Quote of the Day: Tell That to New Jersey Edition

img1

“It can’t be mandatory — the issue is too inflamed for that. But if a fingerprint-activation gun grip was on the market, you’d have moms in homes with small children pressuring their husbands to get one. It would take off.” – Washington CeaseFire president Ralph Fascittelli in Washington smart gun push ignores key issues [at mynorthwest.com]

comments

  1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Im so sure… Not. Any time smart guns are in the conversation, the conversation becomes dumb.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Clicking on the image and reading about his acomplishments is disgusting. “Successfully taking away the gun rights of 5000 Washingtonians” like thats a good thing? I know mental health and gun rights clash but if anyone is not safe to be around dangerous tools shy are they allowed in public?

      1. avatar Mike says:

        It’s the liberal montra, treat criminals as if it were not their fault because of bad parenting, poverty, etc., sweep mental illness under the carpet so as not to offend anyone, pretend evil doesn’t exist, pretend cultural differences don’t exist (except they would never live in a blended community, they want to do it from the safety of their gated community where there may be a token person of color but not an equal number of homes with minorities). Keep saying one thing and doing another, then blame freedom as the cause to the world’s problems instead of holding individuals accountable for their own actions and treating them accordingly.

        1. avatar Scott P says:

          Brilliant analysis.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Nicely said. Making normal and natural appear evil, and making evil appear normal and natural. That is the clear path western culture is on.

  2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    So, bring them to market without mandates and let’s see if you’re right.

    1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      I’d bet that there is a decent size market for smart guns, even though I’d never advise anyone to buy one. But there are plenty of households who choose to remain gun free, mostly because of fear for the safety of their little children. I know some families like that. And while they would not want to impose a requirement on other people to only purchase smart guns, they themselves prefer to keep guns out of their homes because they fear a kid could get a hold of it. Whether that’s rational or not, it’s very difficult to persuade those people otherwise. So if for them the best and only choice was a smart gun, then go for it. Let dealers sell it without fear that doing so will mandate that all other guns become illegal by year X. Let the free market decide whether or not people want smart guns and keep government bans and restrictions out of it. But I know this makes too much sense thus it will never work. One only needs to look at the laws in NJ to understand why.

  3. avatar Pascal says:

    Lets have the market decide, repeal the NJ law. Since progressives never compromise, they only take..take…take, the law will not be repealed and so we will never know.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      I don’t live in New Jersey, but from what I can tell, their handgun laws are already so oppressive that the activation of their “smart gun” law wouldn’t change things much.

      I’m a free market kinda guy. The market can tell us if Mr. Fascittelli is right or wrong.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Lets have the market decide, repeal the NJ law. Since progressives never compromise, they only take..take…take, the law will not be repealed and so we will never know.”

      Perhaps a Federal preemption law for this?

      A “Sale of Smart Guns will not impact any other gun law” perhaps?

      Federally cut New Jersey’s smart gun law off at the knees…

  4. avatar John Doe says:

    Right. Because teaching children firearms safety is so hard. That’s the problem with kids today, no-one wants to teach them anything,so they buy new things until the problem goes away.

  5. avatar Gordon says:

    I have no problem with “smart gun” technology – as long as it isn’t mandatory anywhere in the nation.

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    A handgun with a fingerprint authentication system on the grip: I don’t think I would ever purchase one. Nevertheless I fully support the option for other people to purchase one. I encourage anyone to develop such a handgun and sell it on the free market.

    (Note: “free market” implies that consumers have unfettered access to any and all competing products … such as handguns with and without biometric security features.)

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Mr. Rantz does a pretty good job at shooting down the left’s argument on smart guns, but one thing he didn’t mention is the fact that most people don’t take their smart phone to the range and shake them violently a few thousand times and then depend on them (with their lives) to function without a glitch. Most people trade off their phones every year or two, if they can avoid dropping them 3 feet and breaking them first. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the first one out is chambered in .22LR.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I think it would be next to impossible to design and manufacture a reliable firearm with some type of electronic biometric interlock. Batteries alone would be a huge liability. Even more problematic, however, is the significant impact/recoil/acceleration that firing would generate on the frame. Mainstream electronic components are fairly brittle/fragile and would not take kindly to the abuse of firing hundreds/thousands of rounds of ammunition.

