Slashdot Mirror
New Jersey Enacts 'Smart Gun' Law
rmohr02 writes "New Jersey has just enacted legislation that would require all handguns to be able to recognize their owners and only fire when their owners grip them. Gun manufacturers will be required to implement this within three years of the NJ Attorney General's approval of an acceptable, commercially available model. One critic says 'No technology is foolproof--anyone who has a computer knows how many times it crashes.' I'm sure fellow /.ers will have something to say about that. Also on Google News"
If your going to allowed to carry guns, at least
they should be made so someone else can't use them
against you. I am sure some gun nuts here, are
going to be against the idea, but i can't imagine
a reason why. And yeah it probably won't be secure at first, and they'll be underground gangs rechiping the guns. But it makes it harder for criminals to get guns and that has to be good.
It never ceases to amaze me just how many dumb and stupid laws that politicians put in place. We've all had a laugh at the laws which prohibit beheading your wife in public on Fridays and other such nonsense, but what we don't realise is that that these laws are still being passed.
Look at Australia's internet censorship laws. Less than two years later, it was pointed out that they had come in to effect, but were totally unworkable and had never seriously been applied. This sounds to me like very much the same kind of law.
If people believe I'm wrong that these proposed laws, I'd like to know why you think it and how you think it could be implemented and enforced.
Most of these type devices, that I have seen, involve a magnetic ring of some type. My only concern is what happens, when you take it off.
Nightmare scenario, you fall asleep without your ring on, and awaken to the sound of a burgler, but forget your magic ring.
Also the reliability of the device would have to be paramount, due to the device they will be installed upon. What happens when this breaks?
Education is the key. I grew up around guns, as did others in my neighborhood. Even as children we knew how to operate, and maintain them.
Responsible parents need to accept the liabilities associated with gun ownership, and lock up their firearms as appropriate, when there are children in the environment.
p.s. on a related, but barely, topic if parents would start parenting, instead of letting the tv, and computer raise their children, this issue would be practically moot.
This space intentionally left blank.
and the solution to THAT is responsible, diligent parenting
You mean a solution, not the solution. It seems that this technology would also be a solution, and given the percentage of brain-dead parents there are out there who own guns in reach of children, I think this solution will be much easier to implement than a "no brain-dead parents" law, however you might word that. And given the importance of not having holes in the heads of kids, and the frequency in which these accidents occur (much more than any other gun-related death), I think this is a very prudent decision.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Most people don't keep a gun in the house to kill a criminal, they keep it to deter criminals from entering in the first place. If the criminal runs away when you brandish your gun, it has done its job. The gun-controllers' statistics plot criminal deaths in the home against accidental deaths in the home instead of plotting incidences of deterrence of a crime against accidental deaths. The latter is overwhelmingly a positive statistic.
The article talks a lot about "the owner" and "the authorized user" of the weapon; I hope they're taking into account the possibility of multiple owners or else they may be giving the gun rights folks ammo (heh heh) for their inevitable fight to have the law repealed.
I am from the midwest and we hunt deer with handguns. Thank god we don't have stupid legislators in our state. Some days I hunt with gloves on, especially when it is cold as a witches titty. There are othe days when the temps are nice and I don't wear the gloves. Are the sensors going to adjust to those factors? Something tells me the technology does not exist to implement this in a reasonable way.
Got Code?
In general, though, this seems like a pretty solid idea that would be useful even if not 100% effective. If something malfunctioned and the rightful owner was not able to fire the gun, then they could take it back to the store and replace it,
Yeah.. unless they were dead. That sorta puts a crimp your argument though I suppose.
That is utter foolishness. A gun will not have an OS, it will be hard coded. My microwave doesn't 'crash' and I don't think my gun would either.
a) I bet you don't own a gun -- so this whole thing seems foolish to you.
b) Ever tried sticking your hand in a palm scanner? Took me 5 minutes my first time to get it right... and that security guard sure got annoyed having to let me out of that locked bubble chamber while I figured it out.
#1-Police. What happens if a cop's partner is disabled and he has the only remaining ammo between them. Is the other cop supposed to say, "hey mr. nice criminal, let me pop this clip into my gun so I can kill you?"
#2-Families where the kids can handle a firearm. I could handle (admittedly not perfectly by any stretch of the imagination) a 9mm at an early age, around 9-10 or so. I'm sick of the anti-gun nuts who say such rubbish as kids can't use guns effectively and responsibly. And so what if they can't in such a situation? It's better that the kid die trying than die a totally defenseless victim. Oh and, in close range... you don't have to be that good of a shot.
#3-What happens if the gun gets damaged and can't recognize its owner? Oh sheot, that's right. The gun ain't worth a damn now.
Here's the deal, we don't need gun control and here's why. If the crime is heinous, lock the perp up and punish them properly. Once they get out, they've paid their debt to society and give them their rights back. Anyone who disagrees is a fascistic prick whose "pro-freedom" views on any other issue are meaningless.
Your 2nd amendment right, not your right to vote, is what ultimately keeps the government in line. I'm amazed at how many people know jack shit about guns and then spout off anti-gun ownership rhetoric. A 30.06 is a much more powerful weapon than a M16 or AK-47. A M1 Carbine is even better. Both are now weapons civilians can own IIRC without any special permits. A M1 Carbine is an order of magnitude deadlier in the hands of a skilled fighter than a M16 because its shots are more powerful and accurate than a M16. You damn well better believe that a crowd carrying shotguns, 30.06s and the like would be taken VERY seriously by the government.
So let me ask this, are you people who believe in gun control stupid or just lack any desire to have a free country? How many totalitarian regimes that rose to power by disarming their populations does it take? Do we need to draw you guys diagrams showing these things point-by-point? I'm being serious here. You have no right to tell me that I can't own a 9mm because it makes you uncomfortable. Nor do you have a right to tell the local Klan or BPP thug to shut up because what he's saying is making you feel uncomfortable.
Maybe you people need to take remedial English because the last time I read the 2nd amendment it said, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You people seem hung up over a GD prepositional phrase. A well-regulated militia means a well-organized militia, not one whose ability to stay armed is being lynched with bureacratic red tape. It is the same thing as "Congress shall pass no law INSERT_ISSUE." What part of that is so hard to understand? And if you have any concerns about state gun control, may I suggest you read the 14th amendment which was partly ratified so blacks in the post-Civil War south could legally own firearms. At that time most southern states prohibited blacks from owning guns. Jim Crow, the first major gun control advocate in this country.
If you ask me, we need LESS laws, not MORE. We need to clear the courts from the stupid lawsuit and patent law CRAP, and free up court and prison space for the real criminals.
If you kill someone, you KILLED THEM, and you should get life in prison, or death. Not X years for killing them, X more for doing it with a gun, X more because your motive was racial. Look, I don't care if you killed a black or white or yellow or red person, you killed them, go to jail I don't care if he was Christian, Jew, Hindu, or what, you killed them. Your telling me an EXTRA law that makes it a race crime, a religious crime, makes the system better? By making MORE laws like that, you just dilute the system. Crime is crime, simple is simple. Kill, go to jail. Black man kills black man, less jail time because it wasn't a hate crime? Should we really say "white guy killed white guy, not racial, not religious, less of a sentence?" He was killed with a gun, not a knife, the criminal should do 105 years instead of 150 years?
All I can say is, it's just another step in the long and relentless process for the United States of America to drift into the New World order. I am going to rant, long and hard, prepare. This is a step to a socialist society, where we see "Democracy" become something that is nothing more than "Mob Rule" with a slight bit of organization.
Look, it's a feel good law, we all know that. The science and the technology are not presently available to comply with this law. This law requires all guns to "recognize they are in the hands of their owner" before they are able to fire, WHEN that technology becomes a reality. Let's be realistic, some lame as money grubbing company will come up with some half ass way to almost make this happen, because they want to monopolize the gun market in NJ. But, they will fail because no one buys guns in NJ anyway, because of the existing legislation. And it's just an exercise in "can we do it."
Now, don't get me wrong, if I wanted to own a firearm, and I knew I could get a high-tech one that wouldn't allow anyone to fire it except me, that would be cool. I would get one like that, if I wanted one at all, to be sure that I could defend myself and the invader of my home couldn't disarm me and shoot me with my own gun.
But, that's not what this law is about. This law is yet another measure of the Sarah Brady group to make guns harder to own. And, being a Libertarian, I have respect for other people's beliefs. However, I love my country, and I love my country because it is the country that is founded on individual freedoms.
If you were to tell me that there was a country in the world that would allow you to do anything you wanted, provided you did not bring harm to anyone else, I would respect that country as well. However, the USA is as close as we have now. Capitalist (work hard and earn a lot). Intelligence, perseverance, planning, and hard work should pay off. And people should be allowed to do what ever, worship whatever they want, think whatever they want, self destructive or not, risky or not, SOMEWHERE in the world. That is why the USA was founded.
The USA is becoming Socialist under pressure of the rest of the world. If you don't like it, you have a lot of other countries in the world to go to that believe what you do, we don't stop you from leaving. Yet every day people are willing to die (look at the boat people, the central Americans, the middle eastern people that are not the "popular" religion" in their country). People come here because of the freedom.
We are soo willing to give away our freedom to make "Soccer Moms" who are the minority, feel better.
I'll tell you what, give me the hard working, open minded, freedom loving, socialist, people from around the world who are NOT Christian like me ANYDAY over the bible thumping Southern Baptist Soccer Moms who want "smart guns" any day!
So, what you are really saying is that shitty parents should have their kids taken away? Or that loaded guns and shitty parents go hand in hand? Or loaded guns and kids who have parents with ruined lives are well-correlated? (read that last one very carefully because, heck, I don't know what exactly it says either)
What exactly are you saying with this anecdotal "evidence"? How many people do you know that have loaded weapons in their houses inside steel quick-open locked armored safes? Probably zero. Why? Because they don't tell you. It's in a safe. And they keep their mouth shut about having a weapon.
You know all your neighbors extremely well? I live in a township of 30,000+ people. I know who my neighbors are. I couldn't tell you even 1 out of 10 if they own a weapon, much less how they care for it properly. I also don't know if they have sex doggy-style or missionary either.
So how did you add those law-abiding folks who owned guns into your analysis? Or did you conveniently choose to forget them?
Look, NJ passed a feel good law. That's about it.
Don't just say no don't touch it. Explain to them it could blow their head off if they don't handle it properly. My parents did that with me and somehow I resisted the urge to play with a .357 in their closet. Teach them to respect guns and not fear them. That same logic goes for anything dangerous; animals, power tools, weapons, fireworks, you name it. Respect, not fear.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
yes, that littl factoid about the 2nd ammendment is something that far too few people realize. The whole system of government was designed not only to not need to be overthrown, but to be over-throwable by the people in case the first part didnt work. I really wish more people understood that. There might be much less voter apathy if people knew what voting was for. The whole communist scare was obviously innitiated by people who realized this. If more people voted, there wouldnt be cause for concern that a communist party existed. Voting and keeping in touch with your representative is really the only thing to prevent the country from being quite legally overthrown every two years.
;)
It's those damned chinese!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
There aren't that many handgun makers out there, and they tend to stick together.
There aren't as many shooters anymore, and they tend to stick together as well. Look at what happened to the old Smith and Wesson (now under new management and trying to clear the S&W name) when they tried to cut a preferential deal with the Clinton administration. Everybody boycotted their guns, and they went under.
The only mainstream manufacturer I know of that is looking into smart gun tech is Colt, and that's because they're more or less abandoning the civilian market in favor of strict military/law enforcement. For those markets, smart gun tech sort of makes sense, especially if they can land a big contract.
This will do nothing but create a black market in cracking/disabling the protection on guns and get innocent women and children killed. And it raises many questions about implementation. Will only _one_ person be able to fire a given gun? How does one change ownership? Add/remove 'users'? Guess I can forget firing my buddies gun at the range, let alone a friendly strangers.
From the article:
"There are safety regulations on cars, on toys. It's clearly time we have safety regulations on handguns," McGreevey said at the signing ceremony.
I'm pretty sure that I could kill someone with any car and most kids toys available on the market. I seem to recall a guy named David taking out a giant with nothing but a slingshot, the ancient precursor of the gun. What no regulation can control is intent. If someone intends to do me harm I want to be able to protect myself, or at least have a chance to, like David did. Not being Ahnold, a gun gives me that. Why do people consider it nuts to desire to use the most effective means of self-defense available (next to common sense)? I consider it nuts not to.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
This is one of my favorite quotes...
If guns kill people, then...
-pencils missspel words.
-cars make people drive drunk.
-spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
To add to my argument...
Maybe we should make pencils that fix spelling errors, then I won't have to learn to spell.
Maybe they should make cars that smell alcohol and don't operate, then I won't have to learn responsiblity and self control.
Maybe we should have fat police, because I sure as hell have seen a lot more 80 year old chain-smokers than 80 year old chunkers. Sorry, I apologize to the poor chunkers who are helpless victims of McDonalds. (they made you eat it)
Maybe we should ban television and computers, then have mandatory exercise since heart disease kills so many people.
Maybe we should have a law banning all bones in food, since so many people and thier pets choke to death.
Maybe we should really stop making such stupid fscking laws, that don't really solve anything.
"10 percent of police who are shot are shot with their own guns".
Ok but now think about this... if a cop gets shot with his own gun it would lead that most likely he was either:
a) incapacitated in some other respect and could have been stangled/beaten/knifed/etc...
b) struggling with somebody and actidentally discharged his firearm into himself...
c) was suprised and had someone draw the gun from his own holster (what good is that cable now? You don't need to stand 5' away to shoot someone)
Now sure there are other situations, of course. But think about this: if the officer's gun had this new tech on it would those 10% of shot police officers have gotten away just fine? I seriously doubt it. I think them being shot with their own gun was just the end result of a larger conflict that had ended badly for the officer to begin with.
I actually think this _could_ be a good idea for law enforcement guns... maybe have the grips keyed to only allow those on the force to fire them. But for your average gun owning American this is just one more step to keep the criminals armed and the masses helpless (or more precisely keep the masses dependent on our dear government).
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
There are medium range (10-15 foot) taser guns now that can KO an intruder. No trajectory/windspeed issues, and if some kid shoots his brother with it, you don't have any chance in heck of a dead child - give or take maybe .001%, say if you shot someone who has a pacemaker (but I'm sure a bullet is just as harmful to them).
So why aren't we looking more into these technologies?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I always love the way they think that every person who buys a gun for defense is buying a handgun. Now for the following comments keep in mind I don't live in a concealed carry state and if I did I would be buying a handgun for SELF defense. However, for HOME defense, which is what most people in the US have to worry about, do NOT buy a handgun. The most intimidating(sp) sound in the world is that of a 12 gauge shotgun being racked.
So if you want a little home protection go out and buy a pistol grip 12 gauge with the shortest barrel your state allows an extended tube, should give you at least 6 shots, load it with this pattern 3 #2 shot loads, 2 00 loads, and one heavy grain slow speed hollow point slug. If the noise from loading that first one in the chamber doesn't make em leave, the 3 rounds of BBs should change their mind, if not the 00 will open em up a little, and if all else fails put a baseball size hole in them. Above all practice, practice, practice.
Since the UK 'got rid of' handguns in 1996/7, violent crime rate has gone up by about 40%, and handgun crime has doubled.
I have looked into this a while back. The gun laws that were in effect before 1997 were quite strict already (even when compared to other European countries). The guns that were regulated have rarely been used in crimes because of this (there was one nasty incident in 1997 though, which caused the ban). Furthermore, the crime rates were already increasing.
The way I see it, the 1997 ban only hurt hunters and sport shooters, while the number of illegal guns hasn't been reduced because of this ban. It's much easier to import guns from Eastern Europe, both before and after the ban.
The only conclusion that you can draw from these facts is that banning strictly regulated guns doesn't have a substantial effect on crime rates. While gun nuts like to use this example as proof, the pre-1997 UK gun laws were infinitely more strict than the US gun laws, so they really don't tell us much about the current situation in the US. Unless you are willing to defend strict regulation with allowances for sport shooters and hunters, I suggest that you don't bother to use this example in a debate.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Population of United Kingdom: 59,778,002
Population of United States: 280,562,489 ( both estimates circa Jul 2002)
OK. The US (of America) have a population that's approximately 4.7 times that of the UK. Now assuming that the death rate in the US due to handguns was proportional to that of the UK, less than 70 people would have died in the US, rather than the 25000 that actually were killed.
But, you say, the differences can be attributed to different population densities... The UK has a staggering number of people crammed into a comparatively tiny group of islands. Unless you mean to imply that rural, sparsely populated areas are responsible for the bulk of gun related deaths, the statistic show that American residents kill more people with guns than do UK residents.
Why thank you.
Freud was quite intellectual wasn't he? He had insight into the human condition that revolutionized modern psychology.
However, I don't think he ever determined what makes someone think that a gun kills someone deader than a cut throat or bashed temple does.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.