Are "smart guns" the new gun control?

ATN082268 · June 17, 2014, 12:48 AM

Are "smart guns" the new gun control? The government in general and other anti-gun forces can try and make "smart guns" the only legal guns for civilians/ private sector. The "smart guns" will have electronic stuff like registration, GPS, ways to interfere with its own biometrics, etc all to keep us safe

2ndsojourn · June 17, 2014, 07:41 AM

Smart guns are the new attempt at more gun control. Hopefully it doesn't get very far.

CowTowner · June 17, 2014, 08:04 AM

Smart guns aren't all that smart. They don't know your 15 year old daughter needs to defend herself from a home invasion. It only senses she doesn't have the right fingerprints/watch/key fob/etc......

Glenn E. Meyer · June 17, 2014, 10:17 AM

It's not really new - so the poll is flawed. The idea has been around for quite a few years.

Yes, it can be used for gun control. There is some reason for retention and safety issues for a person being able to buy such. However, no reliable tech exists yet and the control issue comes from laws such as NJ. There, the existence of such would mandate they are the only available guns.

It has no chance of becoming a national mandate. It might happen in the classic antigun states but it would be hilarious to see NJ mandate a crappy 22.

One fun aspect is some gun control folks fear that if the guns exist then many folks would buy them and increase the gun population. The same time to crime problem would exist as legal guns and the control items spread to criminals.

wogpotter · June 17, 2014, 10:23 AM

Nothing "new" about it.
The idea was floated & even working back in the 60's as I recall there was a mod to the revolver that matched a ring worn on the gun hand. If it was away from the ring it locked up.
Just this weeks flavor of gun control, if they don't try one thing they'll try another.

Colt46 · June 17, 2014, 11:16 AM

You just won't hear them use the word 'control'. 'Safety' is the new tack they are focussing on.

**44 AMP** · June 17, 2014, 12:49 PM

The concept is old. The technology that appears to give a smart gun the chance of actually working the way they claim it will is still to new to evaluate with any certainty, beyond the obvious "it ain't got the bugs out yet".

The anti gun bigots want it to work, and will happily make "smart guns" one of their main talking points, as soon as some smart gun, somewhere actually does work.

And they won't care if it only works 10 times out of a hundred. THey will sieze on it, fixate on it, and tell all of us, over and over, and over how the smart gun is the only "safe" gun, and ALL other guns must be turned in!

The fact that the smart gun tech also allows for some kind of master override, won't be mentioned by them, and if we bring it up, its just a "paranoid fantasy".

JD0x0 · June 17, 2014, 01:43 PM

Anyone familiar with the plot to Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots?

In this fictional story, all weapons have chips installed in them, and you must have specific nanomachines in your body to operate weapons. Everything is recorded onto an AI program, which essentially can control the battlefield. It was all put in place under the ruse of making a 'safer, cleaner battlefield' preventing friendly fire and boundless slaughter of innocents.

Eventually this AI is hacked and the antagonist of the story takes control of every legal weapon in the world, including NATO forces, who he gets surrounded by, and then slaughters easily 100's of now, unarmed soldiers using two bodyguards with P-90's and proceeds to drive off unscathed.

wogpotter · June 17, 2014, 01:53 PM

Just more creeping doom to me.
First locks.
Then built in locks.
Now smart technology.
Next? Passwords

steve4102 · June 18, 2014, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The fact that the smart gun tech also allows for some kind of master override, won't be mentioned by them, and if we bring it up, its just a "paranoid fantasy".

IMO, this is the key to this whole Smart Gun Concept. It has nothing to do with "Safe" or the "Children" it has to do with the ability to disarm America with the flip of a switch.

**44 AMP** · June 18, 2014, 11:38 AM

Note that some of the biggest opponents to "Smart guns required" type laws are the POLICE! (but only, if the law requires the police to use smart guns!)

