James Bond Guns

[themuna 0]

.

[10X 3,306]

Gawd, I hate it when public officals write legislation based on something they saw in a work of fiction.  The technology is essentially unworkable; adds tremendous complexity and cost to a firearm, reduces reliability to the point where I wouldn't trust it in a local bullseye league, let alone when my life was on the line, and despite the claim made in the link, it can't be retrofit to existing guns.

 

Exact failure points vary with which potential implementation is being discussed, but include dirt/oil on hands, wearing gloves, variation in grip ergonomics under stress, forgot to wear the magic ID ring to bed, mechanical failure, software failure, dead battery, and probably a few others I'm not able to think of right now.

[Johnny 0]

What about the other people in the home that may need to defend themselves with that same gun if the owner is not around or unable to use it themself? I recall a somewhat recent incident where a woman had to hide herself and children in a closet with her husbands .38 revolver during a home invasion while he was at work. He found them and she had to shoot him 5 times (all the gun would hold) while he yelled at her. He then ran out of the house. What would have happened to them if she had one of these guns?

[Brownie^HP 6]

Gun manufactures have been trying to prefect this for some time now. Also its something else that could cause a malfunction.

[cigarsnscotch 0]

To the OP, I am sorry I know you're new and you posted before you felt a little out of place here in the forum but I don't think you totally thought this through and REALLY tried to boil down the specifics and complexity of this REALLY bad idea. Can you share your thoughts on why you think this would be a good idea?

 

Remember, this world we live in is not Minority Report as these politicians would like to think.

[themuna 0]

What about the other people in the home that may need to defend themselves with that same gun if the owner is not around or unable to use it themself? I recall a somewhat recent incident where a woman had to hide herself and children in a closet with her husbands .38 revolver during a home invasion while he was at work. He found them and she had to shoot him 5 times (all the gun would hold) while he yelled at her. He then ran out of the house. What would have happened to them if she had one of these guns?

 

.

[maintenanceguy 510]

If they also passed a law that made it illegal to defeat the security on these guns, the criminals would probably choose to follow that law. Then the world would be a safer place for sure.

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

You are obviously new to guns, shooting, and 2A issues.

 

Firstly, NJ already has a "smart gun" law on the books. When one becomes available on the market, only one and it doesn't have to work, 2 or 3 years later only "smart" handguns can be sold in NJ.

 

Don't be so naive as to think this smart gun idea this will help the 2A cause. There are no gains to be made in allowing only smart guns. Only loss of more rights.

[themuna 0]

To the OP, I am sorry I know you're new and you posted before you felt a little out of place here in the forum but I don't think you totally thought this through and REALLY tried to boil down the specifics and complexity of this REALLY bad idea. Can you share your thoughts on why you think this would be a good idea?

 

Remember, this world we live in is not Minority Report as these politicians would like to think.

 

.

[themuna 0]

You are obviously new to guns, shooting, and 2A issues.

 

Firstly, NJ already has a "smart gun" law on the books. When one becomes available on the market, only one and it doesn't have to work, 2 or 3 years later only "smart" handguns can be sold in NJ.

 

Don't be so naive as to think this smart gun idea this will help the 2A cause. There are no gains to be made in allowing only smart guns. Only loss of more rights.

.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

As GRIZ said, his law is already on the books in NJ. And there is nothing pretentious in what he says or how he says it - only naivete in your response.

 

Literally millions in our state tax dollars have gone into research to try and make this work - I believe that it was at the NJIT, or Stevens. but the results were unworkable to the point that the legislature defunded the project.

 

If this is such a good idea, then why has LE opted out? 10X points out many of the potential failure points. This, in no way, helps our 2A cause and just attempts to place further restrictions on our rights.

 

You really do need to think this through.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Johnny 0]

The situation you're presenting is no different than if you had your gun in a safe with a key code or biometric scanner.  Of course you would give access to other responsible adults in your home or people who you trust.  I don't think anyone would have trouble with that

I think it is different. Keeping a gun in a safe restricts access. Access which can be given by the owner to others that may need it. Having a gun with these features restricts usability. That is one problem I see with it. Others have mentioned dirty hands or gloves causing failure. That would be another good reason I wouldn't want this forced upon us.

