Skyrad 0 #1 July 13, 2010 You loose your pistol but now don't have to worry about being shot with. http://www.gizmag.com/armatrix-wristwatch-safety-system-for-handguns/14044/When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #2 July 13, 2010 I can see some pro's and con's with the watch from reading the article. I also remember seeing a little device worn on the trigger finger some time ago that pretty much did the same as the watch. I have no feedback on the device and have never talked to anyone who ever used it either.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #3 July 13, 2010 People have been inventing and pushing similar devices for a while now. None of them have caught on and that is due to fears over reliability of such a device. Toys and gadgets do not make up for using a top quality retention holster, proper carrying techniques and solid retention training! Also, if you're a CCH, then why would someone know you had a weapon to steal? If the weapon is drawn, then it is a scenario that you should be in fear for your life (or other appropriate situation) and the person won't have the opportunity to grab your weapon. If you're a police officer and are carrying open, then you should have good weapon retention training based on a national standard, like PPCT techniques, and should be carrying with a high retention holster, like a level 3 holster from Safariland.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 July 13, 2010 QuoteYou loose your pistol but now don't have to worry about being shot with. Uh, you still would, if you're in a scuffle. Only proximity to the watch is required. A watch that btw, screams out GUN GUN GUN! But more critically, you have to worry if you're pointing a paperweight or a gun now. So many failure points - batteries, electrical connections, radio wave interference. Every proposal to require biometric devices for guns (these are not remotely new as a concept) have exempted law enforcement. That says all you need to know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #5 July 13, 2010 J ... I'm more worried by the fact that you're reading something called Jizz mag (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 July 13, 2010 QuoteEvery proposal to require biometric devices for guns (these are not remotely new as a concept) have exempted law enforcement. That says all you need to know. +1Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #7 July 13, 2010 Yep...they been around for years , and Not one has been accepted by any police force, telling me, they simply are not worth the trouble! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #8 July 13, 2010 QuoteYep...they been around for years , and Not one has been accepted by any police force, telling me, they simply are not worth the trouble! Are you referring to the guns equipped with biometric recognition? Meaning it will fire only if it recognizes the owner's hand print? One problem I can see with this is that in case there is a firefight involving multiple officers vs criminals, if an officer gets shot and can't shoot back and another officer next to him needs to grab his gun quick, he can't fire it. Or am I wrong?"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 July 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteYep...they been around for years , and Not one has been accepted by any police force, telling me, they simply are not worth the trouble! Are you referring to the guns equipped with biometric recognition? Meaning it will fire only if it recognizes the owner's hand print? One problem I can see with this is that in case there is a firefight involving multiple officers vs criminals, if an officer gets shot and can't shoot back and another officer next to him needs to grab his gun quick, he can't fire it. Or am I wrong? You could program in other biometrics, I'm sure. A different look at the argument is "if it's not stable/reliable enough for use by police and/or military, it's not stable/reliable enough to use at all".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #10 July 13, 2010 >Yep...they been around for years , and Not one has been accepted by >any police force, telling me, they simply are not worth the trouble! Well, except that technology gets better. There was a time that the thought of putting a computer in every car was absurd. Expensive! Huge! Unreliable! And yet today's cars have dozens - and are far more reliable than cars from decades ago. I have no doubt a reliable biometric scanner will become available, and will be able to tell down to any reasonable accuracy who the user is. And some will still oppose it out of principle, of course; there is always someone out there who will oppose _something_ on principle. Which is fine - but will not be evidence of its utility or functionality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 July 13, 2010 QuoteI have no doubt a reliable biometric scanner will become available, and will be able to tell down to any reasonable accuracy who the user is. Gloves? Blood? Different grip? QuoteAnd some will still oppose it out of principle, of course; there is always someone out there who will oppose _something_ on principle. Which is fine - but will not be evidence of its utility or functionality. When they get it stable enough that police/military weapons all have it, I'll support it - not until then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #12 July 13, 2010 >Gloves? Blood? Different grip? There are a lot of methods. One fairly easy way is to make the grip pressure sensitive, then have the user fire it on a range; record pressures on various locations in the grip and use a pattern matching algorithm to match the learned pressure profiles with new ones. A person's grip is both fairly unique and not under their conscious control. >When they get it stable enough that police/military weapons all have >it, I'll support it - not until then. Will you refuse to use airbags and catalytic converters until all military vehicles have them? Would be sort of a silly bar to set. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 July 13, 2010 Quote>Gloves? Blood? Different grip? There are a lot of methods. One fairly easy way is to make the grip pressure sensitive, then have the user fire it on a range; record pressures on various locations in the grip and use a pattern matching algorithm to match the learned pressure profiles with new ones. A person's grip is both fairly unique and not under their conscious control. If you make the LARGE assumption that they will have the same firing grip and pressure every time, and that gloves (if worn) don't skew the results out of parameters, yes. Quote>When they get it stable enough that police/military weapons all have >it, I'll support it - not until then. Will you refuse to use airbags and catalytic converters until all military vehicles have them? HMMWV's have catalytic converters, and the military has put airbags in aircraft and helos already. QuoteWould be sort of a silly bar to set. Guess that explains the silly comment attempting to equate the two.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #14 July 13, 2010 >If you make the LARGE assumption that they will have the same firing grip >and pressure every time, and that gloves (if worn) don't skew the results >out of parameters, yes. You don't need the same grip and pressure each time, just a grip similar to a grip you had in the past. And if you wear gloves during part of the training period, it will learn the pressure changes associated with gloves as well. >HMMWV's have catalytic converters And M-113's don't. Still, would be silly to say that "therefore they're not stable enough for my Dodge." >Guess that explains the silly comment attempting to equate the two. I'm not the one saying that "if it doesn't work in a military weapon it won't work for civilian use." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 July 13, 2010 QuoteQuote>If you make the LARGE assumption that they will have the same firing grip and pressure every time, and that gloves (if worn) don't skew the results out of parameters, yes. You don't need the same grip and pressure each time, just a grip similar to a grip you had in the past. And if you wear gloves during part of the training period, it will learn the pressure changes associated with gloves as well. Glad to know you're working on this, Bill - how much luck have you had with it so far? Get it stable/reliable enough that the police and military are using it, and I'll consider using it as well. QuoteQuote>HMMWV's have catalytic converters And M-113's don't. Still, would be silly to say that "therefore they're not stable enough for my Dodge." Good thing I'm not saying that, then. So - now that we've got the catalytic converter bullcrap shot out of the water, care to come back to the discussion at hand, or would you rather continue the attempts to take cheap shots at me? QuoteQuote>Guess that explains the silly comment attempting to equate the two. I'm not the one saying that "if it doesn't work in a military weapon it won't work for civilian use." Correct, you're not. Of course, I'm not saying that either, but acknowledging that would mean you'd have to argue why the police and military should be exempted from it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyrider 0 #16 July 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteYep...they been around for years , and Not one has been accepted by any police force, telling me, they simply are not worth the trouble! Are you referring to the guns equipped with biometric recognition? Meaning it will fire only if it recognizes the owner's hand print? One problem I can see with this is that in case there is a firefight involving multiple officers vs criminals, if an officer gets shot and can't shoot back and another officer next to him needs to grab his gun quick, he can't fire it. Or am I wrong? The first ones I heard of the user wore a Ring.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #17 July 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteYep...they been around for years , and Not one has been accepted by any police force, telling me, they simply are not worth the trouble! Are you referring to the guns equipped with biometric recognition? Meaning it will fire only if it recognizes the owner's hand print? One problem I can see with this is that in case there is a firefight involving multiple officers vs criminals, if an officer gets shot and can't shoot back and another officer next to him needs to grab his gun quick, he can't fire it. Or am I wrong? The first ones I heard of the user wore a Ring.... Yes - and police and military were exempted from that, too. Couldn't be because it wasn't reliable enough, no....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #18 July 13, 2010 Quote>If you make the LARGE assumption that they will have the same firing grip >and pressure every time, and that gloves (if worn) don't skew the results >out of parameters, yes. You don't need the same grip and pressure each time, just a grip similar to a grip you had in the past. And if you wear gloves during part of the training period, it will learn the pressure changes associated with gloves as well. oh, neat, you've come up with an even more fail prone solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. You don't think a person (cop, whatever) in a violent situation might even up sustaining blows to the hand that would impact his grip consistency? Hell, even temperature variations (ie, winter) may impact that. There's a reason why many skydivers see no reason to move from a visual analog altimeter to an electronic. Little gained, and far more ways for it to fail. A gun is a controlled explosion chamber. Lot of heat and vibration. Not the best environment for electronics that have to be reliable, and can't default to shoot if the system fails. What you end up with is something you can't trust, and now everyone has to walk around with two guns instead. The primary motivator for this sort of legislation is to increase the cost and decrease the availability of guns to the people, esp the poorer ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #19 July 13, 2010 QuoteOne fairly easy way is to make the grip pressure sensitive, then have the user fire it on a range; record pressures on various locations in the grip and use a pattern matching algorithm to match the learned pressure profiles with new ones. A person's grip is both fairly unique and not under their conscious control. Do you want to bet your life on that method in a life-or-death situation? How you hold it during target practice may be different from how you hold it in a life-threatening situation. Your off hand may be holding a phone now, instead of reinforcing your strong hand grip on the gun. You're going to be more tense and grip it tighter. Things change. And then when the intruder attacks, and you need the gun to work, all you get is "click"... Some developers are