US Department of Justice awards NJIT $254,889 to continue developing gun technology

New Jersey Institute of Technology via ^ | 11-Sep-2008 | NA

[maine-iac7]

obambi vows to cut funding for such research and development of new weapons

[TexasRedeye]

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!

[neverdem]

BANG! Our taxes at work.

[Redleg Duke]

More RAT Pork to shore up their voting base.

[Vaquero]

stooopid bastids (sp)

[Navy Patriot]

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".

[EdReform]

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?

[Islander7]

“We need safer bullets.”

~ Dr. Joycelyn Elders

[Centurion2000]

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.

[Turbopilot]

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.

[Fred Hayek]

I am ashamed to say that I graduated from NJIT, class of 1979.

[publiusF27]

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.

[headstamp 2]

“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.

[NewJerseyJoe]

> 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

[Navy Patriot]

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.

[yazoo]

“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.

[supercat]

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.

[neverdem]

Would cops want a smart holster that only malfunctioned 5% of the time?

[supercat]

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.