HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Is It Time To Put Chips I...

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 01:04 PM

 

Is It Time To Put Chips In Guns?

There is an idea for a semiconductor application that has been kicked around for years, but has not yet found its market. Itís the notion of using RFID chips to prevent guns from being used by anyone except their owners.

If you look back over the past year alone you will find that a number of killings have resulted from the killer appropriating someone elseís gun. Itís not unusual for a killer to shoot a police officer with another officerís gun, or even that officerís own gun. The school shootings that are becoming increasingly frequent in the US are often committed by a child using a parentís gun. Firearms stolen from homes and cars are often used in gang violence. If a gun would be useful only to its owner these deaths might be avoided.

Fellow Forbes blogger Larry Bell gives some interesting statistics from a Department of Justice survey of prison inmates in his post: Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet. The survey found that 37% of inmates used a family memberís gun and another 40% obtained their weapon from an illegal source. Some of these crimes may have been avoided if firearms could be operated exclusively by their owners.

There are lots of ideas of how to prevent unauthorized gun use, and in fact there is even a Wikipedia page that describes a few of them. Of course, thereís the obvious solution of keeping guns in a safe. Gun safes do a lot to prevent theft or misappropriation by a family member. Some companies have worked out ways to add biometric sensors to weapons to prevent their unauthorized use. These are based on fingerprint recognition, grip recognition, or more exotic approaches. The trouble is: it takes time to positively identify biometric inputs, and those who buy a gun for safety worry that a delay might cost them their life.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhandy/2013/12/31/is-it-time-to-put-chips-in-guns/

42 replies, 4246 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is It Time To Put Chips In Guns? (Original post)
SecularMotion Jan 2014 OP
Common Sense Party Jan 2014 #1
Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #2
Post removed Jan 2014 #3
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #6
Eleanors38 Jan 2014 #37
Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #20
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2014 #34
Straw Man Jan 2014 #4
ileus Jan 2014 #5
flamin lib Jan 2014 #12
flamin lib Jan 2014 #7
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #9
flamin lib Jan 2014 #11
bossy22 Jan 2014 #13
bossy22 Jan 2014 #15
flamin lib Jan 2014 #17
bossy22 Jan 2014 #18
flamin lib Jan 2014 #22
bossy22 Jan 2014 #23
flamin lib Jan 2014 #27
bossy22 Jan 2014 #28
flamin lib Jan 2014 #30
bossy22 Jan 2014 #31
flamin lib Jan 2014 #32
bossy22 Jan 2014 #35
Eleanors38 Jan 2014 #38
bossy22 Jan 2014 #40
AtheistCrusader Jan 2014 #8
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #10
spin Jan 2014 #25
bossy22 Jan 2014 #41
bossy22 Jan 2014 #14
flamin lib Jan 2014 #16
gejohnston Jan 2014 #19
flamin lib Jan 2014 #24
bossy22 Jan 2014 #26
flamin lib Jan 2014 #29
bossy22 Jan 2014 #33
flamin lib Jan 2014 #36
bossy22 Jan 2014 #39
bossy22 Jan 2014 #21
Packerowner740 Jan 2014 #42

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 01:08 PM

1. I prefer to put them in dips.

They taste better that way.

But to each his/her own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 01:21 PM

2. LOL.

 

I wonder, is this another drive by posting? No comment from the OP?
Inquiring minds want to know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ranchemp. (Reply #2)


Response to Post removed (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 01:47 PM

6. It's a fair question: Why don't you discuss your own OPs?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 06:00 PM

37. Well, he did. See where he called a fellow DUer a "Stalker?"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:09 PM

20. Not stalking, don't flatter yourself.

 

It's a legitimate question given that you post a thread in this group and then don't add any comment at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 05:27 PM

34. ...or as someone once said...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 01:33 PM

4. Yeah.

"Some of these crimes may have been avoided if firearms could be operated exclusively by their owners."

And some gun owners may die when their "smart guns" malfunction, and some gun owners may die when they try to use someone else's smart gun to defend their own lives.

No technological free lunch there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 01:43 PM

5. No

What about my wife and kids?

What if I loan it to friends?

What if I sale it?

We don't need anymore nanny state solutions to basic rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 03:06 PM

12. What if I sale it?

Go through a FFL and get a new RFID chip.

Loan it to someone? Never a good idea. You are responsible for what they do with it. If someone needs a gun let them buy one for themselves.

Wife and kids? Get an RFID for them that matches the gun.

