Reversing "Smart gun" technology

[BillCA]

Preface & disclaimer
This is not a suggestion to promote a legislated engineering change to firearms. Rather, this post simply raises a talking-point against one of the anti-gun lobby's favorite ideas. It points out the flaws in their logic and asks why can't it be done another way. Once this door is opened and explored, then other questions can be asked about why we don't more severely punish felons who use guns.

The Concept
We've all heard about so-called "Smart gun" technology. It presupposes that engineers can make a reliable firearm that can recognize it's owners or "authorized users" through biometrics of some kind.

Most of us agree it's just an asinine idea.

But wait, is it really?

Statistically we know that the vast majority of serious felony crimes are committed by prior offenders. That is, people previously convicted of serious crimes. These persons are prohibited from possessing firearms.

So instead of spending money to design a gun to do something new, let's use existing technology.

First, when a felon is convicted, before he is allowed outside of prison walls, he has a small RF chip implanted in his chest, wrist, forearm, etc. Where ever makes sense.

Now, new guns only need to be "smart enough" to do two things. 1-Detect the presense of that RF chip when the grip is squeezed or the trigger starts to move and 2-determine if the RF signal is coming directly from behind the grip of the gun. If these two criteria are met, the mechanism interposes a stop pin to prevent the gun from firing.

Why this is a better idea:

• The device is passive 99% of the time and activates only when a prohibited person tries to use the gun.
  
• Police guns equipped with this device would be useless to felons who obtain them in a struggle, thus saving officer's lives. (and a plus for a pilot-program by police first.)
  
• It relies on the idea that a prohibited person should know that he shouldn't be holding a gun and thus has no claim to access a working gun.
  
• It eliminates the potential failure-to-recognize the rightful owner when the owner needs the gun for defense. Likewise, it would allow use by the owner's new spouse, b/f, g/f or houseguest as long as they aren't a felon. He doesn't need to "program" each new person in his life before the gun is useful for self-defense.
  
• Felons can be deprived of certain rights by law and also can be required to live with specific restrictions. Requiring them to have an implanted RF device is similar to a lifetime ban on gun possession or registration requirements for sexual offenders.
  
• Possession of a firearm without a functional anti-felon security device by a prohibted person would be a felony punishable by six years in jail. This means a felon with an older gun or with the device inoperable faces extra jail time.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Ok, first of all, you can defeat RFID chips with a bit of aluminum foil. They're extremely low power, passive devices, running off the energy given off by the interrogating device. Blocking their signals is painfully easy. So's burning them out.

Second, determining the direction a low power radio signal is coming from is a non-trivial challenge, and when the device you're trying to do it with is smaller than the wavelength of the signal, it's basically impossible. Nope, can't do it, end of story.

Third, you're talking about people who are legally prohibited from possessing a gun, making it illegal for them to possess a gun without a specific feature on top of that will accomplish nothing.

Forth, cutting short that pin would be painfully simple.

Fifth, you're making every gun in the entire country more expensive, and somewhat more error prone, just to slightly inconvenience convicted criminals. Ever heard of "cost/benefit" analysis?

Sixth, wanna bet somebody couldn't hack together a system to make that gun you're holding think you're a felon?

Look, the whole concept of laws prohibiting people who break laws from being armed is loony tune. It doesn't work, except in cases where the guy is reformed, and wasn't going to do anything wrong with the gun anyway.

If you can't trust a convicted criminal with a gun, they should remain jailed. If they're safe to release, they should be restored ALL their civil liberties, so that we don't have a system of second class citizenship that inconveniences all the innocent people, and temps anti-gunners to expand the list of felonies to disarm more people.

Finally, if you want to implant something in convicted criminals, you'd be ahead of the game going with some kind of tracking device, so that if they didn't defeat it, you could prove they were present at the scene of the crime. And make defeating that a crime. THAT at least wouldn't curtail the rights of the rest of us.

 

[P95loser]

Wouldn't the felons just get older guns?

 

[gc70]

But... but... it wouldn't stop a child from misusing a gun.

