alan
Member
The headline on the AP Wire Service story reads as follows: "N.J. requires handguns only owner can shoot", which might sound nice until one thinks a bit, on what is involved.
1. The state legislature has mandated the use of a technology that does not exist. Why, except to perhaps show the folks back home that they are doing "something", would any legislative body possibly want to do that?
2. Governor elect McGreevy describes this legislation as "common sense legislation". Personally, I have significant reservations on that, however the readers attention is directed to question 1 above, re this. Let them draw the appropriate conclusions for themselves.
3. With regard to this latest in electronic "whiz-bangs", "whiz-bangs"yet to see the light of day, this owner recognition scheme would certainly be an example of such, how many of you have experienced repeated computer crashes, cell phone and even common hard wired telephone "problems", and other examples of the latest darling of the electronics industry heading south, at inopportune moments? That situation, a very real one by the way, might explain the curious exemption for police sidearms, from the above mentioned requirement, however one more question remains unanswered.
4. Because, in theory at least, the job of the police officer is to protect the individual, interestingly the courts have repeatedly said otherwise, 98% reliability from police service arms is less than is acceptable. Looking at what the political types, the "elected things" have wrought, is this margin of UNRELIABILITY acceptable in handguns that the law abiding civilian might have recourse to, in protecting himself or herself? My answer is NO, but it seems others see the matter differently. How might Mr., Mrs. and Ms. Everyman see it, one wonders?
1. The state legislature has mandated the use of a technology that does not exist. Why, except to perhaps show the folks back home that they are doing "something", would any legislative body possibly want to do that?
2. Governor elect McGreevy describes this legislation as "common sense legislation". Personally, I have significant reservations on that, however the readers attention is directed to question 1 above, re this. Let them draw the appropriate conclusions for themselves.
3. With regard to this latest in electronic "whiz-bangs", "whiz-bangs"yet to see the light of day, this owner recognition scheme would certainly be an example of such, how many of you have experienced repeated computer crashes, cell phone and even common hard wired telephone "problems", and other examples of the latest darling of the electronics industry heading south, at inopportune moments? That situation, a very real one by the way, might explain the curious exemption for police sidearms, from the above mentioned requirement, however one more question remains unanswered.
4. Because, in theory at least, the job of the police officer is to protect the individual, interestingly the courts have repeatedly said otherwise, 98% reliability from police service arms is less than is acceptable. Looking at what the political types, the "elected things" have wrought, is this margin of UNRELIABILITY acceptable in handguns that the law abiding civilian might have recourse to, in protecting himself or herself? My answer is NO, but it seems others see the matter differently. How might Mr., Mrs. and Ms. Everyman see it, one wonders?
