Technology and personalization

[User14]

I work in the computer field, where the game changes every few years. Quite different from the land of the 1911 and AK47, indeed. Glock and others have certainly updated the old designs. However, I think we'll see some truly innovative stuff coming up soon.

The military tends to get the fun stuff before civilians. However, one issue seems ripe for ready civilian use. This is the personalized gun. Getting shot with your own pistol is a nightmare scenario for anyone. HP recently revealed a "Memory Spot" chip which can be implanted in the finger. The unique signature would identify you immediately. Don't worry about being shot because it identifies you mistakenly, however--it has to be a millimeter away to work.

I'm new here, but I hope I am interesting. I don't hunt, but am very interested in all aspects of tactics. I think computers and technology should be applied as soon as possible to advance better self-defense.

[MEDDAC19]

I don't like the idea of a memory chip that only allows one person to fire a gun. What if you have your personalized pistol and are no longer able to defend yourself, your wife or a bystander now picks up your gun to help and the thing won't work. This could also work the other way around, you would be unable to pick up someone elses gun and help.

If you have multiple guns how many chips are you going to let someone put in you? I guess you would need to put compatible chips in everyone that lives with you for all the guns that you might need to defend yourself or your loved ones.

And I guess I need to put this in for all the conspiracy folks, can the government track you with all the chips you will need to fire all your guns?

[Majic]

Very bad idea. Like mentioned above no one else could use the gun even if you wanted them to. How about that finger with the chip in it gets hurt and you have to shoot weak handed or use another finger? Since it's electrical what if the batteries run low? Firearms work and are reliable because they are basic simple machines. Start adding complicated features and you add more chances for malfunctions.
Since you work in the computer field think of all the times computers malfunction (doesn't matter if it's a minor or major problem). You want to take that chance with your firearms?

[DPris]

You won't get a warm reception here for that idea. The concept of a Smart Gun is occasionally brought up & sounds great- in theory. Very few experienced shooters wnat anything to do with a Smart Gun. It adds another level of complexity to an already complicated design, with more that can go wrong.
I will never own one unless, by legal mandate, it's the only thing I can own.
I will NOT bet my life on one.
You'll also never see an American police department voluntarily adopt such a thing in your lifetime. I would have quit & found a new career before I'd have carried one as a life saving tool. The technology is simply not reliable enough yet, and cops do not want to be a beta test site for it.
In my view, computers should NEVER be applied to ordinary consumer defensive handguns or rifles. For sporting purposes, I don't care what you do.
Denis

[brickeyee]

Nothing is made more reliable by adding parts.
Firearms work since they are as mechanically simple as can be designed while still operating as desired.
As soon as the police adopt all the personalized gizmos let us know.

[gb_in_ga]

Smart guns are one of those things that sounds good on the surface until you start looking at the implications. The devil is in the details.

A> The presence of a chip implies some sort of electronics to read that chip. The presence of electronics implies a power source. What happens when you REALLY need to use your gun, and the battery is dead? This isn't like a laser sight where there is a low-tech iron sight backup readily available -- if the battery dies, the gun is useless.

B> The presence of an electronics based safety implies an increased level of complexity -- after all, it does something physical , there has to be a servo-mechanical device in there somewhere in order to prevent unintended/unauthorized operation. What happens if it breaks? One maxim in handguns, or any other electrical or mechanical device, is that as the complexity of a system increases, reliability of the system decreases.

C> What do you do about sales? Say, for example, I want to sell my gun to my brother who lives in-state. Can he shoot it? Suppose that he doesn't have a chip, will he have to go to a doctor to get it implanted? Suppose his doctor doesn't WANT to implant the chip -- is he SOL? Why should I have to involve potentially hostile 3rd parties in a face-to-face sale? Can the gun be reprogrammed to look for another chip? After all, once that chip is in you, it is IN you, no taking it out. For that matter, suppose that MY doctor doesn't want to implant the gun-chip (after all, as a group, doctors tend to be anti-gunners), am I going to be SOL in that I'll have a gun and a chip, but no chip in me, making my gun useless? Is it possible to just tape the chip to the gun defeating the whole concept?

D> Suppose that it is possible to reprogram to recognize another chip, in order to facilitate resale. Wouldn't that make the anti-theft value of the concept moot? After all, if a new owner can reprogram it, so can a thief.

E> Suppose that each gun comes with a unique ID chip that would have to be implanted into the owner and the gun is just plain non-transferrable. Now, assume that the owner is an avid shooter who has dozens of guns, each mandated to have such a chip system. Doesn't that mean that the avid shooter will have dozens of such chips implanted? What if they interfere with each other? Won't the shooter's doctor be happy, implanting all of those chips?

F> Suppose that like in E> above each gun comes with its own unique ID chip. Doesn't that mean that any entity could build a scanner to read those chips and determine not only that a person was a gun owner but also how many guns? Assuming that identifying information about the gun is also on the chip (a reasonable assumption), wouldn't that also imply that such a scan would reveal that information? Wouldn't that be an invasion of privacy?

G> Assume that I am trying to teach SWMBO to shoot using my gun. Doesn't that mean that she would have to have a chip for my gun implanted in order to use it? But -- it isn't her gun!

H> Suppose that we are talking about a bedside gun. There is one on her side of the bed, and one on mine. What if she needs to grab the one on my side, or me grab the one on her side? Does that mean that we both have to have chips implanted for each other's guns? Doesn't that imply multiple chips per gun?

I> Suppose that SWMBO and I are walking down the street. I have my CCW (chipped), and she is unarmed (as usual). We get jumped, I get knocked upside the head while drawing, and she has to grab my gun to defend the both of us. Is she going to be SOL, armed with a nice gun-shaped club?

J> What about range rentals?

And so on, and so forth.

No, Smart Guns are NOT a good idea. I'll stick with my plain ol' dumb guns that work, thank you.

[User14]

I know quite well how computers can go bad. That does not mean that you can dismiss technology completely. To address your concerns, it is quite possible to have a single chip work with multiple guns. It is also quite possible to individually shut out a particular gun, or a particular user. The technology of matching users to authorization is very well developed. You will not need multiple chips inside you.

As for power, this is an issue. I would prefer a non-removable sealed lithium battery. If it goes bad, you get another gun. This won't happen, however, if you don't use it much. Use a similar gun for target practice. I am very much aware of KISS principles. Many in the computing industry seem not to be aware of it.

The moment a smart gun comes out, I will consider it. I am very tactically minded.

[Mark54g]

I work in the computer industry. It is a DUMB idea. There is no reason to throw away a gun because the lithium battery died (they have a life of about 1-4yrs). I plan on shooting many years past that and don't like having things shoved into parts of my body (chips, or otherwise).

[User14]

A battery does not appreciably discharge without use. After a few years, you will need to change it. If you value your safety, the money required to send it back to have the battery changed is well worth it. Ipod owners do the same thing.

[Jart]

I believe New Jersey has mandated that handguns be equipped with such an item 3 years after it's proven viable. NJIT is beavering away as we speak.

What strikes a lot of us here as smelly is that the concept was originally hatched as a means of reducing the number of LEOs shot with their own weapon. Why then, does NJ exempt LE from the requirement?

Police generally carry openly which regrettably makes them a source of guns for those with an exceptionally high risk tolerance.

I suppose some skeptics would be moved in the event the police went first into that bright and shining future. Those LEOs I've spoken to have not been enamored of the idea.

[User14]

As a libertarian, I do not take kindly to government requests.

[WSM MAGNUM]

I like technological changes, but I don`t like the idea of chip implants or ID chips. Just gives the anti-gun more reason to pass some idiotic laws. And like MEDDAC19 says, if you`re down and someone in your family needs to use for protection, they are out of luck. Not a good idea.

[Edward429451]

I thought I read somewhere that these things will work off of the electro magnetic field that your body gives off. When you grasp it, your EM's charge a capacitor in the device (gun) and it unlocks for you. I may be wrong.

At any rate I don't like the idea. Big brother and all that.

Can you all imagine how the price of 'dumb guns' will skyrocket when this crap is mandated into law? But by then of course they will be priceless and not for sale...

[User14]

If I am down, I may have people I know keyed to the same gun. I may not. What I have to balance is the probability of a thug grabbing my gun versus the probability that someone else will need to use my gun for good purposes.

[User14]

Edward429451, your post is not technically coherent. We do not "give off" electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetic fields to not charge a capacitor. A difference of voltage does.

You could do some crude form of thumbprint or vein recognition, if you do not want to implant something. I, myself, am more than willing to implant whatever is needed.

[gb_in_ga]

As for power, this is an issue. I would prefer a non-removable sealed lithium battery. If it goes bad, you get another gun.

Not in this lifetime, buddy. I am NOT going to be locked into some "dispose-a-gun". NoSiree.

This won't happen, however, if you don't use it much.

How do you figure that? It isn't one of those things along the lines of not drawing any power if it is not in use, not unless it has an on/off switch -- which is NOT acceptable, btw. The chip detector would have to emit a signal to the implanted chip and then have a receiver listen for the return signal. That transmission and reception process would necessarily have to happen constantly, whether in use or not. That process would require non-trivial amounts of power, constantly.

Use a similar gun for target practice.

So, that means I'd have to buy not 1 but 2 of these new "dispose-a-guns" if I wanted to practice? WHY? Why should I have to do that?

I am very much aware of KISS principles. Many in the computing industry seem not to be aware of it.

Oh, but I am in the computer industry as well. And I'm all too familiar with KISS. You seem to forget that the best way to honor the KISS principle is to not add all of that extra complexity to the system in the first place.

The moment a smart gun comes out, I will consider it.

Your choice, buddy. Personally, I'd run screaming into the night. Way to many negatives associated with it for me to be at all comfortable with the idea.