Nanny state? Yeah, we can't prevent every auto accident so maybe we need to get rid of all traffic signs, regulations and enforcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 01:52 PM

7. RFID makes sense on three levels;

it's fast (Texas toll tags can be read up to 155 mph), other biometrics not so much.

It makes your firearm unattractive to thieves, offering some level of protection to gun owners.

It makes unauthorized use impossible, i.e. taking a police gun during a confrontation.

Oh, and it's cheap enough to use on a freekin t-shirt, so it won't increase the cost of firearms to a level of discomfort for "law abiding citizens".

It

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 02:11 PM

9. "It makes unauthorized use impossible..."until it's hacked

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 03:00 PM

11. Okay, so in a confrontation with police an assailant takes the officer's

gun, opens his laptop or other device and hacks the rfid chip.

Uh huh. Alrighty then!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 03:14 PM

13. In that instance it would be helpful

but that does not mean the pros outweigh the cons. It should be noted that much of the legislation regarding this issue specifically exempts police and military from the requirement to have owner authorized weapons. So in many cases the situation you talk about would not happen since the officers gun would still be "old technology".

The technology is just not there at the moment. It's not reliable enough (main reason why police will not accept it) and its quick to deactivate. A modern gun is essentially still electronic free- its all mechanical. Any introduction of an electronic part to a gun (unless the gun was completely redesigned) could easily be defeated by just removing the part. Just open up a modern handgun and see how many parts there are- not many. This is done for a reason- the simpler the design the less there is to go wrong.

I haven't seen one piece of technology proposed that couldn't be defeated with a screwdriver in less than a few minutes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 03:33 PM

15. It doesn't make sense on many levels

it's questionably reliable

It's easily defeated no matter how it is installed- think those old garage door key locks- it would take a burglar 30 seconds with a screw driver to open it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 03:46 PM

17. Just be honest, okay?

IF the technology were here now (it is) and IF it were 100% effective and IF it were impossible to defeat you would still oppose it on ideological grounds. Ya' know, freedom? And liberty and stuff.

I have no problem with that, it's your business. Just own it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:01 PM

18. I would not oppose it in that case

I have no ideological issue with such a device. I just don't think that technology is at that point yet- nor do I think it will ever be at that point with our "modern" firearms. It's just the logic of trying to control a purely mechanical device with an electronic device.

Now if this technology was on a ray gun- that would be a different story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:10 PM

22. Ya mean like fly by wire? Or drive by wire?

Ya' can't get much more reliable than today's airliners or cars. Mechanical devices controlled by electronics. Hell, check into Ducati motorcycles! Traction control is accomplished by varying valve timing, fuel injection and ignition for each individual cylinder!

It's okay to admit that you fundamentally oppose any suggestions from the other side of the argument. Really, it is. It's your business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:30 PM

23. Again, I don't have an ideological problem with it

To take your example- did they mandate all that technology the second someone said "look I've created a working prototype"? No, there was testing, real world trials, etc...How should this be any different with a firearm? It shouldn't be, but it is. We are told "look see, someone made an RFID gun, lets mandate it on all weapons!" I'm willing to listen, but I want to know what testing has been done, what failures the device has undergone. The most I've seen was one article which the manufacturer said "it shot 500 rounds with no issue"- which is hardly enough of a test to deem such a device reliable.

Also, your comparison to automotives in incorrect as well. A ducati motorcyle, like many modern vehicles, has intricate electronic components that are necessary for the vehicle to function. Today's cars cannot run without their electronic components. A gun on the other hand, has no electronic components (except accessories). The only electronic component in the smart gun would be device itself- which means removing it and replacing it with its mechanical counterpart would be simple. I say this because there are only certain parts you can replace with anything electronic- really only the trigger mechanism. Trigger mechanisms are not hard to replace, and on modern weapons can be done in less than 5 minutes. The parts are no more than springs.

Again the reliability issue- today's firearms are extremely reliable mainly because of the simplicity of their design. Can this device offer the same reliability? Logically no because it makes the device more complex while not offering an operation advantage. It just adds another thing that can possibly go wrong.

All those things you mentioned were proven reliable in real world scenarios before they were incorporated. How many real-world scenarios have smart guns gone through?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:40 PM

27. Up thread you commented that

electronic control (paraphrasing) doesn't work, can't work and will never work.

Electronics, in the case of Ducati, control a camshaft (round piece of iron with bumps on it) that acts against a valve (another piece of iron).