[Vicious 138]

I don't like this idea at all. It is one more point of failure, plain and simple. Just how a semi-auto is more prone to some sort of failure than a revolver, this adds a layer of complication to the process. Also, I don't want to get killed because I forgot to charge it, change a battery, or was not wearing a proximity ID or some such nonsense. Plus, just like every other electronic safeguard, someone will find a workaround.

 

If this technology becomes standard (more like a when than if), I'm going old school. I'm getting a sword! haha

 

I don't know how developed the tech. is either, I doubt it is anything we'd see in the next 5 years or so.

[themuna 0]

As GRIZ said, his law is already on the books in NJ. And there is nothing pretentious in what he says or how he says it - only naivete in your response.

 

Literally millions in our state tax dollars have gone into research to try and make this work - I believe that it was at the NJIT, or Stevens. but the results were unworkable to the point that the legislature defunded the project.

 

If this is such a good idea, then why has LE opted out? 10X points out many of the potential failure points. This, in no way, helps our 2A cause and just attempts to place further restrictions on our rights.

 

You really do need to think this through.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

.

[10X 3,306]

 

Please read before you respond.  Also, if please how me some proof that "millions" went into that research.  I would not doubt that "some" research has been done but as to what the intentions were and the tax $ that went into it, I don't think you have any way to definitely say. 

 

 

NJIT given $1.5MM by the NJ Legislature to work on smart gun technology:   http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/691450/posts

 

 

NJIT estimated another $5MM needed to make the technology workable:  http://www.njit.edu/v2/News/Releases/107.html

 

US Department of Justice awarded $7MM in challenge grants for gunmakers to work on smart gun technology. The money ran out without a workable solution being developed:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/27/smart-guns_n_2562091.html

[themuna 0]

NJIT given $1.5MM by the NJ Legislature to work on smart gun technology:   http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/691450/posts

 

 

NJIT estimated another $5MM needed to make the technology workable:  http://www.njit.edu/v2/News/Releases/107.html

 

US Department of Justice awarded $7MM in challenge grants for gunmakers to work on smart gun technology. The money ran out without a workable solution being developed:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/27/smart-guns_n_2562091.html

 

.

[themuna 0]

.

[djg0770 481]

See the thing is, you and most of the other people responding clearly didn't take the time to read the article or my other comments, before supplying your responses.  The James Bond style biometric scanner was ONE idea and CLEARLY the most unrealistic one to put into production.  Exceptions could, and probably would, be made for police or military-issued weapons just as they are now.  And failure rates should not necessarily be affected by making a change such as making a part (example I gave was a thumb-safety) removable, and/or proprietary.   The only way that would be an issue is if there were already quality control problems with the manufacturer, in which case you wouldn't want to buy from them anyway.  I can openly admit that I am not engineer, which is why I said that I thought it was worth looking into and researching.

 

Please read before you respond.  Also, if please how me some proof that "millions" went into that research.  I would not doubt that "some" research has been done but as to what the intentions were and the tax $ that went into it, I don't think you have any way to definitely say. 

 

1) Why are we exempting the police?  If even one cop is shot with his own gun when a perpetrator gets his hands on it, it's worthwhile.

2) I am an engineer - a product of NJIT.  It was questionable whether this was worth looking into at all.

3) Likewise, take some of your own advice, research the smart gun law already passed in NJ, read the research of the engineers who worked on the project.  You think you've come up with the panacea for guns - someone thought of that long before you.

4) Smith and Wesson, Taurus and Bersa already provide guns with "keys".  Guess what?  Virtually no one uses them, and there are detailed instructions on the web as to how to remove these unnecessarily complicated devices that in some cases have been reported to lock the gun at the absolute WORST time.

 

The most reliable mechanical device is the one with the least amount of parts - period.  It was Engineering 101...

Electronics are reliable until either a) you let the smoke out or b) the power source DIES

 

None of the above circumstances are desirable in a life or death situation - I think you can agree.

