NJIT gets $250K to keep developing child-proof 'smart gun'

[Jericho941]

I wasn't worried about off-topicness so much as the off-topic stuff melting down into personal attacks. I find the Iraq statistics debate interesting, if a little heated.

[Combat Controller]

No personal attacks guys please.

[FastRope71]

The third does not necessarily follow the first two.

The third is however always preceeded by the first two. Like the fire triangle, remove any side and you no longer have a fire.

[Battleriflefan]

Unlike what Spells says, new Jersey has THAT exact law, i.e. mandated "safety research" when ythe technology "exists." This grant be the state is purposely intended to speed up the porcess, and thus the ban on non-"smart" handguns.

And as for the other "reasonable gun laws which we can all live with", the exact same situation exists. California has already mandated "safety standards" for new firearms, requiring retooling and such. The intention is clear, it is to harrass, impede, infringe and overprice most gun owners OUT of the market. Who started the "Smart gun initiative? Bill Clinton and Janet Reno!

And why is registration, and background check "reasonable"? They don't reduce crime and they don't keep criminals and kids from getting guns, and that is scientifically proven.

I already don't like the "safety features" that already exist. A magazine disconnect is about the most worthless device I know of. And I don't care for the loaded chamber indicator either. I know already what I would think of a handgun thats needs a battery.

I also will say something about the constant claims that the NRA is so paranoid, or just opposes reasonable laws to "spur gun sales." Please! That is utterly rediculous! Just remember the laws that all the mayors are trying to pass which would require microstamping on amunition, and on the gun in order to stamp that number on the casing. That tecnology doesn't even exist, and they are already trying to pass those kinds of laws.

[Aglifter]

It still breaks down to the simple fact that there's no such thing as a gun w. free will, or a dangerous inanimate object.

Guns are sold w. child locks -- which have added to the cost of the gun, and which, are almost universally, not used. Most gun shops in TX have barrels full of those dumb pad locks which customers chunk in there -- people occasionally pick them up to use as pad locks.

The internal ones cause real problems, esp. S&Ws -- CC had his lock on him, I had one of mine start to lock on me (it dragged heavily, but didn't actually stop the hammer.) That creates a far more dangerous situation as either A) the gun now doesn't work, and you NEED it to, or B) you now have a loaded revolver w. a hammer stuck in some kind of partially-cocked position.

Registration has several issues
A) Nearly every area that has required registration has shortly followed up w. confiscation -- the ONLY logical use of registration is confiscation.
B) It is money out of a law enforcement budget which is wasted -- NY, Boston, MD, etc have had mandatory registration and "gun fingerprinting" to no use -- MD spends millions a year, and hasn't used it to solve one case.
C) The Second Amendment is about self-defense -- against both criminals who invade your house and tyrants - or, criminals in public office.

How would you feel about "official" churches? Pre-approved religious texts, sermons, etc? After all, cults are a dangerous thing, which harm thousands of people, and religion has been the, nominal, basis for many of the wars in history...

Submitting every writing viewable by the public to a censor board? Speech has killed FAR more people than any weapon...

Assuming you aren't a troll, you probably realize that NO government, regardless of the presence of any Constitutional protection, is valid, if it presumes to limit what a man might believe, or what he might say, because the ideas in his head, or the ideas he might say to others, are harmful.

Self-defense is the same. I refuse to accept any government is legitimate if it restricts my ability to defend myself - I no longer travel to jurisdictions where I can't carry because of those beliefs. I refuse to be pre-determined to be, not only a murder, but a killer of such a milquetoast nature that I can be stopped by mere words, or a sticker on a wall.

By definition, a criminal has already decided that either A) the state poses no threat or B) the threat posed by the state is minimal or irrelevant compared to what he hopes to achieve. No matter what manner of "smartgun" is used, or what penalty is given to its modification, it would be a minimal amount of time before a criminal manages to "hack" the gun...

We have a number of LEOs on this board -- I'm sure that any of them would tell you it would be far simpler, and safer to deal w. a mass murder/other violent attack if he was armed, and present during such an attack, rather than to try and work his way through a building, house, etc and find such an animal.

I have no problem w. the idea of a smart weapon -- I don't even mind if a state has commissioned research into one, w. the idea of equipping it's LEOs w. them -- it may constrain its employees, and their official activities in nearly any fashion it wishes... but it may not constrain the manner in which a citizen defends himself, and especially not as a method of attempting to strip a citizen of any capacity to defend himself.

A smart gun may even be desirable -- although I do have doubts as to how often a weapon is taken from someone and used against them. (The stats about your own weapon killing you have been widely discredited... at the very least, they include suicides, which is obviously a fallacy.)

[Aglifter]

I'm pretty sure there are more than 3 million people in Iraq, too.

But I didn't mention *rate* i mentioned *numbers*.

And you still don't know what you're talking about. Mekender and I have both pointed out that you aren't counting shooting deaths among the entire population, you are only counting Americans.

Yes... as the claim was "its safer to be a US Soldier in Iraq, than a resident of Chicago" -- or DC, for that matter.

As in, there are more deaths per 100 residents of DC or Chicago, than there are per 100 US soldiers in Iraq...

[mekender]

also, keep in mind that smart gun technology is so incredibly reliable in theory that law enforcement are exempted from the requirements.

[Draven]

Or, conversely, that law enforcement officials are the only ones expert enough not to nee... *BAM*

[Spells]

Yes... as the claim was "its safer to be a US Soldier in Iraq, than a resident of Chicago" -- or DC, for that matter.

As in, there are more deaths per 100 residents of DC or Chicago, than there are per 100 US soldiers in Iraq...

Yes, that statement. That statement that is bolded. About there being more people killed per hundred in Chicago than among US servicemen in Iraq. It's false. It's not true no matter how many times people repeat it. The population of Chicago is over 20x greater than the population of US servicemen in Iraq. In order for the homicides per 100 to be greater, you have to have 20x as many murders in Chicago as you have KIAs in Iraq. When somebody says Baghdad or Iraq is safer than DC and/or Chicago, they're demonstrating a lack of understanding of statistics, or they aren't counting Iraqis, or both. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but people have spelled it out a few different ways now. Chicago is much safer than Iraq.

[Spells]

also, keep in mind that smart gun technology is so incredibly reliable in theory that law enforcement are exempted from the requirements.

And that's why these laws about nonexistent technology are silly. If such technology worked, a police officer would be the exact sort of person who would want it, given the number of them who are killed with their own weapons.