Encrypted Ammunition? 909
holy_calamity writes "A patent has been filed for bullets with built-in encryption. Pulling the trigger sends a radio signal to the cartridge in the chamber, but the charge only goes off if the right encryption key is sent. The aim is to improve civilian firearm security." Not sure I'm quite ready to trust the average techno-gadget failure rate on something like this just yet.
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:5, Funny)
Just print it out base-64 encoded and nail it to trees in the area so that the deer can be sure that it's you shooting them and not someone else.
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:5, Funny)
DRM (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DRM (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:5, Funny)
A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, given the incredible insecurity of RFID technology, it wouldn't take much to "modify" the things.
To top it off, how is a radio signal of sufficient strength going to get past that much lead? And what's to keep a bank robber or other criminal to carry a small EMP generator to effectively disarm any cop whose pistol is so equipped?
Man, someone wasted a lot of money with that patent...
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:4, Informative)
I will answer these very silly questions in order. (the other stuff, above that, was made up of good points.) First, lead? LEAD? You think the antenna's going to be at the end of the barrel? I think it's going to be wrapped around the ass end of the casing, or might even be the firing pin mechanism itself. Second, EMP? Haha haaHahaHAAHA! Do you have any idea how EMPs are generated, aside from using a nuclear weapon? You have a coil wrapped around a high explosive, you charge the coil with a lot of current, generating a strong magnetic field, and then you detonate the explosive. This causes the magnetic field to collapse simultaneously with the coil being collapsed, causing the field to fluctuate and move very rapidly through neighboring space, thus inducing the currents that destroy things. In part, it is similar in concept to a car's ignition coil. It's not something easily miniaturized, nor affordably carried.
What IS an issue for concern, however, is the ease and low cost of building a HERF device [google.com]. A low-power handheld HERF device was demonstrated at DEFCON, I believe, and was able to shut down computers from some distance.
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:3, Interesting)
The casing would be more plausible (you, like, reuse the firing pin because they're usually sort of built into the weapon, eh?)
"Second, EMP? Haha haaHahaHAAHA! Do you have any idea how EMPs are generated, aside from using a nuclear weapon? You have a coil wrapped around a high explosive, you charge the coil with a lot of current, generating a strong magnetic field, and then you detonate t
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always felt that was a particular weakness. There are two reasons someone would be firing someone else's gun. Either A- they stole it or B- they are fighting for it.
It seems to me that any security system that only accounts for A is pretty weak. If someone has the time to steal the gun, it's likely they may have the time to work around the security. Whereas if two people are scuffling for a gun and one of them is wearing the ring/watch/wristband then - as far as the gun knows - it's clear to shoot.
So you get a risk of the gun not shooting when you need it to on the con side, and the very narrow pro that if someone steals the gun but doesn't have time/know-how to bypass the security, they can't fire it. They can still fire it if they are fighting you for it or if they have a little bit of time to work on it.
I'm not impressed yet.
-stormin
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure that the pro is really that narrow. I would think that most instances of someone getting shot with their own gun, especially for law enforcement, occur within seconds of it being st
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:3)
Re:Oh oh, I want to ignore reality too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever you introduce more complexity to a system, there's a risk/benefit tradeoff. Your comparison to ABS brakes is not a particularly apt one, but I'll work with it: basically, most people feel that the modern ABS system produces enough benefit to outweigh the complexity (and thus risk of failure) that it introduces. The point is that I don't think that the additional complexity of these safety systems produces enough benefit to be worth it the increased risk of failure, particularly when the failure mode of a non-firing gun is so severe. (Gun doesn't go off, user may well end up dead.)
Your second response is silly as well. To begin with, guns don't unload themselves over time. A loaded gun will still be loaded tomorrow, provided someone hasn't unloaded it. Thus, it's far easier to accidentally have a gun where the batteries aren't charged, than one that's not loaded. Second, anyone who even has a basic idea of how a firearm works knows that in order for it to fling little lead things out the front, it has to have a supply of little lead things. It's less obvious that it also has to have a battery. Because the cartriges are fundamentally required for operation of the gun, they're difficult to forget. Any safety system would by design be nearly transparent, and thus easy to forget about except when it doesn't work.
