Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, I am not objecting to your mention because I am irrationally clinging to guns, but because I have enough knowledge about guns and computer systems to know that your solution will not work. A gun is mechanical, it isn't simply a housing with a circuit board where you can implant a security access chip in it to nullify its action (which even then it can often be bypassed if you know enough about circuits and programming). So, any system that is designed for it will be very difficult to keep people from simply bypassing it.
The only way to greatly reduce someone being able to bypass such devices is to remove their access to the device. This is what I explained in a previous post why IT departments keep their devices under extreme security. If you have access to the physical device, you own it and I don't care how well you build the system, it will be cracked.
So, while your intentions are good, the fact remains that it won't work and all it will do is waste money and resources on a solution that will end up placing burden on legal gun owners. Crime will still continue, children will still be massacred, people will still die. It won't work.
I assure you I know as much or more about computers and EE as you do, and what I advocate is entirely possible. While the results will not be absolute they will be significant. And, there are great minds out there as well that will come up with even more ingenious designs than present technology offers if money is to be made in the process. We don't say "can't" in the country I grew up in. Think outside the box as they say. There is little we can do with the human brain, but we sure as hell can change how guns work. Primers could be ignited with lasers, for example. Triggers could respond to pressure or positions sensors. With your mentality, you would still be using a muzzle loader.
Last edited by Ponderosa; 12-20-2012 at 09:44 AM..
I assure you I know as much or more about computers and EE as you do, and what I advocate is entirely possible. While the results will not be absolute they will be significant. And, there are great minds out there as well that will come up with even more ingenious designs than present technology offers if money is to be made in the process. We don't say "can't" in the country I grew up in. Think outside the box as they say. There is little we can do with the human brain, but we sure as hell can change how guns work. Primers could be ignited with lasers, for example. Triggers could respond to pressure or positions sensors. With your mentality, you would still be using a muzzle loader.
Interesting that you can make such a statement without even knowing me. I also find it interesting because your claim is actually counter to known security practices and principals. Considering your quick response to claim authority of knowledge over someone you don't know, excuse me if I take your claim of authority with a grain of salt.
As for your mentions of solutions, keep in mind all those are parts and since a gun is primarily a mechanical device, it can be replaced. Like I said, when someone has access to a physical device, they are in control of it and while your solutions might be effective to the average layman, for the experienced it will be a minor speed bump.
A market will open up for conversions and bypasses that will be as common as the many other conversions we see for weapon modifications.
I am all for advancing technology, but there is a difference between practical and naive. We have had years of both increased gun technology as well as computer technology. The ability to achieve what you desire is more than possible, but I do not argue the ability to make a firearm to the specifications you mention, rather the reality that you think it will be effective or possible to keep people from bypassing it.
Tell you what. You go out and get the investors to fund your plan. You create such a weapon and then you let the gun/computer experts out there put your invention to the test in terms of being able to bypass its intended goal.
I assume you do not have such a weapon as if you did,, we wouldn't be discussing this and you would be marketing it right now. What is more likely is that you have a naive view concerning the technologies and their implementations and you "believe" that we could "achieve" such, just like those who "believe" we can change our infrastructure to wind/solar, but keep dodging the practical realities concerning them.
Get back to us when you have created this product and achieved your security goals through extensive testing. Until then, excuse me if I don't accept your claims with any real value.
Only if it works in all conditions, a recognized fingerprint has to be recognized in all conditions, of the reader and of the fingerprint, in all environments, or its not going to work, as wutitiz states, if the police or military are prepared to use it in all conditions then it should be good enough for me to use it, but there cannot be compulsory retrofitting, so it's limited anyway (it's that pesky constitution getting in the way again). However being electronic, it's unlikely to be as effective as people think, it's going to be hacked in a month at the outside, however there won't be any announcement made for around a year to 18 months if things go as they usually do, so that would be 18 months of firearms sold that people believe are tied to a few users (which means that they'll forget or ignore physical security), that in fact are wide open to anyone with some know how, and the people you do not want to get them are exactly the people who will have the know how.