Imagine how happy criminals would be if, they could buy a black box that would, with a push of a button, "disarm" the police? (as well as their chosen victims?)

it would be expensive, and highly illegal, but what is breaking one more law, compared to getting shot?

If there is a master override, it can be hacked (or stolen). So the crooks are going to get it. Count on that.

Personally, I'd prefer to avoid the possibilities of that kind of thing.
Wouldn't you?

JD0x0 · June 18, 2014, 12:05 PM

Electronically controlled firearms could be vulnerable to electronic jamming devices.

It would give the government too much power. If the citizens ever needed to defend themselves from the government, the government, who are in control of all these firearms would simply turn all the people's guns off. That doesn't fit the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place. The people are supposed to be more powerful than the government, not the other way around.

Glenn E. Meyer · June 18, 2014, 01:00 PM

The original impetus was not a flip switch to disarm America. That technology came later.

The first efforts toyed with some kind of finger print or palm recognition - that never worked.

It was also seen as a ploy to develop market for big gun companies.

Let's at least be straight on variants. Today's tech is different than what started the game.

**44 AMP** · June 18, 2014, 11:57 PM

I don't know if the "Magna trigger" was the beginning of the tech but it was the first kind I heard about. S&Ws were converted to fire only when the shooter wore a special magnetic ring. Pushed as a safety measure for police (primarily), so if their gun was taken, it couldn't be used against them.

Of course, there were disadvantages, and maybe even a few failures, I don't recall hearing of any, but that company and its product did go away, so?????

The real world advantages of "dumb" guns hugely outweigh the real world advantages of all current smart guns. And potential advantages in the future are like future income, it buys NOTHING today.

ballardw · June 19, 2014, 12:08 AM

Disadvantages to the Magna trigger:

Unless you had time to transfer the ring to other hand you couldn't fire it with your offhand.

If wounded you couldn't transfer to a partner (police) or friend unless you had time to give them the ring, which might not fit them ...

IIRC it only worked with revolvers. Semi-auto actions didn't have space with most guns to interrupt fire control.

JERRYS. · June 19, 2014, 08:01 AM

it will be pushed, even though the police wont have to use a "smart gun".

**Spats McGee** · June 19, 2014, 09:08 AM

IMHO, smart guns will be pushed as a "public safety" measure. As others have noted, if laws are passed requiring all civilian firearms to be smart guns, the police and military will be exempted.

I also think that someone in the .gov will put a big "off" switch somewhere so that all civilian guns can be disabled. You know, for public safety . . .

TDL · June 21, 2014, 07:47 PM

There is easy tech on actively scanning for RFID by type. These scan at greeter distances than most semi-passive FRID scanners. Savvy thieves have made or bought scanners to sweep car lots and know which cars have an ipad under the seat. RFID in a firearm is asking for increase theft. And once stolen, defeating gun rfid at leisure is not that difficult, there would youtubes on how to do this if the smart guns ever became widespread.

Also, Sullivan, the guy who tried to buy one of the major firearms makers (freedom group) has shown that those fearing some worellian thinking are not tin foil.

here is a wired.com story on the guy who tried to buy freedom recently:

"VeriChip and its former owner Applied Digital have been drawing fire since 2004, when the FDA approved the rice-sized injectable RFID for human use. While the company primarily pushed the chip as part of a system to index medical records, Richard Sullivan, then-CEO of Applied Digital, had a penchant for wantonly confirming every nightmare of cybernetic social control.After 9/11, it was Sullivan who announced the VeriChip would be perfect as a universal ID to distinguish safe people from the dangerous ones. He dreamed of GPS-equipped chips being injected into foreigners entering the United States, prisoners, children, the elderly. He thought the VeriChip would be used as a built-in credit or ATM card."

http://www.wired.com/2009/12/positive_id/

View Poll Results: Are "smart guns" the new gun control?
Yes	20	76.92%
No	6	23.08%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