Most new cars have electronics that control the front wheels of the car (steering), the throttle, breaks and just about every other aspect of vehicular mechanical operation.

I have admitted that retrofitting 310 million existing guns is impractical.

My problem is the attitude of it won't work so let's not pursue it. Had the OP read,"Is it time to develop chips for guns?" I doubt, based on history with this forum, that the response would be any different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:48 PM

28. You are more than free to work on it

just don't mandate it yet. Thats the problem most of us have. Yes, we believe it is a waste of time and impractical but we don't have a problem with people toying around with it. We have a problem when that person who was toying around says "look it works" and a politician decides to mandate it based on the fact it worked in that instance.

There is a general attitude when it comes to these laws that "mandate it and work out the kinks later". Is it so unreasonable to be against this? Is it unreasonable to ask for more thorough testing before having this device installed on your potential new gun.

What about the fact that many who support these laws put exemptions for police and military. It makes you wonder if there is an ulterior motive. Wouldn't this technology help officers the most? IF so, why are they being left out?


on edit: All those examples you use above are still not equivalent to a gun. How many electronic components does the modern gun need to work? ZERO. Guns by there very logic of design are made without the least amount of parts necessary to function. You would be adding a part that could easily be removed no matter how you look at it. That is unless you make the firing mechanism electronic- which would bring a completely different set of questions to the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:53 PM

30. "mandate it and work out the kinks later". Is it so unreasonable to be against this?

Yes. Otherwise we wouldn't have Social Security, Medicare, any of the automotive safety devices common today. All written into law and fixed, tweaked and perfected.

So, yes, it is unreasonable as proven by history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 05:05 PM

31. no its not

automotive safety devices have often been tested and evaluated before they were mandated. Yes, there are always things that slip through the cracks, but that does not mean we don't go through this testing and evaluation period. Also, with social policy it is difficult to "lab" test it. But with technology it often is. So if there is no reason we can't test it before we mass produce it, what logical reason is there for not testing it? There is none

And just because we have had success in the past doing it your way does not mean it's the right way. For the successes you mentioned, what about all the failures? What about things like Thalidomide? What about all those SUV roll over deaths? Worked out real well in those cases didn't it? Sure we mitigated the problem, it just took a few hundred avoidable deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #31)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 05:15 PM

32. Thalidomide was not produced or prescribed in the US.

That nasty nanny state prevented it.

Had we pursued the technology that now largely prevents SUV rollovers before the deaths many, if not most, of those deaths would not have occurred. It took less than one model year to implement the fixes which tells me that they all existed before the auto makers were sued for wrongful death. That can't happen with chips because the gun industry is specifically exempted from civil suits against their product liabilities--thanks a lot gun lobby.

"it just took a few hundred avoidable deaths. "

A few hundred car deaths and tings happen to cars. 30,000 deaths a year by gun and we're helpless. Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 05:27 PM

35. So a testing regime did its job?

Proving my point. It is always better to test something before implementation.

You still haven't answered why it is so unreasonable for me to ask for a device to be thoroughly tested before being mass produced? All I got was that "since we have done it in the past its okay to do it now".

So when did the gun industry become immune from all product liability suits? I don't recall that ever happening. Last time I checked I can still sue Remington for making a defective product that causes me injury. The PLCAA (the gun industry immunity legislation) only protects the industry from law suits brought due to criminal use of their products. Its similar to suing Anheiser-Busch because you drank 12 bud lights, got drunk, and fell off a ladder. The suits were designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. It is the same idea with all that "approved safe gun lists" many pro-gun control folks keep talking about. Do we have a problem with guns blowing up in the hands of their owners? Not that I know of. Guns if used properly are inherently safe to the user. the problem is that gun accidents occur due to negligence of the user- not the gun itself. Pointing a gun at someone else that you aren't serious about using the gun on is stupid irregardless if there is a loaded chamber indicator or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 06:24 PM

38. Someone spent time coming up with a prototype.

 

So there is interest, money and probably a projected market (hence the first two). Let this continue and see where it leads. I venture to say any reliable outcome will be on a blueprint-up firearm, perhaps closer in design to a rail gun. Curiously, if a strong market develops, there will be another increase in arms sales, and no unpalatable political mandates will be necessary.

