NJIT's smart gun moves closer to completion with $1.1 million grant

I agree, make them mandatory for law enforcement as their trial period... and then when they realize just how bad this technology obviously sucks, then maybe they will see the light lol.

this crap these days.... makes me want to start acquiring as many pistols for posterity, cause maybe some day they wont be able to have a gun for what it was meant to be, a nice steel tool that does not need to be fettered with by electronics and all the possible failures that come with it.

What is the targeted intent of the Smart mechanism? Please explain this to an uninitiated.

Click to expand...

Originally, it was to protect LEOs from having their duty guns taken away and used against them.

The present excuse by The Party in PRNJ is that it's for the chillldrun.

In actuality, it's to prevent ownership of functioning handguns by proles. Only the police may own handguns that work properly.


- pdmoderator

Do a search for Smart gun - we've beat this one to death several times.

For those new to the discussion, our wonderful state government here in PRNJ passed a law (full text can be found via link from this page: http://www.njstatelib.org/NJLH/lh2002/ch130.htm) That basically says, 2 years after a "production" version of a "personalized" or smart gun is available commercially, no other type of gun will be legal for sale in New Jersey.

Police are exempt.

Excuse is to make the children "safe".

The market drives new technology - not the government; no one asked for this; it is backdoor gun control. Plain and simple.

Guns will be more expensive and less reliable. And when the day comes, it may indeed be time to move and leave this state to the communists.

So, I'm thinking as a computer programmer about flaws in the system. What happens when some college kid with tooo much time on their hands, like me, gets one of these? Sooner or later, someone is going to crack this. Whether it is some sort of chip that the person wears that overrides the system, or simply finding out how to reprogram the gun.

Next question: Who controls the programming of the gun. I can't believe that they would let to dealers do it. Is this something else the gov't will have to take care of? Would there be a way they could deny you programming? Maybe, make it so the gun has to be re programmed every year, at a cost of $100?

Under there, there still has to be a base Beretta 92. What's to stop a person from taking off the grips, and replacing with factory parts?

What happens when this is mandated for my duck gun, and it gets dropped in the water (which happens far too often). Will I have to pay to replace the electronics every time?

If you need anymore 'why is this a bad idea' ideas, just let me know.

As a purely theoretical excercise, I say "Go for it." Even to the tune of a certain percentage of financing from fed.gov.

If they can actually make it work, I may buy one, to be a safe queen if nothing else. If it's proven out after a lengthy number of years of field use, I may turn it into a HD weapon.

Under no circumstance should it be made mandatory for anybody in N.J. or anywhere else that if they have to defend themselves, they have to do it with equipment that hasn't been proven.

This'll be awesome for the smart-gun chip descrambler market.
I'll think of this thread everytime that I miss New Jersey. Thank you.

pdmoderator, Highland Ranger,

Actually I was trolling in asking about the purpose of a smart gun. I think most people who hear the argument have greater expectations for the gun than what you have outlined.

jefnvk,

Think of the Gordian knot and don't waste energy on programming. Any 12 year old or criminal will simply remove the grips, rip out the electronics, attach a wire to one end of a battery, to the trigger, one near the trigger to create a switch, to the actuating solonoid or, for electronic ignition like the Aussie toy, to the ignitor and then back to the battery. Presto!! Very dumb gun.

Two or three wires and a battery=dumb gun. Repeat that ad nauseum to the smart gun proponents until it becomes a mantra they live with.

"For the first time, interchangeable and multiple barrels can be made available to fire a range of projectiles of varying caliber from the same handgun."

The reporter obviously isn't familiar with guns...

Electricity, Guns & Chips

The intermingling of guns and electric fire control is nothing new. Remington and Anshutz have fielded guns with electronic triggers. GAUs are electrically driven. Many military fire control systems are electronic - look at the auto cannon on the Apache gunship for example. How many of us have battery dependent sights and lights on our guns?

