It may be the wine I had this evening but...I mean, I can't argue with you on most aspects of this discussion. I do, however, fully stand behind the biometric device. I believe it's a great idea to prevent illegal use of handguns which lead to incidents such as the one here. Your wife/friend/neighbor may not be able to play with it at the range, but maybe something can be done about finding a way to activate/deactivate the device. Only you as the owner would have the option to do so though.
And the argument where someone threatens you at knifepoint or whatever is a bit silly, but I was trying to look at every viable option to try to cover all grounds in favor of the biometric device.
I do have to admit that you're probably the first person with a different belief than mine who's successfully managed to get me to agree with some of their viewpoints.
One of the primary reasons people are opposed to mandatory biometrics, is really simple: Reliability.
A lot of people, in the US, have firearms for self defense (or partially for that reason). The problem with biometics is, is that it introduces a failure mode to the firearm. If it doesn't work, when you
need it to? Well, you're shit out of luck.
Hell, some people still only carry revolvers for self defense, because they view the possibility of a semi-automatic pistol jamming, as too much of a risk, if their life were at stake; even though a quality pistol might only jam once in 10,000 rounds of ammunition fired through it. Because they don't know when that jam will occur, on the second round, or the very last round fired.
Biometrics, however, adds in electronics. Electronics have always had issues with vibration, impact, and need a power source.
Yes, lot of people use red dot sights on their rifles, some are switching to red dot sights on their pistols, or add laser designators. And yet regardless of what red dot sight is chosen? You might get one that works for a period, and then flakes out. Some fail sue to vibrations causing stress fractures in the mounting of SMDs (surface mount devices, like resistors and such), some fail because of faulty batteries.
But none of this stops the firearm from being
used.
Biometrics? Does. Biometric locking also involves more complicated electronics than just a red dot, or a laser. It requires a sensor to read your finger print. It requires memory to store information. It requires a processor to...process information. It requires a servo or a linear actuator, an electromagnet. And it requires a battery. All of these can fail, at any given point. If/when they do? The gun is a metal brick. That's all it is. Hell, there's a company that is working on a biometrically locked gun, that uses electromagnets to lock it, but the lock can be bypassed, or engaged...by an outside magnet.
On top of all this, is the need for a battery. Now, I wish every single person who owns a firearm for self defense took defensive gun use classes, and took meticulous care of their chosen self defense armament. But that is a childish dream, because while some do? Many do not. Many walk into a gun store and buy a small pistol, and maybe put a magazine through it once every 2-6 years...if ever. What happens when these people
need their chosen tool, but it is a brick because the battery is dead?
Another reason against biometrics...is cost. In 2014, Armatix released a pistol called the iP1. A .22 LR caliber handgun, that needed a matching wristwatch to unlock it. Cost for the set? $1800. For a .22 LR, blowback pistol. In 2014.
For comparison, a Ruger SR-22 costs $420, Walther P22 is $300. Around $420 for a Browning Buckmark .22. These are all high quality pistols, known for the their reliability. They are not cheap, off brand pistols. They are also known to be reliable, where the iP1, during a review, could not fire through its 10 round magazine, once, during testing.
In 2016, Armatix announced their new pistol, the iP9, which was set to release in 2017. I haven't heard about it since 2016 really. Advertised price then was $1356. Again, more than double the cost of currently available, quality, 9mm handguns.
Costs will come down. But to parity with "dumb" guns? I doubt it. They will always be less reliable than "dumb" guns as well, due to the inherent nature of the beast.
I personally am against the idea of making them mandatory.
Member
Shin Ghost Note