Smart Guns

[Back]

Honest opinions here. What do people think about smart guns?

They only operate if they are within a certain distance of, 10" in one case that I know of, a wrist band associated with said weapon.

This technology, along with responsible ownership, should certainly deter accidental shootings and crimes committed with stolen firearms.

Currently there are zero for sale in the USA.

[Warriorbird]

Play Metal Gear Solid 4. I think that while they might be nice for certain situations they threaten the integrity of gun ownership.

[Tgo01]

This is like the net neutrality thing in my opinion; the opposition to it is all fear mongering based.

None are for sale because gun stores are threatened with violence if they even think about selling the gun. You would think if you don't want a smart gun then just don't buy one but the theory is if they start being sold in the US then soon the government will force every gun to be a smart gun then the government will have the ability to turn off all guns in the US whenever they feel like imposing a tyrannical government.

There is just no way the government would be able to turn off all guns like a light switch.

[Warriorbird]

This is like the net neutrality thing in my opinion; the opposition to it is all fear mongering based.

None are for sale because gun stores are threatened with violence if they even think about selling the gun. You would think if you don't want a smart gun then just don't buy one but the theory is if they start being sold in the US then soon the government will force every gun to be a smart gun then the government will have the ability to turn off all guns in the US whenever they feel like imposing a tyrannical government.

There is just no way the government would be able to turn off all guns like a light switch.

It doesn't need to be all the guns, though of course you want to underestimate any risk. People used to think Wifi in cars could never be hacked either. I can't wait till we see what happens when Palantir gets hacked. Watch Dogs for real.

[SHAFT]

You mean like this? Hell yeah, smart guns are awesome.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/Drake_Smartgun.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/Drake_Smartgun.jpg.html)

[Latrinsorm]

For.
This is like the net neutrality thing in my opinion; the opposition to it is all fear mongering based.

None are for sale because gun stores are threatened with violence if they even think about selling the gun. You would think if you don't want a smart gun then just don't buy one but the theory is if they start being sold in the US then soon the government will force every gun to be a smart gun then the government will have the ability to turn off all guns in the US whenever they feel like imposing a tyrannical government.

There is just no way the government would be able to turn off all guns like a light switch.It'd be more like a dimmer switch.

[waywardgs]

For.It'd be more like a dimmer switch.

http://img.pandawhale.com/33565-BANG-flag-gun-I34a.gif

[Tgo01]

It doesn't need to be all the guns, though of course you want to underestimate any risk. People used to think Wifi in cars could never be hacked either. I can't wait till we see what happens when Palantir gets hacked. Watch Dogs for real.

WiFi has a range of several hundred yards and usually connects to the World Wide Web.

These guns are probably RFID, which can have a range from a whopping 1 foot to up to about 500 feet and I highly doubt these guns have the 500 foot range RFID tags.

[Warriorbird]

WiFi has a range of several hundred yards and usually connects to the World Wide Web.

These guns are probably RFID, which can have a range from a whopping 1 foot to up to about 500 feet and I highly doubt these guns have the 500 foot range RFID tags.

This first set is RFID. Not all are. While you might not expect it it is far from impossible to hack something within ten feet of you. I know you don't want to see any problems but in the limited situations where I carry a gun I really would like to not have it be disabled. Throw on nonsense like New Jersey prohibits non modified firearms 3 years after an $1800 gun product hits the shelves and it gets worse.

[Back]

This first set is RFID. Not all are. While you might not expect it it is far from impossible to hack something within ten feet of you. I know you don't want to see any problems but in the limited situations where I carry a gun I really would like to not have it be disabled. Throw on nonsense like New Jersey prohibit non modified firearms 3 years after an $1800 gun product hits the shelves and it gets worse.

Yeah, Jersey... if the Yakuza can operate without guns certainly the mob can. Or can they?

Not to mention just change the legislation.

[Tgo01]

While you might not expect it it is far from impossible to hack something within ten feet of you.

It's a bit more tricky to hack something when you have to be within 10 feet of said thing you are trying to hack.


I know you don't want to see any problems but in the limited situations where I carry a gun I really would like to not have it be disabled.

This fear mongering is predicated on the assumption that some day all guns will be required to be smart guns.

Congress (or Obama via executive order) can pass that law whether or not smart guns are currently being sold.

[Warriorbird]

It's a bit more tricky to hack something when you have to be within 10 feet of said thing you are trying to hack.

This fear mongering is predicated on the assumption that some day all guns will be required to be smart guns.

Congress (or Obama via executive order) can pass that law whether or not smart guns are currently being sold.

I have no problem with them being sold. In certain situations (like court baliffs) they might be ideal.

One state already requires smart guns though. It might not be so far fetched as you think. It creates a tremendous black market and may even benefit the Mafia.

[Latrinsorm]

This first set is RFID. Not all are. While you might not expect it it is far from impossible to hack something within ten feet of you. I know you don't want to see any problems but in the limited situations where I carry a gun I really would like to not have it be disabled. Throw on nonsense like New Jersey prohibit non modified firearms 3 years after an $1800 gun product hits the shelves and it gets worse.This sounds like a good math problem! What's the relative frequency of those situations vs. the situations of stolen firearms? And what's the relative frequency of you running into a 1337 haxx0r vs. people stealing firearm and RFID chip?

We established in the other thread (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1665515#post1665515) that about 85,000 crimes are prevented by guns per year, so 85,000 Situation 1s.
At 150,000 gun crimes and 10% committed with stolen weapons, that's 15,000 of Situation 2s.
Therefore, S1/2 = 5.6

For plan to be a net benefit, then, we have to eliminate about 6 stolen weapon crimes for every 1 time someone hacks your Colt's Gibson. Let me ask you this: how many times has your phone been hacked? Surely it has a much larger ranger than ten feet, but we need a baseline of some sort. Speaking for myself, I've never had my phone hacked, nor heard of anyone who has. This suggests to me that close-range hacking while not technically impossible is very unlikely for the average citizen.

[Back]

I have no problem with them being sold. In certain situations (like court baliffs) they might be ideal.