I am very tactically minded.

Somehow, I have my doubts. There are just too many tactical liabilities associated with such an idea with not enough tactical advantages to offset those liabilities for the TRULY tactical minded to be in favor of it, at least once those liabilities are made known. From what I can tell, you have latched on to the relatively minor advantages of such a thing while turning a blind eye to the inherent disadvantages of such a thing. Not wise, IMHO.

[Edward429451]

I said I may be wrong. It's been awhile since I read that stuff and they did say something about no batteries required but who knows? I'm no electronics/computer genius.

Good luck with your implants! I'll let them chop my head off before I'd succumb to something like that.

[User14]

At the end of the day, I am willing to pay to have a charged and ready smart gun. I consider this a high priority.

[User14]

There are no batteries required in the implanted portion. They retrieve their power from the same unit that interacts with them wirelessly.

[springmom]

No thanks. One thing that I didn't see brought up is that to basically have yourself microchipped is the ultimate incursion into freedom. If I don't want to tell you who I am, then you should not have some implanted dog tag that you could read to find out.

We microchip DOGS. Humans, no.

If you don't want a bad guy getting your gun and using it on you, get some training so you know how to conduct yourself in a fight.

Springmom

[gb_in_ga]

There are no batteries required in the implanted portion. They retrieve their power from the same unit that interacts with them wirelessly.

I am well aware of that. Which is irrelevant to my argument. Your argument is that a fixed battery will suffice, and once depleted the gun is discarded. Mine is, that is unacceptable (on multiple levels). Since the onboard power source has to not only power the gun's electronics and servos but the implanted chip's electronics as well, and must power both it's own transmission and reception as well as the implanted chip's, I would think that such a battery would be depleted in short order (considerably less than a human lifetime), making the (expensive) gun useless in the process. And since even a smart gun can't reliably know when it is being wielded short of having a contact switch (which is unacceptable), it has to remain powered up and transmitting constantly.

Is 1 to 4 years sufficient for you? Perhaps. It is sufficient for me? NO! I happen to have and shoot guns that are CONSIDERABLY older than that. I stake my life on them. Planned obsolecense is NOT a good thing when it comes to guns.

Think about this from a political standpoint: Lets say that 30 years down the road, smart guns have been mandated. You just can't buy a gun that isn't a smart gun. And the batteries will die on them in 4 years or so. Ok, that is a PITA in that you have to buy new guns every 4 years or so. But, it also means that the deterrent value of guns in regards to a check against domestic government run amok has gone down the toilet. How's that, you ask? Well, it seems that all a new totalitarian government would have to do would be to stop the sale and manufacture of said guns for any purpose except police & military. The immediate result of that would be that the number of --> working <-- guns in the hands of the people would taper off until, in about 4 years or so, there wouldn't be any that actually worked. Not the smart guns, anyway. Checkmate, the gun grabbers have won. The only working guns would be those in the hands of the police & military, and in the hands of those civilians who managed to hang on to their "old technology" stuff by whatever means. Personally, I want to be a member of that latter group. No smart guns for me.

[User14]

Time for a little disclosure. I am a transhumanist. I intend to replace not only my body, but eventually my brain with something engineered. We are close to having an artificial hippocampus (a part of the brain). There are neuroscientists who realize that parts of our brain act as digital computers. I would like to upgrade these parts of my brain.

My skin is too vulnerable to weapons. I do not intend on being this vulnerable for long. When the technology comes, I will use it.

[User14]

gb_in_ga: Very good point! Thank you for bringing it. In this case, I argue that you could stockpile weapons in a non-discharging state. If you have bought anything that requires you to pull a plastic to initiate it, you know what I mean. Newer technologies will fight the inevitable discharge all batteries have.

Also, being a libertarian, I will want weapons that do not conform to whatever government standard. Tactically, this is not a current worry.

[isa268]

I, myself, am more than willing to implant whatever is needed.

the .Gov can already track you by your cell phone, what's to stop them from tracking you with your implanted gun lock chip.

and

""They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

I'm NOT willing to be implanted with ANYTHING.

As for power, this is an issue. I would prefer a non-removable sealed lithium battery. If it goes bad, you get another gun. This won't happen, however, if you don't use it much.

don't use it much? what about practice? get a second "dumb" gun??? some people can only afford one gun to defend themselves. these same people normally live in bad neighborhoods. so now we have to buy two guns, or one gun that the batteries will die the time we need it the most.

[gb_in_ga]

don't use it much? what about practice? get a second "dumb" gun???

Which brings up another point. If, as you point out, you would want a second "dumb gun" for practice, then why get the "smart gun" at all? Just use the dumb gun. Doesn't this imply both smart guns and dumb guns on the market, simultaneously? Doesn't that mean that you would STILL need to keep your dumb gun secure in the manner that we are supposed to be doing with them now? Doesn't that mean that the "utility" of the smart gun has then at least partially been negated, since all a BG or child would have to do is just grab the dumb gun that was being used for practice?