On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> Re: putting "intelligence" into a gun.
> Current research models are projected to add a minimum of $1000.00 to
> the cost of each gun if put in production, which also decreases their
> reliability, as gun recoil is NOT something that electronics are
> particularly good at dealing with on a frequent basis, and compact
> power supplies are notoriously short lived.
a) I'm fairly sure that there is more than $1000 worth of safety devices
in the average automobile. If it is potential killing machine, it should be
engineered to be relatively safe. Thats a pretty simple principle. The
argument that guns should remain cheap doesn't cut it IMO. While the
constituation may say you can own one or more of the devices, it doesn't
say they have to be cheap. "Big brother" is mandating devices become safer
and safer (look at lawnmowers for example, its getting darn difficult to
leave them "running"). Why? Because there are too many people out there
who are candidates for Darwin awards who have to be protected from their own
stupidity. One can argue that "natural selection" is good. This
can be countered by the fact that humans are imperfect machines and
protecting us from our own occasional mistakes is probably a good thing.
b) I believe that current engineering for shock tolerant disk drives
(to be dropped from a foot or more) should be more than sufficient for
c) Ideally you would want the power to come from the user's hand. That
will be difficult without nanotech. However a heat sensor wired to a
mercury cell to enable the recognition electronics should last for years.
You have to put oil, water and gas in your car and even bullets in your
gun, it doesn't change the equation that much to say you have to change
the batteries (or leave it in the sun for a day to recharge it) every year.
> Additionally, such technology limits the gun's use to the OWNER.
> Other family members or employees would not be able to use them.
If its reasonable technology, it should be programmable to recognize
multiple fingerprints, retina scans, grips, voice commands, etc. The
point would be that it shouldn't fire for *any* non-authorized user.
That doesn't solve domestic violence problems, but could make a small
dent in the problems caused by guns that are stolen or used against
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:08 MDT