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"
What's to prevent someone from buying a gun in another state? And it does nothing for preventing gun crime. All it does is maybe prevent kids from finding their parents' guns and killing themselves, and the solution to THAT is responsible, diligent parenting.
Seeing that if you have a gun in your house you are more likely to kill a family member than a criminal it is a start. Plus it will atleast help with the natural curiosity that kids have about the 'forbidden' items in the house
If they're really smart they'll make it so only one person can be associated with a gun, so that in homes where both the husband and wife want a gun, they'll now have to buy HIS and HERS guns rather than just keeping one under the bed. What a good way to double, rather than reduce, the number of weapons.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
As being a recent immigrant to NJ, and not a native, I would have to say that if they did enact such a "Smart People" law, there would be very few people left. And the state needs all the tax dollars it can geT!
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
And what the hell, my karma has been "excellent" for the last couple years, take me down a couple pegs and give me something to start posting again for.... SlashDot's got quite boring and full of BS lately, spam fest, crap posts. This is a post I will reply to until it's in archive and no longer sorted.
At least you can't sue me for having an opinion (yet! and yes, THIS comment is a troll! And I've got experiance with trolls dating back to 1994 USENET... I'm pretty sure I can handle it). Go for it if you want a gun control debate!
guns don't kill people, but people kill people...
Guns don't kill people. People WITH GUNS kill people.
So either we get rid of people, or we get rid of guns.
Your choice.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
Legally owned guns are part of the solution to violent crime.
You're wrong.
But as my views on the causes and solutions of violent crime are way off topic, let's just agree to differ.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
If you asked someone to conjure up the image of a "Southern Baptist Soccer Mom" and then asked that person to describe that person, you would get a lot of details.... Maybe you can already see the MiniVan and the "My Kid is an Honor Roll Student at Edison Elementary." But what you DON'T conjure up is the thought of someone who is slowly eating away at your freedom, and the founding principles of the USA.
Now, ask someone to think of a "Muslim Single 25 year old Man in New York born in the Middle East" and ask them to describe that person. If you honestly think "terrorist" or "anti-American" doesn't at least cross their mind, your kidding yourself. However, it's probably more likely that this person would support the principles of freedom that the USA was founded on. It's likely that man CAME to the USA because of these freedoms.
Bringing up the stereo-types is EXACTLY what I intended to do. Because it's important to realize that when it comes down to "democracy" vs. "individual liberty" you can't be so sure your right on what OTHER people are thinking, and you can't use stereo-types. I'm pointing that out, the person that appears "non-threatening" politically may actually be very threatening to freedom. Individual Liberty was the founding principle, and democracy was chosen as the best means of the time to insure it. However, democracy may also be one of the fundamental means by which Individual Liberty is taken away. Democracy does not insure freedom.
If you want to only be surrounded by people who buy into your idea of freedom then I suggest you buy an island somewhere and start your own country.
For what possible reason should I abandon my native country and accept that the principles of the founding fathers are doomed to be forgotten and changed? Am I now to believe I shouldn't even SPEAK of these principles in the USA? Hmm, are we now talking about First Amendment, not the Second Amendment?