Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Smart Guns are Coming

Posted by samzenpus on from the how-about-smart-people dept.

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"."

2 of 1,089 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Now all we need... by macdaddy · · Score: 4, Informative
    Nice gun. My Glock 22 has a near 0% failure rate. I've only had one misfire in the handful of years I've owned it and the thousands of rounds I've put through it. I contribute that to faulty ammo though. It really wasn't the gun's fault. It's that damned PMC crap.

    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.

  2. Re:What if? by macdaddy · · Score: 4, Informative
    Ammo is the second most unreliable part of any weapons system. The first is the human operator. I've shot well-cared for 30-year old 7.62x39 ammo that had a failure rate of 2 in 5. 40%. I've only ever had one ammo failure in my Glock 22 in all the thousands of rounds I've put through it. I've had perhaps half a dozen misfires in my Anaconda with only a couple hundred rounds put through it. My Beretta 92FS Brig has misfired dozens of times with various brands of ammo, all of which were brand-spanking new and many of which were of a quality brand, Cor-bon and Hornady. My Marlin 336SS jams up so often that I now have to send it back to the manufacturer for an attitude adjustment. My SKS has a tendency to not fully close the bolt after firing.

    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?