        There is also the potential problem of temperature extremes — making the electronic biometrics function reliably in temperatures from -60 degrees F (brutal cold Alaska Winter mornings) to 160 degrees F (brutal hot Arizona afternoons in cars). Oh, and then you have the whole problem of gloves or dirty hands interfering with finger print scanners.

        Even so, if someone wants to try to design and sell such a contraption, have at it. As long as we have the option to purchase something else, I am fine with it.

        1. avatar Pieslapper says:

          It will have small needle like a glucose monitor in the grip, and sample the holder’s DNA each time it is picked up.

        2. avatar John G. says:

          You do know that there are actual munitions, such as artillery shells, that contain electronics right?

        3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          John, I’m guessing those munitions aren’t sold for less than $500 retail. You could also point to the electronics we’ve launched into space where they were subject to much greater temperature extremes than US was referring to. But there again, when money is no object great things can be designed and built.

          The technology will become practical someday. Maybe in 50 or 100 years. But before it becomes a commercial success they will have to find a big enough group of buyers willing to pay a high premium for technology that isn’t quite ready yet. Finding those buyers may be the biggest obstacle. Unless our betters command us to.

        4. avatar DownrangeFuture says:

          Yes, there are electronics designed to work with 99% guaranteed up time in extreme or harsh conditions. These electronics aren’t mainstream because they are so expensive. A ultrasonic/laser distance measuring device for home use? Less than $100. That same device rated to work outside in class III environments, under harsh vibration conditions? They start around $1500 last I checked.

          Small fingerprint scanners (like on your laptop/phone) are ultrasonic range finders. They measure the distance changes for the little grooves in your finger. The better ones can tell the difference between dirt and finger.

          Here’s the problem with them. A ruggedized version would likely run $100-200 for just the sensor, then you’d have to get ruggedized hardware to run it. Most aren’t all that accurate and require 2 or 3 attempts to get a successful scan. More if your hands are dirty. Sweaty/greasy fingers tend to screw with them more than just dirt.

          So I would assume that a good quality scanner and hardware to support it, with good accuracy would run almost $350 per gun. And that’s just for the scanner that’s only going to work about 60% of the time.

          Here’s the other thing about electronics in ordinance. It’s dead simple (timers usually) and it’s only subject to shock once, then it blows up.

  7. avatar Jandrews says:

    I’m trying to grasp the logic here…it’s a good idea because soccer moms would fall for the marketing and nag for it?

    This is a veiled, poorly worded attempt to whine “For the children!”

  8. avatar James says:

    ” a depressed person can’t steal a gun and use it to kill himself or herself”

    This is not really a concern because people with depression are good at hiding their illness and often legally buy a weapon when they’ve reached the breaking point.

    “Danny Westneat over at The Seattle Times says the smart gun industry, “Has gotten hopelessly bogged down in toxic gun politics.”

    I’m sure Danny knows of the mandate law in New Jersey, but isn’t acknowledging the issue with that law due to intellectual dishonest need to demagogue on the issue. If both smart guns and non-smart guns can be sold in the open market side by side, most gun rights folks would be fine. We don’t want to be forced to buy unreliable and unproven technology.

    “The upside here is tremendous, probably the biggest single opportunity to save significant numbers of lives in America,” he’s quoted as saying in the Times, comparing smart guns to what seat belts and airbags did for car safety.”