One state already requires smart guns though. It might not be so far fetched as you think. It creates a tremendous black market and may even benefit the Mafia.

Can you state your reasons against it in a clear list form? And exactly how smart guns would benefit the mafia?

[Taernath]

It's a bit more tricky to hack something when you have to be within 10 feet of said thing you are trying to hack.



There are already hand-held jammers available, and larger ones (like the military uses for IEDs) can block off a hundred meter radius.

I don't have a problem with them being sold, but they shouldn't be required.

[waywardgs]

Sell em, don't mandate them, don't cry about them, just another option.

I surfed, I liked surfing with a leash, some don't. Meh. Whatevs. Stupid crybaby nra folk should just just shut up.

What's wrong with options?

[Warriorbird]

Can you state your reasons against it in a clear list form? And exactly how smart guns would benefit the mafia?

1. All guns in New Jersey that aren't equipped with this setup have to be turned over to be destroyed.
2. This setup costs $1800
3. That is insanely expensive.
4. They can be hacked or apparently jammed.
5. When things are banned criminal organizations gain an opportunity for new and higher profit black markets. It might actually increase gun crime.
6. Electronic things like to inconveniently break. Most guns are simple, mechanical, and pure.
7. I know people who really on hunting to eat. I teach many children who do. I doubt they could pay $1800 easily, much less more than once.

I have no problems with the devices being sold.
I do have a problem with this law.


This sounds like a good math problem! What's the relative frequency of those situations vs. the situations of stolen firearms? And what's the relative frequency of you running into a 1337 haxx0r vs. people stealing firearm and RFID chip?

We established in the other thread (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1665515#post1665515) that about 85,000 crimes are prevented by guns per year, so 85,000 Situation 1s.
At 150,000 gun crimes and 10% committed with stolen weapons, that's 15,000 of Situation 2s.
Therefore, S1/2 = 5.6

For plan to be a net benefit, then, we have to eliminate about 6 stolen weapon crimes for every 1 time someone hacks your Colt's Gibson. Let me ask you this: how many times has your phone been hacked? Surely it has a much larger ranger than ten feet, but we need a baseline of some sort. Speaking for myself, I've never had my phone hacked, nor heard of anyone who has. This suggests to me that close-range hacking while not technically impossible is very unlikely for the average citizen.

From a non recreational perspective I probably only have reason to carry a gun 2-3 days a year.
My phone has been hacked twice.
I've been subject to two attempted robberies.

I don't want to be there the day that there's an RFID jammer when I need a gun.

[waywardgs]

How was your phone hacked? Just curious.

[Back]

1. All guns in New Jersey that aren't equipped with this setup have to be turned over to be destroyed.
2. This setup costs $1800
3. That is insanely expensive.
4. They can be hacked or apparently jammed.
5. When things are banned criminal organizations gain an opportunity for new and higher profit black markets. It might actually increase gun crime.
6. Electronic things like to inconveniently break. Most guns are simple, mechanical, and pure.

I have no problems with the devices being sold.
I do have a problem with this law.
I do have a problem



My phone has been hacked twice.

They have not been proven to be hackable. They should not be.

And I know now you are connected to or are from Jersey. Fuck Jersey. Just change the law if it's such a big deal. Some people would like smart guns. Smart guns could decrease the amount of crimes with stolen weapons and accidental deaths. I'd pay one civilian for a million mobsters.

[waywardgs]

They have not been proven to be hackable. They should not be.


Everything is hackable. Just the way of it. Every time someone says "unhackable!" the inevitable result is that thing gets hacked. It's just a matter of how and when, and what the results are.

[Latrinsorm]

From a non recreational perspective I probably only have reason to carry a gun 2-3 days a year.
My phone has been hacked twice.
I've been subject to two attempted robberies.So we agree?
I don't want to be there the day that there's an RFID jammer when I need a gun.You keep saying that, but I bet you don't want to be there the day a guy who previously stole a 9mm unloads on you either. You can't repeat the con and ignore the pro if you want to make a rational decision.

[Back]

Everything is hackable. Just the way of it. Every time someone says "unhackable!" the inevitable result is that thing gets hacked. It's just a matter of how and when, and what the results are.

This brings up an interesting dynamic. Where once there were hackers will there now be unhackables?

[Warriorbird]

How was your phone hacked? Just curious.

1. Stupid use of a not secure enough Wifi network.
2. Another site was hacked which enabled them to have my phone password and get me through a proxy network.

I'm more secure now. It doesn't mean there aren't other ways.


They have not been proven to be hackable. They should not be.

And I know now you are connected to or are from Jersey. Fuck Jersey. Just change the law if it's such a big deal. Some people would like smart guns. Smart guns could decrease the amount of crimes with stolen weapons and accidental deaths. I'd pay one civilian for a million mobsters.

RFID has been hacked.

I only have business connections to New Jersey. I'm fine with smart guns being available. I very much hope that law is changed.

[Warriorbird]

You can't repeat the con and ignore the pro if you want to make a rational decision.

I live in Virginia. Nobody even needs to steal a gun.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cun-LZvOTdw

[Latrinsorm]

1. Stupid use of a not secure enough Wifi network.
2. Another site was hacked which enabled them to have my phone password and get me through a proxy network.

I'm more secure now. It doesn't mean there aren't other ways.Neither of those is what we're talking about, though. RFID guns aren't on a network, and don't have a password to obtain by accessing external weak points.

[Warriorbird]

Neither of those is what we're talking about, though. RFID guns aren't on a network, and don't have a password to obtain by accessing external weak points.

http://www.eweek.com/security/hacking-rfid-tags-is-easier-than-you-think-black-hat/

http://events.ccc.de/congress/2006/Fahrplan/events/1597.en.html

You've got some mistaken ideas.

[waywardgs]

This brings up an interesting dynamic. Where once there were hackers will there now be unhackables?

Please explain. Is this some sort of untouchables reference?

Everything can be hacked. Period.

[Tgo01]

Everything can be hacked. Period.

The human brain can't.

[Warriorbird]

The human brain can't.

That would be incorrect.

[Back]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cun-LZvOTdw

Great movie but not exactly bolstering your point.

[Tgo01]

That would be incorrect.

Nope.

Latrin?

[waywardgs]

The human brain can't.

Wrong. I can hook you up to electrodes and make you dance an irish jig. The brains is kinda easy that way.

[Warriorbird]

Great movie but not exactly bolstering your point.

My point was I'm more worried about losing my ability to use a gun due to jamming/hacking than I am stolen weapons. Guns are everywhere and would continue to be even with those laws. There might even be more.

[waywardgs]

The only serious hacking would be in convincing you to put on the electrodes. A club works relatively well in those tough circumstances.

[Tgo01]

Wrong. I can hook you up to electrodes and make you dance an irish jig. The brains is kinda easy that way.

Sure if you're the SyFy channel.

[Latrinsorm]

http://www.eweek.com/security/hacking-rfid-tags-is-easier-than-you-think-black-hat/You can't just look for any instance of the word "hack". This article refers to cloning the RFID, not preventing you from using yours. I've already implicitly stipulated that the RFID technology won't eliminate all stolen gun crime, or I would have just compared phone hacks to 15,000.
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2006/Fahrplan/events/1597.en.htmlThis does refer to the kind of hacking I'm talking about, but the point is that it's distinct from your insecure network and stolen password. Phones (and any networked computer) have vulnerabilities that RFID technology just doesn't, even though any exploited vulnerability falls under the umbrella term "hacking".

I'd also point out that your second link provides specific ways to defeat RFID cloning, so again... we agree?

[Back]

My point was I'm more worried about losing my ability to use a gun due to jamming/hacking than I am stolen weapons.

We need measures to reduce gun crime and deaths. A smart gun system could reduce death numbers. Stricter background checks, closing gunshow loopholes, and straw purchases would do all of those things. Why would we NOT do these things?

[Malisai]

The fear against them is propaganda. There is no reason why a smart gun system would contain any information on the type of weapon it is attached to and be able to broadcast that information out.

Simply put the manufacturers just have to make it unsafe the weapon, not include a transmitter, not contain any information about the weapon (because it doesnt need it), and be very close to the unlocking mechanism.

The new jersey law, if its real, is a bunch of horse crap.

The only good argument not to use them is because its electronic and there is a chance that it messes up when you need it the most. its another point of failure. However thats a reason not to use them, its not a reason to not want them to be made.

[Latrinsorm]

Nope.

Latrin?The limbic system's governance of pleasure is well understood. Get an electrode in there just right, you can make people do anything.

[Warriorbird]

You can't just look for any instance of the word "hack". This article refers to cloning the RFID, not preventing you from using yours. I've already implicitly stipulated that the RFID technology won't eliminate all stolen gun crime, or I would have just compared phone hacks to 15,000.This does refer to the kind of hacking I'm talking about, but the point is that it's distinct from your insecure network and stolen password. Phones (and any networked computer) have vulnerabilities that RFID technology just doesn't, even though any exploited vulnerability falls under the umbrella term "hacking".

I'd also point out that your second link provides specific ways to defeat RFID cloning, so again... we agree?

That is hardly the limit of the material.

You're still stuffing your fingers in your ears about jamming. It's cool though.

Everything can be hacked. People like you said cars couldn't before it was done.


We need measures to reduce gun crime and deaths. A smart gun system could reduce death numbers. Stricter background checks, closing gunshow loopholes, and straw purchases would do all of those things. Why would we NOT do these things?

Would they? Would they even pass? We can't get a simple HIPAA law passed.

Did banning pot reduce it?
Did banning alcohol?

[Tgo01]

You can't just look for any instance of the word "hack". This article refers to cloning the RFID, not preventing you from using yours.

I was wondering about this in regards to jammers too. Would a remote jammer 100 feet away really be able to jam an RFID tag on your gun from being read by your RFID reader on your wrist? It seems like such a close proximity would be hard to interfere with. I would imagine jammers would jam an RFID tag from being read by a remote RFID reader.

Your GoogleFu is stronger than mine, Latrin. Find the answers I seek.

[Latrinsorm]

That is hardly the limit of the material.

You're still stuffing your fingers in your ears about jamming. It's cool though.

Everything can be hacked. People like you said cars couldn't before it was done.I say jamming exists, you say I'm stuffing my fingers in my ears.
I say it could be hacked, you say I say it couldn't.

Good talk.

[Tgo01]

Okay fine. You're all wrong about the human brain being hacked but okay.

The human heart can't be hacked.

[Warriorbird]

Okay fine. You're all wrong about the human brain being hacked but okay.

The human heart can't be hacked.

That too.

[Taernath]

I was wondering about this in regards to jammers too. Would a remote jammer 100 feet away really be able to jam an RFID tag on your gun from being read by your RFID reader on your wrist?

Yes.

[Tgo01]

Okay answer me this; if the human brain can be hacked then why haven't Christian Scientists found a way to turn gay people straight by hacking their brain?

Ah ha!

Tgo01: 1
Forum: 0

[Back]

Okay answer me this; if the human brain can be hacked then why haven't Christian Scientists found a way to turn gay people straight by hacking their brain?

Ah ha!

Tgo01: 1
Forum: 0

There is a very telling post. Are you gay?

[waywardgs]

Okay fine. You're all wrong about the human brain being hacked but okay.

The human heart can't be hacked.

I've personally hacked the human heart with electricity. I was an emt.

That's hacking.

[Taernath]

There is a very telling post. Are you gay?

Back, you can't just ask someone that!

[Tgo01]

Yes.

Okay fine, you win :(


Back, you can't just ask someone that!

You doubly win!

[Back]

I've personally hacked the human heart with electricity. I was an emt.

That's hacking.

Thats not a hack in the true sense of the word. Don't get me wrong, good on you and amazing, but that's like science not computing.