trying to use fingerprints for biometric I.D. But if fingerprints never change, then how come I have to send new ones to the State every five years when I renew my concealed handgun license? And what happens when I've got cuts on my fingers, or I've got epoxy stuck on them from working on a project in the garage? Nope, forget that stuff. When my life is on the line, I want the simplest mechanical life-saving device I can get. And that's a gun, as currently designed. If manufacturers want to offer such guns for consumers, that's okay with me. However, governments should NOT mandate that ONLY these types of guns are permissible for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #20 July 13, 2010 Quote J ... I'm more worried by the fact that you're reading something called Jizz mag LOLWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #21 July 14, 2010 >Do you want to bet your life on that method in a life-or-death situation? If it works well enough, sure. I currently bet my life on more complex systems when I drive and when I fly. >You're going to be more tense and grip it tighter. Not a problem with the kind of system we're talking about. It senses the _pattern_ of your grip, the points of pressure caused by how your muscles move your bones against the grip. >But if fingerprints never change, then how come I have to send new ones >to the State every five years when I renew my concealed handgun license? 1) Fingerprints do change to a degree with time - and for adaptive systems that's not a problem. 2) Fingerprints are just one of the many ways to do biometric ID. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #22 July 14, 2010 Quote>When they get it stable enough that police/military weapons all have >it, I'll support it - not until then. Will you refuse to use airbags and catalytic converters until all military vehicles have them? Would be sort of a silly bar to set. Well sure, for catalytics converters, airbags, and many other things that's a silly bar to set. (although I'm glad to hear they finally got bread worked out.) Or is your complaint strictly with the word "all"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #23 July 14, 2010 QuoteOne fairly easy way is to make the grip pressure sensitive, then have the user fire it on a range; record pressures on various locations in the grip and use a pattern matching algorithm to match the learned pressure profiles with new ones. A person's grip is both fairly unique and not under their conscious control. Then you can't single hand, or offhand shoot the weapon. QuoteWill you refuse to use airbags and catalytic converters until all military vehicles have them? Would be sort of a silly bar to set. I would have the same argument against airbags that only work with a certain butt print. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #24 July 14, 2010 1. The watch removes the ability to really be concealed. 2. What happens in the middle of the night when I don't normally wear a watch? 3. It adds a complex technical solution to a simple problem. 4. It is not considered safe enough for the police, so it should not be mandated for civilians. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wolfriverjoe 1,523 #25 July 14, 2010 Quote>Do you want to bet your life on that method in a life-or-death situation? If it works well enough, sure. I currently bet my life on more complex systems when I drive and when I fly. If it works well enough, I agree. But none of these sorts of devices have met that standard yet according to the police. Even though a significant percentage of cops are shot with their own weapon (the stats are somewhere in here recently), NO POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS ADOPTED ANY OF THESE SYSTEMS. They have airbags in their cars (and catalytic converters too), but they don't trust these systems well enough to adopt them. You say you "currently bet my life on more complex systems.." but do you really? Which ones are in your car? ABS maybe, but all of those are "fail-safe". With the possible exception of the Toyota "drive by wire" throttle problems of late, there are very few systems in a car that would have near certain death as a consequence of failure. The closest I can think of is an AAD. And you have said that having one of those not activate when it should in order to make it less likely to activate when it shouldn't is an acceptable trade-off. If one of these fails to "undisable" the weapon when you need it to fire, you are more than likely dead. Until the civilian police adopt this technology on their weapons, I will strongly resist having it on mine."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
skyrider 0 #16 July 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteYep...they been around for years , and Not one has been accepted by any police force, telling me, they simply are not worth the trouble! Are you referring to the guns equipped with biometric recognition? Meaning it will fire only if it recognizes the owner's hand print? One problem I can see with this is that in case there is a firefight involving multiple officers vs criminals, if an officer gets shot and can't shoot back and another officer next to him needs to grab his gun quick, he can't fire it. Or am I wrong? The first ones I heard of the user wore a Ring.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 July 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteYep...they been around for years , and Not one has been accepted by any police force, telling me, they simply are not worth the trouble! Are you referring to the guns equipped with biometric recognition? Meaning it will fire only if it recognizes the owner's hand print? One problem I can see with this is that in case there is a firefight involving multiple officers vs criminals, if an officer gets shot and can't shoot back and another officer next to him needs to grab his gun quick, he can't fire it. Or am I wrong? The first ones I heard of the user wore a Ring.... Yes - and police and military were exempted from that, too. Couldn't be because it wasn't reliable enough, no....