The biometric lock boxes are a good thing, though some models exhibit failures. As long as it locks up when unattended by the owner, that's okay for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 01:56 PM

8. When the military and the police widely implement it, i'll consider it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 02:15 PM

10. One comment illustrates the mindset of the proponents:

 

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 02:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Bob G 4 days ago

Along with putting Chips in Guns we should install RFID Readers around perimeters of Schools, Hospitals, Train Stations, Airports, Entrances to Office Buildings, Movie Theaters, etc. that either set off a Loud Siren or Lock the Doors or Both.

I donít know the distances required. If they work 500 feet from a School Entrance then do it. If it must be closer, say 50 feet, then do it. They are not expensive and if they set off a Siren that Scares the Hell out of a would be shooter who turns around and runs away then it has paid for itself the first time.

If it can also lock the doors and set off the sirens and dial 911 even better. They can be installed on post or poles 15 to 25 feet off the ground or perhaps on the buildings facing away from building with an antennae type device. This will be up to the experts. I am only suggesting the idea. If we can send a man to the moon and back we can do this.

The Chips only need to be in the guns and the School or other Building Readers, not in peoples hands. That system is too easy to flout. Crazed shooter will just get a different gun without RFD or he will use his gun that has the RFD plus a chip in his hand, or wherever.

My suggestion protects the physical locations, starting with schools. Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg or a group of Philanthropist could underwrite the entire retrofitting of every school in America.


Sadly, I know there's at least one DUer that Shares this fellows' opinion Loudly...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:38 PM

25. So I have a concealed weapons permit and am out walking my dog with a five shot snub nosed ...

revolver in my pants pocket.

I walk by a school with an entrance that is not 500 feet from the sidewalk that I am on. (Five hundred feet is the length of one and two thirds football fields. Some schools have an entrance that is even within the 50 foot suggestion.)

Alarms are set off, the school goes into lockdown and the police are summoned. Sounds a bit extreme to me.

The bank next door to me has a "No guns" sign on its door and you are supposedly scanned when you enter and if you are carrying a large metal object, the inner door at the entrance will not open. That is probably sufficient and effective. (I don't have an account with this bank but instead drive two blocks up the street to a bank that doesn't have a "No-Guns" sign on its door.)

Estimates are that over 300,000,000 firearms are in civilian hands in our nation, none of which have RFID chips inside. It would be politically impossible to pass legislation that all these firearms have to be modified for RFID technology. Any criminal or mad man who was not mechanically inclined enough to disable the RFID chip would simply obtain a used firearm without the RFID technology.

Also firearms are not the best environment for delicate electronics.

Firearms Maintenance

***snip***

Wear Factors

When you discharge a firearm on a limited basis the impact on the internal and external parts is not all that severe. In reality, the wear and tear on a firearm is cumulative in nature but can be accelerated when you discharge a firearm on a regular or sustained basis, especially over a period of time. The caliber of the firearm can also impact the level of wear on the internal and external moving and stationary partsómeaning that if you buy or use a handgun chambered in a substantial caliber and you discharge that firearm on a regular basis, it will eventually require more maintenance than if the same firearm is hardly used.

The quality and the type of construction can certainly impact the durability of firearms. Firearms that are manufactured using the highest quality parts and are assembled to the highest standards imaginable will generally hold up to regular or even excessive use better than a firearm of lesser quality. True of any handgun, revolvers are a bit different because a lot depends on how they are constructed.

Wheel Guns

A revolver that is manufactured in carbon or stainless steel will generally be able to fire a steady diet of high- velocity ďserviceĒ ammunition longer than a lightweight revolver that is manufactured with alloy parts. This is one reason why folks tend to only fire enough ammunition through a lightweight revolver to make sure it works properly and to see how it shoots. The fact that lightweight revolvers produce more felt recoil is another reason why these types of handguns are carried more than they tend to be discharged in training sessions.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2012/10/firearms-maintenance/


I like to target practice with all of my carry weapons including my light weight snub nosed revolver that I carry. I have probably fired several thousand rounds through my S&W Model 642 .38+P and it still is as accurate and reliable as the day I bought it twenty three years ago. Would an RFID chip hold up to the stresses I have placed on this handgun and still be reliable?







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 06:36 PM

41. It also illustrates the problem with our soundbite politics

What the quoted poster says sounds great in a 30 second soundbite "how can anyone be against a device which disables all guns 500ft around a school". The problem is there is no easy answer, or any answer that can be explained in 30 seconds that doesn't make the person sound cruel/crazy/gun-nuttish. The problem is in the details. How would such a device work. what about houses that are within those 500 ft zones? Once those questions start being asked the plan unravels and starts to become unworkable. The problem is that our soundbite politics does not let us get to this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 03:28 PM

14. It's not as simple as many believe

you can't just electronically control a device that is almost purely mechanical by inserting one electronic piece in it and expect it to be "secure". All that is required to defeat the device would be simple removal, which is especially easy on todays weapons. The problem with this technology is it forgets that a gun has no electronic parts to it. It's all mechanical. The only way it theoretically work would be if you made a gun thats firing mechanism was mostly electronic- which would add weight and complexity to the weapon that is not needed.

