09-12-2017, 01:27 PM
[quote]Originally posted by terracore
"Blame the industry for not investing enough on R&D for advances such as biometric palm scanners and the like. We have the tech to make my weapons only respond to me, but nobody is making it (cost, schmost).
Time for the government to mandate safer firearms."
These arguments are common from people who have never actually used firearms. Guns jam, ammo misfires, magazines don't always seat right, a lot more than "non gun nut people" think. Adding layers of biometrics etc would only add layers of technological bloatware that would put people who need to use firearms at risk. At least 3 times out of 5, my iPhone doesn't recognize my fingerprints. How would you like to be the cop with that technology up against a criminal with a weapon with no technological hurdles on it's usage? THAT is why the "the industry" doesn't want to employ these measures. Nobody would ever buy their products.
When technology that actually works is available, the gun makers will be the first to adopt and promote it. After all, their profit margins are based on how much money they can get for their guns. There are 300 million guns already in existence in the USA. I don't know a single individual who wants to own the first model that won't shoot the first time their hand is sweaty (BTW, biometric readers don't work on damp subjects). If you're not nervous and sweaty while pointing a gun at somebody, you might be a psychopath.
ETA: dialed it down a bit (?)
Once you make a weapon anything more than hammer to flint with electronics etc. The government and soon AI will have any easy stop to make that weapon worth no more than a stick.
"Blame the industry for not investing enough on R&D for advances such as biometric palm scanners and the like. We have the tech to make my weapons only respond to me, but nobody is making it (cost, schmost).
Time for the government to mandate safer firearms."
These arguments are common from people who have never actually used firearms. Guns jam, ammo misfires, magazines don't always seat right, a lot more than "non gun nut people" think. Adding layers of biometrics etc would only add layers of technological bloatware that would put people who need to use firearms at risk. At least 3 times out of 5, my iPhone doesn't recognize my fingerprints. How would you like to be the cop with that technology up against a criminal with a weapon with no technological hurdles on it's usage? THAT is why the "the industry" doesn't want to employ these measures. Nobody would ever buy their products.
When technology that actually works is available, the gun makers will be the first to adopt and promote it. After all, their profit margins are based on how much money they can get for their guns. There are 300 million guns already in existence in the USA. I don't know a single individual who wants to own the first model that won't shoot the first time their hand is sweaty (BTW, biometric readers don't work on damp subjects). If you're not nervous and sweaty while pointing a gun at somebody, you might be a psychopath.
ETA: dialed it down a bit (?)
Once you make a weapon anything more than hammer to flint with electronics etc. The government and soon AI will have any easy stop to make that weapon worth no more than a stick.
Slow Walker