    Someone is over exaggerating here. Gun accidents are fairly uncommon. As for stolen guns, technology can be cracked. As the phone companies that tried to limit their smart phones to certain carriers.
    Smart guns are in the very early product development stage. There will be early adopters and if that makes someone more open to gun ownership, that would be a good thing. They must also realize that added such technology creates more likely points of failure. Right now, most semi autos are mechanical so there are certain points of failure, but they are limited, easier to fix with training, and can be minimized with proper maintenance. The technology being talked about in smart guns is way more subject to a point of failure and that fact alone will keep most gun owners from adopting in anything other than the late mature state if ever. Until gun control activists and smart gun proponents are intellectually honest and acknowledge these facts, the debate will go nowhere.

  9. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Require state police protecting state officials required to use it first.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      @Dirk — they don’t want them either — see below

      http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/01/nations-first-smart-gun-symposium-talks-safety-risks-and-delays/

      “Not ready for my officers yet”

      King County Sheriff John Urquhart was on hand in another panel to remark on both the potential of smart guns and what he considered technology that “wasn’t ready for prime time.”

      “I’m probably the only person in this room who has zipped kids into body bags,” Urquhart told the crowd. “We pick up kids who have killed themselves with other people’s handguns. We don’t like that.” He also mentioned a statistic about over 500 American police officers in the past decade being killed with their own handguns by apprehended suspects—including one he personally knew. “Any tech to make that better is a good thing. That being said, [smart gun technology] is not ready for my officers yet. If it worked 110 percent of the time, I’d be interested.”

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        I’m pretty sure that was Dirk’s point. The cops aren’t drinking the Kool-Aid, so it shouldn’t be force-fed to the rest of us.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Did he even consider passing a law against children killing themselves with stolen handguns? Or even stealing the handguns in the first place? If passing a law is the solution to everything, just go ahead and pass those laws and forget about it.

  10. avatar Peter says:

    No gun owner is opposed to Smart Guns, we are opposed to Smart Gun Laws that remove choice.
    If they really are such a great choice, the masses will storm dealers demanding them.
    Perhaps the author recommends Breathalyzer interlocks on all cars?
    For The Children.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      WRONG. I’m opposed to moronic ideas in and form in order to slow degradation of the gene pool. See also commoncore, the demtard party, scoreless sport “competition”, etc.

  11. avatar Don from CT says:

    People need to think and understand that there is nothing inherently evil about a smart gun. They should be freely presented to consumers and either win or lose in the marketplace.

    The problem and the distortion is created by government entities who seek to disarm us. They create laws that mandate smart guns after a single version is presented for sale. These laws are the problem, not smart guns.

    Debating the relative merits of smart versus dumb guns is pointless and irrelevant. It simply misses the point, which is that smart guns are just another choice in the marketplace of guns, or at least that’s how it should be.

    Don

  12. avatar Don from CT says:

    Here are some interesting statistics.

    Roughly 70 children die of accidental gunshot wounds every year.

    Roughly 600 children die of accidental drowning in privately owned swimming pools every year

    Roughly 1700 children die every year of poisoning from household chemicals.

  13. avatar Nedd Ludd says:

    John Doe wrote:
    January 31, 2015 at 08:12
    “Right. Because teaching children firearms safety is so hard.
    That’s the problem with kids today, no-one wants to teach them anything…”

    ============================================================

    Maybe teaching kids is harder than you think…
    If you want to see how smart kids are these days, take a few minutes and watch this:
    What some college students know:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRZZpk_9k8E

    1. avatar Derrick Pruitt says:

      Those are college students, not kids. That is part of the issue, infantalizing people past the age of 18.

    2. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      Wow. That video is just terrifying. God, I hate my generation….

  14. avatar DickDanger says:

    How would a gun that reads finger prints even work, let alone work properly? Would the thing become little more than a paper weight if it was unable to read the owner’s finger prints if it got dirty, or if the battery that keeps the thing on dies? Seems like more trouble than it’s worth. I’ll just stick to pistol safes and teaching kids firearms safety.

  15. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    One basic idea that of a lot of pro-government folks seem to have that if it’s “good” it should be mandatory and if it’s “bad” it should be prohibited. It doesn’t matter whether or not an action causes harm or if a person even has any intent to cause harm. People should not be free to make their own choices, according to their logic.

