Second Amendment and Safe Guns

This is NOT anything like Fingerprint-based Licensing!

The owner of the gunshop is the only person who ever BRIEFLY obtains a Thumbprint, and no record of that Thumbprint is preserved anywhere. It is only used in a piece of electronics in the Gun Store, commonly called a 'chip burner' to generate a RAM electronic memory file, embedded inside that gun. Neither the store nor any government Agency ever preserves any Record of the Thumbprint. So there is no 'invasion of privacy' issue. Only the gun itself preserves any record of the gun owner's electronic Thumbprint, electronically, in order to try to confirm the validity of the Gun Owner's identity. The SINGLE function of the electronic Thumbprint is to be able to ensure that only the gun owner could ever activate that gun's Password.

EVERY gun should be quickly, easily and inexpensively altered or replaced to only be functional for a period of 12-hours by an embedded password. Gun owners would have the best of all worlds, in having access to unlimited supplies of the weapons they love, while ensuring that the public will never be injured by any of those weapons.

Existing Guns

Spark-Ignited Guns

Modern technology has advanced to the point where such high-voltage ignition coils have become physically very small, easily embeddable within even a small gun's handle.

Instead of the trigger having to physically power the cocking of the mechanism and then actuating the release of it, this new technology only needs a 'trigger' which is simply an electrical switch, which should be much more durable and reliable.

There are a variety of other modern technologies that might be used to create the high-voltage electrical spark. An obvious possibility is a Piezoelectric chip, which is used in countless modern devices to create a brief electrical pulse. That variant would not even need to have any batteries or capacitors to store electricity.

Notice that the GENTLE trigger press needed to close an electrical switch is NOT as bad regarding affecting aim of the gun as current guns are during the squeezing of the trigger. In accuracy competitions, this approach seems likely to always win!

Thumbprint-based Guns

But the gun's electronic circuitry also has a RAM permanent memory chip that contains the digital data of the gun-owner's thumbprint. This is obtained and embedded in just a few seconds during the purchase of the gun. RAM is a unique type of computer memory which becomes 'programmed' in a process called 'burning' the RAM chip. This very standard process PERMANENTLY alters the memory contents of the RAM, in this case to permanently record the line patterns of the person's thumbprint into that specific gun. Once that person's thumbprint is recorded in that gun's RAM, no other person could ever activate that gun to ever fire.

In the process of the gun owner re-newing the password, the gun-owner's thumbprint must be applied to an area on the side of the gun handle, and it must match the digital data of the burned and embedded RAM digital thumbprint in order that the password be re-activated.

The gun can never be fired without a correct match of that biometric thumbprint data (for the next 12 hours) with the owner of the gun.

The sensitive electronics are several inches away from the high-voltage sparks inside the ammunition cartridge and also away from the high-voltage coil that creates those sparks. The gun's 'trigger' is not a mechanical device like in conventional guns but instead is simply an electrical switch. This switch activates circuitry which checks with the computer for confirmation of the Password / Thumbprint match, and then it activates the high-voltage electrical coil which creates the 25,000 volts that will ignite the powder inside the ammunition cartridge. An ignition-type spark is generated inside the ammunition cartridge to fire the bullet.

These drawings show a single-shot pistol, and a Revolver or other Repeater gun alternatives are obviously similar.

Any person (or child) could TRY to provide the needed thumbprint, but the gun's electronics would never actuate the gun except by the single person who is the gun owner.

Other Biometric-based Guns

Facial Recognition has probably already been used regarding you, where a Smart Card that you currently hold probably contains a microchip which stores your personal data. The general process suggested here is essentially the same as you are already subjected to when you want to use some modern Credit Cards, where you are required to provide identification which matches the data biometric characteristics recorded on the Smart Card.

Some years back, the FBI demonstrated a Facial Recognition system at a Superbowl, where the government claimed that they would identify thousands of known criminals in the Superbowl crowds of that day, but I have never heard any comments about the success of that day. It is mentioned here to suggest that the Facial Recognition technology might be advanced enough where it might be usable for this purpose. A tremendous disadvantage of Facial Recognition is that aging or even sunglasses or a beard or a different hairstyle can fool many of the Facial Recognition programs (at least so far).

Manufacturers of laptop computers and cellular telephones are actively looking into the idea of using Thumbprint identification to help reduce the rampant problem of such devices being stolen.

