Ready for the end of all gun crime as we know it?

[Dolomite]

There will be no dissent allowed on our trip to utopia. Get ready for some idiot law giver to jump on this shit hard!

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,570575,00.html

<"Applied Digital Solutions has entered into an agreement with gun maker FN Manufacturing to develop the weapon. The technology involves injecting a chip under the skin of the gun's owner. The chip sends a radio signal that identifies the gun owner and enables the firearm.">

Now what reasonable person would be reticent about having a microchip implanted into their skin? Morans! That’s who!

<"If you let your mind wander to other potential uses, you can imagine the lives that could be saved," he said.>

Yes, imagine the amount of lives saved when the robber of a bank surrounded by police can walk out in complete safety with as many hostages as he wants due to the fact that he’s carrying a device the size of a garage door opener that electronically places all of the officers weapons on “Safe”.

[slackmaster]

1. Ridiculous from an engineering perspective

Every firearm is a mechanical device, so any contraption to PREVENT it from firing is going to come down to a solenoid or some conceptually similar device that translates an electrical signal into the motion (or lack of motion) of a mechanical part. No matter how this kind of system is implemented it couldn't be very hard to disable it.

I don't care if they develop it for police use. Let me know when it's accepted by police. I won't hold my breath waiting.

[MrBenchley]

2. Paging Mr. Wizard....

"Yes, imagine the amount of lives saved when the robber of a bank surrounded by police can walk out in complete safety with as many hostages as he wants due to the fact that he’s carrying a device the size of a garage door opener that electronically places all of the officers weapons on “Safe”."

Uh, did you really think all of the police weapons would have the same frequency? For that matter, did you really think that this solution was likely to be applied to any but civilian handguns?

"Now what reasonable person would be reticent about having a microchip implanted into their skin?"
I don't know...what reasonable person pretends he needs a handgun but needs to take no steps whatsoever to make it safe?

[slackmaster]

3. I see you don't know very much about ECM

ECM = Electronic Counter-Measures

Try using your key fob to unlock your car within sight of a US Navy vessel some time. Those all have different signals too, but they all tend to malfunction when exposed to ships' navigation radars. That's not an intended function of the Navy's equipment, so imagine what an effective device could be devised by someone who wanted to disable them.

When there is no ship in sight I can unlock my SUV from 150 feet away reliably. If I'm parked along San Diego Bay the maximum range is reduced down to a matter of inches if I can get it to work at all.

Check this out:



This cell phone jammer looks just like a cell phone and is ideal for use when commuting on the bus and train or when eating in restaurants etc, anywhere where you need effective control at close quarters!

Make sure you have this phone jammer with you whenever you are out and about as you never know when you are going to need to use it. With this cell phone jammer switched on in your pocket you will be able to silence those anti-social types who insist on using their mobile phones in the most indiscrete way, the beauty is that they will not know it is you that has switched them off!, all they will see is that their signal has dropped on their phone. When you have had your meal or enjoyed your coffee in peace and quiet, you can then switch off your phone jammer and continue on your way completely stress free.

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm

[Superfly]

4. Same here...

whenever I'm on NAS Oceana, I can't open my car with the FOB. Not even if I put it up against the door.

ECM is not very hard to design and implement.

[MrBenchley]

5. Jeepers, fly...

So you know you're going to be around a ship that generates electronic fields that interfere with remote keyless entry on cars....and you bought a car with remote keyless entry anyway?

Uh-HUH.

[slackmaster]

6. Where did he say his car had keyless entry?

:shrug:

When my fob doesn't work I just use the key.

How about you, 'fly?

[Superfly]

8. Yeah, I just use the key.

But there are no ships around NAS Oceana. It's an airport.

I design ECM as part of my job, and it's really not that hard to build something at home.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

12. Why not?

Because I'm liberal?

Because I haven't got a gun fetish?

[slackmaster]

13. You're no liberal, MrBenchley

Your politics are leftist/authoritarian.

Because I haven't got a gun fetish?

Oh yeah? Over 16,000 posts about guns don't lie.

[Superfly]

14. Good point...

hit the nail right on the head.

[Liberal Classic]

43. Post of the year

Hoisted by a freudian petard.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

21. uh

What Benchley said, emphasis added:

Uh, did you really think all of the police weapons would have the same frequency? For that matter, did you really think that this solution was likely to be applied to any but civilian handguns?

What you said:

Try using your key fob to unlock your car within sight of a US Navy vessel some time. Those all have different signals too ...

Miss that second part of what Benchley said, didya?

My ability to unlock my car isn't affected by anything. It opens with a key. (I have just never felt any need to disturb the peace by making my car make whooping noises audible to anyone unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity just so that I don't have to put a key in a lock.)

If cops' firearms were like my car ... like Benchley was saying, and like the first thing that occurred to me when I read that bank robber/cop scenario ... well, there'd be no change there, eh?

Now, the phone jammer, that's something I want.

.

[slackmaster]

24. I understood MrBenchley's post completely

I don't care if the technology becomes AVAILABLE as an option for civilians, the police, or anyone to use. The problem is that misguided governments, like the New Jersey state legislature, want to make it MANDATORY for all civilian guns once it's available.

Choice is good. Lack of choice is bad.

My ability to unlock my car isn't affected by anything. It opens with a key....

So does mine. Radiation from radar systems inhibits the remote opening device, but it doesn't prevent me from using the key that I always carry.

(I have just never felt any need to disturb the peace by making my car make whooping noises audible to anyone unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity just so that I don't have to put a key in a lock.)

Are you assuming that everyone who has a remote opening device disturbs the peace by making whooping noises? FYI my SUV makes no sounds other than a "thunk" when the doorlocks are engaged or disengaged.

Now, the phone jammer, that's something I want.

Word.

[iverglas]

31. there ya go

So does mine. Radiation from radar systems inhibits the remote opening device, but it doesn't prevent me from using the key that I always carry.

The point having been that nothing would disable cops' firearms if the firearms had no remote device associated with them. Can't inhibit something that don't exist.

Choice is good. Lack of choice is bad.

I actually haven't expressed any opinion about the whole idea, of course. I just thought that the "bank robber disables cops' guns" scenario, and the haste with which some climbed aboard it, was rather ridiculous.

FYI my SUV makes no sounds other than a "thunk" when the doorlocks are engaged or disengaged.

Very good. If it weren't for those pesky firearms, you'd be welcome to move in down the block. Hmm ... which would I rather have ... you with the firearms and the quiet car, or the moron who lives there now who hasn't figured out how to operate any of the noise systems his car is equipped with ...

Meanwhile, can anybody explain to me why cars make whooping noises when people unlock or lock them remotely (let alone why some of them actually honk their horns), and why anyone with those devices would or could not disable the fucking noisemakers? (i.e., are the people in question stupid or evil?)

Word.

Okay, here's my chance. Can you tell me what that means?

.

[slackmaster]

36. I wasn't talking about disabling cops' guns

The point having been that nothing would disable cops' firearms if the firearms had no remote device associated with them. Can't inhibit something that don't exist.

Please go back and re-read reply #3.

I actually haven't expressed any opinion about the whole idea, of course. I just thought that the "bank robber disables cops' guns" scenario, and the haste with which some climbed aboard it, was rather ridiculous.

My intended scenario was more along the lines of "robbers disable victims' guns". Again, I never said anything about disabling cops' guns. That was someone else's idea. The JoinTogether article referred to is pretty lame. I was discussing the technology in general.

Word.

Okay, here's my chance. Can you tell me what that means?

Not sure of the exact source, but it means "You have spoken the truth." I think it has something to do with "word of God" or something similar.

[DoNotRefill]

44. I have the beep noise on my car turned on...

when I lock my doors. That way, when I go to leave the car and push the button, I KNOW if it engaged or not, and my wife can hear it, too. I have it disabled for when I unlock my car, because I figure that if it doesn't unlock, then I'll figure it out as soon as I go to open the door. Better the car be locked accidentally than unlocked accidentally.

BTW, my car is a very common type. When I lose it in the parking lot, I pop the trunk with the remote, which causes it to go up, so I can see it. I suppose some people use the beep to help find their cars.


"I just thought that the "bank robber disables cops' guns" scenario, and the haste with which some climbed aboard it, was rather ridiculous."

Actually, it may not be. I recall a local case not terribly long ago (late 1990s) where a criminal had built and was using a radio scrambler. When he committed crimes, he cut it on, and it FUBAR'd the cop's commo (both radio and computer) links within a certain distance (along with a bunch of other stuff, which got EVERYBODY pissed...the FAA looks dimly on screwing with aircraft rescue freqs.) It was roughly the size of a beefy paperback book, small enough to go in a backpack or cargo pocket. He ended up getting caught with it while pranking some cops...pulling up next to them in cop cars, setting it off, and then laughing at them when they jumped. Don't try this at home, folks, and remember, cops don't take kindly to being laughed at.

[iverglas]

49. so yer on my shit list

Not welcome on my block, guns or no guns.