    The “the issue is too inflamed for that” bit makes me suspect that Mr. Fascittelli would much prefer that smart guns be mandatory, but recognizes it’s politically unfeasible.

    1. avatar Dan Zimmerman says:

      “The ‘the issue is too inflamed for that’ bit makes me suspect that Mr. Fascittelli would much prefer that smart guns be mandatory, but recognizes it’s politically unfeasible.”

      Ding ding ding! Give that man a Padron family reserve maduro.

    2. avatar tmm says:

      “…the issue is too inflamed for that…”

      That’s what stood out to me. It’s not that it should not be mandatory because it would infringe upon a natural right, but Fascittelli’s saying that it shouldn’t be mandatory because it’s not popular enough, and too many people would get in the way of progress.

      No doubt Mr. Fascittelli would make many things mandatory if the issue were not too “inflamed.”

  16. avatar Scrubula says:

    Lets just say smart gun technology was allowed to live in the free market without any political pressures or motivation. If it was allowed to become more reliable and compete with normal guns. Then and only then could it become an acceptable form of self defense. Right now, with the only caliber choice .22LR, with unreliable wrist band RDIF unlocking, no way. I’m willing to give it a chance but never willing to be forced into using inferior technology.

  17. avatar Puyallup Devil_Doc says:

    Living and working in the Seattle area, and being very involved in the pro-gun movement, i’ve had the opportunity to listen to Ralph speak several times. I was in audience at the KOMO Town hall debate prior to the I-594 vote and listened to him lie and weasel his way out of of the tough questions about the legal definition of “transfer”, and I heard him say that “prosecutorial discretion” would protect gun owners from inadvertent felonies. The man is a greasy little snake oil salesman who dances on the graves of dead children and victims of violence. He is a snake, but he is a smart snake. Don’t believe for a second when he laments that smart gun technology is a no-go. He is coming off of a massive victory with I-594, and he understands what it takes to lull pro-gun people into a false sense of security, and energize his base for the next fight. This is maneuvering, plain and simple. And Danny Whestneat? He is a prolific writer at the Seattle Times, the same newspaper that ran a 3 day cover story on how gun ranges kill children less than a week before the I-594 vote. He is on the same page as Ralph, and they are working towards the same goal. Does anyone else in Wa notice that all of this is happening at the same time that a national legislative group was formed to “fight gun violence”, and that a few of our local lawmakers are part of that group? Have we forgotten that Ralph and WACeasefire swore that I-594 was just the “first step”, and that they would be pushing for more legislation in 2015? Oh, one of their stated goals for 2015 was “safe storage laws”. Hmm… What do safe storage laws and smart gun technology have in common?

    1. avatar dph says:

      I haven’t forgotten what these people are really about and as usual it’s about control, not gun control, just control. They are a cancer and they are lining up their next targets as we speak, Oregon and Nevada.

  18. avatar dph says:

    Smart guns my ass, this is what they really want;

    “Washington CeaseFire believes there are several laws that should be passed to reduce gun violence in Washington State. Those states that have the most restrictive gun legislation have just one-sixth the level of gun violence versus those states with the least restrictive laws, according to the book, “Private Gun, Public Health,” by Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health. Other states have: closed the gun-show loophole; banned the sale of military-style assault weapons; limited handgun sales to one per month; carefully regulated concealed weapon permits, and banned open carrying of guns. None of those policies apply in Washington state, which ranks among the most loosely regulated states in terms of guns. Washington CeaseFire believe those policies should be adopted to save lives in Washington state.”

    In other words they want the most restrictive laws in the country, period.

  19. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I tend to agree with this puke that sales would “take off” if such guns were available. Take me, for example. I was forced to admit a few weeks back that I couldn’t venture a guess as to how many handguns I own now, even excluding the several I’ve given to my son. Think how much safer I’d be if I had one or two of these “smart” guns into the mix. IOW, the only “taking off” would be brand new gun owners, which I am sure he thinks would be a good thing. Or not. What a bozo.