[lunker 274]

Google "Smith and Wesson Internal Lock". I owned a S&W revolver with one and it failed me. The gun locked up at the range and became a paperweight until a gunsmith fixed it. What if I needed it for something more than shooting at paper? It was sold shortly thereafter. I'll never own a S&W lock gun again.

 

 

[raz-0 1,259]

 

 

 

NJIT given $1.5MM by the NJ Legislature to work on smart gun technology: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/691450/posts

 

 

NJIT estimated another $5MM needed to make the technology workable: http://www.njit.edu/v2/News/Releases/107.html

 

US Department of Justice awarded $7MM in challenge grants for gunmakers to work on smart gun technology. The money ran out without a workable solution being developed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/27/smart-guns_n_2562091.html

 

 

Thank you for finding this. I completely and readily concede that the money did go into building a biometric reading "smart gun". The report they did states that the technology isn't there yet (which I also said previously).

 

This still does not disprove how a less technologically advanced system (again, think "key") would hurt the quality of gun. The part of the article that I got this from was the line "Several possible ways of building “smart” guns includefirearms that only activate when you press a special ring into it". I don't see how that wouldn't be worth the time and energy of further research.

The problem is you don't understand how guns work. There is nothing you could do on the simple mechanical device end of things that is not easily bypassed with some knowledge and tools. It is a simple machine that is very space constrained. You pass a law, and what you wind up with is yet one more law that doesn't stop a damn thing, and puts constraints on law abiding gun owners.

 

Springfield 1911s come with an internal locking system. You can't fit a real key in the space available, so it is more like a security screw. I can operate it with a $3 tool from any harbor freight. I could disable it with 5 minutes and a punch. I totally removed it and all it took was 10 minutes and three spare parts that cost about $30.

 

The inner workings of a gun aren't magic. A storage container is a much better place to implement a locking mechanism to keep it out of reach of certain people. You have all the space in the world for screwing around with technology and storing a power source.

 

Of course five minutes with an angle grinder and I'll just go through the side.

 

As for the research, multiple millions were given to the njit smart gun program. They turned a semi auto into a single shot gun with a briefcase attached by an umbilical. It also works like a turd under the best of circumstances.

 

I'm done feeding the troll.

[themuna 0]

The problem is you don't understand how guns work. There is nothing you could do on the simple mechanical device end of things that is not easily bypassed with some knowledge and tools. It is a simple machine that is very space constrained. You pass a law, and what you wind up with is yet one more law that doesn't stop a damn thing, and puts constraints on law abiding gun owners.

 

Springfield 1911s come with an internal locking system. You can't fit a real key in the space available, so it is more like a security screw. I can operate it with a $3 tool from any harbor freight. I could disable it with 5 minutes and a punch. I totally removed it and all it took was 10 minutes and three spare parts that cost about $30.

 

The inner workings of a gun aren't magic. A storage container is a much better place to implement a locking mechanism to keep it out of reach of certain people. You have all the space in the world for screwing around with technology and storing a power source.

 

Of course five minutes with an angle grinder and I'll just go through the side.

 

As for the research, multiple millions were given to the njit smart gun program. They turned a semi auto into a single shot gun with a briefcase attached by an umbilical. It also works like a turd under the best of circumstances.

 

I'm done feeding the troll

 

.

[lunker 274]

All this will do is spawn a new cottage industry of "ghetto gunsmithing". The more industrious and mechanically inclined will find good pay in disabling mechanical safeties.

 

As an aside, I think you have the demographics of this site wrong. There are far more young newbies and mall ninjas than geezers here. I suspect your abrasive attitude will make your tenure here a brief one. So Adios in advance.

[10X 3,306]

I already stated that I was not an engineer. ..

 

Also, you say that any measure could easily be bypassed with some knowledge and tools.  In the low-income neighborhoods that many of these guns find their way into, no one has the knowledge or the tools.  People in the rough parts of Newark don't have a tool shed or many times even a toolbox.  The kids who try their luck as "gangsters" don't have knowledge about the inner working of 1911s.  A mentally ill person doesn't go to the range to test the reliability of a Glock they just came across.  And I would think that someone would have noticed if Adam Lanza was spending his time doing mechanical work on his parents gun stash.  So before you spout off more about how easy it is, think about the actual people who we are talking about here.