For a real world example of how people adapt to safety systems, look at ABS Braking Systems and the effect they have on drivers, if a driver is used to non-ABS systems for the first month or so they gradually brake harder and later until they begin hitting the ABS point, then they'll back off slightly, however it's often not as safe a braking technique as they were doing without ABS in a non-ABS vehicle. The same principle will apply to this, people feel security devices add safety, which they can when used properly and not relied upon but human nature is human nature, the ultimate safety device is and always will be between the ears whether that's brake pressure and distance, or guns.
Two things. 1. Hotel Door Locks are a fantatsic real-world example of this--even better than ABS systems, because 2. I don't understand your gripe here with ABS? Can you espouse on that for me a bit? Why is this adaption to ABS a problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
One problem I see is gloves. Anyway, here is a better idea: proximity sensors. This is the same technology as used in cell phones and stores. The gun detects a transmitter and only then enables. The transmitters could be embedded in the owners arm or head or something (I suspect a number of males would want their member chipped for their weapon and that would be fine. The downside is that if someone takes your weapon they would have to take your gun too.)
The transmitter won't work either. Not only can it be jammed, but it can also be read and exploited trivially. People have high-gain antennas that can pick up RFID tags and those are passive devices. I don't see RFID using public-key cryptography anytime soon.
And again, being electronics, it's trivial to hack these things. Someone steals the gun, looks up instructions, and at worst is able to reset the settings to manufacturer defaults, basically giving the thief unfettered access to the gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
And I agree and don't think that is the correct approach to begin with. That is why I am a proponent of using electronic means to control the use of firearms. We have the technology. Is is perfect? No. Will some of the bad guys figure a way around it? Of course. But immobilizer tech in vehicles has dramatically reduced car theft in late model cars. Today's cars don't even have steering wheel locks and the push button to start feature is back - no key at all! If we can get even a fraction of that success in the case of guns, we will save many lives over time. And it sure beats trying to confiscate 300 million guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Look, I am not objecting to your mention because I am irrationally clinging to guns, but because I have enough knowledge about guns and computer systems to know that your solution will not work. A gun is mechanical, it isn't simply a housing with a circuit board where you can implant a security access chip in it to nullify its action (which even then it can often be bypassed if you know enough about circuits and programming). So, any system that is designed for it will be very difficult to keep people from simply bypassing it.
The only way to greatly reduce someone being able to bypass such devices is to remove their access to the device. This is what I explained in a previous post why IT departments keep their devices under extreme security. If you have access to the physical device, you own it and I don't care how well you build the system, it will be cracked.
So, while your intentions are good, the fact remains that it won't work and all it will do is waste money and resources on a solution that will end up placing burden on legal gun owners. Crime will still continue, children will still be massacred, people will still die. It won't work.
You strike perhaps the most important note here--electronic devices are only as good as their physical security. Break open a case to the circuit board and reprogram the chip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
I assure you I know as much or more about computers and EE as you do, and what I advocate is entirely possible. While the results will not be absolute they will be significant. And, there are great minds out there as well that will come up with even more ingenious designs than present technology offers if money is to be made in the process. We don't say "can't" in the country I grew up in. Think outside the box as they say. There is little we can do with the human brain, but we sure as hell can change how guns work. Primers could be ignited with lasers, for example. Triggers could respond to pressure or positions sensors. With your mentality, you would still be using a muzzle loader.
Firearms are specifically designed for simplicity, which is why they're still mechanical. You don't want to be debugging your GLOCK in the middle of a firefight. The HK G11 used electronically ignited caseless ammunition to fire (and it was damn fast at it), so it's certainly possible to digitize a gun--but I wouldn't want to. I'd only allow this kind of technology on my range guns, never on anything I carried or used for self defense. Keeping those as simple and reliable as possible is important--and I'd trust a mechanical mechanism for reliability over an electronic one.
You strike perhaps the most important note here--electronic devices are only as good as their physical security. Break open a case to the circuit board and reprogram the chip.
