Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Who Killed the Smart Gun?" video.

  1. +FuzzyOne[UK] there's about 700,000 cases of defensive gun use per year. Anti gun sources claim 100k, pro gun sources claim 2.5 million (even I find it excessive).
    3
  2. +Samantha Bayley there's small lockbox safes you can keep on a drawer or bolted to a nightstand. There's simplex mechanical locks, biometric locks, etc. that allow quick access. Leaving a smart gun in the open doesn't make sense. You should keep it in a safe because even a magnet can override the lock that prevents the firing.
    3
  3. +Firstname Lastname "So... lift a page from car licensing." - No license if you keep it at home (private property) - Not even registry, ever seen a NASCAR race with a license plate? - Heck, there's no limit on what kind of guns you can own, because motor vehicles in private property doesn't need to be road legal and can be as absurd as you want
    2
  4. If you let your kids play with firearms trusting an electronic gizmo won't save you from getting shot.
    1
  5. +Kamel the safety violations are worth complaining about, though.
    1
  6. +WeirdestWolf because if there's a reason to have a smart gun, then it should be locked away.
    1
  7. Let's break it down - if it has the RFID method, which is arguably the quickest, it's sensitive to hacking or even having the solenoid manipulated by a magnet which automatically makes it unsuitable to secure a gun. If it's a biometric scanner, it will be slowed down by cuts or dirt in the skin altering the fingerprints. It's not any more secure than a mechanical safety. It prevents unauthorized use but if I'm in a situation I actually need a gun, the situation has gone so wrong I might actually need an unauthorized person to access the gun for me and save me - while a code-base system can be transmitted easily, programming a new user into the gun isn't. It makes total sense that a lockbox not only serves as a much more secure system (unless the child plays with angle grinders or oxy torches a lot) but it also doesn't suffer from the pitfalls of biometric scanners being slow and requiring multiple attempts nor RFID's sensitivity to being hacked/jammed. The only possible situation where I would agree with a "smart gun" would be guns hidden under tables/inside cabinets with a magnet holding them in place. But then I would argue something like a Zore lock to be a superior choice, or that if you're leaving guns around the house you might as well just home-carry and maintain control over it at all times.
    1
  8. The solenoid is a better option than electric motor driving the locking piece. Either way, it still relies on a mechanical safety - aka the thing we're all told not to rely on. This isn't about hacking someone's specific gun. Just the fact that if people start using smart guns, some tech-savvy people will start making money by selling criminals something that jams signals or overpowers the sensors with noise, aka an electronic gizmo that "creates a gun free zone"around you. Hacking your specific gun? That's far fetched. But the option to protect you from smart guns? If you could pay a few bucks for that technology wouldn't you wear it during robberies? "Biometrics is good enough on phones" well I don't consider them good enough so I never use my biometric lock, second they're a massive security breach and everyone using biometrics on their phones and laptops is being stupid. There have been fingerprint database leaks, it's been proven that hackers can steal fingerprints off high res photos, and for the civil-liberty-conscious people having a biometric phone lock means the authorities can easily enter your devices. But I digress. They're considered "good enough" because even if you need to call 911, having to try two or three times is no big deal. But if you need a gun and it goes "click" because the biometric scanner failed , you might not get another chance. "And what situation are you gonna be in where someone else needs to unlock their gun for you to use? And how likely is that to happen?" How likely is it going to be that I'll need a gun? Very unlikely. You're asking me to consider a worst case scenario, but then asking me to think a home invasion will go smoothly under controlled conditions. There won't be any blood or sweat, I will not get injured, etc. And by the way, there are several news stories of underage kids being able to retrieve parent's guns and win gunfights versus career criminals. So it's not that far fetched that an unauthorized user may need to use the gun. "then why go through the bother of harassing and sending death threats to the manufacturers?" And where the fuck have I defended the threats? Why are you asking me that question?
    1
  9. +Bridger Peres the car transponder failing is a minor annoyance if I'm late to an appointment. A gun failing when you need it is just not acceptable.
    1