Don't worry about your own lack of an engineering background.  As we've already established, the engineers who have been working on this problem for years have yet to come up with a workable solution.

 

A tool shed or even a toolbox is hardly required to defeat the locks that some manufacturers tried to introduce.  Raz-O already pointed out that a punch will suffice.  You think someone trying to disable the lock might have access to a nail?   Because the knowledge of how to defeat locks passes quickly through the criminal community.  You can open a master combination lock or pop a Kryptonite bike lock with a bic pen/cap.   Nearly any car can be stolen in a matter of a minute.  I lost a late model Acura from a parking lot in the time it took to pick up a take-out order that was waiting for me within sight of the car.  It ended up in one of those 'rough parts of Newark' you reference, and I'm pretty sure the thief didn't have a tool shed, just a screwdriver.   And you'll never fit a lock mechanism remotely approaching the complexity of a car ignition, kryptonite lock, or master padlock into a handgun frame.

 

As for your claim that the mentally ill don't worry about or test for reliability...please.    The perpetrators of Columbine, of Aurora, of Sandy Hook, of Virginia Tech planned meticulously and devoted a great deal of time to preparation.  As you said yourself, think about the actual people we are talking about here.

 

Here is what I consider the final test for whether or not the technology is workable: 

 

Will the police accept it for their duty weapons?  

 

They know that officers being shot with their own firearms is an ongoing risk, that they'd dearly like to reduce.   But they are also extremely cognizant of what works and what doesn't, what is reliable and what isn't, what enhances safety, and what will get you killed.   And they ALWAYS make sure there is a law enforcement excemption carved out from any proposed 'safe gun' acts.  Because you can't have that crap on any firearm you must trust to function when you need it.

[Shane45 807]

You are obviously new to guns, shooting, and 2A issues.

 

Firstly, NJ already has a "smart gun" law on the books. When one becomes available on the market, only one and it doesn't have to work, 2 or 3 years later only "smart" handguns can be sold in NJ.

 

Don't be so naive as to think this smart gun idea this will help the 2A cause. There are no gains to be made in allowing only smart guns. Only loss of more rights.

 

 

THIS is why it is so important to separate the 2A right from all this feel good "common sense" based thought process and legislation. The smart gun legislation WILL be forced upon us much the same way mag restrictions are. The argument will be made that its common sense legislation for the greater good. Those of us that understand all the inherent issues with smart gun tech will get clobbered because the general public, and apparently some of our own, will accept the "common sense" BS and it will get forced down our throats. This is why ALL infringements on 2A should be rejected. My rights should go unabated no matter what the non shooting, non subject matter expert public thinks!

[raz-0 1,259]

Thank you for repeating what others have said after I said that I understood all that.  And thank you for referring to me as a troll like some 13-year-old kid behind a keyboard.  I always love how people feel so powerful in the comfort of their homes behind their computer screens.  

 

I already stated that I was not an engineer.  I found an interesting article and it seemed interesting to me.  What would have been helpful is if someone could have just rationally explained the mechanics behind the issue and explained to me why it couldn't work.  What happened, was that people jumped on the bandwagon to rail me for not already understanding it.  Because obviously everyone who becomes interested in guns should already be an expert on them.

 

Also, you say that any measure could easily be bypassed with some knowledge and tools.  In the low-income neighborhoods that many of these guns find their way into, no one has the knowledge or the tools.  People in the rough parts of Newark don't have a tool shed or many times even a toolbox.  The kids who try their luck as "gangsters" don't have knowledge about the inner working of 1911s.  A mentally ill person doesn't go to the range to test the reliability of a Glock they just came across.  And I would think that someone would have noticed if Adam Lanza was spending his time doing mechanical work on his parents gun stash.  So before you spout off more about how easy it is, think about the actual people who we are talking about here.

 

You have a super low post count, and you showed up to talk about how awesome smart guns are. You are a troll or a shill. Option 3 is you are increadibly ignorant and incapable or unwilling to educate yourself on a subject.  Come to any OB or CJ USPSA match, I'll tell you that to your face. I don't conduct myself here (or on the internet in general) in a manner that I wouldn't use in a face to face situation. 

 

I think you are GREATLY ignorant of what folks in the inner city do not have. The tools needed for most of the things I did fit in a pocket. Heck, if I needed to I could probably do half of them with a nail and emery board and a hunk of broken brick if necessary it just might mess up the finish.  Second, go look at some of the hack jobs  that get taken off the streets by police. Stop being racist and assuming minorities are inherently stupid, or stop being classist and assuming people who are not close to you on the socio economic ladder are inherently incapable of understanding a simple machine. Last I heard it isn't hard to get on the internet these days, and all the knowledge to get this stuff done is there. We have drug gangsmanufacturing home grown tanks, APCs, submarines and other interesting things for their side of the drug war. 

 

Adam Lanza spent a lot of time plotting. James holmes spent a lot of time plotting and building all sorts of things. If some piece of crap device that only had a legal statute preventing you circumventing it was all that posed an obstacle to them, do you REALLY think they would stop? 

 

I'll add to your list kids grabbing loaded guns from around the home and causing a tragedy. They aren't necessarily really determined or clever and very often are essentially opportunistic. In this case I ask why do we need a new "technological solution"? We already have a whole PILE of technological solutions for storing guns so as to limit access to them by children. Parents with poor judgment are parents with poor judgment, you can't legislate them away, and they are 100% the ultimate cause of those situations (ok, sometimes it's grandparents or other adult family member with poor judgement, but the same thing applies.. technology does not stop stupid, nor does legislation). 

 

How about YOU take a minute to examine reality and look at the people we are talking about here. 

 

As I have stated discussing this previously, anything that doesn't require electrically triggered primers to be part of the equation is easily altered or removed. Anything that does, in the end has a positive and negative lead that applies a voltage to the cartridge to make it fire. You can stick all the electronics you want in there, and I can yank it out and replace it with whatever I want that applies a voltage at the point of those leads and make it work, but even more of a problem is that lets me make it a machine gun very easily. BATFE will NOT permit something that easily converted to a machine gun on the market. Give me an arduino nano (google it and learn some more of the parameters of the engineering task you speak of perhaps rather than arguing that your ill informed emotional appeal is some form of "logic"), and I'm pretty sure I can build something that will pulse a voltage at any cyclic rate I like up to the limit of the clock in the arduino which GREATLY exceeds the cyclic rate of the mechanical bits of a firearm. I can fit it in the form factor of a weapon light and drop it on a rail too. This is NOT an ability you want to hand out to those intent on doing great harm. 

 

Personalized weapons are something that military and law enforcement have been trying to figure out how to make it work well enough for their needs for about 40 years now. This isn't something the internet generation jsut thought up because everyone over 30 is some kind of idiot who doesn't understand technology. 

 

The gun control crowd has been bringing up a "technical solution" recently as if it is not something that has already been researched. They are promoting nonexistent technologies or technologies that have failed not because they are a nice compromise. They bring them up because they know that to the uninformed they can make it SOUND like a reasonable idea. While in reality what they are discussing is a method to break the back of the firearms manufacturers by mandating a technology that will drive most of them out of business due to inability to comply, and will damage or destroy those that remain by reducing their sales to a level they cannot sustain their business. It will also complicate the firearms market for the consumer and increase the price of firearms significantly, which they see as breaking the back of the firearms ownership by eliminating a massive swath of potential new buyers. You can tell it is not a genuine attempt to implement the technology BECUASE it exempts law enforcement EVERY SINGLE TIME. They are the group in MOST need of this technology on a regular basis. If the legislation isn't designed to come up wiht a technology acceptible to police, it isn't designed to fix something, it is designed to discourage firearms ownership and place existing LEGAL gun owners at peril. PERIOD. 

 

This tactic isn't even new. It's just coming up AGAIN because those in favor of gun control are OLD. They don't grasp that the advent of the internet and digital media means that letting a decade or so pass since the last time this tactic failed has not erased the details of that failure so that the ploy can be tried again without baggage attached. 

