# A Smart Shooter?



## Lisa (Sep 8, 2006)

Pretty cool gun technology could help reduce the accidental fatality rates.



> Armed with $2 million in federal grants, researchers at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) are close to perfecting the first commercially viable "smart gun." The prototype pistol, unveiled last month, is designed to recognize specific people's grips. When seized by an unauthorized hand&#8212;say, that of a child or a criminal&#8212;the gun locks its shooting mechanism.



Full Article


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 8, 2006)

As long as they don't make a law that requires them, cool.

On the other hand, what happens when the batteries die?  They do tend to do that when you need em.

Jeff


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 8, 2006)

Reading the article again made me think of a few more issues.

Will they make them able to have more than one profile in the grip?  How about aftermarket grips?  A 1 in 10,000 failure rate is acceptable?  This has a long ways to go.

This could be a good thing eventually though.

Jeff


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 8, 2006)

what happens when you're not home and your wife/GF/whatever has to use the weapon to stop a threat?

I don't like stuff like this because, as soon as it hits the market I'd be willing to bet that some of the more anti-gun areas (Mass, Kali, NY, etc.) will start requiring this crap.  It's going to end up being just like the "ballistic fingerprinting" (which is a total waste of effort).


----------



## Lisa (Sep 8, 2006)

I don't think 1 in 10,000 is acceptable at all either.

The technology is well meaning but Jeff and kenpotex have points.  What if a loved one NEEDS to use it?  Can it be configured for "multiple" people?


----------



## Lisa (Sep 8, 2006)

If it is "grip" sensitive then you must be able to configure it for either hand, right?



> designed to recognize specific people's grips. When seized by an unauthorized handsay, that of a child or a criminalthe gun locks its shooting mechanism.



Many questions...article is too short


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 8, 2006)

Any such technology must be able to function without fail, and under adverse circumstances.  

For example, if someone's palm were smeared with dirt or blood, the reader must still be able to read it.  

Such technology simply cannot work reliably enough to meet the criteria, which is why rank and file police officers who have to use their weapons, absolutely do not want such things installed.  

In fact, the Smith and Wesson sellout agreement of 2000 that would have mandated such techology be incorporated contained exemptions for law enforcement due to the backlash they received from such groups.  

http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/wash_update/crime/033100b.htm


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Sep 9, 2006)

Yeah, cuz, y'know, once all privately owned guns required electronics to work, the government would NEVER consider an EMP or jamming signal to render them all useless prior to any mischief they might plan, oh heavens, no, perish the thought.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 10, 2006)

I posted something then changed my mind...ignore me


----------