I have the beep noise on my car turned on...
when I lock my doors. That way, when I go to leave the car and push the button, I KNOW if it engaged or not, and my wife can hear it, too.

All that says to me is "I'm too lazy to check that my car doors are locked, so everybody else gets to have their peace and quiet disturbed by my car's whooping noise". Unless your car's "beep" is a damned site quieter than any whoop I've ever heard.

And oh, I know the cell phone jammers are illegal, unfortunate as that may be from a purely personal point of view. I believe there has been discussion about using them in hospitals and the like, and about whether private property owners should be able to use them on their own property, e.g. in theatres and restaurants. Perhaps some day we'll have no-phoning areas in public places, and ultimately municipal bylaws prohibiting the idiots from using their idiot gadgets anywhere but in the coat closet. Maybe in the toilet.

.

[DoNotRefill]

50. So I'm "double unwelcome"?

LOL!!! :) I have this mental image of me moving into your neighborhood, and everybody fleeing to escape either my secured firearms or my car beep. "Run awaaaaaaaay!!!!" :) BTW, my car beep isn't appreciably louder than the sound of the car door closing. I haven't gotten any complaints so far. Of course, my neighbors know I'm a "gun nut", so it's possible that they're just scared of me.

The point about the cellphone jammers is not their legality wherever (since I've yet to find a jurisdiction that they're legal in, regardless of if it's private property or not, unless you're a government agency) but the simple fact that they exist. Given that they exist, despite the fact that they're illegal, I think proves the point that where there's a demand, there will shortly exist a supply. If the police were stupid enough to go to some kind of radio-enabled guns, I have little problem imagining that somebody, somewhere would produce a gun jammer, and that shortly it would find it's way into the hands of the criminal element. If somebody is a criminal, and could render police guns useless for, say, $1000, don't you think they'd jump all over the chance?

[DoNotRefill]

45. cell phone jammers:

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/cell%20phone%20jammers.htm

Please note: I think these are illegal just about everywhere except for government use.

[Hammie]

33. The band will be known

Since frequencies are allocated by the FCC, the frequency band for the devices will be known. It won't be necessary to know the exact frequency to interfere with the devices' functioning. Any powerful rf signal in the band, or even on adjacent bands, can cause the recievers to become desensitized to the target signal. Some police radios already have this problem in the vicinity of cell towers due the proximity of the assigned frequecies.

A handheld device probably wouldn't be powerful enough, but a vehicle mounted jammer probably would be.

[Superfly]

34. A reciever/transmitter would be sufficient

that queries local signals, determines type, amplitude and freq, and x-mits appropriate negating signal(s). Could do it with something that fits in your hand, when dealing with the ranges that handguns are typically fired.

[SheilaT]

7. The only way all gun crimes could

be eliminate would be if somehow magically all guns were to disappear from the face of this earth. If no one at all had a gun anywhere, then they couldn't be used for evil purposes. Of course, violence would still occur, just by other means.

High tech solutions to low tech problems are rarely a good idea.

[MrBenchley]

15. Still wondering....

"what reasonable person would be reticent about having a microchip implanted into their skin?"
What reasonable person would want to own a gun but would be utterly unwilling to take any steps to make it safe...or to keep himself and his family from being shot, unwittingly or otherwise?

[slackmaster]

16. False Bifurcation Fallacy

IOW If you're unwilling to get a microchip implanted in your skin then you don't care if your kids die.

:freak:

[iverglas]

23. hmm

IOW If you're unwilling to get a microchip implanted in your skin then you don't care if your kids die.

Yes? I think so.

Provided that you have kids, of course.

I had a client once who was evidently unwilling to secure her four pre-schoolers in any restraints in her car. She was in an accident and they were all killed. Strikes me that if she'd actually cared whether they died, she would have restrained them.

Mind you, there's always the dim alternative ...

.

[slackmaster]

25. Aw, come on

Even when this "smart gun" system is available there will always be plenty of alternative ways of preventing gun accidents.

Sheesh.

[OpSomBlood]

26. All of my guns are accident-proof.

Because I handle and store them properly.

[MrBenchley]

27. I can't imagine

who would want a gun in the house if they had kids, to start with...

But then we are dealing with people who claim to need to carry a gun as they skulk to church....

[slackmaster]

28. Your lack of imagination is not my problem

But then we are dealing with people who claim to need to carry a gun as they skulk to church....

Neither is your ridiculous Straw Man argument.

[OpSomBlood]

29. All the more reason...

Because I'll be Goddamned if I'll let some asshole break into my house and harm a hair on my child's head while I stand there in my socks and underwear holding a tennis racquet. But maybe we just differ on that.

