Gun Control

(why the police won't have any)

from JoeUser Forums
The same week I read about an attack on 802.11, I saw an article on guns for police that can only be used when they are near an ID chip, to be implanted in the owner's arm. Actually, the two articles are unrelated - the chip seems to be nothing more than an RFID chip, which is much easier to jam than an 802.11 transmitter, but it makes me wonder how anyone can think this is a good idea.
5,983 views 15 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's just a safty precaution.  Why wouldn't it be good?  The chip is in the officer's arm that is being read, so somebody would have to replicate the chip code in order to use the gun.  It's for safety in case the officer's gun gets in the wrong hands.  Why would that be bad?

My dogs have chips made by the company that is developing that.  I call it Doggy low-jack

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
You can jam the signal, or otherwise disable the electronics so that the police officer won't be able to use the gun.

Sounds great for pets though. I wish I had one of these when I was a kid.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally I wouldn't want to trust my life to a piece of electronic equipment. The possibility of failure at just the wrong time makes this a life threatening piece of technological bad thinking.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

If they could prevent it from jamming somehow, then I could see how it'd be a good idea for anybody with a gun. Like especially people who have children and guns.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
If they could prevent it from jamming somehow, then I could see how it'd be a good idea for anybody with a gun. Like especially people who have children and guns.


There is no such thing as an infallible piece of electronics. I can just see a police officer saying "Just a minute Mr. Criminal, don't shoot. I think the batteries in my gun are dead."

The more complex any system is, the higher the probability of failure. There is already a gun designed to safety key off a ring worn by the shooter. The gun won't fire unless this ring is in direct contact with the grip. It has a fairly high failure rate. No cop (or private citizen) would seriously trust their lives to an electronic circuit in a fire-fight. I surely wouldn't.

As for children and guns; any responsible gun owner should keep their gun secured and away from children. IF they don't do this, and there is an accident, they should be jailed. No, it doesn't undo the accident, but accountability is important. Technology isn't the answer to all the world's problems. I think it actually replaces one problem with ten others. If you're trusting your life to a firearm, simpler is definately better. Revolvers are more reliable than auto loaders. Any shooter worth his/her salt knows this. Why? Simpler design. Adding electronics reduces reliability.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Does no one see the big brother implications here? Violating one's flesh for technology related to control? The one-world system is on it's way...
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mikimouse...actually I was going to bring that up too, but didn't want to appear to be a paranoid. After all, they are always watching.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
You make my point. A lot more people think like that than they let on. It takes the courageous ones like me to say things and then take the flak for saying it. Typical in a day in the life of Mikimouse. DOn't fear words, for that's all they are. Don't fear ridicule since the ridiculors are only weak, hence their juvenile attacks. Stand strong.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Does no one see the big brother implications here? Violating one's flesh for technology related to control? The one-world system is on it's way...


The UN?

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The thing with security systems is that you can never know that it's secure (with the exception of mathematical systems); all you can know is that the system hasn't been cracked yet (or that if it has been cracked, the crack has been kept private: the worst fear of computer security professionals). When it's an alarm for a house, and failure means a false alarm, or theives getting in (which they would have done anyway without the system), installing a security system doesn't have any negatives. But in this case failure could cause loss of life.

If there wasn't the threat of terrorists finding an attack on the system, and exploiting it nationwide, I wouldn't think that this is such a bad idea in principle (though the implementation still needs working out). Many police officers are killed by their own weapons, and if the system were comprimised by some bank robbers, it could be disabled nationwide within hours, before the failure was even publisized.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
if the system were comprimised by some bank robbers, it could be disabled nationwide within hours, before the failure was even publisized.


How? The 'system' would be an integral part of the firearm. As for many officers being killed by their own weapon, that would hardly change as it is usually at very close range. Close enough that the gun would likely still be inside the field range of the chip, so the officer would still die. While I agree it seems like a good idea in theory, we are far away from the technology needed to make it truly reliable enough to trust your life to it.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The sytem would still rely on some mechanical lock on the gun. Just dissamble the gun and remove the locking mechanism.

Since the chip is implanted in the hand, there is no reason that the range couldn't be inches, so that the handle of the gun would have to be in or immediatly next to the owner's hand.