[Zimphire]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Sci_Tech/story_44151.asp

AP - New Jersey became the first US state to enact "smart gun" legislation that would eventually require new handguns to have a mechanism that allows only their owners to fire them.



I am ALL for this. I really can't see a reason that the NRA would care about this one.

[Axo1ot1]

yeah, the recording industry is way too crazy when it comes to guns

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
yeah, the recording industry is way too crazy when it comes to guns

Sorry about that,

[nonhuman]

I'm curious how they'll manage to do this. It seems like biometric detectors would be the only way to do it and yet it's been shown that biometrics is a completely unreliable way to identify someone. I believe it was something like 10% effective against attempts to bypass it even with people watching.

[pooka]

I think they're going about it assbackwards. It should be developed for military and law enforcement first. Once it's been field tested and failure rates are at the same level or below that of your standard issue sidearms then it should be used for civilian models. Get police to trust their lives with it and you will meet less resistance from the public.

[shawnjoyce]

The NRA opposes ANY gun control. They will surely fight this in any way they can. After all, they are the #1 lobbyist in Washington.

I abhor them by the way.

[Cipher13]

Biometrics are bullshit. This will never pass, because they'll never get through the testing phase. Stupid.

How is this compensation for keeping a gun in a safe?

[Sven G]

It seems that even guns are undergoing extensive privatization...

... Anyway - what about building a society based on mutual help instead of fear of the "stranger"? Why do people become criminals? Would so many people become criminals if they had the opportunity to develop themselves freely, together with others? Etc., etc...

Noone seems to pose these elementary questions - just "refine" the existing (how irrational it even might be), maybe in "politically correct" ways!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Anyway - what about building a society based on mutual help instead of fear of the "stranger"?

Vicious cycle. That could only happen when all humans can be guaranteed to be trustworthy. While that day may someday come, certainly our great-great-grandchildren will be long dead of old age by then.

Why do people become criminals? Would so many people become criminals if thay had the opportunity to develop themselves freely, together with others? Etc., etc...

Those opportunities exist. People don't take them, sometimes, and that is a great shame. It is also their prerogative. You could force them to take the opportunities already there, I suppose, but that would reduce them to slaves.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Vicious cycle. That could only happen when all humans can be guaranteed to be trustworthy. While that day may someday come, certainly our great-great-grandchildren will be long dead of old age by then.

I've got it! We'll just make it illegal to be untrustworthy! That'll solve everything!

Those opportunities exist. People don't take them, sometimes, and that is a great shame. It is also their prerogative. You could force them to take the opportunities already there, I suppose, but that would reduce them to slaves.

This seems to assume that there is some inherent benefit to choosing the 'moral' path through life. Without going into too much detail I'll say that I have, in the past, chosen to break the law when it was well within my means to obey it. I didn't make the decision because I was forced too, or even because I had some objection to the law I was breaking. Quite honestly, I did it because it was fun, and because there is a thrill in getting away with it. Acting within the law might have been less risky, and more 'moral', but that didn't make it the more appealing choice.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by pooka:
I think they're going about it assbackwards. It should be developed for military and law enforcement first. Once it's been field tested and failure rates are at the same level or below that of your standard issue sidearms then it should be used for civilian models.

Do you have any idea how many weapons the military has? Or how old many of them are? It could be decades before you replace old weapons in the military with new ones.

Plus, the military doesn't need any new type of lock. First, because weapons are already kept very securely under lock and key in vault-like armories. You have to sign them out individually, and only when ordered to do so. The ammunition is then given out separately and every member is fully trained on weapons security, accountability, and safety.

Secondly, in combat and in training you often swap weapons around. If the guy with the SAW or the M-203 gets shot (or goes to sleep), an M-16 gunner had better be picking that more powerful weapon up. Any additional lock would be not only unnecessary, but also stupid. Anything that slows weapons handoff could literally cost lives in combat.

By all means put smart locks that will be handled by dumb members of the public. But leave the professional's tools alone.

[Spliffdaddy]

Another reason to stay out of New Jersey.

As if anybody needed another reason.

[Avon]

This is one of those stupid things that will never materialize. Some ass in NJ got a boner for smart guns and now it must be.

Problem is it wont happen. The technology is years away and, the safety concerns of having an electro mechanical system attached to a handgun is stupid. Would you like to be killed because your hand gun ran out of batteries?

[nonhuman]

They could attach a small generator so that you can power the sensors by pumping the trigger.

[Avon]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Another reason to stay out of New Jersey.

As if anybody needed another reason.

Get over it. You are just mad because NJ is the best state in the US. I wouldn't even think about living anywhere else.

[misc]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Another reason to stay out of New Jersey.

As if anybody needed another reason.

You ever live in Jersey?

[nonhuman]

Of course not. I've never heard anyone from Jersey say anything particularly bad about the place. It's only the people who've never been there who seem to 'know' how bad it really is. They must be a lot more perceptive than me, I lived there for 9 years and I still think it's a good place to live.

Hmm, I just realized that the Korean part of my sig is spelled wrong. Damn, I really don't want to fix that. Guess it's time to come up with a new one.

[pooka]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Do you have any idea how many weapons the military has? Or how old many of them are? It could be decades before you replace old weapons in the military with new ones.

Plus, the military doesn't need any new type of lock. First, because weapons are already kept very securely under lock and key in vault-like armories. You have to sign them out individually, and only when ordered to do so. The ammunition is then given out separately and every member is fully trained on weapons security, accountability, and safety.

Secondly, in combat and in training you often swap weapons around. If the guy with the SAW or the M-203 gets shot (or goes to sleep), an M-16 gunner had better be picking that more powerful weapon up. Any additional lock would be not only unnecessary, but also stupid. Anything that slows weapons handoff could literally cost lives in combat.

By all means put smart locks that will be handled by dumb members of the public. But leave the professional's tools alone.

I have some vague idea how many weapons the military has. I also have some idea of how old some of the weapons are. By design most of them are very durable.

I'm also somewhat aware of the very strict weapon storage procedures in the armed forces. I wasn't trying to imply that boys on leave are having their m9s stolen from them in bar bathrooms.

If it makes you feel any better I was being a smartass. Would you trust this in combat? Would you ask law enforcement to trust it? Then why ask the general public? If lack of training is the issue why not pass a law requiring 6 months of weapons training instead?

I am not opposed to the development of this technology. Given time and years of testing most of the issues could probably be worked out. But as a requirement 3 years after a GM is declared seems retarded.


I can see the ads now...

"The Beretta 92fs with WinCE 3.0. So easy to use no wonder it's #1!"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by pooka:
If it makes you feel any better I was being a smartass. Would you trust this in combat? Would you ask law enforcement to trust it? Then why ask the general public? If lack of training is the issue why not pass a law requiring 6 months of weapons training instead?

Sorry. Your "smartassness" didn't come across in your post.

[ringo]

I don't know how much good it will do since criminals will just buy used off the black market or bring stuff in from out of state, but it should be interesting to see gun makers scramble around to meet the deadline.

Maybe instead of fingerprints, they use proximity instead? I remember reading some years back about tech that will make a gun useless if it's too far away from a ring or necklace that emits some kind of signal.

Anyway, I'm all for better handgun control. Nobody needs a concealable weapon for anything other than sneaking up on someone and shooting them. Anyone serious about home defense will get a shotgun.

[nvaughan3]

stupid, stupid law. it will only create criminal activity and reduce demand for "new" guns by driving up the price of legal guns and making people turn to neighboring states to either buy from there or get used guns. this will do nothing, and have absolutely no effect. this will be a mirror of new jersey's ballistic fingerprinting program which despite millions and millions of dollars and after testings tens of thousands of guns and shells, have yet to produce ONE arrest resulting from it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by misc:
You ever live in Jersey?

Indeed.

For five years I lived in Belle Mead, just outside of Princeton.

Never met anybody there that particularly liked New Jersey.

Nice scenery but no other redeeming qualities I can think of.

[Big Mac]

New Jersey's law-abiding citizens should thank their elected officials for making them that much more vulnerable. The biometrics schemes will certainly fail, and criminals will acquire their weaponry elsewhere anyway. Coupled with the 9th Circuit's activist court idiocy, the "Patriot" Act and a host of other abuses, the United Empire of America can put another nail in the coffin of my beloved US Constitution.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by ringo:
Maybe instead of fingerprints, they use proximity instead? I remember reading some years back about tech that will make a gun useless if it's too far away from a ring or necklace that emits some kind of signal.

*takes gun from owner, hold up to owner's chest, pulls trigger*

That sort of system wouldn't really work too well...