June 17, 2014, 12:48 AM	#1
ATN082268 Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 2013 Posts: 975	Are "smart guns" the new gun control? Are "smart guns" the new gun control? The government in general and other anti-gun forces can try and make "smart guns" the only legal guns for civilians/ private sector. The "smart guns" will have electronic stuff like registration, GPS, ways to interfere with its own biometrics, etc all to keep us safe

June 17, 2014, 08:04 AM	#3
CowTowner Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2007 Location: Cowtown of course! Posts: 1,747	Smart guns aren't all that smart. They don't know your 15 year old daughter needs to defend herself from a home invasion. It only senses she doesn't have the right fingerprints/watch/key fob/etc...... __________________ NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor *“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......”* President John F. Kennedy

June 17, 2014, 10:17 AM	#4
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	It's not really new - so the poll is flawed. The idea has been around for quite a few years. Yes, it can be used for gun control. There is some reason for retention and safety issues for a person being able to buy such. However, no reliable tech exists yet and the control issue comes from laws such as NJ. There, the existence of such would mandate they are the only available guns. It has no chance of becoming a national mandate. It might happen in the classic antigun states but it would be hilarious to see NJ mandate a crappy 22. One fun aspect is some gun control folks fear that if the guns exist then many folks would buy them and increase the gun population. The same time to crime problem would exist as legal guns and the control items spread to criminals. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

June 17, 2014, 10:23 AM	#5
wogpotter Senior Member Join Date: September 27, 2004 Posts: 4,811	Nothing "new" about it. The idea was floated & even working back in the 60's as I recall there was a mod to the revolver that matched a ring worn on the gun hand. If it was away from the ring it locked up. Just this weeks flavor of gun control, if they don't try one thing they'll try another. __________________ Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”

June 17, 2014, 07:41 AM	#2
2ndsojourn Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2013 Location: South Jersey Posts: 1,416	Smart guns are the new attempt at more gun control. Hopefully it doesn't get very far.

June 17, 2014, 11:16 AM	#6
Colt46 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: Campbell Ca Posts: 1,090	Yes You just won't hear them use the word 'control'. 'Safety' is the new tack they are focussing on.

June 17, 2014, 12:49 PM	#7
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,833	The concept is old. The technology that appears to give a smart gun the chance of actually working the way they claim it will is still to new to evaluate with any certainty, beyond the obvious "it ain't got the bugs out yet". The anti gun bigots want it to work, and will happily make "smart guns" one of their main talking points, as soon as some smart gun, somewhere actually does work. And they won't care if it only works 10 times out of a hundred. THey will sieze on it, fixate on it, and tell all of us, over and over, and over how the smart gun is the only "safe" gun, and ALL other guns must be turned in! The fact that the smart gun tech also allows for some kind of master override, won't be mentioned by them, and if we bring it up, its just a "paranoid fantasy". __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

June 17, 2014, 01:43 PM	#8
JD0x0 Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2013 Posts: 1,037	Anyone familiar with the plot to Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots? In this fictional story, all weapons have chips installed in them, and you must have specific nanomachines in your body to operate weapons. Everything is recorded onto an AI program, which essentially can control the battlefield. It was all put in place under the ruse of making a 'safer, cleaner battlefield' preventing friendly fire and boundless slaughter of innocents. Eventually this AI is hacked and the antagonist of the story takes control of every legal weapon in the world, including NATO forces, who he gets surrounded by, and then slaughters easily 100's of now, unarmed soldiers using two bodyguards with P-90's and proceeds to drive off unscathed.

