Smart Guns

Longshot

New member
Dateline 2010: Smart Guns
Last night at work, I was reading the Wall Street Journal. The front cover article indicated that, as most of us know, Clinton is supportive of suing gun manufacturers for the actions of their customers, intended customers or unintended (ie: criminals). He wants to hire more federal agents. He wants to fund more federal lawsuits. He wants to regulate and legislate and tax until the problem is solved.

Meanwhile, he wants to supply gun makers with millions of dollars in Federal grants to help companies develop "smart" guns. Guns with microchips. Guns that only fire when the owners identity is verified via fingerprinting, microchip recognition (mark of the beast, anyone?), or some kind of software/hardware not yet developed.

Sounds great on paper, huh? The children of America will be saved, and the criminals won't be able to use stolen weapons. Never mind that the guns themselves are not to blame; the true fault lies with irresponsible parents and in the hearts of those who would harm others. But let's face it: What socialist type would DARE suggest we all change our nature? The government can solve our problems, just keep the checks rolling in, and let the government grow so it can save us from ourselves. Of course, criminals don't know anything about software or electronics, so "hacking" a smart gun is just not possible.

Smart guns could provide automatic gun registration, and anyone who studies history, even recent history pertaining to "assault" rifles in California, knows that registration is always a prelude to confiscation.

But they won't confiscate smart guns, and that leaves everything else. Every "dangerous because it has no external safety" Glock pistol. Every "high powered, semi-automatic, big, black, formidable, sniper-friendly long range" rifle with all of the incarnate evil that lies within. We'll be deer hunting with slingshots and spitwads. You get the picture.

I think it will take ten years, hence the title of this post.

So that leaves us with smart guns. The second amendment has not been affected, they will say. You still have guns.

Oh, um, by the way, we really, really need to make them safer:

1) 5 round magazines (no high capacity preban mags to be found for these new, improved firearms).

2) Slower rate of fire (to protect crowds when honest gun owners inexplicably go nuts at the local shopping mall).

3) Not available in 9mm or greater caliber (to protect law enforcement from these near-nuclear, highly-devastating rounds).

4) Cellular locating feature (to protect owners if the gun is stolen).

5) My personal favorite: Remote disable. Think about that one, folks. To protect law enforcement in case of a shootout, your gun is rendered inoperable before the soldiers of the law apprehend you. Never mind that you may be holding some robber/rapist at gunpoint, or maybe you are exchanging gunfire with him, and his pre-smart gun just keeps on firing back at you while yours displays an error message (no, the "old" weapons will not disappear in a puff of smoke just because Uncle Sam bans them, they will just increase in value on the street, creating more violence). The same technology that is now used by emergency vehicles to change traffic lights before they arrive can now deactivate guns. Of course, those stupid criminals will never build a "black box" that creates the same effect. And, of course, law abiding subjects, er, um, citizens, won't dream of tampering with our magnificent safety features.

It won't happen all at once. It will happen month by month, bill by bill, with an occasional executive order thrown in for good measure. And the crowning touch is that crime will increase with regulation, speeding up the urgency with which more restrictions are encacted.

What got me thinking about this was, strangely enough, color laser copiers. You know, like the ones at Kinko's. In the early 80's, they could only make single sided copies, and the quality was not that good. Now they can duplex, and that means counterfeit money is a concern. So there are two government mandated electronic features on color laser copiers:

1) A serial number is embedded in every color copy. This is how professional photo studios can find out which copy shop is reproducing copyrighted family portraits, and also how the government catches some of the I.D. forgers out there.

2) Color recognition: The color of money is unique, and the copiers can identify it. Try to color copy a dollar bill, and all you get is a green and black blur. I work in the graphic arts industry, and I can tell you that is true of Canon as well as other brands of color copiers.

More side effects of smart guns? Well, more taxation, of course...maybe a "reprogramming tax" everytime you transfer ownership. An "air quality and noise pollution tax" every time a round is fired (they can track it now, you see).

And let's not forget the children. These new guns won't operate in school zones. And gun owning parents of school aged children will be listed on a public web site so parents can make a decision about whose house little Billy is allowed to play at. Side benefit of this one is that you can enjoy the icy stares of the other parents at the PTA meetings every time some thug gives the media a chance to sensationalize a shooting "Oh, you're one of THEM", they will say. The media doesn't influence our preferences? Buy some cigarettes and start puffing away at your next PTA meeting and you will see how influenced we are by what the media says is right or wrong.

And never mind that gun-banning celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell (Another Stakeout 2), and Mel Gibson (Lethal Weapon, ad infinitum) still make movies glorifying violence while surrounding themselves with armed guards. But I digress.

Stay alert and question everything the government does. They take a dollar, and return 50 cents worth of service while restraining our liberties with every passing moment. Think of it as a chess game, and plan five moves ahead.

My father always said "When you see trouble coming, nip it in the bud"

Sound advice from a smart man.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Longshot (edited January 29, 2000).]
 
There is the much-addressed "boiled frog" syndrome. Yes, the anti's are skillfully & gradually turning up the heat until we only have electronic-ignition, remote-disable, muzzle-loading .22s and are limited to an arsenal of 10 rounds.

What's not discussed much, which makes this round of bans different from others in history, is the profound influence of the "advertising culture".

In the past, tyrants were simpler: they used bureaucracies or bans to disarm the people. Sure you can have a gun in Japan...if you take the monthly all-day weekday training class in inconvenient locations, let the government check on the gun at any moment, register every bullet, etc. The Khemer-Rouge just did house-to house searches, disarmed everyone, then began the slaughter.

In the modern USA, however, there is a new method: product X will save us. It's the culture born of hard-hitting near-continuous advertising. An "advertising culture".

We live in a culture that says:
- A revolver isn't bad, but a same-capacity semi-auto is bad
- 9mm is bad, but a .45 is more reasonable
- Fundamentally unsafe trigger locks will save the children
- A .22 should be enough for anything
- If it looks like a machinegun it is one
- "Smart guns" will fix the safety problem
etc.

Our culture believes that a product, adequately hyped by a soundbite, can fix all our problems. A "smart gun" is, well, "smart", right? It can only be fired by the owner? Well, then, that will save our children. We (always meaning someone else with someone else's money) must make this product. It will save the children.

This is a culture that spends an enormous amount on petty products in the expectation that each one will somehow solve our problems. The ongoing success of half-hour Ginsu Knives infomercials (and that ilk of JUNK) are prime examples.

"Trigger locks!"
"Smart guns!"
"Manufacturers' liability for blatant customer actions!"
"High tech!"
"Lower capacity!"
"Bullet fingerprinting!"

All advertising-style soundbites that tell the naieve that the solution is simply the replacement of certain products with other products.

Oh, this new product is less capable in a certain way? gee, you don't really need THAT do you? especially when THIS will SOLVE THE PROBLEM (largely undefined)? Gee, why bother with learning basic non-intuitive safety rules when just buying X will solve the problem? Surely those nasty gun ads are causing the problem...whadayamean, there aren't any such ads? there MUST be some around that corrupt people's minds. How quaint, you want to keep your OLD guns...c'mon, be cool and SAVE THE CHILDREN, BUY THIS PRODUCT.

We live in an advertising-driven culture. Knowing this, the anti's skillfully obfuscate the issue by declaring that product X will solve the problem. Not that the problem is ever well defined, or that X actually is dangerous...

</rant>
 
Smart guns are a Trojan Horse to build into firearms the defects that the antis have never been able to win in court with.

When a guy comes into your home and rapes and kills your wife because she was unable to defend herself with your gun, you should be able to go after the firearm manufacturer for this, right?

After he is finished, he takes your gun and removes the "smart" parts thus making the firearm viable. The future victims should be able to go after the firearm manufacturer for this, right?

A cop tries to use his dead partner's firearm to defend himself with no result other than that crippling wound to his spine because it wouldn't function. He should be able to go after the firearm manufacturer for this, right?

A cop is wounded in his shooting hand and attempts to use his off hand with no result and is killed. His wife should be able to go after the firearm manufacturer for this, right?

A cop attempts to use his fingerprint ID firearm to protect himself but fails to remove his glove in the stress of the moment and is wounded badly enough to lose his job. He should be able to go after the firearm manufacturer for this, right?

This is the wave of the future for the firearms industry if they do not simply refuse to take the money and refuse to develop the technology. The game plan is in and the sharks are circling.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
This from an e-mail I received from david Codrea:

As you read this story, think of another headline: "SATELLITE DEACTIVATES ALL REGISTERED 'SMART GUNS'"
David Codrea


TORONTO STAR
January 19, 2000

Stolen car brought to a halt by satellite

Tracking device nets suspects after 401 trip


By Bob Mitchell and Tracy Huffman
Toronto Star Staff Reporters

Three teenagers are facing charges after the stolen car they were
driving was stopped by remote control on Islington Ave.
Provincial police were waiting as an alarm-monitoring company used
satellite technology to stop the wheels of the 1999 Chrysler Intrepid
and the surprised occupants bailed out.

Police say Monday's incident is among the first cases in Greater Toronto
where a stolen vehicle was stopped through the use of a computer
tracking device inside the car.

Vehicle-tracking devices are commonly installed in luxury cars as well
as rental vehicles, said Andrew Dolan, business manager of Bob Bannerman
Dodge Jeep on Don Mills Rd.

"It's an alarm system and a tracking device at the same time," he said.
"When the car is stolen, the company notifies the customer through a
pager system. Then the company will track (the car) via satellite
because there is a chip in the car."

The remote control system can turn off the car's engines and lock the
doors, trapping the thief in the vehicle.

Police said the Intrepid, which had been stolen from a Thrifty Car and
Truck Rental lot in Kitchener, was equipped with a Global Positioning
System tracking device monitored by Navlynx Canada Inc.

The car was stolen around 2:15 p.m. and was seen travelling on Highway
401 toward Toronto, said Constable Lisa Anderson of the Port Credit
detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police.

"As officers were getting into position to intercept the stolen vehicle,
they received information updates (from the police dispatcher, in
contact with the monitoring company) as to the exact speed of the
vehicle, its exact location, how much gas was left in the fuel tank,
even information as to which doors on the motor vehicle were locked or
unlocked," Anderson said.

"Officers were also informed that there was no need to attempt to stop
the vehicle because the monitoring company had the capabilities to
disable the vehicle once it reached a safe location to do so."

Police say the vehicle left Highway 401 and travelled south on Islington
Ave. Navlynx disabled the vehicle as it came to a stop at the
intersection of Islington Ave. and Norseman St., where officers moved in
and nabbed the three teenagers as they ran from the disabled vehicle.

The security system, which can be used in any vehicle, costs about $400
installed, and the customer pays a monthly fee of around $20, Dolan
said.

"This kind of device could be the answer to many of our ills," said
Ontario Provincial Police Superintendent Jay Hope, regional commander
for Greater Toronto. "This is the first time I know of a stolen car
being stopped this way on our highways.

"Company officials said they've used it before in finding rental
vehicles that have been stolen, but this is the first time it's ever
been used for stolen vehicle being stopped by police and the occupants
arrested.

"This technology would greatly assist all police officers in protecting
all persons against property damage, serious injuries and deaths in
relation to police pursuits."

A 17-year-old youth was charged with theft over $5,000, possession over
$5,000, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, failure to comply with
probation, breach of recognizance and driving a motor vehicle without a
licence.

Also arrested and charged with possession over $5,000 was a 16 year-old
and a 15-year-old.

The 15-year-old also is charged with possession of a controlled
substance. The names of the youths are protected by the Young Offenders
Act.


------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited January 30, 2000).]
 
I got a smart gun question. Talking to a police friend, he said he was interest in the technology to solve the retention problem of
cops being shot with their own gun.

There are three solutions out there:

1. Magnetic rings - no ring - gun no shoot
2. Fingerprints - wrong prints - gun no shoot
3. Radio signal - gun is far away from the cops radio and gun no shoot.

So how close does the gun after to be to the
radio transmitter and at what distance are police usually shot. It would seem to me that in a wrestling match the gun would be too close to be deactivated.
 
Glenn-
Considering certain narrow uses for guns, there may actually be a legitimate place for "smart guns" or "magnetic-ring-activated guns". With cops being shot most often with their own guns (IIRC), it might be reasonable to have a owner-only trigger. Unfortunately - like many other "solutions" pressed by the anti's - such tech is mostly just a trojan horse to obfuscate the issue, cause certain problems, and ultimately ban guns altogether.

If a cop wants to make his gun operable only by himself, is willing to wear the key all the time, and evaluates and accepts certain risks, fine. (Having that thing dangling around in the open poses certain risks.) If I mitigate that problem with locks or concealment or accept the risk, don't make me deal with obfuscations like wearing keys or preventing my family members from defending themselves when I'm not around.

So how close does the gun after to be to the radio transmitter and at what distance are police usually shot. It would seem to me that in a wrestling match the gun would be too close to be deactivated.

Good point. There's also an issue of varying signal-to-noise ratios: my remote-control car door lock sometimes works from a hundred feet away, sometimes must be within two feet. In that case, the signal must be strong enough to overcome local radio noise (lots of it in cities), but it's then too strong for shut-off at a greater distance in areas of low radio noise. Gack.
 
Back
Top