gripping of the gun. My main reason for opposing that would be that, unless there was a way for it to be programmed to accept more than one shooter, it would not be good for home defense if the only accepted shooter was killed/immobilized or out of the house/away. It would also hamper the ability to inherit guns when the owner died, unless it would accept multiple owners. If that was possible, I might reconsider, but another issue would be "What if the shooter wore gloves?" I think that would disable the gun's fingerprint detection ability, and it would be inconvenient to remove one's gloves when in a tense dangerous situation when you needed to be able to fire immediately. That was the reason for the idea for a ring or other object worn by the shooter that would enable the gun to recognize them as the allowed user, which did not work out effectively.
2009-04-17 09:55:00
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6592|Éire

ATG wrote:

You are suggesting that all existing guns be scrapped for new state approved ones.
Not on my watch if it can be helped.
No, not State approved, that would come with too much inherent risk e.g. what happens if the State can't be trusted and so on.

My suggestion would be firearms that are equipped with an ID system that is tied to your unique fingerprint, a fingerprint which will only be invalid if you are on the police records as a convicted felon. I am not proposing a system when your gun is enabled via some server-side approval system, my proposal is more mechanical in nature i.e. if the print doesn't match the gun doesn't work (a bit like having a combination lock on your gun).

I presume you have some sort of system to prevent felons buying firearms as it is, no?
2009-04-17 10:01:18
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6831|Global Command
Yes we do.
Instant background checks are the norm and waiting periods.
2009-04-17 10:05:16
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6592|Éire

nickb64 wrote:

I don't think it's something I would support because it would probably be difficult to pass on guns from one owner to the next, as well as the fact that it would probably be possible to get around in some way.
There have been attempts at similar projects that I have read about, but they failed for many different reasons. One was for the shooter to wear something( like a ring) that would signal to the gun that it was the correct owner, but that was dropped because it got in the way of the shooter's gripping of the gun. My main reason for opposing that would be that, unless there was a way for it to be programmed to accept more than one shooter, it would not be good for home defense if the only accepted shooter was killed/immobilized or out of the house/away. It would also hamper the ability to inherit guns when the owner died, unless it would accept multiple owners. If that was possible, I might reconsider, but another issue would be "What if the shooter wore gloves?" I think that would disable the gun's fingerprint detection ability, and it would be inconvenient to remove one's gloves when in a tense dangerous situation when you needed to be able to fire immediately. That was the reason for the idea for a ring or other object worn by the shooter that would enable the gun to recognize them as the allowed user, which did not work out effectively.
Good post.

Multiple shooters shouldn't be a problem. I used to work in a place where we had a barometric hand-print lock that accepted multiple prints, there's no reason why the same technology can't be adapted.

As regards gloves, there is such a thing as shooting gloves where the index finger is removable... I guess you have to ask yourself do want high gun-homicide rates or cold hands? You can't always have your cake and eat it.

In terms of transferring ownership, there's no reason why the police (or another State body of some sort, or possibly even the manufacturers themselves) can't have a controlled and authorised system whereby gun-user profiles can be switched or ported.

It's true that hacked and black market guns would be a problem but one might assume that these dodgy firearms might not operate as smoothly as fully licensed, above-board firearms and so the more effective firepower would be in the hands of the law-abiding citizen.
2009-04-17 10:20:15
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6831|Global Command
I will support new ideas and legislation when they enforce the ones we have and there is still a problem.
2009-04-17 10:28:50
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX
The problem is biometric technology is that the electronics are not robust enough to handle the recoil of a firearm, and quickly break.  Also, when you start adding in things like gun oil, powerder residue, shooting gloves, dirt, mud, blood... all things things work agianst the system. Also a matter of time.  No matter who you are, if you need to use your firearm, odds are heavy there is a pretty strong time element involved.  Taking .25 - .50 second to get the electronics to 'catch up,' or worry about placing your finger just so,] can be the difference between life and death.  Also, sometimes you have to grab someone else's gun; when you do, it would be nice if it worked.

...and what happens if you forget to replace the batteries?

There was a design 30 or 40 years ago with a revolver, that had a safety bar in the handle that would prevent the gun firing unless the 'key' (in this circumstance a magnetic ring on the shooters' firing hand) moved the bar out of the way.  This was a pretty good sounding system, except that you could not use your off hand for firing unless you wore two rings, and since both the rings were magnetic, some trouble handling things.  That is even more applicable nowadays, with credit cards and thumb drives being in common use.  Also, if you forgot to put your ring on (or you slept without it) your gun is now just a paperweight.  Lose your ring and then you are in trouble.  After all, can't just sell them at the corner store, or they lose their effectiveness.