Regarding handcuffing suspects: the police have carefully thought-out procedures for how to handcuff people in order to reduce the chance of the suspect being able to attack them. Generally, it's done by two people: if the person is really dangerous, you wouldn't even try to get close to them (or let them get close to you) until another person arrived to cover them. And then the weapon goes into a holster, which is designed to be difficult for another person to remove the gun from. (Actually, such holsters are an example of complexity that's probably worth it in terms of a tradeoff, because it doesn't introduce too much.)
Oh look, you made fun of how I openly admitted that I wasn't going to try to prop my argument up with statistics. Wooo. I see you don't have any in return to discuss exactly how many officers are shot with their own weapons in the absence of mitigating factors, in order to underline exactly how severe this problem is? Your side of the argument is predicated on the assumption that there is a substantial risk to officers of being shot with their own guns, and that this risk warrants introducing a needlessly complex, expensive, and failure-prone safety system. I'm saying I don't think the risk is that great. Burden of proof is on you if you still think so, particularly if you want to make fun of my lack of statistics. Who's not wearing any clothes?
And as for your last point, you decided to deprecate another safety system which probably could have helped your argument, since it's an example of a worthwhile complexity/safety tradeoff. As I mentioned earlier, most police forces (at least those that I've interacted with the members of, admittedly all in the US) have discovered that it's not a great idea to get close to a dangerous suspect with a drawn weapon, and have instituted procedures that minimize the need for this. You don't cuff someone without backup (and when you do, if you're the person doing the cuffing, you holster the weapon as you approach), etc. There are probably exceptional circumstances where these procedures can't be followed, but without evidence of how commonplace they are, it's hardly a convincing justification for such safety systems.
I never said at any point that there aren't places for RFID-enabled guns; I can think of a few, they're just few- and far-between. Places where guns currently can't be taken (secure facilities, prisons) might be included, but in general, I think people substantially overestimate the need or demand for such systems in average civilian or police use.
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:5, Interesting)
rofl what about the other way?
eventually we may have to worry about a criminal throwing a radio device that brute forces all the weapons in a certain radius into a secure area -- discharging every officer's weapon in the building.
actually i'm sure this won't be possible but it would make a cool scene in an action movie..
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:5, Insightful)
eventually we may have to worry about a criminal throwing a radio device that brute forces all the weapons in a certain radius into a secure area -- discharging every officer's weapon in the building.
Well, the signal is supposedly encrypted so that it can't be triggered by an outside party. But that doesn't mean some outside party couldn't just broadcast a very strong NOISE signal (aka, jamming) on the same frequency, thereby disabling any gun within a few hundred feet.
The ability to disarm every cop in the building with the push of a button. Yeah, this is a great idea!
Missing their point (Score:3, Insightful)
> device to their already expensive repertoire of presses, measurement tools, and cleaning equipment?
They aren't going to 'talk' you into anything. They will simply pass a law, which is one of the whole points of this exercise. No sane person would ever buy any of this crap, the point is to turn the screws of gun prohibition one more turn. Raise the price of guns and ammo enough to make it a
Re:Missing their point (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Missing their point (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not a fundamental right in my country even.
Don't get me wrong. You can still get a gun legaly. It is just not "shop, buy, done". You have to register it with the local authorities (police), have no criminal record and follow a few other rules. As long as you plan to keep your gun in your home, it is fairly straightforward. Carrying a gun is, on the other hand, much more complex. To get a carrying permit, you will have, among other things, to prove you have a real need for it.
In
Re:Missing their point (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a problem. Prove to me that you have a real need for free speech. Prove to me that you have a right to privacy. Prove to me that you have a real need for any basic right. If you have to prove that you need them, then it may already be too late.
Re:Missing their point (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I would put the right to have enough to eat as more basic than the right to bear arms, while I'm sure you'd call that socialism. I call protecting your government sanctioned monopoly on your property socialism. What do non-property owners get out of upholding the rights of property holders? The government is subsidizing your right to hold private property by protecting your property through the initiation of force.
There are no Fundamental Human Rights. There are only rights that we as a society deem important. Appeal to authority all you like, capitalize any word you want, that still doesn't change the fact that without society, there are no rights. With society, there are only the rights that society says are important. Just because you use Important Capitals and call it Fundamental doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you. We as a society choose what rights to uphold based on pragmatism, not Nature, and not God.
The US interpretation of basic human rights does not coincide with the UN definition of basic human rights. By UN standards, the US does not provide most basic human rights. As the UN definition is more all-encompasing, wouldn't it be fair to say their list is even more basic and important? Or does the fact that the US did it a certain way automatically mean that that list is the best, most fundamental list of rights?
Who decides?
Re:Missing their point (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear Slashdot posters (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Slashdot posters,
It is not necessary to force an EMP reference into every single post which mentions the operation of electronic devices.
Thank you,
Concerned Citizen
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:3, Informative)
Three years after a "smart gun" is available on the market citizens of New Jersey won't be able to buy regular mechanical handguns anymore.
Police, of course, are exempt from this restriction.
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
New meaning for BSOD (Score:3, Insightful)
OB Good Old Boy joke (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting. (Score:5, Funny)
Chuck Norris (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Chuck Norris (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Chuck Norris (Score:3, Funny)
Basically... Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
When they are sold, cartridges could be programmed with a password that matches the purchaser's gun. An owner could set the gun to request the password when it is reloaded, or to perform a biometric check before firing. The gun could also automatically lock itself after a pre-set period of time has passed since the password was entered.
The system would undoubtedly cost more than a conventional gun, but many firearm enthusiasts would surely pay a premium for such added security.
So, I can only use this ammo in one firearm (too bad if I have another with the same calibre), then while dodging my assailaints bullets, I'm entering in a password. If I get the password wrong, or the solid state switch fails (*gasp!*), then I've got to try again, but the pre-set period of time re-locks the gun. For anyone dumb enough to buy this, I hope your assailant has bad aim! btw, firearm enthusiasts will not "surely pay a premium" as there is no "added security".
I've noticed this paradigm with new handguns that were designed in the last 5 years. Trying to make them safer so little Johnny doesn't blow his brains out on accident, but making the firearm near useless as a defense tool. Considering ~300% more children die each year from 5 gallon buckets, I don't think "safe guns" are a needed focus.
It's becomming obligatory (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm tired of it. Just let me shoot my gun.
Re:It's becomming obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's becomming obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Don't ask how I type without bones. You really don't want to know.
Fixes the wrong problem (Score:3, Funny)
But putting the mechanism into the ammunition is the wrong way to go about this. The fire/no fire algorithm should be in the weapon itself, such that it is inert unless an authorized user is holding it. I can imagine a simple mechanism that simultaniously blocks the firing pin and locks the slide (can't fire, can't even load) unless the proper user is holding
Re:Fixes the wrong problem (Score:5, Insightful)
20% of non-gun users are shot once in their lifetime (100% by guns they don't own/carry)
10% of gun-owners/carriers are shot once in their lifetime (55% by guns they do own/carry)
So if you own a gun (in this secnario) you have a 5.5% chance of being shot with it, a 4.5% chance of being shot with someone elses. If you don't own a gun, you have a 20% chance of being shot with someone elses. Which odds do you like better?
But another way: Sure, the gun you carry may be the most likely to shoot you, but it's entirely possible that this is because the gun someone else carries doesn't do them any good after you shoot them for breaking into your house.
The point is that it's just a worthless statistic that sounds scary without actually signifying anything.
-stormin
More Fun With Statistics!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's make handguns look dangerous first. Then we can say:
Of course, there's no way to determine how many lives were actually saved by the presence of guns in the homes. Either a potential robber is a
Re:More Fun With Statistics!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
You always hope against experience that the slashdot mods aren't going to mod based on their politics, but it always happens. What's with the "overrated" mods anyway? I don't think I've ever given out a negative mod myself. The point is to find good points to mod up, not to piss on people's arguments if you feel offended. What good can come of downmodding?
Anyway, in the spirit of hunting for "overrated" mods, I found out that I had left out some additional interesting info I'm sure some
Re:Fixes the wrong problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's becomming obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're also an idiot because legislating gun laws isn't going to do a damn bit of good. 80% of guns used in crimes (That's eight-zero-percent) were purchased or obtained through illegal means [usdoj.gov].
Plus, guns were used in only 6% of the 4.8 MILLION violent crimes that took place in 2004. (Also from the same website).
That's okay though, you're probably the same guy who thinks it's okay that the government is spying on its citizens and shredding our constitution as long as it makes you safer. Insert applicable Liberty / Security / deserve neither quote here.
Re:It's becomming obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's becomming obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you say "war dialing"? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, now your ammo will have to be protected from radio waves. And the device will have to be small enough to fit into the round yet smart enough to store the signal and check incoming signals.
Is this a joke?
Re:Can you say "war dialing"? (Score:5, Interesting)
The fingerprint system and the ID ring system are already working examples of "smart guns". One gun fingerprints you, the other makes sure you are wearing a uniqe ring with some sort of RFID tag in it. These seam to be as simple as an owner-fire-only system you can get.
Re:Can you say "war dialing"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seen the right way, it's classic two-factor authentication.
I am guessing that the "key or signal" is delivered from a device that is perhaps embedded in the handle to read your fingerprints, RFID tag embedded in your wrist, or some other biometric.
This is just stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
I can see it now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if world armies had this kind of hardware... load of fun I'd imagine. No need to drop 10t bombs on heavily fortified installations... Just drop one that has no explosive payload, just LOTS of EM/RF Gear in an attempt to make everyone shoot each other.
Remember Kids! Friendly Fire, Isn't.
This could be bad (Score:5, Interesting)
"Can it be jammed so it doesn't fire?"
"What happens if some random radio noise hits and and set it off?"
"What happens if you aim enough random radio noise at say, an ammo supply room, that could potentially be bad."
Re:This could be bad (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This could be bad (Score:4, Funny)
You know... (Score:5, Interesting)
That and if this type thing is installed...what would prevent the govt. from programming no weapons to fire at THEM? I'm still holding on to a sliver of hope that a well armed citizenry is a slight barrier to a completely totalitarian govt. in the future...
peaceful protest always trumps armed "protest" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure some slaphappy mod will label me a troll, but if your side is valid, so is mine: all too often it is a "death thing", and it is people's inability to control themselves that results in inventions like "cryptog
Re:peaceful protest always trumps armed "protest" (Score:5, Insightful)
As for people controlling themselves... freedom is also the freedom to make mistakes. You punish the mistakes, but don't restrict people to supposedly "prevent" them. That doesn't work. You can't use the government to fix a social problem.
The civil rights movement did use guns, as did suffrage, just not by the general population. The threat of government force through police actions was an important factor. The *protesters* did not use guns, though.
Once the government is willing to use guns against the populace, the populace needs a way to defend itself. Protest won't work at that point. History will show the use of deadly government force as heinous, but that does not help when you are in the thick of it. Your two examples are examples nearing that breaking point. People were protesting, the government used force, and in one case the people rebelled, in the other there was a lot of legal action, and additional protest.
Re:peaceful protest always trumps armed "protest" (Score:3, Informative)
Some civil rights workers also carried guns when working in the South to fend off KKK attacks.
There was an incident in South (or North?) Carolina where black
Re:Please be honest: (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the whole point of having a gun. The fact that it exists, as a deterrent, generally reduces the need to actually shoot it. In areas where right-to-carry is present, violent crimes go down. In areas (or whole countries) where guns are banned, violent crimes go way up.
But in cases where the conceptual deterrent isn't really registering with some punk, the far, far more common defense is called "brandishing." Showing someone the gun and a willingness to use it generally defuses the situation. I have personally been in that situation with a completely drug-addled bruiser beating on our back door in the middle of the night. The cops were 15 minutes in arriving, but his willingness to continue to beat down the door ended when he saw the business end of a gun pointed at him.
And, I guess you don't get out past the shopping mall much, huh? Ever dealt with a poisonous snake cornered in a barn? A 160-pound wounded buck crashing around your back yard? A rabid raccoon threatening a domestic pet? A coyote stalking your neighborhood kids and animals? A mountain lion raiding a camp site? People use guns in self defense all the time - thousands and thousands of times a year, against people and critters. I have, more than once. Many people I know have. Your ignorance is showing.
Re:Please be honest: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you raise the barrier, the other guy will follow! Thats why the world "leaders" got nukes, when someone ups the ante you fold or follow. Thats why most homocides here in Denmark are done with knifes - we haven't raised the stakes to guns! If people started showing off guns homocides would increase, with knifes you can try to run and defuse the situation, with a gun you got big trouble.
Re:Please be honest: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? I'd like to see those statistics. I live in a country where most private gun ownership was banned ten years ago and I don't believe our crime rate has gone up. And look at the UK, where not even the regular police have guns. So I'm calling bullshit on your unsourced assertion.
Re:Please be honest: (Score:5, Interesting)
One (1977) - watching T.V. late at night when my German Shepard alerts on the back door. I see a small light and the outline of someone working the lock. I got my 12 gauge bolt-action shotgun, pointed it at the door, and cycled a 00 round. The screen door slammed and the would-be burglar bolted for the fence. My dog nearly caught him...so fast, I couldn't get a clear shot at the guy.
Two (1983) - Four (4!) crackheads started banging on the front door at 5:00 a.m. demanding a ride to someone's house. I answered the door with a Colt Python leveled at the closest asshole's head. Looked like the Olympic relay team leaving the yard.
Three (1985) - Driving in a remote part of Texas with the wife and newborn son. A guy at the isolated rest stop, who looks scary, starts moving towards us. His body language and facial expression just screamed BAD NEWS, so I pulled my carry weapon, a
BTW, I live in Oklahoma and we have a "Make My Day" law and citizens are allowed to carry and use a firearm. I don't know the current statistics, so I don't know if the crime rate has changed, up or down, since the law took effect. I suspect it's down, but really have no idea...just an impression. I do know that I almost certainly AVOIDED being a victim by virtue of being armed in the above situations.
Interestingly enough, I don't currently carry a firearm. I do carry an ASP police baton as it's non-lethal and I can drive to Texas or Kansas without getting hassled by the law for having a hand cannon in the truck.
No, I don't belong to the N.R.A. or anything. Just raised on a farm and trained to hunt and use firearms correctly from about age 6 on. I'm also a VietNam vet and did qualify as a Marksman. Basically, a gun is a tool, not a religious experience.
Re:Please be honest: (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you actually even think about what you're saying, or connect your response in any way to what you're reading? Just because I've cited circumstances in which lethal force, or the reserved option to use it, makes sense doesn't mean that every encounter with anything unpleasant is best dealt with that way.
Pre-emption would mean that if I see someone on the street that I'm pretty sure is going to try to break down my door in the middle of the night, that I do something about him before he acts. But I don't have that luxury, or generally the ability to even draw that conclusion. So, how is it "pre-emptive" to react to someone or something that is actually, literally, right that moment, being a threat? That's the opposite of pre-emption, and being hesitant under those circumstances frequently results in later regret. I've hesitated to deal with a diseased-looking feral cat, thinking that nature would just run its course... only to have it attack and infect a pet (also nature running its course, but if you're going to disrupt nature by doing things like domesticating animals in the first place, you've got a certain obligation to step in).
Basically, you're an immoral person
Really! So, how does putting a rabid animal out of its misery and thus preventing the likely (and horrid) death of other animals qualify as "immoral?" How does stopping a person who is, quite literally, terrifying your family in the middle of the night qualify as immoral? It's moral if I pay someone else to do it (say, the police), but it's immoral if I do it myself, with the urgent threat actually unfolding and about to escalate to actual injuries before the police could possibly arrive to help? Better to explain to your injured family that you were just doing the moral thing? These aren't hypotheticals, this is actual person experience. That you're so anxious to grind your witless anti-American axe in this way - especially given the context - says plenty about how distorted your view is.
Re:Please be honest: (Score:3, Informative)
If by "no," you mean "yes," then you're correct! Crime per capita has nothing to do with it. It's the change in crime per capita and the nature of that crime before/after gun bans (or liberalization in ownership) that we're talking about.
One year after a sweeping ban/confiscation program in Australia, they had these charming results:
Imagine the possibilities... (Score:5, Funny)
Coming Soon!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Guns don't kill people... (Score:5, Funny)
...but hackers who hack bullets do!
An extension to that idea.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Just Gun Control with Encryption! (Score:4, Insightful)
Here are the only ways I am ever going to use this, if the police and the bad guys do it first. As soon as the police and criminals sign up for Gun Control, I will.
Did the receptor of the bullet (Score:5, Funny)
Get Tough on Crime (Score:5, Funny)
Sort of misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Chris Rock is happy (Score:5, Funny)
Are you sure? (Score:5, Funny)
With a larger screen and maybe a soundcard, it could popup a paperclip asking "I think you're trying to kill someone, would you like some help?"
Re:Are you sure? (Score:3, Funny)
MS should get on that. People would really start to love Clippy if he could lay down suppressing fire.
There's a better way... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Handle every gun as though it were loaded, even if you KNOW it's not.
2. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction - down range, at your target, or down into the ground.
3. Always keep the safety "on" until you are ready to shoot.
4. Don't shoot at anything unless you intend it to die.
5. Don't store guns loaded.
6. Teach your children respect for guns and what they can do.
I really think that rule 6 is the most important. I'm not saying following these rules would cure all accidental discharges, but it sure wouldn't increase the number of tragic accidents that occur.
In complete agreement (Score:4, Interesting)
By FAR the most important thing you can do.
A friend of mine who is a gunsmith made a habit of taking his children to shoot as soon as they were old enough (around 5). Not so they could actually shot all the time, but to demystify the weapons.
He would show them the gun, disassemble it, reassemble it, allow them to handle it, and then have them shoot it. Generally, they were scared to death of the weapon, the recoil, the noise, etc. and they respected the gun - they knew what it did, they knew it was dangerous, and they did not want to mess with it until they were much older when they wanted to take up shooting themselves (although he thought it was a bit funny when his 14 year old daughter - who's not the type you'd expect to like shooting - actually became a better markswoman than him).
Too many parents hide the weapon and never let children handle it - it's forbidden, and once they get a hand on it the first thing they want to do is use it like they do in all the video games and movies, often with dreadful results, especially if the owner has left the weapon loaded.
I'm not a fan of the NRA, but (Score:5, Insightful)
"Gun safety" is fine, but how long would it be until the U.S. government started requiring this in all firearms? And, of course, they would have all the encryption keys. And, of course, they would know how to JAM the signals.
A lot of the reason we have a "right to bear arms" is so that we can fight the tyranny of our OWN government, if we need to. This technology would allow us to maintain that right, but make it completely ineffectual.
Re:I'm not a fan of the NRA, but (Score:4, Insightful)
How? I'd hazard the guess that you'd be labled a terrorist and prosecuted.
Re:I'm not a fan of the NRA, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I do not support the Iraqi resistance/terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever nor do I support a violent or armed overthrow of the US government. Every 2-4 years we get our chance for a peaceful revolution, and this system has worked more or less ok for roughly 230 years.
A dangerous breach of the KISS principle (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, safety is an issue, but 9 out of 10 accidents happen with people who don't know JACK about handling guns or are in no shape or condition to handle one. Does it happen to expert weaponsmiths who handle them on a daily base? To people who spend more time at the shooting range than at home?
It happens to people who do not know how to safety handle a gun.
If you want to "secure" guns, make it a law that you have to store them in a safe place, out of the reach of kids and people unable to handle them properly. But a device like that is ridiculous at best, dangerous at worst.
So the bullet ignites if it gets the right signal. Can we forsee some "pranksters" running around trying to figure out the frequency on cop guns? What are we gonna call it, warblowing? Imagine a firefight where the cop suddenly gets "shot" with high-freqency radio signals from the geek he's fighting, pretty much blowing his gun up in his hand. Would work, the bullets are "hot", after all he planned to use them.
There are a lot of dangerous loopholes that could be easily abused by criminals (and law enforcement) alike. If you want to increase gun security, teach people how to handle them properly instead of trying to keep them out of their hands!
Another example of "why security by obscurity is a failed design".
Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Modern guns, themselves, are not inherently unsafe. Guns do not spontaneously jump up and shoot people. Guns only discharge when the trigger is pulled; while this can occur unintentionally, e.g., due to a dog stepping on the trigger of a loaded, unsafed gun left laying on the ground (don't laugh, this does happen!), almost 100% of such incidents are due to NEGLIGENCE.
Nearly all incidents of unintended or illegal shootings are due to negligence, lack of training and practice, or intentional criminal activity. Negligence includes such actions as: allowing unauthorized access to a weapon by a minor, pointing a weapon at something other than a target or a safe downrange area, and placing one's finger on the trigger when the weapon is not pointed in a safe direction. Lack of training and practice leads to negligence; there are numerous incidents of police officers, who, in principle, should be some of the best-trained firearms handlers among us, who have shot themselves in the foot or leg while handling their own weapons.
At the end of the day, it is the person, the gun owner, who is responsible for safety. When a gun discharges, it is because of someone's actions; full stop. It's not the gun's fault and it's not the manufacturer's fault.
We also must remember that the purpose of most weapons -- handguns, assault rifles, tactical shotguns, etc. -- is for defensive or offensive use against other humans. Put more simply: they're designed to stop human adversaries, by injury or death. In principle, their use, particularly by civilians, should be very infrequent. I am a relatively highly-trained defensive shooter; I believe that I am capable of defending myself, my family, and my home, should the need arise. But I hope and pray that I never need to do so. I think that most police will tell you that they hope to have to shoot a suspect, but that they are trained and prepared to do so to protect others or themselves.