Back to the drawing board (or maybe chip all children at birth ).

 

[Shadi Khalil]

I dont like the idea at all. Implanting people with a RF chips? Yikes.

 

[Csspecs]

If the system worked..... Which I doubt is possible in the next 20 years.

What would prevent a felon from building a gun.... I know that if I was to ignore the laws about rifled barrels on pistols or machine gun laws, that I could whip up a pretty niffty sub-machine gun with the shop tools I have now. Or heck a flame thrower or bomb.

Gun are used in crimes because they are easy enough to get a hold of, if that stops criminals will just get inventive.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

What if you are in close proximity to the felon? All the sudden a felon putting his finger in your barrell would be very effective.

 

[rburch]

Other problem is even if the directional thing works, what if said convict has his hand around your wrist??

And if it didn't work, then criminals would learn to get within range before confronting their target so even if they have a gun they can't use it to defend themselves.

And sense we're discussing tech that doesn't exist yet, why not just put a computer chip it their brain that puts out a small electrical jolt whenever they think about committing a crime.

Seriously adding complexity to anything that can be used to save your life is just stupid. What next, car airbags you have to tell to activate?

The only place the so called smart pistols could function acceptably, would be people who only target shoot, but worry about kids getting their gun. And for that a safe or a lock would be a better option.

 

[44 AMP]

Another drawback

Not yet mentioned, but which must be very seriously considered, the effect any kind of smart gun technology fielded (working acceptably or not) on the ownership of "dumb" guns.

All non smart guns will become "unsafe" in the eyes of the public (the anti's in and out of the media will ensure this), and there will be a huge push that only "safe" (smart) guns should be allowed in private hands. If the anti's get really smart, they would push for govt subsidies (tax credit? rebate?) for all of us to replace those dangerous dumb guns with new safe smart ones. We would still be allowed to hunt, maybe even defend ourselves, but only with the new smart guns. Because smart guns still allow us to be armed, our 2nd Amendment rights would not be violated by a total ban on ownership of the "dumb" guns.

There are many possible permutations of this that could come to pass when smart guns finally hit the market, and I don't see any of them being to our benefit.

 

[Benonymous]

dumb idea

Take my word for it, you DON'T want an RFID chip implanted in your body. Unless you are a dog.

Second. America is awash with "dumb" guns. They don't go away as soon as you launch a "smart" gun product.

Dumb guns will be in the hands of criminals for decades to come and nothing will change that.

If "smart" guns are all that you can buy, the black market cost of a "dumb" gun will go through the roof and spawn a new and profitable area for organized crime.

Also, as others have pointed out, the technology could be easily circumvented.

 

[BillCA]

First, thanks to all posters for their technical savvy. I was sure people would take this as a serious proposal and point out the deficiencies pretty fast. I have faith in my fellow TFL'ers.

The real point is, when talking to anti-gun types, to throw them off their pre-recorded talking points about smart guns. Some of them might be smart enough to know the problems with the technology or how it could be circumvented... but I doubt it in most cases. What it does for most anti-gun types is throw doubt into the mix and weaken their arguments.

 

[ziggy222]

wow a smart chip.now they won't even have to come take your guns away.all they,the government,have to do is shut it off.any time they want.click now you can shoot,click now you can't.i wanna be that guy.what a power trip lol.the 1st cop that gave me a ticket would have his pistol reduced to a paper wait.hunters that did'nt aply for special permits or could'nt affort them after i raised the price would have their guns shut off.i could even control what kind of guns you can buy.or maybe we can just drop such a dangerous idea as cutting people open to implant a chip in them.besides they alreaddy have a way to control our guns.ammo.

 

[Doggieman]

Put down the pipe, Bill

 

[BillCA]

Yup. As a thought experiment it can't be considered a brain-storm.... more of a light drizzle maybe.

Let's flush this one... There are other topics to explore.

 

[obxned]

Trying to find a good application for the 'smart gun' concept is like trying to chrome plate a ****.