[Dendum]

I wouldn't mind a smart gun,
I would rather it be finger print based than RFD wrist band though because honestly I don't think I would wear a wrist band. The problem with finger print based is battery life, in that if the battery failed I would rather it defaults to safety off than safety on because the worst thing that could happen in a home invasion (where the other guy has an RFD jammer...because yea) is that your battery died and you had to bludgeon the invader with your useless 9mm.
The jersey law was moronic, though I am sure they had grand intentions....imagine if they had made a law saying the first battery powered car on the market meant that all cars driven in jersey had to be battery powered....

[Latrinsorm]

I was wondering about this in regards to jammers too. Would a remote jammer 100 feet away really be able to jam an RFID tag on your gun from being read by your RFID reader on your wrist? It seems like such a close proximity would be hard to interfere with. I would imagine jammers would jam an RFID tag from being read by a remote RFID reader.

Your GoogleFu is stronger than mine, Latrin. Find the answers I seek.Electromagnetic signals go as 1/r^2, and radio is EM. If you're 100 times as far away, you need a signal that's 10,000 times as strong as transmitter on your wrist. Is that possible? Well... of course. Easily. The wrist transmitter is by definition only designed to go a foot, while you have no limit on your jamming power, you just need a bigger and bigger power source / device depending on how far away you want to jam.

Like wearing a full suit of Kevlar, however, this kind of behavior (while clearly effective) turns out to be prohibitively expensive for the common criminal, not to mention being kind of a giveaway to everyone around you. There's no handkerchief that can stop a Howitzer, and no hand-held jammer is going to overpower a shopping mall's worth of RFID guns.

[Warriorbird]

Electromagnetic signals go as 1/r^2, and radio is EM. If you're 100 times as far away, you need a signal that's 10,000 times as strong as transmitter on your wrist. Is that possible? Well... of course. Easily. The wrist transmitter is by definition only designed to go a foot, while you have no limit on your jamming power, you just need a bigger and bigger power source / device depending on how far away you want to jam.

Like wearing a full suit of Kevlar, however, this kind of behavior (while clearly effective) turns out to be prohibitively expensive for the common criminal, not to mention being kind of a giveaway to everyone around you. There's no handkerchief that can stop a Howitzer, and no hand-held jammer is going to overpower a shopping mall's worth of RFID guns.

Wrist is ten feet on these.

[Latrinsorm]

Ten feet??? That's stupid, someone could just grab your gun and shoot you with it. What would Judge Dredd do?

Anyway, that makes jamming even less plausible, so good.

[Warriorbird]

Ten feet??? That's stupid, someone could just grab your gun and shoot you with it. What would Judge Dredd do?

Anyway, that makes jamming even less plausible, so good.

Still quite plausible. Your new scenario is probably worse, thinking about it.

[Back]

Smart guns have a 10", inch, range.

[waywardgs]

Thats not a hack in the true sense of the word. Don't get me wrong, good on you and amazing, but that's like science not computing.

Sure it is. What's a hack? A way around something. What is shocking a dying person back to life, resetting his heart? A hack. A way around death.

[Back]

Sure it is. What's a hack? A way around something. What is shocking a dying person back to life, resetting his heart? A hack. A way around death.

This is just me. I define a hack as a way into a computer. What you did was natural.

[Taernath]

and no hand-held jammer is going to overpower a shopping mall's worth of RFID guns.

Like I said before, the technology to stop "a shopping mall's worth of guns" is already available, and it certainly doesn't require 10,000x more power than a wrist mounted band.

[Warriorbird]

Smart guns have a 10", inch, range.

Ahhh you're right for the Armatix. Easier to jam but no grab and kill quite so easily.

[waywardgs]

This is just me. I define a hack as a way into a computer. What you did was natural.

Hacking isn't computer-centric. The whole notion has to do with figuring out a way around a problem, or coming up with a solution to a problem that wasn't evident. It's DIY in the purest sense of the term.

[Back]

Hacking isn't computer-centric. The whole notion has to do with figuring out a way around a problem, or coming up with a solution to a problem that wasn't evident. It's DIY in the purest sense of the term.

This is where we disagree. Hacking, as I know it, is getting into a computer program. What you are talking about is just human ingenuity.

[Latrinsorm]

Like I said before, the technology to stop "a shopping mall's worth of guns" is already available, and it certainly doesn't require 10,000x more power than a wrist mounted band.Ok... that's how jammers work, though. If you're talking about some method besides jamming, would you care to elaborate?
Hacking isn't computer-centric. The whole notion has to do with figuring out a way around a problem, or coming up with a solution to a problem that wasn't evident. It's DIY in the purest sense of the term.http://drmcninja.com/comics/2013-11-20-26p69.jpg

Dr. McNinja. The end.

[Taernath]

Ok... that's how jammers work, though. If you're talking about some method besides jamming, would you care to elaborate?

Jammers only need to provide a signal on the same frequency with the same (or slightly greater than) power than the original signal. Modern cell phones boost power to their signal if they get jammed, but a 'smart gun' type device would have very limited power or security features - no frequency hopping, for example. I suspect they would be about as difficult to jam as a TV remote, if not easier.

Also, these things are available through less-than-legal avenues and Craigslist. A guy carried one in his car every day for 2 years (https://www.yahoo.com/tech/a-florida-resident-drove-around-with-a-cellphone-jammer-84369099229.html) before he was caught. If smart guns do become a thing, expect criminals to respond in kind.

[Changeling]

So here's my view. Full (enough) disclosure I am pro-gun and live in NJ.

Many may know this, but some do not. There is a political battle that's been going on for a long time regarding firearms and the views are very polarized with most people falling toward one of the extremes. From the pro-gun side we see a lot of pushing for what could ultimately only lead to a near-total ban on private firearm ownership. While some of the anti-gun people would argue that this would be ideal, the pro-gun people fundamentally disagree.

So pretty much everything firearm related is framed within this constant discussion. When it comes to smart guns many pro-gun people are worried that the governments will force people to use them and outlaw traditional firearms. This fear isn't totally unfounded based on the constant back and forth that exists for gun laws in the US. Furthermore one of the primary criteria for a firearm for many owners is reliability. We want to know that in an emergency we can pull that trigger and the gun will fire. Adding a battery and electronics fundamentally interferes with that.