Lots of edits...  It has been thought of over here.  In fact, there is a state up there (New York, New Jersey or something) that tried to pass a law that stated that once a biometric gun was commerically available, that all non-biometric firearms would be banned 5 years from that time.  Since I plan to never live in a state that repressive to gun owners, I just made a note and moved on.

I do not mean to offend, Braddock, but this has the hallmarks of someone who thinks it sounds great but has little practical experience with the issue.  Looks pretty on paper, but unworkable in exectution.  I can definately see how this would be a benificial idea; would be great for law enforcement if they could iron the kinks out, or even as a possiblity for a loaded home defense firearm, for child safety.  However, I get  a bit hesitant as soon as someone starts mandating changes like that.  Especially if someone else could somehow alter how MY firearm operates.

Last edited by imortal (2009-04-17 10:41:23)

2009-04-17 10:35:40
NeXuS
Shock it till ya know it
+375|6644|Atlanta, Georgia
To be honest i think its fine the way it is now. Really you can't go either way without someone getting pissed unless you find a REALLY practical way. The magnet idea above is almost a practical idea. Replacing old guns with new guns that have finger print scanners and such is REALLY not practical. It's stupid to be honest.
2009-04-17 10:43:38
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7038|Salt Lake City

You want gun legislation that will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, start by making background checks required at gun shows, and an easy method of checks for owner to owner transfer/sale of weapons.  As it stands only purchases made at gun stores require background checks.
2009-04-17 11:43:36
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6953|USA

Braddock wrote:

ATG wrote:

Great, so instead of teaching my son to target shoot with the .22 calibre rifle I've had for 27 years I get to go out and by some liberal approved pos and spend ten times the normal amount on ammo that the state approves of?

Fuck gun control and the horse it rides in on.

If the bastards spent as much time enforcing existing laws as the do dreaming up new ways to destroy my freedom there would not be such a problem.
I expected this kind of response from a lot of people on here. It seems people want the freedom to use any gun they can get their hands on, a freedom which extends to all criminals and psychopaths too. The system I proposed, though admittedly hypothetical, would only allow for weapons to be operated by the licensed owner - a factor which would surely cut down on gun crime - and yet the concept is not even entertained.

If that's the case America can lie in the bed it has made for itself as far as I'm concerned and I just hope and pray that Europe never go down the same road as America when it comes to gun ownership.
Actually no, "freedom which extends to all criminals and psychopaths too" is not be the case. The problem is IF existing laws were enforced, the criminal element would not be so readily armed as ATG pointed out.
2009-04-17 12:08:20
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7017|US

Braddock wrote:

The biggest difficulty would be the transition from the old system to the new, a series of armistices would be needed as well as many years of difficult policing whereby the old style of firearms were seized and destroyed on a case by case basis. But these issues aside, on a hypothetical level at least would you accept such a system and if not, why not?
This is the biggest problem with the idea, in terms of crime and economics.  With the current stock of guns in the US, it would take 400 years to naturally deplete...and that is assuming no guns are added for 400 years.  The black market would not be dramatically affected for several generations.  Next, a lot of older firearms hold sentimental, historic, or collection value.  To even try to buy back guns at a fair price would cost billions upon billions of dollars, and the effect on the criminal market would still be negligable. 

The practical problems of implementing some sort of biometric technology have been addressed pretty well already, so I won't go into that.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

As it stands only purchases made at gun stores require background checks.
That is true, but statistically speaking guns transfered at gun shows are used in a small percentage of crimes. (Might be because a large portion of sales at gun shows are done by FFLs.)

Honestly, I would like some sort of NICS style system open to the public, but that has serious privacy rights implications (the system would need to be VERY well designed).  I also advocate secure storage (done by individuals, not mandated by law).

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-04-17 12:16:32)

2009-04-17 12:16:45
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6934|949

As long as people fail to secure their weapons at home (which gives criminals a chance to steal legally obtained weapons from legal gun-holders); As long as the background checks are administered in a way that allows people to buy multiple weapons in a short time frame for sale on the black market; As long as the NRA continues to condemn any legislation regarding "controlling" guns;  As long as the database concerning firearms purchases is inadequate and incomplete; As long as ass-backwards legislation is proposed and passed to alleviate statistics without addressing any fundamental problems within our society concerning gun ownership; As long as the argument concerning gun ownership is focused on the legal right to own instead of the regulations needed to promote responsible gun ownership and punish irresponsible gun ownership (legal and illegal);  As long as these issues fail to be addressed nothing will change.