One has to wonder why if this technology is so great, why aren't police departments and military looking to employ it? They are the ones who stand the most to benefit from it. Every piece of legislation I see exempts them so I have to wonder why. The most likely explanation is that the technology just simply isn't reliable be enough. If that is the case, why should civilians be forced to own weapons less reliable than the police? What happens when a gun owner gets injured because his weapon wouldn't fire? Does he get to sue?- surely there would be lawsuits on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 03:41 PM

16. The technology is here now and functional.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/hardly-anyone-is-buying-smart-guns

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/23/us/new-jersey-smart-gun-law/

More with a simple google search.

The first link cites the controversy from both sides of the debate; 2nd rights vs it may encourage more people to own guns. Still there are the 310 million guns in circulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:04 PM

19. that were true, several gun manufactures are

in violation of German law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalized_gun#Germany
Prototype does not mean available. The first link is a specific gun.

This is interesting

Smart guns have been criticized by gun-rights groups like the NRA[2] as well as by gun-control groups like the Violence Policy Center[citation needed]. Gun-rights groups generally feel that smart gun technology is an attempt to control citizen ownership of guns. The Violence Policy Center feels smart guns will make gun ownership more commonplace by making guns seem safer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalized_gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:30 PM

24. Yeah, I cited that up-thread.

The technology exists. It can be mass produced. It won't be any time soon because both sides oppose it.

It just seems to me that the attitude here is 'doesn't work, won't work, can never work so let's not even consider it as a way to mitigate gun violence (and gun theft from law abiding citizens).

The very same arguments have been made made against universal background checks or any other limitations on gun ownership. It (whatever 'it' is) won't prevent EVERY SINGLE CONCEIVABLE incident of violence with a gun so let's not consider it. Should we view cars and airplanes that same way? Screw seat belts, air bags, anti-lock breaks, fly by wire, automatic collusion avoidance because people still get hurt in cars and airplanes.

Keep in mind that 20 feet from me and my laptop are 11 firearms of various types and 4 air rifles, three of which are capable of killing a human being. I own them all. They are all secured in gun safes with the ammo secured in a separate place and the keys to the security stored secretly in the far end of the house. I am not opposed to gun ownership.

If the OP said,"Is it time to develop chips for guns." would the response have been any different? History tells me not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:39 PM

26. go ahead, produce it, test it

just don't mandate it atleast without doing the first two things. Many people are not opposed to the idea, we just don't see it working the way many proponents do and we believe that the cons are much greater than the pros. Yes, it has the potential to reduce accidental shootings and prevent stolen weapons, but it also has the potential to make a gun more unreliable. So we have to balance the two. The problem is many legislators have already concluded what the balance is.

So the problem isn't the technology itself its action of mandating it without true testing. There are many instances of things that looked great on paper and in the lab- then turned out to be terrible when applied to the real world.

Would you feel comfortable taking a drug that was only tested on a lab rat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #26)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:49 PM

29. It won't happen any time soon because

of attitudes I see here and from the other side of the issue not to mention the massive gun manufacturing lobby that reflexively opposes any and all gun related legislation. It has to be sold before it can even be pursued because nobody will seriously R&D a product without a market.

It's Catch 22, a snake eating its own tail. You can't accept it because it isn't perfect and it can't be made perfect because liberty ya' know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 05:19 PM

33. so maybe that should tell you something

that the money is better spent elsewhere. Good idea on paper, not in the real world. The problem is also that "your side" ignores the obvious flaws in the technology. the problem is you think any objections to this technology are purely that of ideology. I can see that you don't even realize that gun manufacturers aren't ideologically against gun control- just some of it (they are supportive of universal background checks).

No there isn't a market for the product. Why is that? Is it because gun owners are anti-safety? Or is it because gun owners have questions with the practicality of the technology and reliability of it? Wouldn't the best way to counteract alot of this argument with R&D? yes. the problem is that your method of getting this R&D uses the gun owning community at large as a guinea pig by mandating it on all new guns.

Here's an idea- if you want to increase development of this technology require police and military weapons be fitted with it. You could prove to the public how safe and reliable the weapons are that way and also you would have a large pool of "test subjects".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 05:34 PM

36. This is getting really boring. I answer every objection yet you find

another red herring.

Can't control mechanical devices with electronics? I knocked that one out of the park.

Can't work will never work. That one landed next to the first.

Don't mandate it if it isn't perfect! We do that all the time and fix it as we go along.

What about the failures? Ah, you didn't cite any that weren't easily refuted.

So now it's 'get somebody else to do it first and I'll embrace it.' In a pig's eye.

Please re-read your last post and tell me with a straight face that you aren't reflexively opposed to any and all gun violence legislation.

See ya', I'm done with this mental masturbation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #36)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 06:29 PM

39. you didn't answer anything

Can't control mechanical devices with electronics? I knocked that one out of the park.

no you didn't. you just showed examples of complicated machinery with electrical components. Not once did you explain how you could put it in a gun and make it hard to tamper with.

Don't mandate it if it isn't perfect! We do that all the time and fix it as we go along

Straw Man. when did I ever say it had to be perfect? Being perfect and being untested are two different things. All I ask if for it to be rigorously tested, not perfect. You have yet explained why you are so against testing this technology before mandating it. All you inferred was that this was "impossible" without mandating it. Why doesn't the government finance some of these tests?


What about the failures? Ah, you didn't cite any that weren't easily refuted

Exactly- because there has been relatively no testing. Every electronic device has some failure at sometime, if you haven't found it its because you haven't tried it enough times

ON EDIT: If you were referring to my Thalidomide reference you hardly refuted the main point. In fact you supported it by noting the FDA did not approve its use in the U.S. Its harm prevented in this country by our testing regime. It's a perfect example of why it's important to test before mass use. And you want more examples? Just go down the list of Aircraft Disasters.

So now it's 'get somebody else to do it first and I'll embrace it.' In a pig's eye

Umm...what's so wrong with that? Isn't that the whole purpose to testing and R&D? All I said was that If you want to prove me wrong, have police and military adopt it first. It would throw cold water on many of our objections- that it isn't reliable, doesn't work, and that the proposal is disingenuous? Still, you haven't answered why it shouldn't apply to the police and military? My belief is that you don't answer it because you can't without supporting some of my objections.

Please re-read your last post and tell me with a straight face that you aren't reflexively opposed to any and all gun violence legislation.

Where am I reflexively opposed to anti-gun legislation? I don't see it, can you show me an example? Oh, wait, that would require an example to exist first. Last time I checked I said I wasn't opposed to the idea of an owner authorized handgun, just opposed with the current technology- and I explained why. Many times I have made policy suggestions and explained why I support them.

You have avoided most of the questions I have asked and the ones you have answered, you answer with nothing more than a modified "there ya go again". It worked for Reagan so why not try it, huh?

and so there is no confusion here is my position:
I am opposed to MANDATING this technology on new firearms as it stands with today's technology. I am opposed because I question the reliability of such a device. I question its reliability because I don't feel it's been tested thoroughly or in real world conditions. I question how effective this device will be in preventing or significantly reducing firearm related injury. I see that this gun might prevent some accidents I don't see how it would greatly effect the problem of stolen guns. I see it as an easy work around for any criminal.
None of these issues have been addressed with any effort by you or any other proponent of such devices/legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:10 PM

21. in the laboratory

not in real life. Having a functioning prototype and having a mass produced reliable product are two different things.

Does it function after being dropped? Does it function after firing 5000 rounds? Does it function after being left in the woods for 2 years? Does it function after firing a overcharged round? Does it function after 5 years of very little maintenance? Does it firing 1000 rounds consecutively without a single problem?

These questions no one has answered.

This is no different than technology in the Fire fighting service. Many people criticize fire departments for not utilizing modern technology or slow to incorporate technology into how they operate. the problem is that though the technology might be out there- it just isn't reliable enough to use in these situations. For example- there has been a big push to incorporate computers to the air packs that firefighters carry- these computers can hold information like building lay out- pre plan procedures- occupancy areas- and other important information. The technology is theoretically there, we have small computers, we have heads-up-displays, we have wifi and other radio technology- so why don't we use it? The problem is that all this technology works, except if its dropped down a set of stairs, or exposed to extreme temperatures- then it fails. It's just not reliable enough in those conditions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 11:13 PM

42. So what is your point of discussion here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread