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"."
Now all we need... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now all we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now all we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I laughed my ass off when I read this, I think he's saying more than he knows. (or maybe he knows exactly what he's saying.) What if you're being attacked in your home, and your smart gun suddenly decides (due to circuitry failure or some other business) that you're not it's rightful owner? Your gun is now nothing more than a bludgeon.
We've already put computers into every household appliance and most forms of transportation, and now we're introducing them into our guns. Do we really need to computerize weapons, knowing that all we're doing is basing MORE of our security on electronics? I would be happier knowing that the fate of the world still lies at least partially in the hands of humans, not in the circuitry of a processor.
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:5, Informative)
Now on the otherhand my Marlin 336SS has an extremely high failure rate. In the 3-4 years I've owned it I've had it jam up so bad I have to disassemble it to unjam it. In fact it's jammed up this very moment and I can't get the thing apart. I have to send it back to the factory for repair. That gun's failure rate is more than a little unacceptable. My Marlin 1894 hasn't ever had a problem though. Odd. It must be a manufaturing error in my 336.
You last sentence is a good one. I used the same arguement when I wrote to my state's senators last year when we were trying to get a CCW law passed (house passed it, Senate passed it with a veto-proof majority, the governess vetoed it. grrr). One of the good senators tried to introduce alternate language while the bill was in committee that would only allow the CCW permits to be issued for tasers and other non-lethal defensive weapons. Your arguement is the defense to that senator's language. The police don't trust the technology so why should I? Now let me expand on that. The police do use tasers. In fact they are becoming extremely common which is both a good and bad thing. The police however do not solely relay on tasers. They of course carry conventional firearms. Whenever you see cops enter a building with a non-lethal weapon to root out a suspect they never go in alone. They have at least one officer at their side with a conventional firearm drawn and ready to use. Stun guns don't always work. The clothing might be too thick. The probes might bounce off a large button, pin, cell phone, pocket protector, flask, bottle of jack, etc. It might hit the person's leather belt. It could hit in any number of places or ways that would render it useless. That also assumes the person firing it actually hits their target. Most consumer versions of stun guns are single-shot only. The user would have to reload to take a second shot. Since the range is usually limited to a about 15 feet (Taser International's product limitations) and since the minimum safe distance recommended by all personal safety classes is about 20 feet (see my previous post from tonight) the user wouldn't be able to reload the weapon, aim and fire again before the attacker was on them. Heck they'd already have to be in the person's buffer zone for the rounds to reach them period. The rounds aren't exactly the fastest in the world either so dodging them isn't impossible. Taser rounds aren't cheap either. How is a typical user supposed to practice with their gun when each round costs in the neighborhood of $20 or 7% of the cheapest Taser I found on the market (I just searched using Froogle for both the gun and the ammo). Practice makes perfect but apparently not if you can't afford to practice with your gun. .50AE rounds aren't even that bad. Neither are 470 Nitro Express rounds. Sheesh. You'd think the rounds were gold encased.
Yeah, I think "smart" guns are for idiots and any law requiring their use must also be crafted by the same. Anyhow, I'm starting to rant. Nice Springfield though. I want a Kimber Gold Combat II.
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 TA
dumb knives (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Now all we need... (Score:3, Insightful)
I know what you mean about a knife, but it's a lot harder to kill someone with a kife - you actually have to stab someone to kill them. With a gun, it's a lot less personal - one squeeze and they're dead. That's the problem. Guns are too easy to use. Normally sane, sober people can pick them up in a fit of rage or mental unbalance (like if their lover has left them, or they lost their job), and kill someone be
Re:Now all we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
[RANT]
What the fuck is it with Americans and their "I need a gun to shoot intruders in my home" crap. No where else in the whole fucking world do people say shit like this.
Do you know how infrequently people come across intruders in their home, intruders who are actually intending to murder/harm the owner? And of those that own guns, do you know how FEW manage to get to their gun? And do you know how many have their shitty cheap gun misfire and jam, then having enraged the intruder get the shit beat out of them? Or actually shoot *someone else* they mistook for an intruder? Like their kids getting home late or their husband sneaking back into the house at 2am?
Now compare all of the above to the number of kids and owners that shoot one another accidentally, the number that shoot one another because a gun is so handy and easy to pick up when angry, and the number of people shot because there are so many fucking guns that every single God damned 7-11 robber and car-jacker packs heat and is stupid enough to use it.
[/RANT]
Re:Now all we need... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. It says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It does not say "well-organized".
The meaning of the word "regulated" is interesting. I can mean to place into order, it can also mean "To adjust for accurate and proper functioning." Interesting. In a military sense, it also means well-equipped or well-supplied, and well-trained. Regulars vs. irregulars.
Aside from that matter, and probably the main reason the courts have thus far stayed away from the posession issue, is that the latter part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", is not a dependent clause. The first part, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", provides a sufficient condition for the second part to exist, but not a necessary condition.
The courts have ruled that the use of a weapon can be regulated. In other words, you may be able to keep and bear a weapon, but pulling the trigger could be a crime. There are also limits to to what kind of weapon a person could reasonably be expected to be allowed to keep and bear in certain situations, just as there are court-upheld laws that forbid making certain kinds of speech in certain situations. ("Fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc.)
That all being said, the anti gun-rights people often ignore another important amendment in the Bill of Rights, good old amendment number nine: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Even if the guarantee for the second amendment was for the right to form a militial, good old Nine specifically speaks to rights retained by the people, and when it was enacted, carrying weapons for self-defense and other lawful purposes was certainly a right.
Re:Now all we need... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What if? (Score:5, Informative)
Gun control laws don't work so there's no point discussing them.
Guns can be reliable. They can also fail miserably. I do an excellent job maintaining my guns and ammo. Still I've experienced many failures. Few however were the fault of the gun (the 336 and SKS problem certainly are though). Adding electronics to a gun won't make it more reliable though. It will undoubtedly make it more likely to fail. Suddenly we'll be faced with the prospect of guns that have to be serviced every 200 shots, or guns that only have a shelf-life of 5 years. That's absurd. I made a lot of other points about the "smart" gun in other threads. Check my profile if you want to read them. I think I asked some interesting questions though. With blood on your hand with the "smart" gun still recognize you, for example?
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 combin
Re:Now all we need... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now all we need... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like it's an extra "saftey." Though if it's anything like "child-proof caps" it'll have the opposite result...
Re:Now all we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason kids would do that in the first place are because it's mysterious and forbidden. If they were taught how to use the gun and just what it can do at an early age, not only would it no longer be mysterious, but they'd know exactly what it can do and how to handle it. I grew up with unlocked guns around the house. A cousin didn't, and he didn't make it past his teens either.
Replaced by: My gun didn't know me so I got killed (Score:4, Informative)
To be replaced by "I got shot/knifed/clubed/stomped by the intruder when my gun didn't recognize me." (A false-negative error.)
And by "My kid shot his friend when they got into my sock drawer after I trusted the new 'smart gun' and didn't lock it in the safe like I do the 'dumb' ones." (A false-positive error.)
Maybe once in eight average lifetimes only a gun will protect you from murder. Maybe several times in an average lifetime a gun will protect you and/or yours from death or serious bodily harm from criminal activity. (Your mileage WILL vary greatly.) In each of these situations, maybe nineteen times in twenty showing the gun is enough, one time in twenty your "bluff gets called" and you actually have to FIRE the gun.
For people in some locations (such as rural) and/or some occupations (such as stockraising), a gun may be needed as often as several times a year to defend livestock, family, or self against predators (which, even if they're after livestock, will often switch to being after the stockman once challenged). People who work on horseback may need to use a pistol to shoot the horse if they are being dragged.
When one of these things happens, if you need your gun to fire it MUST fire.
If, in such a situation, a "smart gun" decides, in its electronic wisdom, that you're really joe blow non-owner and refuses to fire, you're very likely to become a casualty.
While these incidents are rare, in a country of 300 million people they add up to very large number per year.
Uniformed police officers are the main victims of "gun taken away and used on owner". It happens to them a lot. They wear their guns in exposed holsters. They get into altercations with lawbreakers - sometimes with groups of them - where it's their job to maintain contact and subdue the wrongoers. When they're focused on one perpetrator, another may come up behind them, grab their gun, and perhaps fire it at them. Police have the MOST to be gained by making their guns refuse to fire in unauthorized hands.
Several "smart gun" systems have already been devised for them - systems much less likely to make mistakes than a biometric device. Typically these are enabled by something worn by the officer, such as a ring or bracelet containing a magnet or an ID chip.
But because of the risk of the gun refusing to fire when needed by the duly authorized officer, police departments have so far resisted enormous political pressure and refused to use such systems.
If even the police won't deploy an extremely reliable 'smart gun' device when its usefulness is so great, due to the risk from even a small number of misidentifications, why should a civillian purchase something less reliable?
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:3, Informative)
The rise in guncrime is predominantly unrelated to the ban on public ownership.
The majority of firearms on the streets are actually converted air-pistols and other weapons not originally sold to fire gunpowder propelled projectiles.