So basically if there were some magical assurance that smart guns could enter the market and become solely another option for safety minded consumers then I doubt there'd be much opposition. Instead they're seen by pro-gun people as another attempt to erode the rights of gun owners. This backfires for smartgun manufacturers because the very customers they're trying to target end up being the fiercest opponents to the technology.

[Gelston]

I read the first post and then the frst couple posts on this page... WTF does hacking have to do with this? I agree with this system for police. Hell, I think they should have the Judge Dredd system where the gun will fuck you up if you try to fire it and aren't a Judge.

[Warriorbird]

I read the first post and then the frst couple posts on this page... WTF does hacking have to do with this? I agree with this system for police. Hell, I think they should have the Judge Dredd system where the gun will fuck you up if you try to fire it and aren't a Judge.

New Jersey came up with a ridiculous law that said all guns have to be retrofitted to this $1800 system in three years.

[Latrinsorm]

Jammers only need to provide a signal on the same frequency with the same (or slightly greater than) power than the original signal. Modern cell phones boost power to their signal if they get jammed, but a 'smart gun' type device would have very limited power or security features - no frequency hopping, for example. I suspect they would be about as difficult to jam as a TV remote, if not easier.The same power at the receiver. The wristlet is much closer so the jammer has to be much stronger. Cell phones are easier to jam because the situation is reversed: the jammer is much closer to the phone than the cell tower is.
So here's my view. Full (enough) disclosure I am pro-gun and live in NJ.

Many may know this, but some do not. There is a political battle that's been going on for a long time regarding firearms and the views are very polarized with most people falling toward one of the extremes. From the pro-gun side we see a lot of pushing for what could ultimately only lead to a near-total ban on private firearm ownership. While some of the anti-gun people would argue that this would be ideal, the pro-gun people fundamentally disagree.

So pretty much everything firearm related is framed within this constant discussion. When it comes to smart guns many pro-gun people are worried that the governments will force people to use them and outlaw traditional firearms. This fear isn't totally unfounded based on the constant back and forth that exists for gun laws in the US. Furthermore one of the primary criteria for a firearm for many owners is reliability. We want to know that in an emergency we can pull that trigger and the gun will fire. Adding a battery and electronics fundamentally interferes with that.

So basically if there were some magical assurance that smart guns could enter the market and become solely another option for safety minded consumers then I doubt there'd be much opposition. Instead they're seen by pro-gun people as another attempt to erode the rights of gun owners. This backfires for smartgun manufacturers because the very customers they're trying to target end up being the fiercest opponents to the technology.This sounds like an excuse to me, and a misguided one at that. The pro-gun people you describe are lobbying the manufacturers when if they really cared about the laws they'd be lobbying the government.

[Taernath]

The same power at the receiver. The wristlet is much closer so the jammer has to be much stronger. Cell phones are easier to jam because the situation is reversed: the jammer is much closer to the phone than the cell tower is.

No. You could be right underneath a cell tower with a jammer .5 miles away and still get no signal. The power of the jammer only determines from how far away (and through what objects) it can interfere with a signal.

[Latrinsorm]

No. You could be right underneath a cell tower with a jammer .5 miles away and still get no signal. The power of the jammer only determines from how far away it interferes with a signal.You say no and then you agree with me. Make up your mind, Tabbyrnath!

[Taernath]

You say no and then you agree with me. Make up your mind, Tabbyrnath!

You were saying that "no handheld jammer will interfere with a shopping mall's worth of RFID guns", and that being closer to the receiver would foil a jammer. Neither of which are true.

[Latrinsorm]

I said that being closer to the receiver makes it harder to jam. Would I have passed up a chance to use the word "foil"? No.

And I stand by my comment. A shopping mall covers a million square feet, even if you get perfectly centered that's 1400 feet to the corners. You need a jammer 2 million times more powerful than the wrist transmitter. Very doable, but handheld? Not a chance.

[Changeling]

This sounds like an excuse to me, and a misguided one at that. The pro-gun people you describe are lobbying the manufacturers when if they really cared about the laws they'd be lobbying the government.

Both is happening simultaneously as it has to. Much more effort is going into trying to change laws, however look at it this way. Pro gun and anti-gun are both pushing govt based on their views. For commercial side the same thing is happening only the anti-gun people don't generally make up the potential customer base. So if you're alienating your potential customers in favor of non-customers you're not going to do well.

[Warriorbird]

I said that being closer to the receiver makes it harder to jam. Would I have passed up a chance to use the word "foil"? No.

And I stand by my comment. A shopping mall covers a million square feet, even if you get perfectly centered that's 1400 feet to the corners. You need a jammer 2 million times more powerful than the wrist transmitter. Very doable, but handheld? Not a chance.

The average mall square footage is 56,000. The 1 and 2 mil mega malls are hardly fair for your comparison.

[Taernath]

I said that being closer to the receiver makes it harder to jam. Would I have passed up a chance to use the word "foil"? No.

And I stand by my comment. A shopping mall covers a million square feet, even if you get perfectly centered that's 1400 feet to the corners. You need a jammer 2 million times more powerful than the wrist transmitter. Very doable, but handheld? Not a chance.

http://i1347.photobucket.com/albums/p712/dtbrown082/jammer_zps61259d7d.jpg

[Thondalar]

The pro-gun people you describe are lobbying the manufacturers when if they really cared about the laws they'd be lobbying the government.

Oh, don't worry, we're doing that too.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

I bought a smart gun. It's kind of high maintenance and likes to be left alone too much. https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10500263_10152213724326581_7901838347166555952_n.j pg

[Methais]

The human brain can't.

Ever been to church?

The only true way to stop gun violence is to pass a law that requires you to get someone's consent before shooting them, similar to how pvp works in GS.

[Jarvan]

Ever been to church?

The only true way to stop gun violence is to pass a law that requires you to get someone's consent before shooting them, similar to how pvp works in GS.

Nah, the people would just do non consensual PVP.. I mean gun violence.

[Ker_Thwap]

Let the market decide. It all seems kind of pointless to me.

I'd think the biggest sell would be that so a kid can't find and play with the gun. Although, kids are sneaky, if they can get the gun (out of the safe that every responsible gun owner claims to own,) they can probably find the wristband.

What other situation does it help with? Do criminals often disarm someone, pick up the gun, then shoot the original owner? If there's a scuffle for the gun, and they shoot you, won't the chip be near enough to function?

I suppose if the gun is stolen, it then couldn't be used for other crimes? Although, other items with tech are stolen anyway, then the chips are disabled, replaced anyway. Criminals are always catching up to the tech. This would only dissuade the laziest of criminals, although you'd still be without your very expensive gun.

RFID jammers can be easily bought or made, you don't need to jam an entire mall, you only need jam within mugging distance and use your non RFID baseball bat to steal someone's possessions.

Getting violent to protest something is incredibly foolish and counterproductive to gun ownership advocates.

[Parkbandit]

If you wish to purchase a smart gun in the United States.. you can. There isn't a ban on the sale of smart guns.

[Methais]

If you wish to purchase a smart gun in the United States.. you can. There isn't a ban on the sale of smart guns.

NO WE HAVE TO FORCE ALL GUNS TO BE SMART GUNS BECAUSE IF IT SAVES JUST ONE LIFE IT'S WORTH IT JUST ASK BACKLASH!!!!!!111

[Dendum]

If you wish to purchase a smart gun in the United States.. you can. There isn't a ban on the sale of smart guns.

Where can you purchase this smart gun? From what I understand both gun shops that talked about carrying them backed down under intense pressure.
On the plus side while looking for a place in the US that sells these guns I found this crazy bastard on an article at engadget.

http://youtu.be/YBC8IFWC1P0

hell even if you don't watch the video skip to 19:20 for MERIKA!!

[Johnny Five]

I skimmed this till I saw Back being a complete retard again. Are cops going to have to use smart guns also (This is a law in Jersey?) Can a bank robber just rob a bank, grab a long distance jammer and just lul his way to victory while he shoots cops with his non-smart gun he bought from T-dizzle last week? Or if he is really smart, plant hundreds of jammers before the robbery and have a huge bubble of anti-smart gun?

[Parkbandit]

I skimmed this till I saw Back being a complete retard again. Are cops going to have to use smart guns also (This is a law in Jersey?) Can a bank robber just rob a bank, grab a long distance jammer and just lul his way to victory while he shoots cops with his non-smart gun he bought from T-dizzle last week? Or if he is really smart, plant hundreds of jammers before the robbery and have a huge bubble of anti-smart gun?

Why do you hate children??? Don't you remember Sandy Hook????

[Warriorbird]

I skimmed this till I saw Back being a complete retard again. Are cops going to have to use smart guns also (This is a law in Jersey?) Can a bank robber just rob a bank, grab a long distance jammer and just lul his way to victory while he shoots cops with his non-smart gun he bought from T-dizzle last week? Or if he is really smart, plant hundreds of jammers before the robbery and have a huge bubble of anti-smart gun?

Cops will too. Thankfully for them law enforcement model guns still fire if jammed or malfunctioning.

[Gelston]

New Jersey came up with a ridiculous law that said all guns have to be retrofitted to this $1800 system in three years.

I think it should be something the officer decides on. I understand standardization of gear and all, but the officer should have a little bit of say in what technologies they do and don't use for their personal protection.

[Parkbandit]

Cops will too. Thankfully for them law enforcement model guns still fire if jammed or malfunctioning.

So, a smart gun won't work for civilians if jammed.. but law enforcement will have a special smart gun that will work even if it's jammed?

Sorry, I'm with WB on this one... I don't want someone having the ability to jam my gun while others remain working... and I certainly know how fickle electronics are and how easily they can be broken.

No thanks. I have most of my guns in a safe and the other ones that are for home protection are in places that are hidden, unloaded and out of reach from small children.

[Sorcasaurus]

It's also not difficult to replicate an RFID. They aren't exclusive in what devices they send a signal to, and the device to read them is handheld.

Are they still erasable by magnet? I know they used to be erased/broken by magnets, microwaves and scratches.

It just seems like a flawed technology to put so much faith in. It's helpful in a ton of situations, but it's not fool proof enough that I want it on all guns. I don't care if it's just another option.

[Changeling]

I skimmed this till I saw Back being a complete retard again. Are cops going to have to use smart guns also (This is a law in Jersey?) Can a bank robber just rob a bank, grab a long distance jammer and just lul his way to victory while he shoots cops with his non-smart gun he bought from T-dizzle last week? Or if he is really smart, plant hundreds of jammers before the robbery and have a huge bubble of anti-smart gun?

Police are exempt from the NJ smart gun requirement as I recall. They're exempt from almost every restriction we have.

[Tgo01]

They're exempt from almost every restriction we have.

Even murder?

[Taernath]

Even murder?

Prosecution is pretty rare in botched police raids.

[Tgo01]

Prosecution is pretty rare in botched police raids.

Hey, paid administrative leave is no vacation.

...wait...

[Changeling]

Even murder?

Firearm restriction! :)

[Latrinsorm]

Both is happening simultaneously as it has to. Much more effort is going into trying to change laws, however look at it this way. Pro gun and anti-gun are both pushing govt based on their views. For commercial side the same thing is happening only the anti-gun people don't generally make up the potential customer base. So if you're alienating your potential customers in favor of non-customers you're not going to do well.That's what I mean, though, the businesses can't possibly be the ones doing the alienating. They have no (direct) control over what laws are passed, hectoring them over laws makes no sense.

That you feel alienated is not the question. The question is whether that response is due to the nominal provocation or due to something else entirely, and looking at your statements I'm confident it's the latter.
The average mall square footage is 56,000. The 1 and 2 mil mega malls are hardly fair for your comparison.Sorry, I forgot that the South hasn't embraced industrialization yet. They must bring the national average down, it's a fair point, but you still need a jammer on the order of hundreds of times as powerful as the wristlet.
Let the market decide. It all seems kind of pointless to me.

