3 ms·

Because it’s another thing that can malfunction at the single worst possible moment for a thing to malfunction. I’m not even an enthusiast and I would never ev

Because it’s another thing that can malfunction at the single worst possible moment for a thing to malfunction. I’m not even an enthusiast and I would never ever ever buy one of these as a self-defense firearm. It just doesn’t make any sense in terms of the risk you’re trying to mitigate by buying a gun.

unshavedyak 3y ago
I would imagine it depends on what you're concerned about too. If you're using it for self defense but also have children you need to lock away the gun for, this might be attractive compared to a slow to access safe.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Totally depends on what you’re concerned about, but even in that scenario the solution is to get a faster safe. Like even in that scenario, you would still not want your child encountering the gun at all for fear of the other kind of malfunction (accidental “approval”), as well as child endangerment, as well as “gun == safe” association, etc etc. So it will still have to be in a safe, and it will still have to be one you think is secure, so the biometric component is strictly more time & more points of failure.
  - unshavedyak 3y ago
    Agreed, though arguably we're talking about the same mechanisms for failure but behind one layer of safety.. or .. something, not sure how to word it. Ie lets say the biometrics fail. Well if i want a safe with fast access, maybe i have biometrics on that and it also fails. A child looking for a gun has it in both scenarios, but there is a slight delay between auth failure and weapon access. It's just a difficult slope of competing priorities. On one hand you want fast access. On the otherhand you want fail-proof child-proof safety. It's really difficult to get both, no matter what the solution. I'm kinda glad i'm not having kids because i can imagine this is not a fun decision to make. I don't envy those who have to make it.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      It’s really not that hard. You get a safe that’s designed for fast access and you don’t tell anyone else the code. You shouldn’t need and shouldn’t want additional layers of security or procedure etc.
spicybright 3y ago
Definitely, it's one of those technologies that needs to be dumb and reliable because of how life and death it's use is. Like if you need to use your gun, you probably need to in a hurry. What if you have grease or dirt on your hands when you need to scan your finger? There's already bio-metric safes if one wants it, and you're almost always going to need a gun safe anyways if you own a firearm.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  The most common uses of a gun in the a US home is suicide, or death by negligent discharge by a child (I use the term negligent discharge because it's the adult's responsibility to secure the gun.) "Homeowner stops break-in" is exceedingly rare as to be statistically insignificant, and it really needs to stop being cited by everyone as a reason for everything from permissive gun legislation to arguments against technologies like this.
  - harimau777 3y ago
    The statistics on "homeowner stops break-in" aren't as cut and dry as we might think. As I understand it, the studies that gun control activists cite tend to only count "gun used for self defense" if it was actually fired. However, the much more common scenario is that the defender draws a gun and the criminal flees. To me that definitely counts as "homeowner stops break-in".
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > Homeowner stops break-in" is exceedingly rare as to be statistically insignificant Incorrect. You have any stats to back that up?
- StrangeATractor 3y ago
  > Definitely, it's one of those technologies that needs to be dumb and reliable because of how life and death it's use is. This is why a lot of people still use revolvers instead of automatics. Doesn't get much simpler.

unshavedyak 3y ago

I would imagine it depends on what you're concerned about too. If you're using it for self defense but also have children you need to lock away the gun for, this might be attractive compared to a slow to access safe.

ethanbond 3y ago
Totally depends on what you’re concerned about, but even in that scenario the solution is to get a faster safe. Like even in that scenario, you would still not want your child encountering the gun at all for fear of the other kind of malfunction (accidental “approval”), as well as child endangerment, as well as “gun == safe” association, etc etc. So it will still have to be in a safe, and it will still have to be one you think is secure, so the biometric component is strictly more time & more points of failure.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  Agreed, though arguably we're talking about the same mechanisms for failure but behind one layer of safety.. or .. something, not sure how to word it. Ie lets say the biometrics fail. Well if i want a safe with fast access, maybe i have biometrics on that and it also fails. A child looking for a gun has it in both scenarios, but there is a slight delay between auth failure and weapon access. It's just a difficult slope of competing priorities. On one hand you want fast access. On the otherhand you want fail-proof child-proof safety. It's really difficult to get both, no matter what the solution. I'm kinda glad i'm not having kids because i can imagine this is not a fun decision to make. I don't envy those who have to make it.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    It’s really not that hard. You get a safe that’s designed for fast access and you don’t tell anyone else the code. You shouldn’t need and shouldn’t want additional layers of security or procedure etc.

spicybright 3y ago

Definitely, it's one of those technologies that needs to be dumb and reliable because of how life and death it's use is. Like if you need to use your gun, you probably need to in a hurry. What if you have grease or dirt on your hands when you need to scan your finger? There's already bio-metric safes if one wants it, and you're almost always going to need a gun safe anyways if you own a firearm.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
The most common uses of a gun in the a US home is suicide, or death by negligent discharge by a child (I use the term negligent discharge because it's the adult's responsibility to secure the gun.) "Homeowner stops break-in" is exceedingly rare as to be statistically insignificant, and it really needs to stop being cited by everyone as a reason for everything from permissive gun legislation to arguments against technologies like this.
- harimau777 3y ago
  The statistics on "homeowner stops break-in" aren't as cut and dry as we might think. As I understand it, the studies that gun control activists cite tend to only count "gun used for self defense" if it was actually fired. However, the much more common scenario is that the defender draws a gun and the criminal flees. To me that definitely counts as "homeowner stops break-in".
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > Homeowner stops break-in" is exceedingly rare as to be statistically insignificant Incorrect. You have any stats to back that up?
StrangeATractor 3y ago
> Definitely, it's one of those technologies that needs to be dumb and reliable because of how life and death it's use is. This is why a lot of people still use revolvers instead of automatics. Doesn't get much simpler.