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"
I'm curious if when this legislation goes into effect if all new handguns issued to NJ police officers to contain this technology or if handguns for police have been exempted.
I wonder if these things will be hardened against EMP attacks. If not, it would not matter if they used a transponder ring or fingerprint recognition; either way a powerful radio signal is all a criminal would need to disable all the guns in a home before breaking in.
I'm especially interested in the transponder ring systems. I'm sure that hardware types will try cobbling together a universal ring...
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
"One critic says 'No technology is foolproof--anyone who has a computer knows how many times it crashes.' "
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.
The more serious concern is how easy it would be to fool the gun. I can fool my microwave pretty easily, so I'd expect the same from a gun.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Well, I don't see how they could possibly implement this w/o some sort of id tag on the owner. It should be interesting to see how they attempt to implement this in any reasonable fashion, if it is indeed possible...
"...after the state attorney general determines a smart gun prototype is safe..." Since when are guns safe? They are inherently unsafe last I checked--as implements of destruction usually are.
How does the mechanism they descibe (the grip test) prevent "accidental gun deaths and suicide"? If the owner grips it and fires, _it will go off_ --that's it's purpose! Also, will their 'grip id' work through gloves? It doesn't seem likely. If not, cops couldn't wear gloves in the winter!
Even more interesting, would be to follow the money trail to see who's really trying to make a buck...
Yeah, but what happens when these 'smart' guns really get smart and start aiming for you, maybe something of a friendly fire option to keep people your family safe. It's not something that should be forced upon people, but improvement can be made until people actually want it, that is if they can afford it.
//TODO: signature
Trust me, if New Jersey legislators had been able to pass a worldwide law, they would have. But the New Jersey legislature only has jurisdiction over New Jersey, so they're doing the best they can.
If N guns are manufactured in New Jersey in 2006, there will be N guns on the market that have this kind of safety gizmo built in, which is better than the status quo.
And finally, this law has nothing at all to do with crime. It has to do with public safety. As a crime bill, this law will probably not do a very good job. As a safety bill, assuming the technology works, I imagine it'll be quite effective.
I write in my journal
- Will it be possible to "unencode" the gun? Specifically, if a person decided to resell their gun, obviously it would not make sense to let them resell it privately (since that would defeat the purpose of this capability), but they should be able to resell it to a licensed gun dealer, who could then in turn either send it back to the manufacturer or use a special tool to unencode it.
- Will bullets fired from these guns be traceable to the owner of the gun, and if so, will evidence along those lines be useable in court? It seems kind of like a lie detector-type situation (or, if you prefer, a "Gattacca"- or "Minority Resport"-type situation). If somehow someone figured out how to fire someone else's gun, and the bullet were traced back to the gun, then, because of this technology, a jury might be inclined to assume that there is only one possible person who could have fired it, when in fact there could theoretically have been someone else. They should be very explicit in describing how this can and cannot be used in court.
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, while alternatively if it malfunctioned and someone else was able to fire the gun, well then even in this worst-case scenario it would be no worse than it is now. I think, as long as they're careful about the two aforementioned issues, I can be proud of my home state (not that I shouldn't already be proud of it), and hopefully not have to hear too many New Jersey jokes as a result of this.The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
"The gun is set to only fire from the hand of Mr. Thompson, the bullistics match this gun, the gun was registered under the name of Mr. Thompson, A partial of Mr. Thomspon's fingerprint was found on the gun, The is NO other logical conclusion that could possibly be made!"
The real reason for this law, of course, is to slip in yet another provision for the purpose of making guns useless. Once they're completely useless for any practical purpose, there will be much less resistance to any law banning guns altogether- "Well, I do think I should have the right to protect myself, but then it's not like I'd be able to fire a gun in time anyway. I won't bother contacting my representative." Already any killing can be ruled premeditated murder based only on the gun used being kept loaded and in a place where you could get at it if you need it. There have been laws proposed and passed requiring "gun locks" to be placed over triggers so that you need a key to use the gun. I'm sorry, but the self defence rule of reaching for your keys when you're being attacked should only apply when you aren't carying a gun.
There will always be people who are pro-gun and people who are anti-gun. I dont think there's a need to go for the cliche "If guns are outlawed..", just remember that if your potential attacker doesnt think you can get your gun to fire before he can get your arms behind you, he is a lot more likely to act. The other guy doesnt need to have a gun if yours doesnt work.
Guns are made not to protect, but to kill. I hated walking through school and seeing guns every day. It isnt thinking that someone else could grab that gun and use it, I hate it no matter who is holding the gun.
So yeah, I'm a moron, I guess. I want citizens to be able to protect themselves [read: kill the other guy] with a gun, but I dont want police walking the streets with them. Stupid dream, aint it?
Many people may consider this a step in the right direction: It's not gun restricting it's gun control, literally! This is what we've really been asking for the whole time, right?
The dream is to have complete control over the gun- exactly when and how it can be used. Know that the law's idea of when and how a gun should be used is NOT your own belief. If you are against guns, you want more restrictions, if you are for them, you want less. If you're the one holding the gun, you don't give half a shit either way, 'cause all that shit you're saving up for yourself. Some situation has placed a gun in your hands, and all you can care about is using it in the way that situation demands. If it means you're about to shoot someone the law would deem innocent, you do not respect the law. Dont begin to lie saying that you wouldnt want the option. You have the gun, he's in front of you, and the last thing on your mind should be "God, I hope this thing actually fires", even less "Shit! What was my keycode?!" [note to whoever is going to reply 'you say last and then even less, that is impossible': I know that, sometimes words are written to be impossible in order to express an eggageration.]
Whenever you are going to shoot a person, your desired action is not within the limits of the law. Remember this when considering how much control the law should have over your guns.
As I said last time I posted like this, my facts are probably not, and in general what I said could probably be viewed as entirely innaccurate. The point of this message is not to promote accuracy, but thought and discussion. Whether the thoughts or discussions it promotes are intelligent or not is entirely up to the reader. That said, it should be obvious that simply calling me an idiot or pointing out innacuracies is rather pointless, as anyone who has gotten to your post has probably made their way through mine, and so would know such things already.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
It's all about interptretation.
That's why we have the Supreme Court, so that we will have some of the finest legal minds making the interpretation.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned I think it is full of shit.
It's not "the" Supreme Court in the sense of one group of Justices. I cited rulings that strethed over a 90 year period and all of those Justices ruled against the concept of the Second Amendment guaranteeing individual gun ownership rights.
Personally I say it is an individual right along with the rest of the rights provided by the U.S. Constitution.
Learned legal scholars and Supreme Court Justices disagree. What is your background and what law degrees do you hold?
They are creating law instead of making sure it is Constitutional these days.
So, do you include 1886, 1939, and 1976 as "these days"? Because those are the dates of the rulings that I cited. I find it hard to view 115-plus years ago as "these days."
It's kind of late in the game for me to start commenting now, but I feel like I should get this out. As somone who *was* involved in a gun accident, I think I can speak authoritatively on the subject. Let me first say that while I do not currently own a gun, I would if I had the money to spare on it at the moment. Secondly, let me say that I am missing several digits on one of my hands because of irresponsibility with a weapon. What this taught me was: "Never listen to someone who says a weapon isn't loaded, always verify that for yourself". Rest assured that this will be the first lesson my children learn (and these are not theoretical children at some point in the future, I've got two wonderful sons). My father taught me to shoot at an early age, and I plan on teaching mine to shoot as soon as they are able to hold a rifle. I think that the important point in this debate is the fact that children who are educated about weapons (be they guns, knives, words, jelly donuts, whatever) will not try to show off to their friends about how cool they are cause they found dad's gun. They will (for the most part) show them the respect they deserve. Putting chips in weapons that only allow one person to fire them is not the answer. Properly educating the youth of today is one aspect of the answer, another is giving the kids something to do rather than run the streets looking for acceptance with the local gang, or sitting in their room stewing about how mistreated they were at school. Noone is going to stop criminals from killing people with guns by only allowing legitimate weapons to fire when handled by the correct operator, I can show you 15 ways to make a zip gun that is every bit as deadly as your average .45, and another 10 that would drop any human in one shot, regardless of whether it killed him. Legislating gun ownership (or functionality) away is not the right way to go, no matter what kind of spin you put on it
Twinkies sure taste good for something that is 68% air.