Retinal Pattern Recognition is also a growing field. It is INTERIOR in the eye and so not alterable, and it is also unique to each individual, as completely as fingerprints are. With the very wide availability of camera phones today, it may become possible for a gun-owner to look closely into a cel-phone to confirm a digital image of the pattern of veins within the retina of his own eye, regarding providing the required security confirmation of the PASSWORD renewal process of re-activating a gun. I personally suspect that a thumbprint process might be quicker and easier, but there may be many other possibilities available. There is another eye-based biometric approach which uses a photo of the (colored) iris of an eye, which is also unique.

It may someday be practical to use (partial) DNA matching for this function, but for now it is far too expensive and too time-consuming to do.

I don't see that anywhere in its text is there any reference to being allowed to carry weapons absolutely anywhere. It seems to me that the Second Amendment text instead makes very clear that any American has a right to have and use weapons on one's own property. In other words, as per the stated "right of the people to keep and bear Arms", to defend one's own property (or country). NOT to be capable of winning street fights or flaunting one's ego!

Rather than permitting every drunken man to carry a concealed and loaded gun into bars, theaters, schools and stores, I don't see that the Second Amendment says or even implies that. But HAVING weapons in one's own home, and USING such weapons to defend that private property and family, yes. that seems crystal clear to me. Within that house, it seems to me that the Second Amendment would allow ownership of hundreds of weapons! But it seems to me that the moment the owner stepped out on the street with any of them, with the exception of shotguns or hunting rifles or antique weapons, the rules seem to change and that person probably should be immediately arrested and the guns from that individual confiscated.

There was an incident which occurred around twenty years ago which made all the National news broadcasts. I believe it occurred in either Virginia or North Carolina, during a Men's League Softball Game.

That was before any laws had been passed regarding being allowed to Carry Concealed Weapons, but it turned out that SEVERAL of the (adult) Softball players were carrying handguns IN THEIR UNIFORMS while playing the game!

A player was running from First Base to Second Base when an argument arose. The runner pulled out his (concealed) handgun and shot the opposing Second Baseman dead on the spot. The opposing Shortstop saw this and immediately pulled HIS (concealed) handgun out of his uniform and shot the runner dead on the spot. Moments later, an apparently different argument arose near Third Base, and yet another player pulled yet another (concealed) handgun out of his uniform, and shot an opposing player. As I recall, that person did not die, and I think that argument involved the Third Baseman and a Runner, either as the shooter or the target.

The TV News broadcasts did not describe how the various players were able to hide handguns within their uniforms, while still being able to play the game and without the fans seeing the bulge of the guns. The TV news also did not mention whether ALL the players on both teams were carrying concealed handguns, or whether all the players in that entire Softball League did, or whether they had already been carrying their guns during Softball games for many years.

That was not the only such incident, but it was certainly the one that captured the most National News media attention. It boggled my mind that MANY State Legislatures later passed laws which ALLOW and ENCOURAGE all citizens to carry Concealed Handguns during their daily lives. I recognize that there are SOME people who are calm enough to do that without representing a danger to society, but a single (friendly?) Softball game seemed to show that there are certainly some who cannot stay that calm. Recent arguments by gun enthusiasts insist that THEY would never misbehave with their weapons, that the ONLY people who might endanger the public were the FEW aberrant individuals who are known to have severe mental disorders. Have they all simply found a way to delete a Softball Game from recorded history, or do they believe that there are apparently many Softball players who have severe mental aberrations?

I never heard any News Reports about the Trials of the Softball shooters of that day. Were the events considered 'accidental deaths' where the shooters got a slap on the wrist? But when a Softball player INTENTIONALLY hides a loaded handgun inside his uniform before a game, doesn't that imply PREMEDITATION regarding shooting someone during the game? Isn't that the very definition of Premeditated Murder?

Given that so many Softball players had concealed handguns in their uniforms during a single game, twenty years ago, shouldn't that make us wonder how many THOUSANDS of other Softball players have had hidden handguns inside their uniforms during the many hundreds of thousands of League Softball games which have occurred in the United States during the succeeding twenty years? And it makes me wonder regarding how many football players carry concealed handguns within all the padding they wear during games. I do not see how basketball players or swimmers could be carrying concealed handguns during competitions, but one wonders how many other sports might be affected.

In the middle 1990s, our Church used to play very competitive volleyball on Friday evenings, and afterward, we sometimes used to go to a nearby Denny's Restaurant for snacks. As was moderately common in that portion of Calumet City, Illinois, one of the Restaurant's front windows was boarded up, due to having been shot out earlier that day. While we were sitting in that very busy restaurant on that Friday night, waiting for our food, it dawned on me to publicly comment a rhetorical question, regarding whether there was more or less than a dozen guns in the restaurant at that moment. Everyone was silent as people were clearly fearful of even mentioning such a subject (again, because concealed handguns were then still all illegal).