In response to the OP - I would much rather have GPS technology in firearms than fingerprint technology.  The idea you propose was also proposed in California - I believe there was a thread constructed based off that prior proposal - and met with heavy resistance due to the prevalance of guns already available and in circulation without that technology.  GPS technology does not seem as much of an invasion of privacy as fingerprint technology does.
2009-04-17 12:37:42
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6802|so randum
Do you get the police doing random checks on the security/legality of your weapons?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-04-17 12:47:26
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7038|Salt Lake City

FatherTed wrote:

Do you get the police doing random checks on the security/legality of your weapons?
No.  They have no reason to.  I believe that would fall under the 4th amendment for illegal search and seizure.
2009-04-17 13:19:59
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6802|so randum

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Do you get the police doing random checks on the security/legality of your weapons?
No.  They have no reason to.  I believe that would fall under the 4th amendment for illegal search and seizure.
Amendment aside, would it do harm?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-04-17 13:25:39
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

FatherTed wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Do you get the police doing random checks on the security/legality of your weapons?
No.  They have no reason to.  I believe that would fall under the 4th amendment for illegal search and seizure.
Amendment aside, would it do harm?
You set aside the very source of the harm: it violates the Constitution.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-04-17 13:28:00
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6802|so randum

FEOS wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:


No.  They have no reason to.  I believe that would fall under the 4th amendment for illegal search and seizure.
Amendment aside, would it do harm?
You set aside the very source of the harm: it violates the Constitution.
this is hypothetical

Would it be a bad thing (society-wise) if such checks were implemented?

So ignore the laws etc, i'm just curious.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-04-17 13:32:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

FatherTed wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FatherTed wrote:


Amendment aside, would it do harm?
You set aside the very source of the harm: it violates the Constitution.
this is hypothetical

Would it be a bad thing (society-wise) if such checks were implemented?

So ignore the laws etc, i'm just curious.
Then make it hypothetically in a society that doesn't have the US Constitution, because otherwise, it's a pointless exercise.

Personally, I think random inspections of anything without a warrant or due cause are fail from a civil liberties perspective.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-04-17 13:33:36
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6934|949

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Do you get the police doing random checks on the security/legality of your weapons?
No.  They have no reason to.  I believe that would fall under the 4th amendment for illegal search and seizure.
Actually, the fact that many guns used in gun crimes are stolen from legal owners is a great reason to do random checks on the security of your weapons.  I am not sure if a requirement to allow the police random checks on the security of your gun(s) is legal or not...it seems that the government could require such a thing, seeing as you are legally obligated to register handguns.
2009-04-17 13:41:22
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7038|Salt Lake City

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Do you get the police doing random checks on the security/legality of your weapons?
No.  They have no reason to.  I believe that would fall under the 4th amendment for illegal search and seizure.
Actually, the fact that many guns used in gun crimes are stolen from legal owners is a great reason to do random checks on the security of your weapons.  I am not sure if a requirement to allow the police random checks on the security of your gun(s) is legal or not...it seems that the government could require such a thing, seeing as you are legally obligated to register handguns.
Rarely is a weapon the only thing stolen.  When my home was broken into last year, and I saw that they had gone through my room, the first thing I did was check to see if my gun was still there.

As far as I'm concerned, unless the police can show enough probable cause to a judge to get a warrant issued, they have no cause to check on my weapons.

Besides, I see that as a very slippery slope.  How long until the police can take the weapon if they don't like what they see, or make up excuses and can confiscate your gun.

What do then disregard in regards to the 4th amendment?  Where does it stop?

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2009-04-17 13:53:33)

2009-04-17 13:47:42
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6934|949

Whether or not the gun is the only thing stolen is really of no relevance - the idea is that if you leave your home, lock up your weapon so it cannot be stolen and used in a crime.

The idea regarding a law allowing random checks on the security of your guns isn't that it is a law decided on by the police, it is enforced by the police.  Just like any other law, the police wouldn't be able to decide anything other than what the law stipulates.  If the law is written in a way that allows minimal judgement calls by the police there will be little to worry about in that regard.
2009-04-17 13:50:56
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Whether or not the gun is the only thing stolen is really of no relevance - the idea is that if you leave your home, lock up your weapon so it cannot be stolen and used in a crime.

The idea regarding a law allowing random checks on the security of your guns isn't that it is a law decided on by the police, it is enforced by the police.  Just like any other law, the police wouldn't be able to decide anything other than what the law stipulates.  If the law is written in a way that allows minimal judgement calls by the police there will be little to worry about in that regard.
But the issue is that law would be unconstitutional.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard