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"."

9 of 1,089 comments (clear)

  1. Now all we need... by sjrstory · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is smart users :)

    1. Re:Now all we need... by velo_mike · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What we need more is to make sure that these computerized sensors can't be _hacked_ to alter who has the authority to use the weapon. Unauthorized use is only good if you can keep the criminals from using stolen weapons (or purchased on the black market).

      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

    2. Re:Now all we need... by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Now all we need... by ckedge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      .
      [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]

  2. Re:First Charlie Brown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    good grief that's offtopic

  3. Bad, bad BAD idea. by Kronovohr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. We need smart people... by MLopat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This technology has very little merit. Since there are over 100 million weapons in North America, there will never be a problem for a criminal to find a gun that does not contain this "smart" technology. People that legitimately acquire weapons are not the ones that mis-use them.

    In Canada, there has been National debate over their new control registry that has legislated that all gun owners must now register their weapons. It's not very likely that legitimate gun owners are going to commit a crime with their .22 calibre hunting rifle. It is very likely the continued importation of illegal automatic assault weapons will be used for crimes though.

    The only place this technology has any applicability is in the hands of police if they feel they may lose their firearm to a suspect and have it used against them. And you don't hear about that happening to often because police have training. Develop smart people, not smart weapons.

  5. What happens when... by ShamusYoung · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Someone busts into my house, my wife takes out my gun, and the fucking thing doesn't work for her, because the gun is "mine".

    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.
  6. Re:What happened... by harrkev · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think that legislation for waiting periods and against concealed-carry is a great idea

    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."