Hacker News Reader

Comment by eigenvalue | Hacker News Reader

I don't own a gun (I've never even shot a gun before), but I came across this video on YouTube and I'm really impressed with how thoughtfully this BioFire gun was designed. If I did ever purchase a gun, I think for sure I'd insist on something like this, since the main risk seems to be your kids finding it or an attacker overpowering you and shooting you with your own gun, both of which would be prevented by this. Also you don't have to worry about someone stealing the gun and committing crimes with it (maybe it can be hacked, but probably not by the typical home invader!). Anyway, thought I'd share it with HN.

View on HN

"since the main risk seems to be your kids finding it"

Not an issue if you're storing it properly. Even if you have biometrics it should still be stored properly to prevent theft.

"or an attacker overpowering you and shooting you with your own gun"

Gear is no replacement for training. Even if they can't shoot you with it, you have much larger problems if they can overpower and disarm you. It won't stop them from bludgeoning you to death with, etc.

"Also you don't have to worry about someone stealing the gun and committing crimes with it (maybe it can be hacked, but probably not by the typical home invader!)."

That's not really how criminal systems work. Usually your common criminals are selling the stuff they steal on the black market. You have specialized shops (organized crime) who buy stuff like this (guns, phones, computers, etc) and can hack it and resell it.

It's an interesting concept, but it will likely take a lot of testing. "Well-designed" is a matter of opinion, and not everyone shares that view.

>It won't stop them from bludgeoning you to death with, etc.

Fun fact: you only get bludgeoned to death _because_ you own guns. In most of the civilized world, people do not get assaulted in their own home by thieves. Thieves see that you're awake, run away because handling the police is more trouble than it's worth, done.

>> Fun fact: you only get bludgeoned to death _because_ you own guns. In most of the civilized world, people do not get assaulted in their own home by thieves. Thieves see that you're awake, run away because handling the police is more trouble than it's worth, done.

Citations needed.

What distinguishes how intruders will react? When intruders are in your home, how do you know it is burglary versus home invasion, sexual assualt, kidnapping, etc. ?

>> In most of the civilized world, people do not get assaulted in their own home by thieves.

What defines "the civilized world"?

In many parts of South America and Central America criminals will kill victims and witnesses so that no one will be able to identify them or testify against them. How do you know what intruders will or will not do?

>> Thieves see that you're awake, run away because handling the police is more trouble than it's worth, done.

Depends on the intruders (how do you know they are thieves?), depends on the police, depends on the speed of police response.

If the intruders can stop you from calling the police and you are not a significant threat, why would they run away?

You are saying that a greater risk of being shot during a home invasion makes a thief more likely to break in? That doesn't make sense.

No he's saying they are more likely to bludgeon you because you may have a gun and shoot them before they can run away.

Kids are a constant presence in your house, bullet after bullet and stomach pump after stomach pump confirms that that's an entirely different threat model than a safe can handle.

If guns like these were pervasive, a typical home invader would likely know who they can flip it to, who would know how to hack it.

And soon enough, even your kids would learn how to hack it (if not before: kids really like figuring out stuff they are not supposed to do!).

I don't own a gun either (though I shot one in a shooting range twice), but if I was ever worried I'd need to defend myself with guns, I'd probably stockpile on live rounds instead of guns: in a case where people would need to rise to arms, I figure rounds will quickly become more valuable and could be easily exchanged for a gun with someone without any rounds.

Your average home invader is not going to do the necessary preparation especially if they are addicted to O.P.M. (other people's money).

Selling it after the fact does not really require any preparation: I guess you meant they won't come prepared to hack it, which I agree with.

If biometric-auth guns were pervasive yet hackable, petty criminals will likely have a way to easily sell them off to someone better equipped to hack them. I was mostly countering whether biometric auth would stop them feom being used for crimes after getting stolen.

> And soon enough, even your kids would learn how to hack it

How would a kid get the firearm? Are firearm owners/parents elsewhere so irresponsible that they leave firearms lying around unsecured?

That’s the whole value prop of this gun: you can leave it outside of a safe. Otherwise you have both a safe (definitely secure + reliable) and a second, certainly more finicky safety device within the safe, which doesn’t really improve anything except your odds of losing whatever is about to happen.

Insane proposition IMO.

> an attacker overpowering you and shooting you with your own gun

I know you're not arguing otherwise, but this never happens, and it's one of those annoying arguments that anti-gun people use to justify banning and confiscation.

Once they've overpowered you, they could just smash in your skull with your gun, or with a brick.

I’ve often thought the best home defense weapon is a baseball bat with a flashlight taped to the eye. Quick shine in the eye and wham.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com