3 ms·
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, thi
by 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 agoTotally 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 agoAgreed, 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 agoIt’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.