 

So yes, based on your postings and absolute refusal to digest digest legitimate information given to you, while claiming to be interested in a practical solution, you are either a shill or ignorant and incapable of learning on your own or overly valuing of your opinion despite not a lot of merit to the topic. 

[bulpup 98]

You have a super low post count, and you showed up to talk about how awesome smart guns are. You are a troll or a shill. Option 3 is you are increadibly ignorant and incapable or unwilling to educate yourself on a subject.  Come to any OB or CJ USPSA match, I'll tell you that to your face. I don't conduct myself here (or on the internet in general) in a manner that I wouldn't use in a face to face situation. 

 

I think you are GREATLY ignorant of what folks in the inner city do not have. The tools needed for most of the things I did fit in a pocket. Heck, if I needed to I could probably do half of them with a nail and emery board and a hunk of broken brick if necessary it just might mess up the finish.  Second, go look at some of the hack jobs  that get taken off the streets by police. Stop being racist and assuming minorities are inherently stupid, or stop being classist and assuming people who are not close to you on the socio economic ladder are inherently incapable of understanding a simple machine. Last I heard it isn't hard to get on the internet these days, and all the knowledge to get this stuff done is there. We have drug gangsmanufacturing home grown tanks, APCs, submarines and other interesting things for their side of the drug war. 

 

 

 

 

Spot on Raz.  I would like to point out though that even if the OP is some kind of "shill,"  why should anyone care?  We, as a group, have a lot of very good information to give to anyone that should ask.  Many of us are very prepared to give logical answers to anti-gunners questions.  I especially like to talk with those that are undecided, hear one side and then go to the other hear what they have to say.

 

So, for me and I would like to suggest to all, that it should be very easy to spot those that have no clue and are posting here asking silly questions.  It really is kind of easy isn't it?  But consider, are they here to just blast us with anti rhetoric or are they merely questioning what they hear and looking for a good solid perspective that the news is not giving them?

 

Y'all jumped on this guy as being slightly naive and I sure pegged him the same way, but naive is not always troll. 

 

I think for all that we know, and the group that we are, that a few questions on subject we are damn near expert on should not throw us, but instead be a welcomed opportunity.

[themuna 0]

 

Y'all jumped on this guy as being slightly naive and I sure pegged him the same way, but naive is not always troll. 

 

.

[Shane45 807]

You will read it. They always do You need to understand that basically you walked into a pro choice meeeting carrying an anti abortion sign.....

[AlDente67 563]

My solution is low tech, but it works.

 

I buy one of those orange Home Depot buckets and a bag of quickrete.  Drop the gun inside, with the cement, and a gallon of water.

 

Safe and secure until I need it.  And for that, I keep a chisel in my nightstand.

 

Seriously though, are there not places to stash your weapon that are very difficult to locate unless a thief had 10 unfettered hours to ransack the entire place?  How often does this happen in NJ?

[djg0770 481]

 I found an interesting article and it seemed interesting to me.  What would have been helpful is if someone could have just rationally explained the mechanics behind the issue and explained to me why it couldn't work.  What happened, was that people jumped on the bandwagon to rail me for not already understanding it.  Because obviously everyone who becomes interested in guns should already be an expert on them.

 

I suggest that the next time you find an interesting article, that you conduct some research on it prior to posting it.  It's really not any different than "that guy" who always forwards the latest email crap and finds out later that it's a hoax because he failed to "check snopes".

 

 

 

In the low-income neighborhoods that many of these guns find their way into, no one has the knowledge or the tools.  People in the rough parts of Newark don't have a tool shed or many times even a toolbox.  The kids who try their luck as "gangsters" don't have knowledge about the inner working of 1911s.  A mentally ill person doesn't go to the range to test the reliability of a Glock they just came across.  And I would think that someone would have noticed if Adam Lanza was spending his time doing mechanical work on his parents gun stash.  So before you spout off more about how easy it is, think about the actual people who we are talking about here.

 

What do you know about what the "people in the rough parts of newark" have?