The point of these anecdotes here is in addressing the recent claims that ONLY mentally aberrant people would ever misuse guns, which is apparently the latest argument to imply that there is no need to try to address any gun safety issues regarding the 280,000,000 handguns and 4,500,000 assault-style weapons now registered in the United States.

My point is that, no matter WHAT the politics or the arguments might be for or against guns, some NEW approach is needed which might materially reduce the danger to children and to the public. So this presentation is NOT meant to promote any specific viewpoint, but instead simply to present a NEW TECHNOLOGY of safer guns. It seems to me that IF guns no longer represented a grave danger to children or to the public, there may be no need for any government intervention regarding the rights of citizens.

It seems to me that this would entirely support the right of gun enthusiasts to own as many weapons as desired, but it would also FORCE such gun owners to be aware to the possibility of having them all confiscated if he or anyone else in the house ever commits any crime with a gun.

There might also be one change in the behavior of gun owners. When any gun enthusiast would want to go to a Shooting Range, he might want to RENT whatever weapon he wanted to practice with that day. Such a situation might enable gun enthusiasts to practice with a much broader range of weapons, which might be a positive benefit.

Password Protected Guns?

We know that such protection now applies to a wide range of products, such as garage door openers, credit card security, etc.

We know that TIME LIMITS sometimes apply to such passwords, where they EXPIRE after 30 minutes or an hour or 12 hours.

Doesn't it seem possible that gun manufacturers could EMBED such tiny computer chips (called microprocessors) with unique RAM thumbprint info inside every gun? Where ONLY the owner would be able to activate it to fire, where no child might ever find a loaded gun and discharge it? Where there would be no point in stealing any gun since no one else could possibly fire it except for the actual (thumbprint-identified) owner? Do you see that EVERY gun owner would WANT to have this modification done to every gun they have, in order to make sure that none of their guns would ever be stolen!

In other words, when the young man in Connecticut took the guns that his mother had bought to go to the Sandy Hook School in December 2012, he would not have been able to fire a single shot from any of them, and we would have twenty darling little children alive today?

The various other mass murders that regularly occur in the United States might never be able to happen, WITHOUT affecting the Second Amendment Rights that gun enthusiasts are so paranoid about?

If EVERY gun had this modification, then how could street gangs ever use guns? They certainly might still use knives, true, but there might never be any more drive-by shootings ever again!

In addition, if some Broadband or WiFi capability also existed, might it then also be possible for a School Principal to press a Red Button to activate a WiFi signal that would deactivate ALL guns within three hundred feet?

Every 12 hours, the registered owner of a gun would have to re-new the thumbprint password. In a dangerous neighborhood, the owner could update the password every evening, just in case someone might break into his house. The basic idea of the Second Amendment would be wonderfully effective. Waking up to a broken window in the middle of the night, he or she could immediately have a loaded and operational gun ready to use. Whether the criminal would be able to have a functioning gun might be less likely. In fact, the NUMBER of house break-ins might drop tremendously when the criminals would know that the home-owner had operational guns while he did not! It might seem to be a bad idea to even try to rob anyone's house!

This even goes further! What if MILITARY weapons also had this password-protected and time-limited feature? Just before a group of Soldiers was to go out on a three-hour Maneuver, the Lieutenant would access the thumbprint pads and activate all those weapons for the next TWELVE hours? If a weapon was ever to be stolen by an enemy, it would never be able to be fired at anyone. Even if an aberrant soldier decided to go AWOL on a night patrol, his weapon would never be able to murder local villagers. If All Armies could be convinced to add this feature to all their weapons, it might be that 'terrorists' might no longer be able to use guns to terrorize?

If all guns were Thumbprint-based, it WOULD require the correct thumbprint for each time the PASSWORD would be re-newed. Again, ONLY the actual owner of the gun could possibly ever re-new the password and therefore activate the gun. A son or a child or a thief would never have any way of activating that gun! Or any way of obtaining the needed owner's Thumbprint to match the digital data embedded inside the gun

This presentation suggests some of the more obvious of the many possible approaches and variations for this gun safety matter. There may be countless other and better approaches which might be used.

