Slashdot Mirror
Smart Guns are Coming
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"."
If you're dealing with someone who has the foresight to use an EMP pulse, and has the equipment necessary to do it, you have bigger things to worry about.
- oZ
// i am here.
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.
I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave.
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.
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?
--This sig is in beta. Please let us know abut any errors you find.
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.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
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.
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
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.
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
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.
You've been watching way too much Fox news. If you're really that scared of someone breaking into your house, buy some big steel doors and bars for your windows. Maybe even get an alarm system. Having a gun doesn't really stop anybody from breaking into your house. Unless you actually sleep with it under your pillow (bad idea), what are the odds that you are going to get to your gun faster than the raping gun toting burglar you described? Guns just give you a false sense of security without actually providing you with a sufficient level of protection.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave.
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.
.
[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]