Smart Guns are Coming 1089
wikinerd writes "Eurekalert reports that smart gun technology actually works. According to the press release, smart guns demonstrated by the NJIT, can recognise authorised users utilising "sixteen electronic computerized sensors embedded in the gun's grip" and "Under New Jersey law, passed in Dec. 2002, only smart guns can be purchased in the state three years after personalized handguns become commercially available. Lautenberg said New Jersey's legislative effort to introduce smart gun technology should be a national model for the country"."
FP? (Score:0, Interesting)
Batteries? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not really that interested in something that requires energy on an item I could potentially use for self-defense and sensors that operate on how the holder uses the gun would be highly suspectible to stress related malfunction.
Won't it be wonderful when the first officer can't return fire to the suspect because the stress of holding the gun on a suspect changes his holding "pattern" and disables the gun?
Re:What happens when... (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this thing need to have batteries replaced every year? What is the false positive vs. the false negative rate?
Really, this is just an electronic replacement for common sense - and not a very good one at that. Bad idea. I would not buy one.
Re:Bad, bad BAD idea. (Score:2, Interesting)
Surely this is an over exaggeration isn't it?
We need smart people... (Score:5, Interesting)
In Canada, there has been National debate over their new control registry that has legislated that all gun owners must now register their weapons. It's not very likely that legitimate gun owners are going to commit a crime with their
The only place this technology has any applicability is in the hands of police if they feel they may lose their firearm to a suspect and have it used against them. And you don't hear about that happening to often because police have training. Develop smart people, not smart weapons.
I got my smart gun 5 years ago. (Score:3, Interesting)
In other news, let me be the first to say "fuck new jersey".
Re:Sounds good,but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh yeah, like criminals are going to rush out and buy smart guns...No, criminals will buy regular guns, and when these are no longer available in the US they will smuggle them in from countries that are not as restrictive.
It's another case of the law once again demonstrating that it is only effective if people CHOOSE to obey it. The criminal, however, has no respect for his fellow human, much less for the law.
What this technology will do is help prove that Johnny Average shot his wife/neighbor/gerbil/ whatever in the middle of a fit of temporary insanity/argument/sex or whatever (but not necessarily in that order!), stuff that is pretty easy to prove anyway in my not so expert opinion.
More 'think of the children' BS (Score:3, Interesting)
In 2001, a total of 72 children (under 15) were accidentally killed by firearms. That includes self-inflicted wounds and those where someone else discharged the firearm. And the numbers declined quite convincingly on their own -- the 20-year average is over 200, and the 5-year average over 100. For comparison, in 2001, 11 children died in skateboard accidents.
Smart guns don't 'work' until.... (Score:3, Interesting)
When a gun has to work, it really has to work. This is true in the hands of private citizens or police officers. The two seconds it takes for the computer to boot up and you to find the right spot on the grip, or whatever, may be one second too long.
Most anyone who uses guns will tell you that the most important safety is the one in your head. This includes storing firearms appropriately and schooling your children in proper handling of them.
If New Jersey is so hell-bent on reducing accidental deaths, they'd be better off banning swimming pools or doctors, as they kill far many more people accidentally- or purposely, for that matter- than guns do.
We've all read how to get past biometric security- sometimes fingerprint pads wear so much they take any fingerprint, or pictures used for iris scanners, or rings can be taken from their owners.
On the other hand, Metal Storm's technology is incredibly cool. I just don't want anyone telling me I have to use it. (And in NH, I don't!)
This is a bad idea.... (Score:3, Interesting)
it's freezing cold and you're wearing gloves
it's pouring down rain or snow
the gun gets dropped and/or the sensors get damaged
your hand and/or the gun is soaked in blood / sweat / sand / a mixture thereof, etc.
you're firing the gun from a compromised position (i.e. with one or two fingers)
your partner's gun jams and you're incapacitated and unable to fire your own
Huh. Doesn't seem to address any of the above issues....I read through the article, and I saw zero mention of any of that stuff. They state:
Re:Now all we need... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, they don't.
The good guys - assuming firearms are legal (and in Europe, for the most part, they aren't) - can go to the range and practice any time they want. Most of us do, because we enjoy it. Putting holes in pieces of paper is easy. Putting holes in the right part of the piece of paper, however, is hard.
The bad guys don't.
If you're more than around 20 feet away from a bad guy with a gun, turn around and run like hell. Odds are pretty good that he won't hit you. Odds are very good that if he hits you, he won't hit you anywhere that'll kill you.
In fact, if he's holding the gun sideways ("gangsta style"), I'd personally cut that down to ten feet. We got temporary special dispensation from the range officer (who was as curious as we were), and tried it. Even for an experienced shooter, it's goddamn near fucking impossible to hit jack shit that way, even if you take time to aim (which - if you're running away - the bad guy won't have time to do).
In an ideal universe, there'd be no guns on the street. Maybe your part of the EU is part of that universe, but the US is not part of an ideal universe. Britain tried the experiment (banning firearms after legalizing them) after the Dunblane massacre -- and has discovered that the level of gun crime went up, not down, since doing so.
It's sorta like drinking: No physician will ever tell you to start drinking... but most physicians will agree that if you drink, enjoying a glass or two of red wine a day is healthier than abstaining from alcohol completely.
Next time you're in the States, if you visit a friend who owns firearms, ask him or her to take you to the range!
Re:Now all we need... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is hard enough getting a fully mechanical gun to function reliably every time; a 10% failure rate in today's handguns would be not only unacceptable, but dangerous by providing a false sense of security. The worst handguns today probably have a 1% or 2% failure rate at most, and even that is horrible. Personally I prefer a 0% failure rate, which is what my
The only application I see for this technology that would be accepted by the marketplace (without the NJ law...lol) is a firearm kept in a semi-public place or insecure location like in a car trunk or office, or used by a bartender or bouncer.
A 10% failure rate is unacceptable for self/home defense. Note that the police are exempt from the new New Jersey law, despite that they are perhaps the group most likely to be shot and killed with their own weapons. They don't trust this technology, so why should I?
Re:Now all we need... (Score:2, Interesting)
I do take issue with your argument however. I have heard so many variations on this "well since we already have outdated, flawed technology X in the field, so implementing new improved Y technology will not help things." Did the invention of seat belts in cars cause more accidents because people started relying on them to keep from catapulting out their windshield?
Personally I believe that every person should have the right to own a gun, provided:
a) that gun cannot be fired by anyone else (dongle, sensor, magic word, whatever)
b) if that gun is fired, the bullet will be easily traceable back to the gun and its owner. (perhaps making all bullets have serial numbers and making people register themselves to the bullets when purchasing)
Until that's happening, then 2nd amendment is outdated, dangerous garbage. It will take time yes, to get the old crappy guns off the street. But it will happen over time.
If we can splice a human with a mouse, or fit millions of circuits into postage stamp sized area.. we can figure this gun safety stuff out. We're smart like that.
PS 2nd amendment purists, remember that our white, wigged founders also thought of black people as similar to their horse or dog. They had some F**d up ideas that we needed to remedy!
I see it's that time again... (Score:2, Interesting)
Read it.
Here's the part that applies to this discussion, but you should read the rest, it's valuable.
"The current politically correct rage is "trigger locks" and "smart guns." Trigger locks have a place but they are not a cure-all. First, their use on a loaded firearm kept for self protection is dangerous as their installation or removable could cause an unintended discharge. Second, they are slow to remove. As to their preventing unauthorized use of a stolen firearm their protection is illusionary. At least one major brand name trigger lock can be be defeated simply by using a thin bladed screw driver through its rubber pads. If a firearm is properly stored under lock and key, the chances of an unauthorized individual getting to it is slim, and if it is gotten to locks can easily be removed by an individual with a drill or bolt cutters. The place of trigger locks in my mind is to provide temporary denial of use during unloaded transportation or temporary storage.
The "smart gun" idea is no where near a useful state, and probably will never be, especially for a firearm used for personal protection. A dead battery, a lost magnetic ring, or a loose connection can cause disastrous consequences as could a burst of high energy radio or magnetic energy. There have even been proposals that the government should have the means to remotely deactivate all civilian held "smart guns" in the event of a "national emergency."
(In NJ they recently passed a law which states that if/when "smart guns " come into use that the police will not be required to use them. Hmmmm! Great technology, eh? Good enough for the peons but not the government.) The claim that they would prevent someone from using a stolen gun is also a joke. If the firearm is stolen the device can be easily deactivated by just about anyone by disassembling (forcefully or otherwise) the firearm.
No, safety is not gadgets! It is common sense."
Re:Smart gun? (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, the idea of a gun needing electricity seems a little strange, I just picture a cop coming home at night and plugging in their pistol next to their cellphone charger...
The victims would disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
Not all that unlikely. Think about it from another angle. If an individual or individuals enter a home when they know a person is likely to be there (at night for example) that person or those persons have a plan for dealing with the inhabitants of that home. It could be as simple as tieing them up while they rob the place, shooting them in cold blood, driving them to ATMs to empty their bank accounts and then killing them, or any combination of heinous things. About a month ago a few miles to my east a woman was the victim of a home invasion. She lived but will never be the same again (is any victim ever the same?). If a home invasion does happen to you, it's likely that you will be injured in some way or even killed. Maybe you've heard of our local serial killer, self-dubbed "BTK" for "Bind, Torture, Kill." It's been on CNN [cnn.com] for some time now, America's Most Wanted [americasmostwanted.com] too. He invades his victim's homes. Home invasions are not that uncommon. I heard testimony before the Kansas Senate FSA Committee last year from a Kansas House member on behalf of a woman in her district that had been the victim of a home invasion. This invasion wasn't for money. It was to rape the mother. The attacker told her he'd kill her children down the hall if she screamed or fought him. When you look at raw statistics take into account that home invasions are listed in many different categories including but not limited to burglary, violent offences, aggravated assault, forcible rape, and murder [disastercenter.com]. There isn't a category in the FBI's UCR for home invasions.
I'm also sure that the people who have been the victim of a home invasion would also disagree with your sentiment that it doesn't happen very often. I have a good example from you from the town in which I currently live. Have you ever heard of the Wichita Massacre [wichita-massacre.com]. Yes, the name is a bit on the Hollywood-side but once you read the story you'll feel the title is quite justified. Only one person survived that night raped by the attackers and by her friends forced to rape her at gun point and after being shot in the head. That happened in a well-to-do neighborhood. Want to hear about another person who was the victim of another home invasion? Have you heard about Bridget Kelly [cbsnews.com]? Her attacker only shot her 3 times in the back after robbing and raping her. I think there are some people who would disagree with you when you trivialize the number of people that are the victims of home invasions.
oh I can't wait (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Now all we need... (Score:2, Interesting)
Tasers are a "hands-on" weapon alternative. They are alternatives to nightsticks, lojacks, and actually putting hands physically on a suspect. This reduces chance for harm to both the suspect getting his brains beaten in and the officer since he maintains physical distance and can control the suspect more easily.
A handgun or any other lethal weapon is to kill a suspect that poses a lethal threat to another individual.
Both have their uses, but neither is a replacement for the other. You will never see a breech-entry taking place with tasers wielded as opposed to firearms.
Re:Now all we need... (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm a gun owner. I educate myself on its use. I go to a range on a regular basis, and ensure that I am familiar with the workings of the gun. Not only that, but I am familiar with the ballistics of the gun which I'm sure goes a little beyond certain police training (Your Police Dept Mileage May Vary). I also ensure safe transport, and safe storage which allows me to provide defense for my home and my wife.
I really do appreciate our local police and support them with donations and go to rallys when they occur. Also, I'm a member of a the fraternal order of police and I try to support our police department by going regularly to town council meetings.
Although, the police can not always be everywhere instaneously. If someone breaks into my home chances are it isn't Santa Claus and he isn't going to be there for milk and cookies. He is probably going to have a gun and have the intention to rob/kill me and rob/kill/rape my wife. We live in a small home in a densely populated suburb. The chances of me calling the police and "getting safely away" are slim to none. And waiting for the police, however dedicated, is not an option. So my wife and I should not have the right the defend our lives because there are mentally unstable people out there?
Now on the flip side, yes someone could rob me and take my gun, but this is where a biometric gun can handle that problem. If this technology is promoted and developed it could be enhanced enough to truly assure for 99.9% of instances that gun theft only ensures a hunk of metal for the thief.
As a legitimate gun owner I don't mind this. Also I do believe that we should probably be a little more stringent on background check for gun owners. Unfortunately, noone can know who is going to fly into a rage and start shooting, but that is not an excuse to limit for legitimate owners.
I used to have your view. The world will be made safe when gun factories no longer exist and noone owns a gun. But how do you ensure this? Criminals are just that--criminals, people who do not obey the law. Their gun ownership will continue. Maybe if we address the underlying cause to violent crime it might preclude some other factors. Mebbe addressing our nation's drug probably in a realistic manner. Develop the national economy to where we are presenting people with REAL job growth rather than expanding the ongoing pool of minimum wage jobs. Discourging large business outsourcing overseas. When people are meaningfully employed and not on drugs, a large majority will feel less inclined to fly into a rage a shoot people, rob someone for drug money, or violently act against someone in a altered state. [Disclaimer: these are ideas and my opinion. Feel free to flame away on these arguments]
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to examine the amount of murders committed in a large cities where conceal weapons are permitted and where they are illegal. If after examining these factors, the data shows murder and violent crime is higher in cities with no concealed weapons, then I encourage you to post your findings here and tell me I'm full of shit.
Re:Now all we need... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes and no. This is a rather disturbing thing to consider too. There has been a lot of talk and news reports about police using taser in situations where their life or anyone else's life isn't threatened. They simply used the tasers so they wouldn't have to get their hands dirty, essentially. That's a disturbing change. Tasers are still a weapon when it comes right down to it. While the good folks at TASR would like you and all other investors to think they aren't lethal they very well can be. I'm not saying that if you get shot by a taser you'll die. It certainly heightens your risk. Heart disease is a major factor in the human motality in this day and age. I forgot how many people have some form of heart disease but it's extremely high. Asininely high. People with heart murmurs and irregular heartbeats don't fair too well from being bit by a taser. I'm certainly not against their use. I think they rock and officers should be trained in their effective use. I just happen to see their downside and the changes in some LEOs mindsets. The change is rather disturbing. I hope it gets reversed soon.