This is a training problem... one you will have a hard time fixing with technology.
As a former firearms instructor, I can tell you that retention is tough. If you are fighting for your gun, it's real, no-shit, do-or-die time, and you had better win. I'm not going to discuss specifics in this forum. Even though I have hard time imagining some slashgeek going for a cop's gun, there's probably a few here who are crazy enough, and I'm not going to give anyone any sort of tactical edge.
The reasons police officers get killed with their own guns are many, and often simply come down to bad tactics. That said, I would NEVER trust one of these smart-gun gadgets for a duty weapon.
This is the same philosophy behind the "New York Trigger" that many police officers are required to have on their handguns. Instead of better "trigger control" during training, you get one of these heavy triggers. The trigger pull weight on a New York Trigger is about 12+ pounds, and was put in place to prevent accidental shootings, ostensibly because such a hard trigger pull is difficult to accomplish "by accident." Unfortunately, it causes accuracy to suffer (perhaps increasing bystanders getting hit by stray rounds?), and makes the guns unusable for some smaller-framed officers. Again, a misguided technology fix for a training problem.
I think this is just grandstanding by some NJ politicians. It's almost funny to see them mandate something that doesn't even exist. Unfortunately, this will impact regular gun owners disproportionately, and have little effect on crime guns.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
I see that this story has unleashed the obligatory pissing match between those who believe that the /. idea of freedom - freedom of information - goes hand in hand with the freedom to be armed, and those who believe that the idea of personal armament is an outdated and dangerous concept in modern society.
On Friday night, a good friend, colleague, and fellow slashdotter defended his household and family from intruders with a 12 gauge Mossberg shotgun. He stopped the robbery and scared the suspects off. The police caught them a short while later. No one was hurt. In reflecting upon this event, he and I look at the issue of gun control, and indeed the entire issue of gun culture, with a degree of clarity previously unachieved.
He, like many in our generation, is a reluctant gun owner. We've been bombarded with social engineering that seeks to cast gun ownership in a bizarre, almost psychotic light, which has created, in my opinion, a sort of cultural "gun guilt". Despite this, he recognized about a year ago that he needed a weapon for personal protection, and asked for my advice in selecting it.
I was raised around guns. I was taught to shoot at a very early age, and participated in official tournaments when I was 13. I own several weapons, including a shotgun and what some like to consider an "assault rifle". I've never been in doubt with regard to the necessity for weapons ownership in a free society, but even I have been affected by the discomfort weapons owners are subjected to in our culture these days. Before this recent event, I might even be known not to have a "ready weapon" for use in a home defense situation.
I was therefore his "gun nut friend", and took him to the range to learn to shoot safely and effectively. While fully capable of using it, and with a confident, demonstrated, and consistent application of gun safety practices, he never felt comfortable as a gun owner for precisely the same reason so many around here chime in gleefully when something as ridiculous as smart guns gets proposed. (Are you prepared to stake your life on the speed and accuracy of modern biometric identification?) He, and indeed I as well, are victims of the great lie of the modern American anti-gun culture, and it could have cost him his life.
So before you chime in on this one, and run with the crowd of those who believe guns are vehicles of evil and that those who own and use them are psychotic redneck madmen seeking only to kill schoolchildren, take a second to question your views, what cultural influences formed those views, and the possible agenda of those who exterted those influences. Your life may one day depend on it.
The result will be simple enough - firearms manufacturers, quite reasonably, will refuse to sell firearms in the state of New Jersey based on the liability issues involved.
.45 and recondition it than I would be willing to purchase a risk-intensive "smart gun"...
The first time a battery runs down, or a "smart gun system" fails to fire when necessary - resulting in the death or injury of the lawful firearm owner - the manufacturer of that so-called "smart gun" is going to be sued out of existence.
There are seldom many volunteers to be sued out of existence.
A firearm is a last-ditch tool of self defense, and like a fire extinguisher, introducing exciting new failure modes is a *very bad thing*.
Certainly, my *very first* priority if I were to purchase a so-called "smart gun" would be to dumb it down and remove the potentially fatal failure mode implicit in its' alleged "safety-system".
This, of course, does not even begin to address the notion that I'd be MUCH more willing to buy a WWI era
Lokinator
"A gun is one of those things that if you need it, you really really need it...and you need it WORK the first time..."