Ever heard of a trigger lock? It's this fanciful newfangled invention that disables a firearm. If a parent doesn't have one of them on every gun in their house with ammunition locked separately, then they are irresponsible and should be dealt with severely.

[MrBenchley]

30. Wow...

Guess the entire RKBA argument IS built on childish fantasy and horseshit....

[FatSlob]

46. you keep believing that.

Others will continue to chuckle at your strawman arguments, appeals to google, rants, name-calling, penis referenceing, vagina referenceing, oral sex typing, fetish related posts.

[MrBenchley]

47. Gee, fat slob....

I sure seem to be doing all the chuckling...

But then I'm not beset by imaginary little "l" libertarians....

[FatSlob]

48. Yup, you've got the

Authoritarians squarely in your corner. I've explained it many times, I'll do it again. Authoritarian has an opposite, that opposite is libertarian.

[iverglas]

32. interesting

If a parent doesn't have <a trigger lock> on every gun in their house with ammunition locked separately, then they are irresponsible and should be dealt with severely.

May I ask, in all sincerity, whether this means that you advocate legislation requiring this to be done? (I'm thinking that this is the only way that anyone could be "dealt with severely" -- i.e. by a sentence imposed for violating a law.)

Sounds reasonable to me.

.

[MrBenchley]

35. The gun lobby sure doesn't

and in fact refers to such legislation as "Burglar protection bills."


And of course the Republican "solution" has been for the rest of us to buy gun owners trigger locks with taxpayer funds, which are then handed out to the gun owners for free....guess that's part fo that doctrine of "personal responsibility" gun owners believe in so strongly.

The cherry on the sundae is that when Chimpy was Governor of Texas not only did he waste Texas taxpayers' funds on that scheme...but the locks he then handed out were defective and had to be recalled.

Of course thanks to the Republican party and the gun lobby, faulty trigger locks can be recalled...faulty guns, no.

[OpSomBlood]

37. Yes.

I think that trigger lock laws for households with children are reasonable. I would also entertain the idea of state licensure with safety training in order to legally own a gun, but not gun registration.

[natasha1]

17. My fear of these devices...

Is not that law enforcement weapons could be disabled (theirs would likely not have the device), but rather that MINE could be disabled.

They already supposedly have an EMP device that can be "fired" at fleeing cars, frying their IC electronics and effectively shutting off the engine for most modern cars. How convenient for shutting down an armed mob!

However, as was pointed out, it's unlikely to work. Any such electronics should be easy to remove from an inherently mechanical device.

Nat

[DoNotRefill]

40. Not only that....

but there are already cellphone jammers on the market. These emit a signal that renders cellphones in the immediate area temporarily useless. Small, compact ones are under $200, and they look like cellphones.

What happens when the criminals come up with a "smartchip jammer"?

[OpSomBlood]

18. The end of crime in Old Detroit as we know it:

[-..__...]

19. System Faliure... Reboot

http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/firearms/2003/7/smart_guns/index2.phtml

Hell, even the VPC diesn't think very highly of "smart guns" (for slightly different reasons).

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/smartgun.htm

"What is the view of the Violence Policy Center on personalized guns?

Personalized gun technology may prevent a very small percentage of gun-related death and injury. It could perhaps prove valuable for law enforcement officers, since a significant percentage of officers killed or wounded in the line of duty are shot with their own or their partner's service weapon.

In general, however, the smart gun falls far short of the sweeping benefits its proponents claim. Any benefits would likely be outweighed by an increase in gun-owning households. Overstating the value of personalized guns will ultimately result in public cynicism regarding policy efforts to reduce gun death and injury, and delay the implementation of truly effective solutions".

[slackmaster]

20. One of the few issues the VPC got right

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/smartgun.htm is one of their best articles. I can't find anything in it that I strongly disagree with.

[OpSomBlood]

22. That's amazing...

That you can find a specific stand on an issue you agree with within a group that on the whole you ideologically disagree with. It's almost evidence of independent critical thinking on your part.

I wonder if there's a lesson to be learned there...

{crickets chirp}

[Durandal]

38. hmm

Interesting I suppose, but still, the most tried and true method of gun safety is to just keep your finger off the dag gumed trigger 'till you’re ready to fire. And on the issue of a criminal taking you gun and using it against you? Would you try to take a gun if it was pointed directly at your head?

[MrBenchley]

39. And even if you piss in your hat

and call it a bowl of soup, it won't be much of a lunch.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal Classic]

42. Why stop there

I'm sure some day a bipartisan comittee will agree on getting everybody one of those.