Dual-cam, a good idea for gun control?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Could be fine for police to implement.

I agree, I don't believe that they should be above those types of regulations and it would be a good way to test on a short scale if it's viable and adjust to the drawbacks.

a reply to: theMediator

The device could eject a sabotage liquid when limited number of bullets have been used after the expiration date of the last registering, stolen guns would only be usable for a limited time

Umm what?? Do you even know how firearms function?? Where is this sabotage liquid now?? A reservoir for a mechanical spray mechanism and a camera?? Do you have any idea how little sense that makes?? you would need quads on every firearm, and is clearly not even practical on handguns.

Sounds to me you tried to come up with the most burdensome platform possible to even use a firearm properly with function, with no actual thought on the entire platform, only the camera.

The anti sabotage mechanism alone would take up most of the available rail space, and likely add more weight than optics and a vertical/angled grip. This could only even be fully implemented on a rifle, and not even the lever/bolt action ones.

I think you should fully study how all the parts work together before you propose such outlandish attachments. A sensor to read your shot count would be very expensive, and the device probably would not even be practical to mount, probably the same price as the rifle?? Who pays for all this??

a reply to: AmericanRealist
I don't have extensive knowledge about firearms but I've adressed every single problems you are talking about in my OP.
I have already stated that my idea was rough, which means an idea that needs feedback and refining.

You just keep complaining and complaining yet offer no solutions other than negativism.

BTW, love your avatar. Secret of Mana is in my top games ever, especially the soundtrack!

a reply to: theMediator

I think a great idea would be to make a lock so the gun can't fire without a user activating the gun. Or maybe if the owner has a chip on him or his cellphone. Maybe a fingerprint?

a reply to: JDmOKI

Decent ideas but a little dangerous towards hacking.
Someone could be framed.

a reply to: theMediator
I did offer feedback. I just explained to you how all the things that you mentioned in the op would barely even fit on a full length rifle, let alone a carbine, SBR, SBS, or a handgun for that matter. The solution is a simple one, stick to the camera alone if you want. The other items you mentioned, tamper proof liquid to sabotage the firing mechanism requires a reservoir. Liquids are heavy, the extra sensors to even count the shots would also be heavy, and likely wear down very quick.

If I had to ballpark your idea in todays dollars with current capabilities, I would estimate at well over $2000 with all the equipment you mentioned, and we have no more space to even add ACTUAL purpose driven equipment like optics, grips, bipods, lights, lasers etc etc.

Stick to the camera alone. Not one single person will ever volunteer to buy equipment that will ruin their gun.

Yea Secret of Mana was very badass. Didn't the Sprite or the Blonde use a gun at some point in the game too???

a reply to: JDmOKI

this technology already exists, and not one has been sold yet

In most cases, biometric gun locks come in the form of a fingerprint trigger lock. This means that the lock requires your fingerprint to open. The lock includes a small scanner, which is used to scan your fingerprint, putting it into the memory of the lock.

Once that biometric information is stored, you will need to apply your finger to the scanner so it can read your fingerprint and authenticate it before allowing the lock to open.

Update, We have not found a biometric gun trigger lock that we can recommend at this time. The last one we tested did not work very well and the company has since gone out of business.

Please Contact Us if you find a Biometric fingerprint Trigger Lock and signup for our Biometric Security Devices Newsletter and we will notify you when we test one.

There has been renewed interest in smart guns since the Newtown school shooting, which reinvigorated the gun-control debate. However, there is immense pressure not to be the first to sell them. That’s because of a New Jersey law passed in 2002 known as the Childproof Handgun Law, which says that all guns sold in New Jersey must be state-approved smart guns within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. The goal was to make smart guns mandatory as soon as the technology existed. Officially, no smart gun has been sold in the US yet — meaning if Raymond had sold one, it would have triggered the clause in New Jersey.

"My apologies to the people of New Jersey," Raymond said in the video, which was posted to Facebook but has since been deleted. "I did not know that I would be screwing you over."

This will all make more sense on energy weapons next century anyways. Does not really git into the 21st century right now.

a reply to: theMediator

Nope ! I read your entire post. A few have offered you kudos for thinking out of the box. Those are kind gestures.

" Well at least, some are trying to find solutions instead of giving up." I don't view guns as problems. I have, on three

occasions found being armed the perfect solution.

" I find your lack of faith disturbing :p " < Oh Well ! Things you view as " Advantages " I see as sophomoric and

unworthy of consideration. I'm honestly sorry if that bruises your ego. Cheers

a reply to: DeepThoughtCriminal

I don't agree with banning full auto for civilian use, but I do respect what you're saying. Most people would actually agree, even if they're too stubborn too say it out loud, an average civilian doesn't need a full auto to punch paper or light up a deer. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be obtainable. Wouldn't that just make people want to convert their semi into a full auto a lot more? Wanting what you can't have, and we all know, they will find a way to convert it if they want it bad enough anyway. Popping a bunch of watermelons or gallon jugs of water with a full auto is the most fun you can have with your pants on, in my opinion. Others might say a lightning fast Ferrari would be more fun, but no one really needs that either.

As far as the dual-lens concept, I'm not opposed to the idea, but it wouldn't deter a criminal or out-of-control cop. It wouldn't be an annoyance, if the camera was small enough, but I don't see a realistic benefit. And the only way to prevent tampering is if the shooter doesn't know it's there. Obviously, anyone who uses the firearm in the wrong way is going to prevent the camera from being used against them. At least you're exploring new ideas to reduce gun violence without the thought of removing the firearm. No gadget is going to keep an unstable mind from controlling the finger that pulls the bang switch, just like no amount of gun restrictions or background checks will ever keep all firearms out of the wrong hands.

I'm going to stop short of bashing you because you seem quite . . . . naive to say the least. I don't say that in a demeaning way, but virtually every thing you posted almost seems child-like in it's solutions

Cameras can simply be removed, I mean it's pretty much that simple.
Where is the magic fluid that stops the operation of the gun going to be stored? Even if it could be stored locally on the gun, would it be practically implemented? When a gun fires, it has a very violent reaction, tens of thousands of psi of gas propels a metal projectile out of a metal barrel and it cycles quicker than you can blink your eye. I don't know that you could ever store a fluid on board the weapon that could stand up to thousands upon thousands of rounds doing that.
EVEN IF you could mount two cameras on board a gun, and even if there was no way to remove them, criminals would simply wear a mask when they use the gun, or in lieu of that, a little duct/ electrical tape never hurt anything.

As for say "protecting animals outside of hunting season" You do realize that sometime shots are taken at distances more a hundred yards right? I don't know how good you think average camera technology is, but I don't think any camera that is robust and small enough to fit on a weapon would be able to accurately identify an animal that might be 150-200 yards away.

As I said, it seems as if your answers are almost child-like in their nature. Not insulting you, but if you want to propose solutions on guns, might do well to educate yourself on firearms.

My main question is how would duel cameras prevent anything,its a reactive idea not proactive.
it would give the bad guys something to upload to Youtube for bragging rights

a reply to: theMediator

might work for police officers,put cameras on their guns like you say,have the footage be uploaded to a neutral server for oversight in police use of force shootings,but the average gun owner would not go for this