I'd think the biggest sell would be that so a kid can't find and play with the gun. Although, kids are sneaky, if they can get the gun (out of the safe that every responsible gun owner claims to own,) they can probably find the wristband.

What other situation does it help with? Do criminals often disarm someone, pick up the gun, then shoot the original owner? If there's a scuffle for the gun, and they shoot you, won't the chip be near enough to function?

I suppose if the gun is stolen, it then couldn't be used for other crimes? Although, other items with tech are stolen anyway, then the chips are disabled, replaced anyway. Criminals are always catching up to the tech. This would only dissuade the laziest of criminals, although you'd still be without your very expensive gun.

RFID jammers can be easily bought or made, you don't need to jam an entire mall, you only need jam within mugging distance and use your non RFID baseball bat to steal someone's possessions.

Getting violent to protest something is incredibly foolish and counterproductive to gun ownership advocates.I see this kind of reaction to NBA lottery reforms too, and the same point applies: the reform doesn't have to absolutely eliminate every unwanted outcome to be worthwhile. If you really want to know the answer, you have to quantitatively weigh the pros and cons. Knee jerk reactions are obviously easier as they involve no conscious thought - so much for egoism!
I skimmed this till I saw Back being a complete retard again. Are cops going to have to use smart guns also (This is a law in Jersey?) Can a bank robber just rob a bank, grab a long distance jammer and just lul his way to victory while he shoots cops with his non-smart gun he bought from T-dizzle last week? Or if he is really smart, plant hundreds of jammers before the robbery and have a huge bubble of anti-smart gun?Why don't bank robbers just grab a full suit of body armor and lul their way to victory right now? Or use rocket launchers on the police? Or escape via helicopter?

[Latrinsorm]

Prosecution is pretty rare in botched police raids.Too bad we don't have some way of recording images and sound of said raids and placing said recordings in the public record.

[Warriorbird]

Too bad we don't have some way of recording images and sound of said raids and placing said recordings in the public record.

Naive people like to believe that would help. The problem is we always have untrustworthy people in charge. Once we reach the singularity we'll even have untrustworthy artificial intelligence.

[Ker_Thwap]

I see this kind of reaction to NBA lottery reforms too, and the same point applies: the reform doesn't have to absolutely eliminate every unwanted outcome to be worthwhile. If you really want to know the answer, you have to quantitatively weigh the pros and cons. Knee jerk reactions are obviously easier as they involve no conscious thought - so much for egoism!

The NBA lottery is a communist plot. The winning team should have the first pick, it would encourage the poors to try harder.

[Methais]

I'm curious what would happen if Latrin ran for office on the universal surveillance platform.


The NBA lottery is a communist plot. The winning team should have the first pick, it would encourage the poors to try harder.

I agree. And when you score points in basketball, your team should get the ball back, right under the hoop.

[Taernath]

Naive people like to believe that would help. The problem is we always have untrustworthy people in charge. Once we reach the singularity we'll even have untrustworthy artificial intelligence.

I think it would help. There have been a lot of instances where police brutality that would have otherwise gone unnoticed has been documented by bystanders and other recording devices. In a situation where you have a dead guy and 8 police officers all claiming the same story to have a no bullshit account of what happened would be very valuable - and data being 'accidentally' lost can only happen so many times.

[Changeling]

That's what I mean, though, the businesses can't possibly be the ones doing the alienating. They have no (direct) control over what laws are passed, hectoring them over laws makes no sense.

Correct, they don't have direct control . They're just also negatively affected by laws that are unpopular with their clientele.

[Warriorbird]

I think it would help. There have been a lot of instances where police brutality that would have otherwise gone unnoticed has been documented by bystanders and other recording devices. In a situation where you have a dead guy and 8 police officers all claiming the same story to have a no bullshit account of what happened would be very valuable - and data being 'accidentally' lost can only happen so many times.

I think recording by citizens and police cars is excellent.

I think the type of surveillance that Latrin advocates would be bottled off and much less so.

[Taernath]

I think recording by citizens and police cars is excellent.

I think the type of surveillance that Latrin advocates would be bottled off and much less so.

I'm just advocating for helmet cams or something similar, not Skynet.

[Warriorbird]

I'm just advocating for helmet cams or something similar, not Skynet.

Definitely. Dash cams will likely eventually become essential in America like they are in Russia too.

[Latrinsorm]

Cameras a police officer can literally reach out and turn off with their hand - great idea, no corruption.
Cameras that any individual police officer has no control over - tantamount to killing 50% of the human race and enslaving the rest.

And I'm the crazy one? :/

[Johnny Five]

Why don't bank robbers just grab a full suit of body armor and lul their way to victory right now? Or use rocket launchers on the police? Or escape via helicopter?

Because currently cops have bullets that shoot through body armor? But if you can't shoot and I can, I guess I win.

[Warriorbird]

Cameras a police officer can literally reach out and turn off with their hand - great idea, no corruption.
Cameras that any individual police officer has no control over - tantamount to killing 50% of the human race and enslaving the rest.

And I'm the crazy one? :/

They can't turn off their car cameras.

I'm glad you trust the government to turn over the footage. It's like I'm glad some people have faith. It must be nice for them.

[Taernath]

Definitely. Dash cams will likely eventually become essential in America like they are in Russia too.

I bought one a few months ago. They're a great thing to have.

[Latrinsorm]

They can't turn off their car cameras.They most certainly can, but they promise promise promise that they won't and you apparently take them at their word.
I'm glad you trust the government to turn over the footage. It's like I'm glad some people have faith. It must be nice for them.You were saying?

[Warriorbird]

They most certainly can, but they promise promise promise that they won't

Some of us are actually familiar with how the systems work. Some want to score extra Authoritarian Philosophy Points (TM.)

[Taernath]

They most certainly can, but they promise promise promise that they won't and you apparently take them at their word.You were saying?

It's logged when they're turned off.