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 July 13, 2010 Quote>If you make the LARGE assumption that they will have the same firing grip >and pressure every time, and that gloves (if worn) don't skew the results >out of parameters, yes. You don't need the same grip and pressure each time, just a grip similar to a grip you had in the past. And if you wear gloves during part of the training period, it will learn the pressure changes associated with gloves as well. oh, neat, you've come up with an even more fail prone solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. You don't think a person (cop, whatever) in a violent situation might even up sustaining blows to the hand that would impact his grip consistency? Hell, even temperature variations (ie, winter) may impact that. There's a reason why many skydivers see no reason to move from a visual analog altimeter to an electronic. Little gained, and far more ways for it to fail. A gun is a controlled explosion chamber. Lot of heat and vibration. Not the best environment for electronics that have to be reliable, and can't default to shoot if the system fails. What you end up with is something you can't trust, and now everyone has to walk around with two guns instead. The primary motivator for this sort of legislation is to increase the cost and decrease the availability of guns to the people, esp the poorer ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #19 July 13, 2010 QuoteOne fairly easy way is to make the grip pressure sensitive, then have the user fire it on a range; record pressures on various locations in the grip and use a pattern matching algorithm to match the learned pressure profiles with new ones. A person's grip is both fairly unique and not under their conscious control. Do you want to bet your life on that method in a life-or-death situation? How you hold it during target practice may be different from how you hold it in a life-threatening situation. Your off hand may be holding a phone now, instead of reinforcing your strong hand grip on the gun. You're going to be more tense and grip it tighter. Things change. And then when the intruder attacks, and you need the gun to work, all you get is "click"... Some developers are trying to use fingerprints for biometric I.D. But if fingerprints never change, then how come I have to send new ones to the State every five years when I renew my concealed handgun license? And what happens when I've got cuts on my fingers, or I've got epoxy stuck on them from working on a project in the garage? Nope, forget that stuff. When my life is on the line, I want the simplest mechanical life-saving device I can get. And that's a gun, as currently designed. If manufacturers want to offer such guns for consumers, that's okay with me. However, governments should NOT mandate that ONLY these types of guns are permissible for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #20 July 13, 2010 Quote J ... I'm more worried by the fact that you're reading something called Jizz mag LOLWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #21 July 14, 2010 >Do you want to bet your life on that method in a life-or-death situation? If it works well enough, sure. I currently bet my life on more complex systems when I drive and when I fly. >You're going to be more tense and grip it tighter. Not a problem with the kind of system we're talking about. It senses the _pattern_ of your grip, the points of pressure caused by how your muscles move your bones against the grip. >But if fingerprints never change, then how come I have to send new ones >to the State every five years when I renew my concealed handgun license? 1) Fingerprints do change to a degree with time - and for adaptive systems that's not a problem. 2) Fingerprints are just one of the many ways to do biometric ID. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #22 July 14, 2010 Quote>When they get it stable enough that police/military weapons all have >it, I'll support it - not until then. Will you refuse to use airbags and catalytic converters until all military vehicles have them? Would be sort of a silly bar to set. Well sure, for catalytics converters, airbags, and many other things that's a silly bar to set. (although I'm glad to hear they finally got bread worked out.) Or is your complaint strictly with the word "all"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #23 July 14, 2010 QuoteOne fairly easy way is to make the grip pressure sensitive, then have the user fire it on a range; record pressures on various locations in the grip and use a pattern matching algorithm to match the learned pressure profiles with new ones. A person's grip is both fairly unique and not under their conscious control. Then you can't single hand, or offhand shoot the weapon. QuoteWill you refuse to use airbags and catalytic converters until all military vehicles have them? Would be sort of a silly bar to set. I would have the same argument against airbags that only work with a certain butt print. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #24 July 14, 2010 1. The watch removes the ability to really be concealed. 2. What happens in the middle of the night when I don't normally wear a watch? 3. It adds a complex technical solution to a simple problem. 4. It is not considered safe enough for the police, so it should not be mandated for civilians. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #25 July 14, 2010 Quote>Do you want to bet your life on that method in a life-or-death situation? If it works well enough, sure. I currently bet my life on more complex systems when I drive and when I fly. If it works well enough, I agree. But none of these sorts of devices have met that standard yet according to the police. Even though a significant percentage of cops are shot with their own weapon (the stats are somewhere in here recently), NO POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS ADOPTED ANY OF THESE SYSTEMS. They have airbags in their cars (and catalytic converters too), but they don't trust these systems well enough to adopt them. You say you "currently bet my life on more complex systems.." but do you really? Which ones are in your car? ABS maybe, but all of those are "fail-safe". With the possible exception of the Toyota "drive by wire" throttle problems of late, there are very few systems in a car that would have near certain death as a consequence of failure. The closest I can think of is an AAD. And you have said that having one of those not activate when it should in order to make it less likely to activate when it shouldn't is an acceptable trade-off. If one of these fails to "undisable" the weapon when you need it to fire, you are more than likely dead. Until the civilian police adopt this technology on their weapons, I will strongly resist having it on mine."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