  20. avatar JohnF says:

    I don’t agree about with those who “support the technology but just don’t want the law” and those who want to “let the market decide.” The technology is s stupid idea, period. It’s not the guns, damnit! It’s the people who own and use them. Be responsible and you will be fine with any gun. Be irresponsible and you won’t be with any technology. We had a saying the Navy: There is no way to “sailor-proof” a system, meaning anyone can F-up any technology you come up with. It’s that simple. Here is my reasoning:
    1. The technology keeps the focus on the gun, the inanimate object, not how it’s handled and stored. This is not the message we want to support. I read where one anti publically made a challenge to the NRA that they would support repealing the NJ law if the NRA would not oppose smart gun technology. If the antis are offering you a deal, be very wary! They want the gun community to support this and we should not.
    2. People are going to get killed trying to defend themselves with these things when they don’t work. People will get killed with these guns when BGs find a way to defeat the technology. Then the antis will want a “stronger technology.”
    3. The market is not reliable here. It will get co-opted by do gooders who will pour money into it artificially. The Sandy Hook Mommies already are offering some big money for this and they aren’t going to actually buy smart guns.
    4. Once the technology is even a little mature, it becomes easier and easier to go back get them legislated. We will not be able to “unring the bell” once these things are out there. If they aren’t allowed to get out there, the legislation is only a theory. Let’s keep it that way.

    1. avatar Timmy! says:

      I would add a fifth to that list. There will be people who are “trained” on these guns and assume that ALL guns act that way.

      “Hey Dakota look at this. These guns won’t fire except for their own…” BANG! Dakota is now bleeding out.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      As usual, we are letting others define things they know nothing about. I strongly support the development of “smart guns”! Like this; I figure in fewer than 10 years we can have guns with laser sights similar in size and price to what is available now, except that compute range to the target and then compensate by changing the laser dot up or down for the distance, in something less than 1/2 second. Maybe with several settings for different projectiles. Now, THAT would be a “smart gun”. And I’ll buy it. Everybody can be a Miculek!

  21. avatar neiowa says:

    “moms in homes with small children pressuring”

    Right, these Oprah broads need another “sex as a weapon” issue to bash the hubby with. As if a reduction from nil is noticeable.

  22. avatar Bob says:

    Bring it to market without the restrictions on us who have no interest in them. You know what will happen? People who wouldn’t buy a standard gun will buy them, and we’ll have more gun owners and eventually more NRA members.

    And all your power will be gone.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      My gut tells me there are two kinds of people who will by “smart guns.”
      1) Gun collectors who are already NRA members and want to add this to their collection for the novelty aspect and future collector value.
      2) Urbanites who are scared enough to want a self-defense tool that they will never practice with. They won’t join NRA or the pro-2A cause.

      But I could be wrong.

  23. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    I’m with Dirk. Make ALL cops be the test cases for this garbage. Whatever…there are 300million dumb guns out there already. Keep your powder dry.

  24. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    “It can’t be mandatory, that’s illegal and immoral.”

    Fixed it for him.

  25. avatar CarlosT says:

    I’m surprised there aren’t more tech people chiming in. As someone who works with technology day in day out, the last thing I want in something I might need to save my life is more tech.

    I spend enormous amounts of time figuring out how to work around failures and limitations that unexpectedly arise. When it comes to stopping someone from killing or seriously harming me, I want to depend only on springs, levers, ratchets, and other such time-tested technologies.

  26. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    To provide information you know to be false or misleading is considered to be fraud.
    Most of everything Ralph says fits into that category.

  27. avatar DerryM says:

    His suggestion that if a fingerprint gun was available Mom’s with small children would pressure their husbands to get one, makes me uneasy because that projects lots of people buying a “first-time” gun they are ill-prepared to use and creates a false sense of security for them. He’s saying “It would take off.” implying people who never owned a gun before would flock to the technology, but those might be a lot of gun-ignorant people with unrealistic ideas about how “safe” the gun would be and how “safe” it would/could make them feel.