"It is morally wrong to initiate the aggressive use of force.." Of course, defensive force is fair game...
Firstly, it's a dumb idea. About as workable as a "Ballistic Fingerprint".
Secondly, I know a ton of Law Enforcment officers carry thier "issue" piece (Sig, Glock, etc) and at least a personally purchased backup, and often a "belly gun" and maybe even an ankle gun.
Well what the hell happens in a fight if couple officers are underfire, and for some reason the partner has to use one of the other officer's backups?
A dead cop is what happens.
Smart grips don't work, aren't going to work for a while, it's a dumb law.
Besides, what stops Bill from buying a pistol at a PA gunshow or from the Classifieds and driving across the state line?
A gun is such a simple contraption that it's unimaginable that someone won't make or modify an existing one that won't be protected. It might help in officers being hurt when their gun refuses to fire in an emergency, but it certainly won't stop the criminals from using guns.
Not to mention that there are so many guns out there right now.
A better strategy would be to somehow chemically taint the gun powder to make it identifiable. Whenever you buy bullets (or plain gun powder), that gun powder is forever linked to you. If it ever shows up anywhere, you're busted. Also make it 100 times more expensive than it is now. Crime problem solved. Nobody can afford the bullets (at say $100 a piece), and when they do use them, they're 100% traceable to the buyer. If all bullets sold implement this feature, then in 10-20 years, nobody will have "old" untraceable bullets.
Now, I seriously doubt anyone is nuts enough to make their own gun powder from scratch...
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
I think "the point" of this law is not so criminals can't get their hands on guns...because I'm sure it would be trivial to take your gun to a shop (or someone's basement) and have it "re-fitted" to you. I believe that "the point" here is to prevent children from getting their hands on guns, which I would consider a noble cause.
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
Going back to the 'hole' theory, however, tells me that this shell will create a rather significant hole in whatever area it hits. Supposing it hits the chest area (the broadest area of an animal, also the one with the most vital organs) it would potentialy create a hole large enough to put your arm clean through. The chance of such a shell NOT hitting a vital organ along its way is very, very slim.
I have to say, though, that this is the first time I've ever heard mention of this "Hydrostatic Shock" theory, and I can easily see why; it's about as baseless as so many other pseudo-science ('wives tale') claims.
Anybody who's taken even a basic biology course will understand that if an artery is clipped/severed/ruptured, the animal's heart is then literally pumping blood outside of thebody. When enough blood has escaped so as to decrease the blood pressure, and thus deprive vitaul organs of blood/oxygen, they will cease to function as expected. (Very non-medical description from a person who is not a doctor; consider it a nutshell ;) )
What's next; a claim that bullets offset the balance of the four humours?
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
But don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of your self-satisfied ignorance.
Right, so you are so unsure of your beliefs that you have to resort to insults to make your point. I happen to believe that guns are a bad idea. You want to argue the point? Do it with facts - just leave the value-judgements, unsafe correlations, and urban-myths at home. As to ignorance, well as I don't know it all I must be ignorant. But at least I'm willing to tackle my ignorance head-on in open discussion with others of opposing views.
Some facts:
private ownership of handguns is now illegal
True/False. The 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act owtlawed certain classes of firearm - not handguns. The stated aim of the act was to restrict the ability to carry concealed weapons, so obviously this affected handguns more than rifles, however, some classes of handguns are still permitted.
crime rate has skyrocketed
True. But gun related crime is down. Your suggestion that there exists a correlation between harsher gun laws and the rise in violent crime is statistical game playing. The statistics show that there is a link between the number of people killed by drunken drivers and the number of qualified teachers - amusing, but that's all. Besides as a percentage of total population the number of people holding gun licences has increased (less than 1 in 100).
illegal for their victims to defend themselve
False. I can use reasonable force. In other words I can kill the psycopath attacking me, but I'll have to explain my actions and show they were reasonable. Interestingly, "reasonable force" is the same legal benchmark UK Armed Police are judged by when they discharge a weapon. However, I will admit that the judicial interpretation of "reasonable" has been a bit suspect of late.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
Anyone have some unbiased statistics on on shooting deaths from various countries?