 Lt. Carol Ellis, of the New Jersey Institute of Technology Police, demonstrates a gun programmed only to fire when she pulls the trigger. (Photo by John Munson) |
|
Posted on 04/28/2008 3:36:07 PM PDT by Incorrigible
By RICK HEPP
| Lt. Carol Ellis, of the New Jersey Institute of Technology Police, demonstrates a gun programmed only to fire when she pulls the trigger. (Photo by John Munson) |
|
[Newark, NJ] -- Five years ago, New Jersey became the first state to limit the sale of handguns to weapons equipped with technology that prevents all but the gun's owner from firing a shot.
The controversial law, aimed at reducing the number of children killed by handguns through accidents, suicide or acts of violence, had one very big caveat: It would not go into effect until the state was convinced these futuristic "smart guns'' actually work.
Today, after gun manufacturers, engineering firms and research universities have spent millions competing to perfect the weapon, the quest has wandered onto the slow track.
The federal government has all but ceased its funding, crippling research. Legal squabbles over patents shelved promising technologies. And gun manufacturers got out of the business entirely, wary of potential lawsuits and marketing guns that would cost far more.
However, one of the few remaining hopes for a "smart gun'' lies in the laboratories of the New Jersey Institute of Technology. The school has spent nine years and $4 million in grants to develop a technology that identifies gun owners based on how they squeeze the trigger.
NJIT officials say their gun works 99 percent of the time. But they know that's not good enough. Getting it to work all the time, they say, could take years and substantially more funding than the university now gets.
"It's still very crude,'' said Donald H. Sebastian, senior vice president for research and development at NJIT.
He said it would take "about two years of steady effort with proper funding'' to develop a working smart gun prototype.
"We haven't had the steady effort or the proper funding,'' Sebastian said. "It's a million-dollar-a-year effort to keep people working on it full time.''
Instead, the university is banking on a $250,000 federal grant — its first in two years — to continue working on its "dynamic grip recognition'' technology.
NJIT's technology works on the same principle as software that verifies signatures on electronic credit card machines at supermarkets. It relies on unconscious, reflexive actions unique to each person.
The credit card machines look at how shoppers sign their name — how hard they press the pen and the tempo of their signature — and not actual signatures. The "smart gun'' uses sensors to measure how a person pulls the trigger.
The gun has one-tenth of a second to decide. In that blink of an eye, the circuitry must receive millions of pieces of data from 16 pressure sensors in the weapon's grip, compare them to stored images of how authorized users of the weapon squeeze the trigger and decide if the two match.
If it does — bang! — the gun fires. If not — click — nothing happens.
So far, NJIT has relied on an off-the-shelf handgun outfitted with green and red lights to indicate whether the embedded circuitry decided to fire. They have tested it successfully with shooters wearing gloves, under timed conditions to simulate stressful conditions and using alternate hands.
Now, NJIT must develop an electronic firing mechanism that can be used with the grip technology to free up space in the handgun for the computer circuitry and battery, Sebastian said. This new research is needed because an Australian firm that was supposed to do this for NJIT dropped out.
If NJIT can get a prototype with both technologies to work, Sebastian said, "Then at least we've demonstrated to the world that this is not bogus, that what you get is either a 'click' or a 'bang.'''
"We need to demonstrate that you can reliably turn a gun off in real time,'' he said.
That is not good enough for Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey, which pushed for the law five years ago.
"They went about inventing the Ferrari of recognition technology when they could have used the money to build a Ford,'' Miller said. "They've run out of money and they can't marry it to a handgun and, frankly, I think it's shameful.''
Miller said he believes the nationwide effort has been sabotaged.
"We know that gun manufactures have already developed these technologies, they just don't want to put them in guns,'' he said. "The National Rifle Association doesn't want them to do it.''
Rachel Parsons, spokeswoman for the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said they don't work.
"The technology has been worked on for a decade and it still isn't reliable,'' she said. "It fires sometimes when it isn't supposed to and it sometimes doesn't fire when it's needed. We don't see that (it) does anything to reduce crime and accidents.''
In a 2005 study, the National Academy of Engineering said developing a smart gun posed engineering and technical challenges to overcome false readings, high-stress situations, bad weather, poorly maintained weapons and users who might wear gloves. It concluded bringing a smart gun to market could cost $30 million or more and take another decade.
"It is very complex,'' said Louis Behling, a retired range foreman at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey who worked on the study. "If it was so simple, the handgun manufacturers would have already done it.''
(Rick Hepp is a staff writer for The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. He can be contacted at rhepp(at)starledger.com.)
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
If these technologies actually worked, they would be of greater benefit to cops than to most other citizens. Cops, after all, are often required to get within grabbing distance of suspects, whereas concealed-carry holders would instead do everything possible to stay away.
Actually, though, even better than a “smart gun” would be a “smart holster”. Such a device could be equipped with a variety of release methods, many of which would not be practical on a gun. Further, because a holster is not subject to the same g-forces as a gun, it would not be as prone to damage.
Still haven’t seen any law-enforcement push to equip themselves with such things, though.
If this is the purpose of the law, then it won't work, even if the technology is perfected.
A gun is a mechanical device. With sufficient time, a screwdriver, and maybe a file, the safety device can be deactivated.
Liberals are just retarded. They don't even know how to change the oil in their hybrid car. They're being obtuse on purpose. They don't give a damn about 'smart gun' technology. This is just a gun ban.
***Lt. Carol Ellis, of the New Jersey Institute of Technology Police, demonstrates a gun programmed only to fire when she pulls the trigger. (Photo by John Munson)***
I know my brain is slipping. But this...
I just can’t describe it.
But Dr. Zoidberg, if you have two claws, how can you operate a firearm?
=)
j/k
Please, please, please, don’t give them any ideas.
there is no way in hell that credit cards machines can reliably 'undertsand' my signature...at least not in 'my' favor...
in other words, EVERY failure of the tech will be against my needs, does NOT go bang/authorized when it should...
potentially carry a pacification circuit that would allow the state to turn my weapon off at will.
This my FRiends is the real tech being developed...
LFOD...
Yeah. Riiiight. And GM is sitting on the patents for a water-fueled car which gets 100 mpg, and the WTC was an inside job.
(sigh)
Idiots.
Hahahaha
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.