[Latrinsorm]

Some of us are actually familiar with how the systems work. Some want to score extra Authoritarian Philosophy Points (TM.)http://lmgtfy.com/?q=can+police+turn+off+dash+cameras

[Latrinsorm]

It's logged when they're turned off.Some of us are actually familiar with how the systems work, Taernath.

[Wrathbringer]

Some of us are actually familiar with how the systems work and choose to make stupid arguments as if we don't, Taernath.

Clarified that for you.

[Warriorbird]

It's logged when they're turned off.

Bingo.

[Taernath]

Some of us are actually familiar with how the systems work, Taernath.

Some of us used to be cops, Latrin.

[Latrinsorm]

So let's review.

Warriorbird says the cameras can't be turned off.
I say they can.
Everybody gives me grief.
Everybody agrees they can be turned off.

?

I ask you again. ?

[Warriorbird]

So let's review.

Warriorbird says the cameras can't be turned off.
I say they can.
Everybody gives me grief.
Everybody agrees they can be turned off.

?

I ask you again. ?

You like semantic arguments. They CAN be turned off but they aren't because it'd get the cop fired. They get eaten up by lawyers on traffic tickets if they ever can't produce the camera footage. It's gotten worse since people started having dash cams.

They naturally are far more reluctant to have similar for raids.

[Latrinsorm]

Think it through. What's a worse consequence, being (possibly) fired from your job or being (definitely) convicted of assault with a deadly weapon? Off goes the camera, so much for justice.

Your entire objection to my system is that it would be corrupted, and you laud a system that is dramatically easier to corrupt. If you don't see the problem there, I don't know what to tell you.

[Warriorbird]

Think it through. What's a worse consequence, being (possibly) fired from your job or being (definitely) convicted of assault with a deadly weapon? Off goes the camera, so much for justice.

Your entire objection to my system is that it would be corrupted, and you laud a system that is dramatically easier to corrupt. If you don't see the problem there, I don't know what to tell you.

Your system is much easier to corrupt.

[Tgo01]

They CAN be turned off but they aren't because it'd get the cop fired.

I don't know about that. It's damn near impossible to fire a cop, especially with police unions being as powerful as they are.

I can't imagine of all the shit some cops get away with that a simple act of turning off their camera leads to immediate firing.

[Warriorbird]

I don't know about that. It's damn near impossible to fire a cop, especially with police unions being as powerful as they are.

I can't imagine of all the shit some cops get away with that a simple act of turning off their camera leads to immediate firing.

Step away from the conservative union propaganda. It happens. The "simple act" wouldn't do it necessarily but when you have something arise from it? It'd turn around real quick.

[Tgo01]

Step away from the conservative union propaganda.

Truth hurt? :(


The "simple act" wouldn't do it necessarily but when you have something arise from it? It'd turn around real quick.

Okay so...the cameras can be turned off and in doing so it's not a guarantee the cop will be fired if he does. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here :/

[Methais]

Does Latrin really want people to watch him masturbating?

[Warriorbird]

Truth hurt? :(



Okay so...the cameras can be turned off and in doing so it's not a guarantee the cop will be fired if he does. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here :/

I saw a grand series of cops get slammed for turning cameras off during law school and I've gotten out of reckless due to a cop having no recording.

Notably, Louisiana and Virginia are pretty anti union. Maybe you're just in some bastion of it.

[Tgo01]

I saw a grand series of cops get slammed for turning cameras off during law school and I've gotten out of reckless due to a cop having no recording.

Sounds like cops turn off their dash cams a lot then. I thought it was relatively rare. Thanks for enlightening me ;)


Notably, Louisiana and Virginia are pretty anti union. Maybe you're just in some bastion of it.

All police unions are powerful. (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-08-15/news/fl-police-fired-20110813_1_police-officers-officer-returns-police-union)

Here's another story about how police unions use their power and position to lobby for laws that protect cops far more than people with other jobs. (http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/19/how-special-rights-for-law-enforcement-m)

[Warriorbird]

Sounds like cops turn off their dash cams a lot then. I thought it was relatively rare. Thanks for enlightening me ;)



All police unions are powerful. (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-08-15/news/fl-police-fired-20110813_1_police-officers-officer-returns-police-union)

Here's another story about how police unions use their power and position to lobby for laws that protect cops far more than people with other jobs. (http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/19/how-special-rights-for-law-enforcement-m)

So we have a piece from a Libertarian political site and from a union state. Got it.

[Tgo01]

So we have a piece from a Libertarian political site and from a union state. Got it.

Well, granted, it's not as powerful of an argument as posting that the sites can't be trusted because...for whatever reason. But. Yeah. That's all I got.

[Warriorbird]

Well, granted, it's not as powerful of an argument as posting that the sites can't be trusted because...for whatever reason. But. Yeah. That's all I got.

You've never ever done that one before. It's cool. You and Latrin are winning and we'll have Palantir installed more places and nobody will EVER do anything wrong with it or go against the very political stance of one of the sites you argue from.

NSA so trustworthy! Not at all trading nudes! No no!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/07/17/nsa-responds-to-snowden-claim-that-intercepted-nude-pics-routinely-passed-around-by-employees/

[Latrinsorm]

This is what I don't get. I claimed you trust a surveillance system that's ridiculously easy to corrupt. Your first response is that it can't be, then when that's categorically disproved your response is that I claimed my system is impossible to corrupt. How does this even work in your head? I don't get it.

[Warriorbird]

This is what I don't get. I claimed you trust a surveillance system that's ridiculously easy to corrupt. Your first response is that it can't be, then when that's categorically disproved your response is that I claimed my system is impossible to corrupt. How does this even work in your head? I don't get it.

I like to deal in actual life experience rather than solely arguing to score philosophy major justification points.

You arguing that this simple system (which functions relatively well) is corruptible hardly justifies a vastly more powerful one as less corruptible. It even does the opposite.

[Methais]

Latrin is a philosophy major?

That would explain so much if so.

[Warriorbird]

Latrin is a philosophy major?

That would explain so much if so.

Was. Science and Philosophy and he went into science. It pretty much says everything.

[Latrinsorm]

For the record:
undecided
Physics major
Physics major and Philosophy minor