Even if gun ownership was legal (and hell, it still is for shotguns and some other weapons) the level of gun crime would have risen.
~cederic
Re:Now all we need... (Score:3, Insightful)
Less guns in the hands of law abiding, responsible people will obviously lead to the criminals turing their guns in. Oh wait...
Re:Now all we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now all we need... (Score:3, Informative)
Having a gun doesn't really stop anybody from breaking into your house.
Bullshit. In the U.S., only 13% of burlaries take place while the homeowner is there. In the U.K., the percentage is over 60%. Why? Because in America, there is a 1 in 2 chance that the homeowner has a gun. In the U.K., it's more like 1 in 1000. American criminals fear an armed homeowner, not the police.
Unless you actually sleep with it under your pillow (bad idea), what are the odds that you are going to get to your gun fas
Re:Now all we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need is to get this law overturned and reclaim our rights that were guaranteed under the 2nd amendment. Crippled weapons like these will only serve to get their owners killed or maimed due to a failure at the critical moment.
Re:Now all we need... (Score:3)
Re: Smart gun owners (Score:3)
Sure sounds like you are, from what you say in the rest of your post!
So should we ban these items?
How about t
Re:Now all we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why rely on a hardware interlock to protect your kids? So they find your pistol and have a grand time pointing it at each other, they're "safe" because of the interlock, right? What happens at a friends house, someone who has firearms without the interlock (Of course it won't be the end of that for a few generations since there's -a lot- of guns out there already. )?
I was brought up around firearms, as were my brothers and most of my friends. Dad's service revolver was loaded and in an accessible location from the time I was young. Was it a miracle all three of us made it to adulthood? Far from it, we were taken out at a young age, shown what it can do, and taught how to safely handle all manners of firearms. 25 years later, those habits are so deeply ingrained as to be involunatary - like breathing or swallowing. I'm only nervous around firearms when someone else, someone that I don't know well (most cops I've met), with unknown or outright dangerous habits are handling firearms.
The point of the above ramble is that those who are safest with firearms are the ones who were exposed to them early and often, those who learned a respect for them from a young age. People who keep them stashed away, or worse, rely on mechanical devices, are setting their offspring up for a huge incident.
Re:Now all we need... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh absolutely not, by no means was I implying that we need to rely on mechanical locks to protect the kids, as I said kids find their way into that stuff, the electronic lock is just an added safety feature. I still think that education should be mandat
No Thanks (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Thanks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No Thanks (Score:2)
Re:No Thanks (Score:3, Funny)
Yup...nothing overthrows a government more effectively than a t-shirt wearing mob.
Re:No Thanks (Score:2)
Re:No Thanks (Score:3, Funny)
Head Shot
djdavetrouble is on a killing spree !
Re:No Thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. If this law goes through, within a few years any person can be certain that most of the guns in any "law abiding" neighborhood will be these "smart" guns. A single individual or a group of people with ill intent can turn an entire neighborhood of armed individuals into disarmed individuals with a medium-sized homemade EMP. That's just no
Re:No Thanks (Score:2)
Some people might be interested. People living around children, perhaps.
Re:No Thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
Ditto for any other inopportune failure of the electronics. When a computer, iPod, etc. fails--even at the worst possible time--at most you are severely inconvienced. When your firearm fails at an inopportune time--say, I dunno, when a knife- or dumb gun-wielding intruder breaks into your bedroom maybe?--you are dead.
Re:No Thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
That gun-wielding intruders enters your bedroom?
So often that the extra electronics in your gun will seriously lower your chance of survival for the next 50 years?
It only has to fail that one time that it happens for you to die.
But can I assume from your statement that::
1) Don't wear a seatbelt
2) Don't have ANY form of insurance
3) Don't lock your doors, EVER
4) Never took a single self defense course
5) Don't wear a helmet when riding a bike
6) Don't use surge protectors
7) Don't use a firewall
8) Don't own any fire extinguishers
9) Deactivate your airbags
Since making sure you are adequately protected from a dangerous situation is so insane to you.
FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS (Score:2)
Come to think of it, is he still alive?
Re:FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our seBLAM!
What? (Score:2)
3. I detonate a small EMP for a 5-10 mile radius (possible for short-term? ala Oceans11??)
2. take my "oldskool" gun and rob a number of places
1. Profit?
wtf gives making the new gun the only legal one you can own. this is utter foolishness.
Re:What? (Score:2, Funny)
Electronically locked bank vaults would be wedged. Even the little bill dispenser at 7-Eleven would die. You'd manage to get about thirty five dollars and 9 cents from the Salvation Army pail before cops with conventional guns ventilated your hide.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Read. Illegal to purchase. Not illegal to own. You can keep your old dumb-weapons, you just won't be able to (legally) purchase new ones.
Re:What? (Score:2)
I can understand this for new gun sales, however I am forced to wonder about what this will do to used gun sales? I'm guessing they too will be legal to buy, just new ones wou
What happens when... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:What happens when... (Score:4, Insightful)
I say we mandate "smart guns" only for police.
LK
Re:What happens when... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What happens when... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What happens when... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to worry, law enforcement and the military will not be issued "smart guns", there will certainly be a loophole for them to use non-enabled (crippled) weapons.
Now if I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd ponder the mandating of smart guns, the issue of EMP devices to police (to stop car chases) and the need for revolt.
10 Percent Failure Rate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:10 Percent Failure Rate (Score:4, Funny)
Reliability? (Score:2)
Glad to know that a mugger will have a 1/10 chance when facing me down, now.
Predicting Defeat (Score:2, Insightful)
And the NRA will claim this is an infringement on the 2nd amendment because a State Law is superceding the Constitution on this key part " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Good idea, b
Re:Predicting Defeat (Score:2)
if DRM is a bad idea for software.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe I'm cynical, but if every gun sold has to have electronic/computer receivers, might governments have keys to disable guns with those receivers? In some cases, that would negate the rights that gun ownership is supposed to secure, by removing checks on the ability of governments to take those rights. If government became despotic (as it often did when the words you quoted were written), the only mitigating factor was the ability of citizens to arm themselves against it. Negate that, and governments could do whatever they want, a state of affairs that the Constitution was designed to prevent.
The technology has good and safe uses, but it puts a lot of powers in the hands of people who can't be trusted with that much power - which is to say, anyone.
Place your bets, place your bets.. (Score:4, Funny)
Bad Law (Score:2)
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?
Hows that old saying go? (Score:2)
Bad, bad BAD idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a patently bad idea with regards to general usage. While this idea is great in theory, there is one major drawback:
More components mean more points of potential failure.
The problem in this is, should you need the firearm, at any time it may be unreliable no matter what you're using (even Kalashnikov recognized this in his design): when in a life-or-death situation, Murphy's law usually decides to rear its ugly head, and at that point you're playing the odds: I have x components, y components stand a chance of failing. If any one of y components fails, the firearm fails to function, and you may quickly wind up dead.
Now: that said, if we had a society where firearms weren't necessary for home protection or policing (I rarely ever see the latter in action where I live, so I require the former), then this would be great. On sport firearms, this would be great, because you don't need the reliability you would in a protection scenario. However, in any situation to where you have a life-or-death scenario, as many firearms are manufactured for in the first place, you do not EVER want extra complexity that may cause failure in function of your sidearm.
Re:Bad, bad BAD idea. (Score:2, Interesting)
Surely this is an over exaggeration isn't it?
Re:Bad, bad BAD idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
What a load of absolute bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
The sensors add orders of magnitude more complexity (pistols themselves don't have to be very complicated) bringing more cost and points of failure.
I certainly wouldn't stake my own life on one of these pieces of crap working. Why would anyone
Re:What a load of absolute bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the point of the legislation. It doesn't matter if you'd willingly buy it or not... it's all you can legally get.
Wait... (Score:2)
Bad Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
smart....gun? (Score:2)
What happened... (Score:2)
What if the sensors got dirty or damaged? What if there was a software glitch? What if the batteries die?! In the off chance I need the gun for self-defense, I would just as soon have a knife. A glock, however, that had been buried, beaten
Re:What happened... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good idea. Criminalize carrying a gun. That will stop the criminals -- they always obey the law. If this actually works, I say that we pass a law requiring all criminals to report to their nearest police station for arrest. That will clean up the streets.
People who fill out the paperwork for a conceled permit, take the manditory safely training course, pay the rather large fee, and get fingerprinted (I have been through this process) are the ones most likely to obey the law. A criminal will NOT go through all of this trouble, and a criminal would not be stopped by a law criminalizing concealed carry.
sixteen electronic computerized sensors? (Score:2)
a gun takes lotsa abuse, and if the accuracy of the scans is only 90% than it might just furtther degrade especially in situations where you really need a gun
thos situations can be muddy, rainy, dirty, hell even bloody
see what happens to the electronic loader
Would you like to be the test user? (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on your definition of "works". From the article:
Sixteen electronic computerized sensors embedded in the gun's grip distinguished known from unknown users. "We've only just begun and we're pleased to say that we're getting 90 percent reliability when scanning users," said Sebastian.
There's no sane cop in this world that would carry a weapon for self-defense that worked reliably 9 out of 10 times.
This is not good at all (Score:2)
After all, most gun deaths with children happen in the home, or are brought on by either themselves or a family member. It really would defeat the purpose of this safety mechanism in a large way if people can be added to the firing list willy nilly
And I am sure that criminals will obey the law. (Score:2)
Oh, and btw, there is a small matter of this being a "taking" under the constitution since it does not address the fact that the folks who currently own them would be prohibited from selling them. But shucks, when did that stuff ever get in the way of a press headine or three.
And my favorite (Score:2)
"Includes the new 'rrrrrrecall' feature. Fire one shot (bwam!), and all subsequent shots go to the same target, regardless of where you point the muzzle! bapbapbapbapbapbapbapbapbapbapbapbap!!!"
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".
Simpler solution to all this (Score:2)
Require the first owner of the gun to be regestered.
After that, whoever's name is on the registration is held legally responsible if the gun is involved in a crime. If you wish to give the gun as a present and leave your name on it, well, it is now your problem if the gun is involved in a crime.
This is simply making any gun owner be responsible for their weapon. It seems like we are now a nation of none-responsibility. National Leaders who f**k up and then blame everybody but themselves (so many excelle
Re:Simpler solution to all this (Score:3, Insightful)
More people are killed by cars than guns...
Step 1 (Score:2)
(I'd say "Now how was that supposed to work?" but I know that van Vogt never specified.)
Wouldn't trust it with my life.. (Score:2)
Another form of biometric--the dynamic biometric--depends on both physical markers and behavior. "This is about who you are and how you do something." said Sebastian. This biometric is the foundation of Dynamic Grip Recognition. The technology measures not only the size, strength and structure of a person's hand, but also the reflexive way in which the person acts. For smart gun, the observed actions are how the person squeezes something to produce a unique and measurable pattern. Embedded sensors in the e
Smart Guns are here (Score:2)
What happens when... (Score:5, Insightful)
The article claims they have 90% reliability? MY gun shoots every single time I pull the trigger. So now we have:
* A gun I cannot loan to a friend on the range
* A gun which is going to be more expensive, due to all those fancy features, yet will be harder to SELL, even to another law-abiding citizen, because of the added difficulty in "transfering" the gun to the person so they can use it.
* A gun that is far less reliable
* A gun that is mandated by law (in New Jersey)as the only sort of gun I'm allowed to have
* A gun with complex electronic parts that will be much less durable, and will probably require some sort of energy source (such as batteries).
* A gun that will weigh more
* A gun that criminals WILL NOT USE. They will bypass the security of stolen guns, or just trade in "non-secure" guns. So, only law-abiding people will be stuck with these crappy things.
Why is it these lawmakers trust technology more than the people they represent?
The usual complaint. (Score:3)
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* Thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
The criminals will still have non-smart guns, with the serial numbers filed off just like they do today. Citizens should be prepared to counter whatever they should expect to run into in a self defense situation.
The past forty or so years of data have shown us that an encounter with one gun is significantly more likely to result in a casualty than an encounter in which both parties are armed. Also keep in mind that most incidents that are terminated without shots fired go unreported.
Also keep in mind that when Florida changed their laws to allow concealed-carry their murder rates went down about as much a the rates in the rest of the country went up. If you're concerned with protecting children from the hazard of a gun in the house, keep in mind that many more children per year die in plastic buckets of water then due to a gunshot wound.
Can someone explain to me why this is a good idea?
Re:This is a *bad* Thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:
Thank God (Score:5, Funny)
oh I can't wait (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:First Charlie Brown (Score:5, Funny)
good grief that's offtopic
Re:Smart gun? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Remember Judge Dredd (Score:2, Informative)
please... i'm trying to forget that horrible adaptation.
FYI MegaCity is effectively a fascist state, where the judges (which time and again have had their problems) can do pretty much as the deem necessary.
and that vain chucklehead Stallone actually removed his helmet!!
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
Re:Might solve some problems (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it wouldn't:
http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-M aryland-boon.htm [ccrkba.org]
In its progress report on the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS), the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division recommends that "this program be suspended, a repeal of the collection of cartridge cases from current law be enacted and the Laboratory Technicians associated with the program be transferred to the DNA database unit." So far, Maryland has spent $2.5 million over the past four years, with nothing to show for it. The report admitted, "Guns found to be used in the commission of crime...are not the ones being entered into" the system.
A similar program in New York has had exactly the same results, after spending $4 million.
Re:Letting a friend shoot a gun (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yadda yadda (Score:3, Informative)
Let's not forget that the majority of guns used to commit crimes in DC went through the DC police deptartment first.