Biden Wants New Technology for Guns
…..” Capping three days of meetings on ways to stem gun violence in light of the Connecticut shootings last month, Vice President Joe Biden said on Friday he was interested in technology that would keep a gun from being fired by anyone other than the person who bought it.
And it became clear that President Barack Obama plans to push for a controversial ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to stem gun violence in his State of the Union address next month.
“Had the young man not had access to his mother’s arsenal, he may or may not have been able to get a gun,” Biden said on Friday, speaking of Newtown gunman, Adam Lanza, 20, who used weapons purchased by his mother to carry out the attack on an elementary school in the Connecticut town. Lanza killed his mother — Nancy, a gun enthusiast — at their home on Dec. 14 before heading to Sandy Hook Elementary School where he fatally shot 20 children and six adults.
“We know that there is no silver bullet, no seat belt,” Biden said before heading into a Friday meeting with representatives of the video game industry, the Associated Press reports. Technology for so-called “smart guns” is being developed, although, so far there has been little demand for it. Various techniques such as fingerprint recognition or the wearing of a magnetic ring would prevent anyone other than a weapon’s registered owner from firing”….
RRD: I am not sure where to begin. There is ,so far as I know, only one locking device of this type that works without interfering with a person’s ability to defend themselves : The Magna-Trigger; & it only works with Smith & Wesson revolvers & one Ruger revolver; the Security model.
The person wears a magnetic ring on their trigger finger & the gun (once modified) will not fire without the ring. ( One can get two rings one for each finger,that way you can draw with either hand) . It is recommended by Massad Ayoob,(police officer & firearms expert) for those who use those models of handguns. But it does not “ID” the person,& could be defeated by removing the ring. More to the point it does not work for rifles ( of any kind) or semi-automatic pistols so it would not have stopped the massacre,anymore than “universal background checks” would have ( as the boy murdered his mother & stole her guns). ( Indeed few of the proposals being put forward would have stopped this particular massacre,& none would have prevented terrorists or others from carrying out such a massacre with real ,class three AK-47s from Afghanistan much as they did in Mumbai . )
The mother herself could have stopped the boy from accessing the guns by simply using any number of readily available gun safes,but if she did ,then she presumably trusted that her son would not murder her & gave him the code. As for “smart guns” ,”that cannot be fired by anyone other than the person who bought it or registered it” ,there is a reason that police officers have refused to have them issued to them (at least as of 2000) ,they don’t work (fn1) . Specifically while they seem to be very effective at preventing a criminal from using the stolen weapon ( at least until the criminals find a way to circumvent them,as they did the “unforgeable ID card” fn2 ) ,a unfortunate side effect is that they render the gun unuseable by the owner as well,which would no doubt be fine with Feinstein as long as her security guards were exempt,but might be distressing if you must rely upon the gun to save your life. They rely upon bio-metrics & as anyone can tell you bio-metrics are notoriously iffy,some like Google’s Face recognition can be easily defeated with a photograph,others require multliple attempts to place your finger in exactly the right position . But there is a further problem,even if the technology could be perfected ,what Biden is proposing is that the guns be tied to the user;that means universal registration & universal registration makes confiscation possible.
Smart Cops Saying ‘No’ 4/19/2000
By Dave Kopel
…”The gun company formerly known as Smith & Wesson (now
called “Clinton & Wesson” by Second Amendment advocates) has agreed that in a few years, it will produce only guns which have an internal computer chip, to prevent anyone except the owner from using the gun. Such “smart” guns might be fine for target shooting, but few people who want a gun for protection would want to risk their lives on a bet that the computer chip will always work perfectly in an emergency.
The best proof of the dangers of computer guns, in an
emergency situation, is that police refuse to buy them. Notably,
the agreement between Smith & Wesson and the Clinton
administration gives S&W an exemption for sales to police and
the military. Likewise, mandatory computer gun proposals
which were defeated in 1999 in New Jersey and this March in
Maryland, also contained police exemptions. That is because the bills’ sponsors recognized that if the bills forced the police to buy computer guns, the state capitols would be deluged with
police officers testifying against the mandate.
Were computer guns actually reliable, no group could benefit
more than police officers; one-seventh of all police shooting
deaths are perpetrated with a gun that was snatched from a
police officer. And police guns are uniquely vulnerable to being
taken away, since they are normally worn on an exposed belt
holster. (As opposed to defensive handguns carried by ordinary
citizens, which by law are usually required to be carried
But when Sandia Labs in New Mexico evaluated every known
form of personalized gun technology for possible police
adoption, no technology was graded better than a “B” —
because of reliability problems.
Simply put, the police will not put up with a gun that is 99%
reliable. And since civilians, like law enforcement officers, have
the legal right to use deadly force to protect themselves or
others from serious violent felonies, when no lesser force will
suffice, civilians are just as entitled to be able to purchase 100% reliable firearms.”….
New ID cards are supposed to be ‘unforgeable’ – but it took our expert 12 minutes to clone one, and programme it with false …