There is another detail which might be important. Since the gun's proposed here would all fire the gunpowder by a high-voltage spark and not by a mechanical percussive impact, existing ammunition may not work any more! The alterations to the existing center-fire cartridge ammunition would be minimal, but significant. Existing ammunition might become obsolete, where ignition-fired ammunition would probably need to be manufactured and sold to be used in the new guns. The center-fire structure would need to get replaced by an electrically insulating small disk which has four short copper rods passing through it, each sticking into the powder inside the cartridge and electrically connected to four arc-shaped flat copper contacts which complete a ring-shaped visible copper set of connectors on the rear surface of the bullet cartridge. Two (copper) electrical contacts in the rear of the gun barrel come into contact with two of the four electrical contacts on the rear of the cartridge, and that electrical pathway carries the 25,000 volt charge when the trigger is squeezed. This results in the 25,000 volt charge arriving inside the powder inside the cartridge, where the resulting spark jumps across through the powder which reliably ignites the powder and fires the bullet.

There are a variety of different configurations for the electrical path to be made, both inside the bullet cartridge structure and inside the gun body itself, and these comments are just initial ideas. Thousands of variants of these ideas might quickly be made and tested, to determine which is the best approach to use. The ammunition manufacturers and the gun stores would probably love the massive new sales they would make!

Since all existing weapons are percussion-fired weapons, no one could stop any of those enormous number of desperate people from doing really stupid things. So I see a future-benefit from converting to DIGITAL, ELECTRONIC weapons might be that some Broadband signal might be possible which might be able to DISABLE ALL THE WEAPONS which happened to then be within a Sandy Hook School, or a movie theater, or even within an entire city. If I had my way, those desperate people might try to use their Assault Weapons to beat each other up to obtain food, but that they would not be able to fire bullets, even from weapons that they personally owned and for which they had obtained a 12-hour PASSWORD so that it is otherwise firable.

However, if some soldier got drunk or got stoned on drugs, he would not be able to sneak out at night to go to a local village in Afghanistan to murder many residents, as has happened several times in the past. Might the US Military have had to deal with fewer Public Relations disasters? Or what about an enlisted man on a US Military Base in Texas, having the capability of murdering many other Soldiers? IF the guns were always usable when required, while not being available to angry or drunk or stoned young men, wouldn't that be a lot better?

Some Politicians now claim that EVERY person who murders many innocent people are 'absolutely known to be mentally faulty'. I personally doubt such incredibly broad statements! I am aware of MANY local news stories where some young man cheated with the girl of someone else, and especially when they then meet in bars or parking lots, one or both of them pull out a gun and shoot the other one dead.

So all the traditional arguments which try to relieve guns from any responsibility, by claiming that ONLY mentally ill people are responsible for all the gun murders in the US, are simply wrong.

They made clear that THEY would not be willing to get involved in such a project, and would not provide or build ANYTHING associated with what I had tried to describe.

Their employees seemed to generally agree that the children at Sandy Hook were simply UNLUCKY at being around 'an aberrant young man'. Personally, I had hoped that those 20 sweet children might have deserved some better commentaries. I tried to note that in recent news, a Judge and his wife in Texas had gunned down a political opponent who had gotten the Judge in trouble a year earlier. THAT was when they started scooting me out the door!

During the several minutes I was permitted to stand in the gun shop, various of the people made some comments. NONE commented on my observation that 'all gun shops would certainly sell hundreds of millions of new guns to replace the existing guns, which seemed certain to create huge new profits for gun shops and gun manufacturers'! But one informed me that 'electronic devices are not reliable, and gun owners would insist on their existing percussion guns for reliability. The speaker clearly is not aware of millions of people who have 'artificial hearts' and endless other electronic devices on which they live. Or the countless millions of microwave ovens that have computers in them, etc, etc. or an even larger number of cellular phones which contain far more complex electronics in them. The same man decided to list more criticisms that he felt would end my enthusiasm for my invention, including 'what if the gun got wet?' and 'What if the electronics was smashed or otherwise damaged?' and 'What if the electronics was exposed to a magnet?' and 'What if the wires or copper electrodes in the gun would corrode in a humid jungle environment?'

I had not gone into that store to listen to his opinions on why something might not work. I wonder if he feels that 'automatic transmissions' are reliable in cars? But in any case, I am merely a single scientist who feels that he has a good idea to offer. I fully realize that once someone would build a bunch of prototypes, it would be important that someone throw one in a toilet or a river, and expose another to an electrical lightning storm or intense magnetic fields. MAYBE the concept would then be seen to have failed, but also maybe, someone might have decided to embed the electronics and the electrical coil in epoxy encapsulations or use a metal foil wrapper around the electronics to block electrical interference. I would think that coating the electrical contacts at the cartridge with a thin coating of silver might eliminate any future corrosion. I do not know ALL things! The man's points were all worthy of experimental investigation.

But instead, they seemed to all simply want me to abandon my idea of trying to make guns safer. Wow!

One of the other men conceded that there MIGHT be some merit in my idea, but that many millions of dollars of research would be required first, and many years of study. I heard that as simply a different method of trying to maintain the 'status quo' which currently provides all their paychecks. Rather sad!

I also see WHY people ASSUME that I intend to make many millions of dollars with this invention, because they realize it is not worth the effort of trying to competing against enormous existing bureaucracies and attitudes.

Until that encounter, I had intended to create a prototype electronic gun and then create a minute long You-Tube video, where half a dozen people would pick it up to try to shoot a nearby target. In each case, the gun would not fire. Then the 'owner' would pick it up and do the thumbprint activation, and a couple seconds later, would fire the gun and hit the target. The people in that gun shop have eliminated my enthusiasm for still wanting to do that!

I had naively thought I was offering an incredible opportunity to that gun shop! I thought that IF they would have had any willingness to use a scrap gun and spend an hour or two to alter it, their gun shop would certainly immediately have become world famous, where their participation in creating a world-shaking invention of a 'safe gun' would have immediately caused every news service in the world to interview their staff and then air demonstrations of the performance of the 'magical' gun they had created. The world-wide demand for guns from that little gun shop would certainly have made them all millionaires! But apparently they are not interested in that!

The technology IS very well advanced, and I see no need for 'millions of dollars and many years of research' for it. I am convinced that, if someone motivated was involved, in just ONE MONTH, such SAFE GUNS and SAFE AMMUNITION could be on the market. I just thought that I might find such people in a gun shop! But I see that that probably is not about to happen, at least until after many more senseless mass shootings occur and tens of thousands of people commit suicide with guns and without all the other thousands of drive-by shootings and the rest. Human Nature is such that we apparently need to see millions of people murdered before we even CONSIDER trying to do anything about it.

Makes me sort of sad to have been born a human and not a Cocker Spaniel!

I also did not appreciate being 'threatened' by gunshop employees who assured me that they would make sure I was put in prison if I should even TOUCH any gun, even a non-functional one, or any bullet or cartridge, as they explained that if they learned that I might ever try to build such a prototype, that they would turn me in to the Illinois State Police for what they said would be extremely serious violations. The idea of trying to improve our environment is apparently out of the question, as they intend to maintain the status quo. Wow! Sooner or later, THEIR wives and daughters will be murdered by people with guns or assault weapons, but I now doubt that they will ever change their minds even then.

Such conversations often tend to try to blame Authorities for 'profiling' young black males, which they claim is the explanation for these sad results. Authorities MIGHT be profiling, true, but young black males DO seem to have much more aggressive attitudes in life. Whether that is due to lack of jobs or whatever might be debated, but it certainly seems to be a fact.

The point being raised here is this: What if the idea of STEALING guns in order to commit armed crimes is no longer possible? What if the ONLY person who could fire a gun is necessarily the one person who BOUGHT the gun? It seems that the availability of guns to young black males would be a result of this new type of gun.

Would that result in young black males NOT BEING ABLE to commit armed crimes? In other words, FEWER CRIMES would OR COULD be committed by young black men. Would this result in fewer blacks in prisons? Would this cause the disparity of who commits armed crimes to become less Black?

So maybe another consequence of this new type of gun might be a huge reduction of the number of gun crimes by black males. Would this cause their attitudes to become sweet and loving? Probably not! But if anger results in fistfights rather than gunfights, that seems really attractive to me. Would this result in city gangs disappearing? No. But maybe gangs might revert to resolving conflicts like West Side Story gangs, of fights rather than military wars.

He even went farther! He explained that he SIMPLY could just have CHOPPED OFF HIS MOTHER'S THUMB, and then taken the thumb with him to Sandy Hook to kill those children!

Seems to me that Authorities need to WATCH this guy who have sent me such e-mails! With THAT sort of thinking, that seems to imply that he has mental imbalances and needs to be carefully watched regarding HIM deciding to kill HIS own mother or random children!

When there are people who send out e-mails like that, it makes me wonder if we really have any chance of ever living in an actual SAFE country! I wonder how many of the 280.000,000 American guns THAT GUY owns? I have the distinct suspicion that he probably prefers using ASSAULT WEAPONS like AK-47s, though, and there are only around 4,000,000 of THEM in the United States right now.

This page - - - - is at
This subject presentation was last updated on - -

index.html

index.html