Preacherman
Member
In the light of the latest NJIT grant to develop a "smart gun" (see this thread for details), I thought it worthwhile to resurrect this 2003 article.
From Popular Mechanics (http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/firearms/2003/7/smart_guns/):
'Smart' Guns: Dumb Idea!
BY CLIFF GROMER
At first blush it seems like a great idea. A gun that can determine if the person holding it is an authorized user. A smart gun that will fire only if it recognizes the shooter's thumbprint. Pretty neat. Homeowners would want it because it eliminates the danger of their kids or anyone else using it. The cops surely would want it, as it eliminates the danger of a bad guy getting ahold of their weapon and turning the tables. Then there's the problem of teenage suicides--most prevalent where there is easy access to guns, such as the homes of law officers. What's not to like?
New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey seems to like the idea. He signed bill S.573/890, which will ban the sale of dumb handguns--namely, all handguns that are currently available. The law goes into effect three years after "at least one manufacturer has delivered at least one production model of a personalized handgun to a registered or licensed wholesale or retail dealer in New Jersey or any other state." Exceptions to this sweeping legislation would be for antique and competition models. The law doesn't make for a total ban on handgun sales, but it comes pretty close. The law has a good chance of being a model for similar restrictions in other states.
But what about the benefits? What about all those kids who get killed as the result of firearms? The latest information available from the New Jersey Department of Health on this is for the years 1998 and 1999. The total number of children killed in firearms accidents? Zero. Even so, there are kids who are killed by guns, such as the 18-year-old ne'er-do-well who was shot while attempting to rob a liquor store. He was entered in the "child" category.
Well, at least the police would benefit from the new law. Or would they? The cops, as it turns out, want no part of the smart-gun law, and they raised such a fuss that the law was amended to exclude the guns used for official use by federal, state and local law enforcement officers and members of the armed forces and the National Guard serving in New Jersey. The reason was simple. The law enforcement folks didn't want to put their lives on the line for new, unproven technology. It seems that when you marry a firearm and a computer, the result is something that's less than 100 percent reliable. A handgun, with its shocks, vibrations and corrosive emissions, is not the best environment for a piece of sophisticated electronic hardware. In a life-or-death confrontation with a bad guy, a cop doesn't have the option of saying, "Timeout, I have to reboot." It's interesting that the group that smart guns were targeted for--law enforcement officers--is the one rejecting the concept.
Just how reliable is current smart-gun technology? According to research conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, user identification has to be accomplished within a quarter-second to be effective in a life-threatening situation. Sandia says there are no known available technologies that police would find acceptable.
During the Clinton administration, the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice figured to spur smart-gun development by subsidizing a major firearms manufacturer tasked with inventing a workable system. Colt's Manufacturing Co. took on the project, which was sweetened by hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Justice Department. A workable system has yet to be found.
According to the New Jersey Institute of Technology, which used government grants to study personalized handgun technology, fingerprint recognition systems work only 80 percent of the time. But the New Jersey law goes into effect regardless of whether the guns are 100 percent--or 80 percent--reliable.
Cops protecting the New Jersey governor won't accept an 80 percent reliability factor. But the governor, by supporting this law, is saying that 80 percent is good enough for the homeowner trying to protect his family from an armed intruder. What's wrong with this picture?
From Popular Mechanics (http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/firearms/2003/7/smart_guns/):
'Smart' Guns: Dumb Idea!
BY CLIFF GROMER
At first blush it seems like a great idea. A gun that can determine if the person holding it is an authorized user. A smart gun that will fire only if it recognizes the shooter's thumbprint. Pretty neat. Homeowners would want it because it eliminates the danger of their kids or anyone else using it. The cops surely would want it, as it eliminates the danger of a bad guy getting ahold of their weapon and turning the tables. Then there's the problem of teenage suicides--most prevalent where there is easy access to guns, such as the homes of law officers. What's not to like?
New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey seems to like the idea. He signed bill S.573/890, which will ban the sale of dumb handguns--namely, all handguns that are currently available. The law goes into effect three years after "at least one manufacturer has delivered at least one production model of a personalized handgun to a registered or licensed wholesale or retail dealer in New Jersey or any other state." Exceptions to this sweeping legislation would be for antique and competition models. The law doesn't make for a total ban on handgun sales, but it comes pretty close. The law has a good chance of being a model for similar restrictions in other states.
But what about the benefits? What about all those kids who get killed as the result of firearms? The latest information available from the New Jersey Department of Health on this is for the years 1998 and 1999. The total number of children killed in firearms accidents? Zero. Even so, there are kids who are killed by guns, such as the 18-year-old ne'er-do-well who was shot while attempting to rob a liquor store. He was entered in the "child" category.
Well, at least the police would benefit from the new law. Or would they? The cops, as it turns out, want no part of the smart-gun law, and they raised such a fuss that the law was amended to exclude the guns used for official use by federal, state and local law enforcement officers and members of the armed forces and the National Guard serving in New Jersey. The reason was simple. The law enforcement folks didn't want to put their lives on the line for new, unproven technology. It seems that when you marry a firearm and a computer, the result is something that's less than 100 percent reliable. A handgun, with its shocks, vibrations and corrosive emissions, is not the best environment for a piece of sophisticated electronic hardware. In a life-or-death confrontation with a bad guy, a cop doesn't have the option of saying, "Timeout, I have to reboot." It's interesting that the group that smart guns were targeted for--law enforcement officers--is the one rejecting the concept.
Just how reliable is current smart-gun technology? According to research conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, user identification has to be accomplished within a quarter-second to be effective in a life-threatening situation. Sandia says there are no known available technologies that police would find acceptable.
During the Clinton administration, the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice figured to spur smart-gun development by subsidizing a major firearms manufacturer tasked with inventing a workable system. Colt's Manufacturing Co. took on the project, which was sweetened by hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Justice Department. A workable system has yet to be found.
According to the New Jersey Institute of Technology, which used government grants to study personalized handgun technology, fingerprint recognition systems work only 80 percent of the time. But the New Jersey law goes into effect regardless of whether the guns are 100 percent--or 80 percent--reliable.
Cops protecting the New Jersey governor won't accept an 80 percent reliability factor. But the governor, by supporting this law, is saying that 80 percent is good enough for the homeowner trying to protect his family from an armed intruder. What's wrong with this picture?
