Justin wrote: > On 2005-01-11T10:07:22-0500, Trei, Peter wrote: >> Justin wrote: >>> >>> I don't believe the article when it says that smart guns >>> are useless if stolen. What do they have, a tamper-proof >>> memory chip storing a 128-bit reprogramming authorization >>> key that must be input via computer before allowing a new >>> person to be authorized? And what's to stop a criminal from >>> ripping out all the circuitry and the safety it engages? >> >> The 'stolen gun' problems most of the so-called 'smart gun' >> proposals are trying to address are the situation when a >> cop's own gun is taken from him and immediately used against >> him, or a kid finding one in a drawer. A determined and >> resourceful person can, given time, defeat them all. > > from the article: > "Guns taken from a home during a robbery would be rendered > useless, too."
That statement, in the OA, is not a quote - it's either something the author dreamed up, or (in context) BS fed her by a NJ cop So, we've established that a NYT journalist, writing on a subject she probably knows nothing about, will regurgitate any naively plausible bullshit she's fed. What else is new? My statement that there are a significant number of cops killed by their own guns, and a small but tragic number of people killed accidentally playing with improperly stored guns they find, remains true. These 'smart guns' could reduce that problem, but making them mandatory is a threat to freedom. >>> The South African Smart gun... >> http://www.wmsa.net/other/thumb_gun.htm > Totally useless. Failure modes and various other complaints: I laughed when I saw this (my first thought was "How could anyone practice enough to maintain proficiency?") I was later appalled when I found a colleague using it as an example in a presentation on biometrics. I also strongly expect that Mr. van Zyl does not have a functioning device - this is vaporware of some kind. Peter Trei