June 17, 2014, 01:53 PM	#9
wogpotter Senior Member Join Date: September 27, 2004 Posts: 4,811	Just more creeping doom to me. First locks. Then built in locks. Now smart technology. Next? Passwords __________________ Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”

June 18, 2014, 11:38 AM	#11
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,833	Note that some of the biggest opponents to "Smart guns required" type laws are the POLICE! (but only, if the law requires the police to use smart guns!) Imagine how happy criminals would be if, they could buy a black box that would, with a push of a button, "disarm" the police? (as well as their chosen victims?) it would be expensive, and highly illegal, but what is breaking one more law, compared to getting shot? If there is a master override, it can be hacked (or stolen). So the crooks are going to get it. Count on that. Personally, I'd prefer to avoid the possibilities of that kind of thing. Wouldn't you? __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

June 18, 2014, 12:05 PM	#12
JD0x0 Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2013 Posts: 1,037	Electronically controlled firearms could be vulnerable to electronic jamming devices. It would give the government too much power. If the citizens ever needed to defend themselves from the government, the government, who are in control of all these firearms would simply turn all the people's guns off. That doesn't fit the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place. The people are supposed to be more powerful than the government, not the other way around.

June 18, 2014, 01:00 PM	#13
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	The original impetus was not a flip switch to disarm America. That technology came later. The first efforts toyed with some kind of finger print or palm recognition - that never worked. It was also seen as a ploy to develop market for big gun companies. Let's at least be straight on variants. Today's tech is different than what started the game. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

June 18, 2014, 11:57 PM	#14
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,833	I don't know if the "Magna trigger" was the beginning of the tech but it was the first kind I heard about. S&Ws were converted to fire only when the shooter wore a special magnetic ring. Pushed as a safety measure for police (primarily), so if their gun was taken, it couldn't be used against them. Of course, there were disadvantages, and maybe even a few failures, I don't recall hearing of any, but that company and its product did go away, so????? The real world advantages of "dumb" guns hugely outweigh the real world advantages of all current smart guns. And potential advantages in the future are like future income, it buys NOTHING today. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

June 19, 2014, 12:08 AM	#15
ballardw Senior Member Join Date: September 19, 2008 Posts: 1,411	Disadvantages to the Magna trigger: Unless you had time to transfer the ring to other hand you couldn't fire it with your offhand. If wounded you couldn't transfer to a partner (police) or friend unless you had time to give them the ring, which might not fit them ... IIRC it only worked with revolvers. Semi-auto actions didn't have space with most guns to interrupt fire control. __________________ -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ All data is flawed, some just less so.

June 19, 2014, 08:01 AM	#16
JERRYS. Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2013 Location: Alabama Posts: 2,969	it will be pushed, even though the police wont have to use a "smart gun".

June 19, 2014, 09:08 AM	#17
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	IMHO, smart guns will be pushed as a "public safety" measure. As others have noted, if laws are passed requiring all civilian firearms to be smart guns, the police and military will be exempted. I also think that someone in the .gov will put a big "off" switch somewhere so that all civilian guns can be disabled. You know, for public safety . . . __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

June 21, 2014, 07:47 PM	#18
TDL Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2013 Posts: 317	There is easy tech on actively scanning for RFID by type. These scan at greeter distances than most semi-passive FRID scanners. Savvy thieves have made or bought scanners to sweep car lots and know which cars have an ipad under the seat. RFID in a firearm is asking for increase theft. And once stolen, defeating gun rfid at leisure is not that difficult, there would youtubes on how to do this if the smart guns ever became widespread. Also, Sullivan, the guy who tried to buy one of the major firearms makers (freedom group) has shown that those fearing some worellian thinking are not tin foil. here is a wired.com story on the guy who tried to buy freedom recently: "VeriChip and its former owner Applied Digital have been drawing fire since 2004, when the FDA approved the rice-sized injectable RFID for human use. While the company primarily pushed the chip as part of a system to index medical records, Richard Sullivan, then-CEO of Applied Digital, had a penchant for wantonly confirming every nightmare of cybernetic social control.After 9/11, it was Sullivan who announced the VeriChip would be perfect as a universal ID to *distinguish safe people from the dangerous ones*. He dreamed of GPS-equipped chips being injected into foreigners entering the United States, prisoners, children, the elderly. He thought the VeriChip would be used as a built-in credit or ATM card." http://www.wired.com/2009/12/positive_id/