You wacky Luddites, you.

sendec said:

The intermingling of guns and electric fire control is nothing new. Remington and Anshutz have fielded guns with electronic triggers. GAUs are electrically driven. Many military fire control systems are electronic - look at the auto cannon on the Apache gunship for example. How many of us have battery dependent sights and lights on our guns?

You wacky Luddites, you.

Click to expand...

There's a rather big difference between a sporting weapon and a vehicle mounted weapon, versus a personal defense weapon owned by a civilian. We cannot anticipate

By the way, I do have a battery dependent sight. It failed during a course. I was quite glad that I had back up iron sights to complete the course. No batteries or electronics to fail. There is no comparable system in this pistol to operate it if the electronics fail. That's a "design feature."

Now, let's ask you a question: do you have a computer? Has it ever crashed or just frozen for a moment? Would you like to see your pistol do that, just when you need it to save your life?

I'm not speaking for the smart gun issue, but in relation to integrated electronics in weapons. As sendec points out, it's already done in do-or-die weapons platforms. In the medical, survival, and other fields, they're already used in life-or-death situations on a regular and reliable basis.

Comparing purpose built integrated electronics (or laboratory proto-types of said tech) to the casual home users PC is an incredibly false analogy. It would be like me suggesting that a sword, for lack of any faliable moving mechanical parts, is out and out superior to a gun because... "Haven't you ever had a lawn mower/bicycle/wind-up toy/etc. fail?"

Solid state electronics are arguably more reliable than any moving part object save for its power source.

PaladinX13 said:

Comparing purpose built integrated electronics (or laboratory proto-types of said tech) to the casual home users PC is an incredibly false analogy.

...

Solid state electronics are arguably more reliable than any moving part object save for its power source.

Click to expand...

So you think that a programmable, grip-recognizing gun will have less technoilogy than, say, my Motorola cel phone?

I have a V300 -- a pretty new model. Solid state.

And it crashes a couple times a month -- I have to do a hard reset.

That's not an isolated case. My previous phone, an LG, crashed too -- put a C programming language error message right on the screen.

Embedded code is not infallible -- far from it!

If it is "smart," it has code. If it has code, it has bugs. If it has bugs, it can crash. If it can crash, I don't want it in a gun.

Again, New Jersey's law has a law enforcement exception. Don't you wonder why?

PaladinX13 said:

I'm not speaking for the smart gun issue, but in relation to integrated electronics in weapons. As sendec points out, it's already done in do-or-die weapons platforms. In the medical, survival, and other fields, they're already used in life-or-death situations on a regular and reliable basis.

Comparing purpose built integrated electronics (or laboratory proto-types of said tech) to the casual home users PC is an incredibly false analogy. It would be like me suggesting that a sword, for lack of any faliable moving mechanical parts, is out and out superior to a gun because... "Haven't you ever had a lawn mower/bicycle/wind-up toy/etc. fail?"

Solid state electronics are arguably more reliable than any moving part object save for its power source.

Click to expand...

In those "life-or-death" situations, you think that they have a nonpower based alternative or technique? If your weapon fails in a firefight, do you plan on using it as a hammer?

Further, if the fire control system on a plane, tank, MICV, etc., fails, it aborts the mission and heads for home. You would be surprised at the number of times that happens. They also have allies around to support them if such a failure occurs. Care to tell Mr. Attacker "whoops, don't shoot while I run away because my gun just had the 1 in a million failure!"

As for the sword analogy, now there's a false one. My comment was about taking a device that works quite well as intended, and adding a layer of inherently unreliable (better get your grip perfect everytime or those fingerpring sensors won't work; better not wear gloves or get cut or sweat so there'll be liquid interfering) technology to it. I am not, as you are suggesting, trying to compare technologies of an inherently different nature and with very different parameters.

Bottom line, you're making really ridiculous comparisions (ignoring tech in medical fields, for example, not everything is about weapons...). Cell phones, especially new ones, are multi-taskers, not a life-n-death application, and with a lot of high-level code. It's like saying a sword is inherently flawed as a weapon because a swiss army knife is. A PC is infinitely more complex than a light-switch... a modern cell phone probably a few magnitudes more than a finalized biometric scanner+. There's no comparision.

With regards to why there's a law enforcement exception, that speaks nothing to the technology being inherently flawed, only to the fact that it is new and inherently experimental. I'd expect the same for any new tech that is as much a sociological experiment as it is an engineering one (which is to say, even if it functions 100% as advertised there are still issues/problems).

benEzra said:

"For the first time, interchangeable and multiple barrels can be made available to fire a range of projectiles of varying caliber from the same handgun."

The reporter obviously isn't familiar with guns...

Click to expand...

Metalstorm. The prime corporate sponsor of this farce.

- pdmoderator

You realize that you just stopped discussing the point, don't you? You didn't present counterarguments, but just asserted that we are making ridiculous comparisons. You failed to refute the fire control system argument, and went to "life and death" technology such as medical equipment. Fine. Let's use your analogy. Go to a doctor or EMT and ask how many times this medical equipment fails, or the frequency of recalibration and tests. This technology is NOT up to the standards required of a weapon, namely being left in a drawer or holster for possibly months on end without a test, patch, or upgrade.

As for the cell phone comparison, you argued that solid state technology was fundamentally reliable. Maybe it is, but the cell phone example showed that even this amazing technology fails regularly in real world use. And you're right, it's a multi-task device. It's only life or death when used by someone to call 911, which is one of the selling points, right? That a cell phone makes you more able to access emergency services when needed and when it works?

Bottom line is that they are taking an essentially reliable device and adding another layer of complexity to it, for no benefit to the end user. That is contrary to established design practice for everyone except Microsoft and legislators trying to reduce access to firearms by driving up cost.

Yes, I own a computer, and yes, on occasion it crashes. Do you have a crank on the front of your car? I doubt it, but the average car is battery dependent and has more on-board computing power than the Apollo command module. Yes, they break, but they are reliable enough and have been proven over billions of miles. I have also have had weapons break, primers fail, too-tight underwear, and any number of other technological failures. Things break, nothing, but nothing, is %100 reliable.

Y'all try to remember that this is research. That's how we learn if it works or not, not by forum prescience. If it makes for a safer more effective tool I'm all for it. If it passes the same tests as any other duty weapon why not use it?

If it makes for a safer more effective tool I'm all for it. If it passes the same tests as any other duty weapon why not use it?

Click to expand...

And if a criminal comes up with a way to deactive it from a distance and render you defenseless, then I suppose you'd like that too. I mean, going with the car analogy, law enforcement has been researching how to disable cars from a safe (for them) distance. One of the concerns of such research is the absolute ease it will be turned to crimes such as rape, kidnapping, murder, theft, etc. The same technology has application here.

Guy B. Meredith said:

Any 12 year old or criminal will simply remove the grips, rip out the electronics, attach a wire to one end of a battery, to the trigger, one near the trigger to create a switch, to the actuating solonoid or, for electronic ignition like the Aussie toy, to the ignitor and then back to the battery. Presto!! Very dumb gun.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the poor citizen who doesn't want to break the law won't be able to do that . . . . so we're doing this to give criminals ANOTHER advantage?

sendec said:

Y'all try to remember that this is research. That's how we learn if it works or not, not by forum prescience. If it makes for a safer more effective tool I'm all for it. If it passes the same tests as any other duty weapon why not use it?

Click to expand...

You are missing the point. This is legislated research. Two years after the NJ STATE GOVERNMENT determines a "commercially available" smartgun is viable, we can no longer buy anything else. Police and criminals will continue to have their choice of weapon.

Man, doesn't that scare you?

How about this to clarify:

More people are killed by cars than by guns so they can be considered dangerous too.

SUV's waste gas, and in accidents with smaller vehicles cause a disproportionate amount of damage and casualties.

Do we need a law saying the only kind of car you can buy is a mini cooper?

If you think yes to either of these, change your handle to COMRADE!

Obviously, the problem here is the legislation, not the research. However, I think it's foolish that a self defense weapon would be designed to fail under any circumstances. It's none of my business if the cops or some Joe Schmoe wants to have a weapon that is designed to fail, but leave me out of it. Of course, I'll never have the misfortune to live in New Jersey, so hopefully this will never be an issue for me anyway.

Rick

Guy B. Meredith said:

Any 12 year old or criminal will simply remove the grips, rip out the electronics, attach a wire to one end of a battery, to the trigger, one near the trigger to create a switch, to the actuating solonoid or, for electronic ignition like the Aussie toy, to the ignitor and then back to the battery. Presto!! Very dumb gun.

Click to expand...

Highland Ranger said:

Unfortunately the poor citizen who doesn't want to break the law won't be able to do that . . . . so we're doing this to give criminals ANOTHER advantage?

Click to expand...

I'll admit I read through the bill very quickly, but I could not find any mention of the legality of "dumbing-down" a smart gun. The issue of modifications after sale just wasn't addressed.

And while I'm sure none of us would like to be on trial for a self-defense situation having used a disabled smart gun, a court would at least offer the opportunity to demonstrate that such a modification was completely necessary to unsure operation.

Well, I'm not against the technology (could have very limited and specific applications), but to FORCE the commercial market to accept it, and then to exempt what should be the PRIMARY market, LEOs, is just asinine. Since around 1/4 of cops are killed on duty with their own weapon, this type of technology makes perfect sense for them. But of course the goal is NOT to make weapons safer, but to bankrupt manufacturers and make firearms too expensive for the consumer market. If only 1 or 2 manufactuers have a patent to make a "personalized" firearm and it sells for $1500, who is gonna buy it?

I wouldn't mind it if it was proven 100% reliable and could be retro-fitted to a 1911 (another benefit to steel guns, changable grips!). Would make for a nice safety for a CCW piece in case it gets lost in a scuffle. But if it ain't 100% reliable, screw it! Besides, I can easily see accidents all over the place as sheeple leave their loaded weapons on the nightstand for junior to get ahold of (after all, it's "smart", right?), and the little tyke bypasses the technology in 2.5 seconds.

Closing Comment.....

I think it is hilarious that a discussion about the perceived negatives of current technology being applied to firearms which have changed little in the last hundred years is taking place via computer over the internet

sendec said:

I think it is hilarious that a discussion about the perceived negatives of current technology being applied to firearms which have changed little in the last hundred years is taking place via computer over the internet

Click to expand...

The internet is for comunication.
The day we need to have our guns speak for us, is the day we really don't need smartguns.

Fear not. They said it was working but probably not working well if they needed another 1.1 million. LOL. Thats alotta money wasted if you ask me.

How about the simple things like the effects of moisture, grit, salt, impact, shock, and heat which firearms continually experience. I highly doubt that it will be as effective as what we already have. Could you just imagine what the lawsuits against the company would be like if these guns exhibited such failures under such circumstances? Heck, people are trying to sue the gun industry over guns that do work! Could you imagine what the lawsuits would be like over something like this? I would expect a warranty on such as firearm including safety provisions.

I can see it now

• Do not get wet.
• Must be operated under 75F/50% R.H. conditions.
• Don't sweat while handling.
• Kept dust free.
• Do not allow impact or shock. Must not be fired do to sensitive electronics.
• Must be stored and used in cool places.
• Must only hold in right hand while hold left foot up in air.
• Must only grip with thumb and middle finger.

By the way, speaking of electronics, hows the Remington EtronX selling? Must not be too good if you can't find it on the website without doing some serious searching. I anyone with one.

Just my $0.02