Yep, it is the first and foremost rule of security practices. If I have access to the device, I own it. Sure, we can quibble over the time and effort that would be required to find a solution, but make no mistake, one will be found. We change our security technologies frequently because of this. Build a better trap, and along comes a smarter mouse.
I was not trying to imply to the poster that we should simply give up because crime will always happen, but we need to be relevant as well as realistic when it concerns the cause and occurrence of crime. Most of the people pushing for gun control aren't being relevant or realistic in their focus and solutions.
Look, I am not objecting to your mention because I am irrationally clinging to guns, but because I have enough knowledge about guns and computer systems to know that your solution will not work. A gun is mechanical, it isn't simply a housing with a circuit board where you can implant a security access chip in it to nullify its action (which even then it can often be bypassed if you know enough about circuits and programming). So, any system that is designed for it will be very difficult to keep people from simply bypassing it.
The only way to greatly reduce someone being able to bypass such devices is to remove their access to the device. This is what I explained in a previous post why IT departments keep their devices under extreme security. If you have access to the physical device, you own it and I don't care how well you build the system, it will be cracked.
So, while your intentions are good, the fact remains that it won't work and all it will do is waste money and resources on a solution that will end up placing burden on legal gun owners. Crime will still continue, children will still be massacred, people will still die. It won't work.
Okay fine. What if we eliminate the electrical security of the gun and strictly use mechanical means to ensure only the registered owner can shoot it: http://www.smartlock.com/smartgun_detail.htm
No battery required. More reliable. It requires wearing a magnetic ring on your finger. Is that really too much to ask to save up to 30,000 lives a year? It only costs $95 and can be installed on current guns.
It still eliminates your kids getting ahold of your guns and accidentally shooting themselves or their friends. It still keeps thieves from being able to use your own gun against you... in fact it eliminates their motive to even rob you of your guns at all. If the shooter's mom was the only one wearing the ring on her finger, Adam Lanza would have been able to use her guns to kill 26 people.
It requires wearing a magnetic ring on your finger. Is that really too much to ask? It only costs $95 and can be installed on current guns.
It still elinimates your kids getting ahold of your guns and accidentally shooting themselves or their friends. It still keeps thieves from being able to use your own gun against you... in fact it eliminates their motive to even rob you of your guns at all. If the shooter's mom was the only one wearing the ring on her finger, Adam Lanza would have been able to use her guns to kill 26 people.
You might reduce the risk to children shooting themselves, but that's still a tremendously small number of deaths. And it doesn't prevent the thief from using your gun either. The only thing it does is stop someone from taking your gun and shooting you with it. A thief could just buy or manufacture his own magnetic ring to make it work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Rossi
What are the other two words?
I think it was meta humor. Three words (including those two).
Pay particularly close attention to the last word (infringed). In other places, it is a far less restrictive abridged, but for the RKBA, the highly protective language of "infringed" is used indicating that even the very edges of this right are NOT to be trampled upon by DemocRATS, statists, *******s,
Pro(Reg)ressives
You might reduce the risk to children shooting themselves, but that's still a tremendously small number of deaths. And it doesn't prevent the thief from using your gun either. The only thing it does is stop someone from taking your gun and shooting you with it. A thief could just buy or manufacture his own magnetic ring to make it work.
I think it was meta humor. Three words (including those two).
I think some people don't know the difference between syllables and words.
Firearms are specifically designed for simplicity, which is why they're still mechanical. You don't want to be debugging your GLOCK in the middle of a firefight. The HK G11 used electronically ignited caseless ammunition to fire (and it was damn fast at it), so it's certainly possible to digitize a gun--but I wouldn't want to. I'd only allow this kind of technology on my range guns, never on anything I carried or used for self defense. Keeping those as simple and reliable as possible is important--and I'd trust a mechanical mechanism for reliability over an electronic one.
Yes, it is hard to argue against guy with a screwdriver and a carburated engine. But when they started choking us, polluting our skies and burning through resources too quickly, we found another way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
