Hacker News Reader

Comment by spicybright | Hacker News Reader

Definitely, it's one of those technologies that needs to be dumb and reliable because of how life and death it's use is.

Like if you need to use your gun, you probably need to in a hurry. What if you have grease or dirt on your hands when you need to scan your finger?

There's already bio-metric safes if one wants it, and you're almost always going to need a gun safe anyways if you own a firearm.

View on HN

> Definitely, it's one of those technologies that needs to be dumb and reliable because of how life and death it's use is.

This is why a lot of people still use revolvers instead of automatics. Doesn't get much simpler.

The most common uses of a gun in the a US home is suicide, or death by negligent discharge by a child (I use the term negligent discharge because it's the adult's responsibility to secure the gun.)

"Homeowner stops break-in" is exceedingly rare as to be statistically insignificant, and it really needs to stop being cited by everyone as a reason for everything from permissive gun legislation to arguments against technologies like this.

The statistics on "homeowner stops break-in" aren't as cut and dry as we might think. As I understand it, the studies that gun control activists cite tend to only count "gun used for self defense" if it was actually fired. However, the much more common scenario is that the defender draws a gun and the criminal flees. To me that definitely counts as "homeowner stops break-in".

> Homeowner stops break-in" is exceedingly rare as to be statistically insignificant

Incorrect. You have any stats to back that up?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com