What do you think about this ?

[94user]

A fingerprint reading trigger lock. I'm not gonna run out and get one but I like the idea IF it works. I don't have children anymore and none really ever come to my house but maybe this could be a good thing, My father never kept a handgun in the house when I grew up, just a few rifles bur the ammo was kept separate.  I would sometimes handle them when my parents were not home. Kids can get into anything they want to. I know. I did it.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/05/06/biometric-gun-lock-has-fingerprint-scanner/?intcmp=features

Edited May 12, 2014 by 94user

[c.a.willard]

Battery life is an issue.  I would like for it to be more like 6 months rather than one.  Also bio-metric sensors still have a ways to go before I would trust my life to one working right.  A lot of things will cause your fingerprints to change a little and be unreadable to the sensor.  Get a cut on your finger, wont read.  Have an issue of dry skin or callouses, it won't read.  Been out working and got some dirt on your hand, it won't read.  It does have the key backup so its not any worse than a traditional key lock, but i find that people misplace the keys to bio-locks because they don,t plan on using the key.  Absolutely no discussion of price point.  

 

Its a step in the right direction, but i'm skeptical.    

[Grayfox54]

Never trust your life to anything that requires a battery. 

[peejman]

Battery life is an issue.  I would like for it to be more like 6 months rather than one.  Also bio-metric sensors still have a ways to go before I would trust my life to one working right.  A lot of things will cause your fingerprints to change a little and be unreadable to the sensor.  Get a cut on your finger, wont read.  Have an issue of dry skin or callouses, it won't read.  Been out working and got some dirt on your hand, it won't read.  It does have the key backup so its not any worse than a traditional key lock, but i find that people misplace the keys to bio-locks because they don,t plan on using the key.  Absolutely no discussion of price point.  

 

Its a step in the right direction, but i'm skeptical.    

 

 

This.  And a simple push-button type mechanical lock is likely faster and more reliable.

[RagTop454]

+1 to all the above!

We researched and then used biometrics where I worked for access control. Worked great most of the time but sometimes didn't for whole host of reasons. Worse case there was that someone was delayed entry till problem was resolved and no ones life depended on it. Also, in my experience, batteries always go dead at the worst times, and yes, kids can, and will, get into anything they want to. As a kid, I'd have tried everything I could think of to get that thing open, just to do it.

Sounds like a great idea, but not for me!

[KahrMan]

You never are quite sure how you will react under stress and anything that can prolong the time it takes you to deploy your weapon is not a good thing in my mind.

[hipower]

For all the above reasons, and more; I would resist this sort of mechanism.

It's just another back door effort towards restricting the use and ownership of firearms.

[bersaguy]

They offer this type of technology on many of today's automobiles and I have spoke with my son about them as he works on the newer cars that have them on access door locks and even in starting cars and they have fail in many different applications. Especially in the entrance modes. If it is raining you almost have to use the remote rather than thumb ID and if your hands are wet of thumb is wet starting push button may fail to start the vehicle due to moisture distortions. Have to make sure your hands are completely dry. Technology is nice for certain things but not for everything.............jmho 

[Chucktshoes]

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

[hipower]

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

 

Are you sure?

 

Is that your final answer?

[94user]

Looks like it's a fail amongst us gun owners. I thought it would be. Woe to those that spent the money on this. They aren't gonna get a return on thier investment.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="hipower" post="1148235" timestamp="1399933361"]Are you sure? Is that your final answer?[/quote] Ahhhyup.

[Jonnin]

I have no issue with the pure concept.  Some people want an extra safety feature or 3 -- take the 1911 grip safety or "the magazine must be inserted to fire safety" as some rather silly examples of excess.   I have no problem with the tech either -- sure, it is not 100%, but you know that going into the purchase and made your own decision, right?  All that I can live with.    

 

But the underlying issues are where this gets ugly.  Its a form of gun control: as soon as one gun sells with it, all guns will have to have it (this law is already on the books in a couple of police states and I could see 1/3 or more following and the idiots at BAFTE could mandate it...).   There will be attempts to bully manufacturers into having it on all offerings.  There will be new import laws that all imported guns must have it.  They will even attempt to force people to retro-fit the things onto antiques and collectables.    The part of the gun control agenda that people forget is the "quiet" gun control efforts that are designed to jack up the cost of guns and ammo to the point of being inaccessible.  This tech would jack up the price of each gun you buy or possibly already own by a bunch.   It is meant to put the thumbscrews to gun owners, buyers, and manufacturers, all of whom must eat the costs.   And all for NOTHING: I can, as a tech guy, assure you that the following are true:

 

1) there will be a way to mechanically bypass it.

2) there will also be a way to electronically bypass it

3) there will also be a way to hack it to apply a new fingerprint for the new "owner" who, erm, acquired it.

4) the biggest losers will be our law enforcement, who will be forced to use it on their guns.  Everyone else will use 1 & 2, just like those darn safety features on a new saw or lawnmower that everyone immediately disables. 

Edited May 13, 2014 by Jonnin

[10-Ring]

Nope, not here, not even with small children in the house.  If you need your gun you need it now.  Not after you disable 976 safety features to get it into action.  Even with a almost 5 year old who has shown nothing but responsibility towards guns a gun in our house is either being worn, in the safe, or on top of our very tall dresser.  No if, ands, or buts.  Been doing it this way since she was big eough to grab things and it's worked fine. 

[RED333]

For all the above reasons, and more; I would resist this sort of mechanism.

It's just another back door effort towards restricting the use and ownership of firearms.

This x 1000

[K191145]

If I had young kids living in my house, I would invest in a good gun safe and keep "every gun" locked in it except the one I carry and I would always keep that in my control. I might invest in a good retention holster also. I could probably rig up a good kid proof bedside long gun rig.
I'm with everyone who believes these electronic safety "gadgets" are prone to failure and there are the type of devices that anti-gunners would love to mandate.

[tnhawk]

A solution to a problem that shouldn't exist. Safes and lock boxes are the proper way to secure weapons, not gimmicks on the guns which will drive up the prices. Edited May 17, 2014 by tnhawk

[JWKilgore]

This is a biometric sensor on a separate trigger lock, not on the gun itself. I see no difference between this and a biometric lock on a "quick-access" gun safe.

[A.J. Holst]

This is a very important feature for any handgun owner who moonlights as a double naught spy