Skip to comments.
US Department of Justice awards NJIT $254,889 to continue developing gun technology
New Jersey Institute of Technology via ^
| 11-Sep-2008
| NA
Posted on 09/16/2008 2:21:39 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
1
posted on
09/16/2008 2:21:40 PM PDT
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
obambi vows to cut funding for such research and development of new weapons
2
posted on
09/16/2008 2:25:26 PM PDT
by
maine-iac7
(No trees were killed in sending this message but a lot of electrons were terribly agitated)
To: neverdem
This is about improved gun safety, and when the technology is perfected it will provide important benefits to every class of owner.Yep! When perfected it means my wife can't protect me with MY gun!
3
posted on
09/16/2008 2:27:42 PM PDT
by
TexasRedeye
(Eschew obfuscation)
To: Coleus; jocon307; Alberta's Child; Pharmboy; Calpernia; Malsua; dead; nj26; OldFriend; Clemenza; ...
BANG! Our taxes at work.
4
posted on
09/16/2008 2:29:11 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
To: neverdem
More RAT Pork to shore up their voting base.
5
posted on
09/16/2008 2:32:45 PM PDT
by
Redleg Duke
("Sarah Palin...Unleashing the Fury of the Castrated Left!")
To: neverdem
6
posted on
09/16/2008 2:33:16 PM PDT
by
Vaquero
(" an armed society is a polite society" Heinlein "MOLON LABE!" Leonidas of Sparta)
To: neverdem
The problem with this is it's reliability. It will be too low for critical use and it will be mandatory for all except politicians, police, government bureaucrats, and connected insiders.
I could have shortened the list by just saying "criminals".
7
posted on
09/16/2008 2:42:13 PM PDT
by
Navy Patriot
(The beauty of conservatism, Sarah Palin.)
To: neverdem
Stick your technology up your ass, Mr. Sebastian. Under no circumstances will I ever allow your ‘technology’ on any of my guns.
Why is the DOJ is fronting the money for this?
8
posted on
09/16/2008 2:43:15 PM PDT
by
EdReform
(The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF*GOA*SAS*CCRKBA)
To: neverdem
“We need safer bullets.”
~ Dr. Joycelyn Elders
9
posted on
09/16/2008 2:44:35 PM PDT
by
Islander7
("Common sense and common decency are uncommon virtues among America's left.")
To: neverdem
The gun currently tests with an accuracy of 95 percent with 32 electronic sensors embedded in the hand grip HELL NO. Buy a gun with this crap on it and you are one EMP bomb away from being disarmed.
10
posted on
09/16/2008 2:46:31 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(McCain/Palin 2008 : Palin the Paladin 2012)
To: neverdem
US Department of Justice awards NJIT $254,889 to continue developing anti-gun technology Fixed it. A 95% success rate is abysmal. Anyone whose gun failed 5% of the time would be getting it repaired immediately. And I assume there's nothing like "tap-rack-bang" if this system fails - I'd guess your backup is throwing the gun at your attacker and asking him real nice not to rob/beat/murder you.
Even if a 100% success rate were achieved, which it won't be, the concept is still worse than useless. It has to be programmed to the gun's owner. Presumably not just anyone can program it, or it wouldn't stop criminals from stealing and reprogramming them. No doubt only FFLs would be permitted to program the guns, which means every private sale would have to go through an FFL and onto a 4473 - de facto registration of every gun. Plus, criminal gangs will have illegal reprogramming devices before half the FFLs have had time to buy one legally. The only "common sense" part of this gun control ploy is the total lack of it.
11
posted on
09/16/2008 2:57:36 PM PDT
by
Turbopilot
(iumop ap!sdn w,I 'aw dlaH)
To: neverdem
I am ashamed to say that I graduated from NJIT, class of 1979.
12
posted on
09/16/2008 3:25:09 PM PDT
by
Fred Hayek
(Leftism is a mental disorder)
To: Navy Patriot
The problem with this is it's reliability.
No, the problem with this is that no one can find any authorization in the enumerated powers of the Congress to give a quarter million taxpayer dollars to this company. And no, I don't buy the whole "regulating commerce among the several states" thing that politicians from both parties use when they can't find any real authorization for money they want to spend or laws they want to write.
Technical issues like reliability only come along AFTER the threshold question.
To: neverdem
“The gun currently tests with an accuracy of 95 percent with 32 electronic sensors embedded in the hand grip.”
Hey that sounds like it could be reliable. (S)
A handgun should cost about $10,000 with this crap on it.
14
posted on
09/16/2008 5:34:43 PM PDT
by
headstamp 2
(Been here before)
To: neverdem
> this program is perceived as a gun control issue, and it is not. ...which is why police forces in N.J. were explicitly exempted from the smart-gun law.
/sarc
15
posted on
09/16/2008 5:40:46 PM PDT
by
NewJerseyJoe
(Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
To: publiusF27
AFTER the threshold question Yep, I got off subject, and was looking at the technology.
The appropriation was unconstitutional, as you say, and most "gun control" laws and regs are also unconstitutional, period.
16
posted on
09/16/2008 5:50:07 PM PDT
by
Navy Patriot
(The beauty of conservatism, Sarah Palin.)
To: neverdem
“The gun currently tests with an accuracy of 95 percent with 32 electronic sensors embedded in the hand grip.”
My guns test with 100% accuracy if I keep them clean. This is the dumbest idea ever dreamed up.
17
posted on
09/16/2008 8:01:15 PM PDT
by
yazoo
To: neverdem
Is there any situation for which a “smart gun” would be useful, for which a “smart holster” would not be better? A smart holster might be of some use to cops who might lose their carry piece in a massed attack (if three people were to approach a cop discretely and then pounce, they’d have a reasonable shot of disarming him); a smart holster might make their job somewhat more difficult.
18
posted on
09/16/2008 8:04:44 PM PDT
by
supercat
To: supercat
Would cops want a smart holster that only malfunctioned 5% of the time?
19
posted on
09/17/2008 9:05:48 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
To: neverdem
Would cops want a smart holster that only malfunctioned 5% of the time? A smart holster wouldn't be subject to the mechanical stresses of a firearm, and could use a variety of means to improve reliability, depending upon the wearer's "nuisance tolerance". For example, if the person didn't mind wearing special boots, the holster release could be enabled by, among other options, flexing of the toes. A maneuver that an attacker would have a hard time either forcing or preventing.
More significantly, by the time a gun fails to fire, it will likely be too late to adapt any backup plan. If the holster fails, there will more likely be time to draw a backup weapon.
20
posted on
09/17/2008 9:31:47 PM PDT
by
supercat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson