No Chip in Arm, No Shot From Gun

AP via Wired News ^ | Wednesday, April 14, 2004 | Associated Press

[Momaw Nadon]

PALM BEACH, Florida -- A new computer chip promises to keep police guns from firing if they fall into the wrong hands.

The tiny chip would be implanted in a police officer's hand and would match up with a scanning device inside a handgun. If the officer and gun match, a digital signal unlocks the trigger so it can be fired. But if a child or criminal would get hold of the gun, it would be useless.

[Euro-American Scum]

No Chip in Arm, No Shot From Gun

From my cold, dead hands! Got it?

[Momaw Nadon]

Chip reader installation will likely run $250 - $500, depending upon the firearm.

Quick 'n Easy Chip removal kit: $19.95

[mlmr]

UMMM how big a magnet would it take to stop the nice police officer from shooting his big bad gun?

[Libertina]

NO "chip" in arm is right! NEVER!

[templar]

ut if the bad guys get the gun home, how long would it take for them to crack the digital signature by running all of the combinations and then build their own transmitter capable of firing the gun.

As long as the guns use a conventional cartridge, it still takes a mechanical linkage to set the primer off. The chip controlled thingy is (or will be) probably just some type of electric trigger lock or engagement piece. Just take the locking device out or permanently engage the linkage and you have a regular gun. No need to have the brainpower to crack a code and make a transmitter.

[230FMJ]

And how long will it take the Lefties to legislate the confiscation of all "Dumb" weapons? I don't like the looks of this crap!

[TC Rider]

But if the bad guys get the gun home, how long would it take for them to crack the digital signature by running all of the combinations and then build their own transmitter capable of firing the gun.

You're way overthinking this. They'll chop off the cops hand and dig the chip out later.

[fso301]

what a crock of BS!

What happens if the users hand with the implant is unuseable?

[dpa5923]

Silly rabbit. Regardless of what the stories says, chips are for sheep, not the police.

New Jersey will be first, then New York and California. It will be a cold day in hell before I get a chip or undergo a required modification of my weapons.

[Ichneumon]

You're way overthinking this. They'll chop off the cops hand and dig the chip out later.

Lends a whole new meaning to the "cold dead hands" slogan.

[MainFrame65]

A chip reader at the door of every criminal enterprise would identify every cop, every time he walked in. This is beyond ignorant, and equally far beyond stupid. It is willful wrongdoing, and would be criminal if not for the special immunity given to gun-grabbers.

[Monty22]

Like the AWB, I fully expect law enforcement to be (in violation of the 14th) to be exempt.

Nothing more needs to be said.

[ApplegateRanch]

"We're at an interesting age where all sorts of science fiction is becoming real technology,"

And why would I believe these people have read enough science fiction dealing with this, to avoid the pitfalls?

If they have, it would be the first time a new technology didn't live down to the problems pointed out a decade or two previously by the better science fiction authors.

[Still Thinking]

Even if the electronic portion of the system is unbreakable (unlikely), it has to disable the gun through mechanical means, which can be removed.

[Ichneumon]

The National Rifle Association opposes the legislation because of potential problems with smart-gun technology, but gun safety advocates argue that the technology could encourage gun ownership with the newfound sense of security.

What, you mean the NRA itself is not a "gun safety advocate"?

Actually, what's funny about this is that the group that the reporter obliquely refers to as "gun safety advocates" is Josh Sugarmann's "Violence Policy Center" (VPC), a virulently anti-gun group that makes HCI (or whatever they call themselves these days) look tame.

The VPC's official position on "smart guns" is that they're agains them, because anything that might make people feel less paranoid about having a gun in the house could lead to an increase in gun ownership, which the VPC considers unacceptable. As they say on their website page on the topic of "smart guns":

Even more significant, making smart guns available would increase the chances of selling guns to Americans who currently do not own them. A March 1997 survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center and the Johns Hopkins Center on Gun Policy and Research found that, of respondents who were "unlikely to buy a gun in the future," 35 percent would "consider buying a handgun that would only fire for the owner of the gun." Packaged with a strong sales pitch, the technology could penetrate new markets for the gun industry, putting more families at risk from guns that they wrongly believe are "safe" or "smart."

[...]

In general, however, the smart gun falls far short of the sweeping benefits its proponents claim. Any benefits would likely be outweighed by an increase in gun-owning households. Overstating the value of personalized guns will ultimately result in public cynicism regarding policy efforts to reduce gun death and injury, and delay the implementation of truly effective solutions.

And one guess what the VPC might consider "truly effective solutions".

[Ichneumon]

Just take the locking device out or permanently engage the linkage and you have a regular gun. No need to have the brainpower to crack a code and make a transmitter.

Even easier: Obviously there will have to be a "gun reprogramming device" which assigns ID chip numbers to specific guns, so as to "match" an issued firearm with the "authorized" user. This device will have to be employed every time a new "smart" gun is sold, or assigned to a different officer, or changes hands due to a sale, etc.

So how long do you think before one of these devices ends up in the hands of an unscrupulous someone who will happily "reassign" any gun to a new owner for a few bucks, no questions asked? All it takes is a crooked police officer to make sure that the device "goes missing" (or do the reassignments himself for extra cash), or someone to steal one, or anything less than an ironclad authentication system from the manufacturer (i.e. someone with a fake police ID might be able to order one through the mail, etc.). And if this technology wasn't just "cop only", every FFL in the country would probably have one -- not all of whom are honest.

And then there's the issue of computer hackers "cloning" the technology and then cranking out illicit copies by the hundred.

It wouldn't take long before there would be a willing "gun reassigner" for a small fee for any criminal who had a freshly stolen gun he wanted to make use of.

[Ichneumon]

As they say on their website page on the topic of "smart guns":

Oops! Wrong link. Here's the correct link.

[Indie]

PROBLEMS:

1. Never trust a computer chip with lives.
2. Assumption of guilt at trial just because the gun had a chip in it that "supposedly" would not allow it to be fired by anyone but you>>?? I don't think so. This is another attempt at pseudo-registration disguised as a "safety" measure.
3. Never trust a computer chip with your own life.
4. See number 2 above. This is a potential money maker for lawyers. Especially if the chip "malfunctions" and someone is killed [sue themanufacturer]. I've come to believe most law is NOT made with altruistic intentions...especially since most in congresses are lawyers [wolves guarding the hen house]

When will people ever learn that law does not and can not take the place of responsibility, nor can it stop accidents, nor can it "protect" us from things. It can, however, guarantee a steady income stream for the legal profession.
If you are smart, you won't buy a gun with this device.

Ex-LEO here FYI.

/rant over

[Smokin' Joe]

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence=Brady Center to outlaw firearms.

Meanwhile, in Rwanda, 500,000 people were slaughtered with 'dumb' machetes....

[Geritol]

Does anyone have any idea how often a policeman's gun is used by some citizen to carry on the job of serving and protecting after it leaves the policeman's possession?

This could be good or bad depending on perspective. Let us assume for argument's sake that a policeman and a few people (s)he is protecting are pinned down by some forces of evil. The policeman has the only gun. He is incapacitated. The next most able body picks up the gun to continue protecting lives. The gun will not fire because the wielder does not have the right chip...

Or Joe citizen is walking down the street when officer Friendly is gunned down in front of him, the officer's now useless pistol spinning to Joe's feet. If he picks it up he is now a target. Without it he or others may die anyway...

Does anyone have any idea how to find statistics on how often Joe citizen saves the day with an officer's gun? I know this has happened, I am just not sure how often compared to officers losing a gun to the opposition.