    I’m not saying I wouldn’t welcome a lot of new gun owners into the National mix, but, rather, having misgivings about what the unanticipated consequences would be because of the unrealistic ideas the Entertainment Media has put in their minds. Anyway, that’s my immediate reaction to what he’s quoted as saying.

  28. avatar GS650G says:

    As with all great ideas, have the NJ State Police try them out for a few years and we will see how that goes.

  29. avatar Hannibal says:

    Anyone who wants smart guns to gain a market share and place as legit firearms should lobby for a federal law that no state may mandate them be used (as this interferes with interstate commerce).

  30. avatar Gearmoe says:

    Guy’s a dickhead, period. Here in WA, we are now keenly aware to the game plan, and He doesn’t care. He want’s to key the NJ smart gun law into effect. It’s all about feel-good speak. At a functional level it all fails. Smart guns so far are dumb. It’s one of those terms the anti-gunners popularize, same as loophole, gunshow, and background checks.

    The biggest mistake which typically is made to any machine or tool is to complicate its design. Life protection devices must ALWAYS work, first time every time, everywhere and with anyone. Any less and it becomes a detriment.

  31. avatar Cpt says:

    I’m surprised TTAG didn’t highlight the best part of their presentation here in WA (2:20 in video below). The people trying to push smart guns had to talk about what the video would have shown, and the slide that would have been shown here because they couldn’t get their Powerpoint presentation to work and had to give up and just describe it instead.

    That’s right, the people who want mandatory technology limiting the use of firearms for self defense cannot even figure out a projector with Powerpoint.

    http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/seattle/2015/01/28/smart-gun-debate-comes-to-seattle/22498755/

  32. avatar Stop-A-Fascist says:

    With a last name that starts with Fascist… Keep bad laws contained – prevent spread.
    New Yawk Gov. wants to ” change ” the grand jury system to allow double jeopardy chances
    to convict police. As a comment said, it will also apply to CCW holders as well, watch out !Story at – Police One dot com.

  33. avatar IAB2 says:

    Anyone find it coincidental that various progressive “news” outlets are re-floating this same collection of already debunked ideas on Smart Guns, that were extensively covered in 2014, WAPO, Forbes, Economist, even CNN for goodness sakes. Seattle PI is re-running the same flatulence as whatever MyNorthWest is, on behalf of this pathetic gun-grabber Mr Fasciitus- sounds like a foot condition, and just about as relevant to the truth…

    New Jersey Legislators were so desperate to find a way out of the law they wrote, that was triggered by the sale of Armatix in CA , that they were reduced to begging the NRA to “negotiate” on the law, and when the NRA simply ignored them, turned around and blamed them for the Dems own consequence- the banning of sale of ANY handgun, except a $1800 .22LR that can be defeated by any wireless jammer blocking the RFID. Even the NJ State Police couldnt be bribed into endorsing it.

    (and note how it was quietly approved by the State of CA on the un-constitutional Roster of Approved Handguns, despite failing the required micro-stamping tech that bans all other new semi-auto pistols, leaving only revolvers in another year…)

    Remember the uproar when Oak Tree Gun Store in CA first offered it- gun owners practically shut down their business until they backpedaled so fast they couldnt keep their story straight.

    Now, the real story is whats in it for Nick Hannauer, the Silicon Valley VC who is sponsoring the prize. Maybe suck a few naive inventors into giving up shares in in the inevitable later rounds, and/or the FEDGOV grant that buys him out, just before it BKs, ala Solyndra, and too many other GreenFrauds that paid big bucks to Obama campaign donors.

    Any wonder why Nick was pushing I594.

    Jeez, there is probably a story there, but with progtard “reporters” and Journolistas so busy talking orders from the Talking Points Memo and CAP funders, its hard to find reporting these days…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email