If and when, however, the time comes that a weapon is needed, one must be supremely confident in the reliability of the weapon. This means that simpler is necessarily better. When you pull the trigger, you want to hear "BANG", not "click" or "beep". You don't want to have to fiddle with magic decoder rings, tiny keys, batteries and secret codes, etc. in the dark, under pressure, with your child screaming in the background. And a cop can't be worrying about passwords and encrypted ammunition in the heat of a pursuit. He must know that his weapon will fire when he pulls the trigger -- he's betting his life on it.
The technology described in this article is just another way to make owning firearms more difficult and more expensive. Criminals, by definition, have no regard for laws. You can make all guns illegal and the bad guys will still find a way to arm themselves. Look at Chicago or Washington, DC for prime examples. Those of you in Austraila and Britian have seen a rise in violent crime, including home invasions and broad-daylight robberies, since you banned guns.
The technological achievement expressed in this article is impressive. I'm happy that people are exploring the uses of modern computer and cryptographic techniques. But be skeptical and wary as well... Your rights are at stake here.
Rapists Love Trigger Locks (Score:3, Interesting)
-Peter
Reminton ExtroniX was similar (Score:3, Interesting)
It was a huge flop.
The ammo was easily three times as expensive as traditional ammo and the guns were no more accurate than their traditional counterparts. The system merely added complexity (and a battery that, of course, would fail at the least opportune time) and cost without any significant improvement. In theory the system offers an improvement, but in practice the difference hasn't been noticeable.
Contrary to some of the highly-modded posts above, the system charges the base of the shell that's in the chamber. It takes enough energy that it's impractical to try to set off the ammo remotely. (Think of a weak taser being applied to the base of the shell casing and you get the idea of how much energy is needed to activate the primer.)
The only problem with this idea, aside from its sheer impracticality, is that HCI and its ilk will now start telling the UN and governments that they *must* adopt this system since it'll prevent all sorts of bad behaviors. Hogwash!
Nice idea, but what about the bugs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, what's that? Their firearms are already safe? Oh, well then if our existing firearms are already good enough for the police and military then it must be good enough for me!
Re:Guns. (Score:3, Insightful)
Except after outlawing them, Gun violence went up dramatically in the UK. See, the thing y'all haven't figured out is, criminals-- you know, the ones we want protection from-- thy don't follow the law. All the UK has done is make the innocent people defenseless.
Generally, in areas with more guns, there is less crime.
Re:Guns. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Guns. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Guns. (Score:3, Informative)
And what makes you think it's almost impossible to buy a gun in NYC? If you have no criminal record you can have a permit after waiting the required time. Then go shopping. I know people who have legal firearms in this city.
Ban objects! People are fine. (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting up your dukes isn't very helpful against knives, or cricket bats, or just someone who is a lot larger or more drunk than you are.
Ever occurred to you that perhaps it's cultural? I suppose someone in your neck of the woods has decided so - I mean, if your folks can't manage to just go watch a sporting event without assaulting one another [blackpooltoday.co.uk], then I suppose it makes sense that your medical community thinks that the only cure for violence is to ban objects, rather than holding people truly responsible for their actions. You know, we can't have Brits owning kitchen knives [bbc.co.uk], now, can we? After all, the only way to prevent someone from being stabbed is to ban them entirely, right?
Re:Guns. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me tell you a little story currently taking place in the US...
A few years ago, Boston all-but-banned guns
Law enforcement first!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry. A gun is a tool. Just like any other tool. If I hit you with a bat it doesn't mean bats need to be taxed more.
Re:sounds good (Score:4, Insightful)
Bull. That is like saying everyone who drives is responsible for drunk drivers killing people, or that the library is responsible for weapons of mass destruction because they have chemistry books. A gun is a TOOL. Like every tool it has valid uses and invalid ones.
As for your comment about a culture of violence, get a grip and check out the REAL world. Violence will not disappear if private citizens lose their guns. The Hutus were very effective using machetes. The Nazis and the Soviets both killed millions. Violence is a fact of life. You can not wish it away. If your response when threatened with violence is cowering, then you are cattle and will be treated as such.
Re:i can see it now (Score:4, Funny)
Would you like me to:
Fire a bullet
Order more bullets
Call 911
Suggest better body parts to shoot?
[]Don't show me this tip again"
Hmm..you know, it actually might cut down on gun crime afterall...