You can't use my gun. No, literally, you can't.

[Merkuri]

[From Wired News: www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63066,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_5 (See original article for more links)]

No Chip in Arm, No Shot From Gun
Associated Press
03:41 PM Apr. 14, 2004 PT

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.

The technology is the latest attempt to create a so-called "smart gun" and could be marketed to law enforcement agencies within a year, according to Verichip, which has created the microchip.

Verichip president Keith Bolton said the technology could also improve safety for the military and individual gun owners.

"If you let your mind wander to other potential uses, you can imagine the lives that could be saved," he said.

Verichip, which has marketed similar microchips for security and medical purposes, announced Tuesday a partnership with gun maker FN Manufacturing to produce the smart weapons. The companies have developed a prototype and are working to refine its accuracy, Bolton said.

Similar developments are under way at other gun manufacturers and research firms. The New Jersey Institute of Technology and Australian gun maker Metal Storm Ltd. are working on a prototype smart gun that would recognize its owner's individual grip.

"We're at an interesting age where all sorts of science fiction is becoming real technology," said Donald Sebastian, NJIT vice president for research and development and director of the project.

The technology could also eventually have an even bigger impact on the illegal gun trade, Sebastian said.

The FBI estimated that 67 percent of the 16,204 murders in 2002 were committed with firearms.

"You have a long-term benefit of making it much more difficult for a handgun to have any value to anyone other than the original owner," Sebastian said.

But until the smart-gun technology is repeatedly proved to be reliable, some law enforcement authorities remain leery.

The scanning device could malfunction, the officer's hand with the computer chip could be smashed during a fight or an officer might need to use a partner's gun, West Palm Beach police training Sgt. William Sandman said.

"We have power outages, computers crash. Would you risk your life knowing all those things that could go wrong?" Sandman said.

Verichip's Bolton said those concerns already are being addressed. He said the guns can be designed to work for an officer, his partner and a supervisor. Departments could set routines where the scanning devices in guns could be checked before every shift.

The chip needs no battery or power source. It works much like those that have been implanted in pets over the past decade so they can be identified if they get lost. Verichip, a subsidiary of Applied Digital Solutions, developed a "more intelligent" version two years ago for humans and estimates that about 900 people worldwide have been implanted with them.

The chips can be used instead of security key cards at office buildings or to use global positioning satellites to keep track of a relative who might suffer from Alzheimer's. It can store medical information that emergency rooms could read or financial and identification information to prevent fraud.

The chip, about the size of a grain of rice, is inserted into an arm or hand with a syringe, much like a shot is given.

Bolton said the company has seen no medical complications and that the technology will only improve with time.

Once the technology is accepted, legislation could follow to encourage the use of smart guns. New Jersey already has passed legislation that will require smart-gun technology on all handguns sold -- three years after the state attorney general certifies that smart guns are available in the marketplace.

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.

"It seems that guns are the only product that haven't followed a path of development that leads to greater safety for the user. The only real change we've seen is to make them more lethal and smaller so they can be more easily concealed," said Rob Wilcox, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "This is one of the steps that hasn't been taken, and we think this debate is one that needs to take place."

[Galadon]

Hmmmmmmm

[Loki3]

Colt nd Smith and Wesson allready have a device that has a matching chip in a ring, with billions of codes available. You dont have the ring you dont shoot the gun.

Good ideas..... I am not sure if Police and others would like the implant, but a ring device is a very god idea.

[Galadon]

Strange that Merkuri would bring this up.

[Merkuri]

What's wrong with me bringing this up?

[khyron1144]

This is a cool idea. Anything that might reduce gun violence is okay by me. I think the ideal solution would be total disaramament of everyone; no one should access to a gun, not even cops or soldiers.

You may say that I'm a dreamer I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one...


Back to the topic at hand:
This sounds like a cool idea. It feals rather futuristic, like something out of a cyberpuk type RPG or novel, but I guess we're living when the present starts to catch up to some possible futures.

[Merkuri]

I'm all for the idea, but I've discussed it with my father and he's dead against it. Some of his arguments are that he feels it's an assumption of guilt. You shouldn't have to have a chip implanted or have to wear a ring in order to give you permission to shoot a gun, he says. If we're implanting people, gun offenders should be implanted to prevent them from using a gun, rather than the other way around. He doesn't think he should be penalized (i.e. forced to change the way he uses a gun by having this implant) because of the stupidity of other folks who leave loaded guns around or who don't use trigger locks. To my argument of preventing a cop from having his gun used against him, my dad says, "How often does that happen?"

Like I said, I think this is a great idea. Anything that makes guns more idiot proof is a good thing in my book, because unlike the idiot who decides to cross the street without looking or the idiot who straps a bunch of weather balloons to a lawn chair to see how high he could fly (side note, yes this happened and he went up to about a thousand feet, I think), the idiot who misuses a gun not only puts his life in danger, but mine as well.

[EK - Shadow of Death]

I think I agree with your father on this, Merkuri. I believe that guns should have safeguards, but that it isn't the right of the government to regulate the rights of innocents. A suppressor chip could be implanted, say, at birth, and removed when you get your drivers' license at 16 (coincidentally, the same age a person is allowed to own a gun). Convicted felons or other deviants would have it implanted again, and you could just have large versions of the suppressors protecting government buildings or aircrafts, etc.

[agamoto]

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
A quote I heard some where that happens to be true.
I think a lot of polititions are disarming America so that if we colectively feal that the government has turned into a tyrany, we will be unable to stop it.
Gun laws don't stop criminals from buying and using illegal weapons, since they plan to commit a crime anyway what difference does it mak if they have an illegal weapon?


"I will give up my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers."

[Challenger]

True but if only outlaws have guns then its rather easy to spot an outlaw, making carrying said gun arround a little tricky.

I some how doubt your government fears an armed uprising in such a case. In the battle US Army vs US people my money is on the army.

One final point gun laws do stop criminals buying guns. Buying a gun over a counter is easy, buying one ilegaly is damn hard and risky to boot. You can't stop gangsters true, but you can stop the petty criminals who are more likely to shot someone by accident.

Personaly I still can't see why the hell anyone would want a gun in the house. In any situation I could see it being useful its also got a damn good chance of getting you killed. Between being robbed and being dead I think I'll keep my home insurance up to date.

Challenger

[Merkuri]

If I ever had a gun in my house (well, I guess technically I already do have some, but they're my dad's guns... and I still don't know where he hides them, nor do I really care), it would be as a deterrant. I'd probably never fire it. But if I did want to be able to fire it (and the ability to fire is the true deterrant... an obviously unloaded gun scares nobody), I'd like to be able to leave it in a state where I could just pick the thing up and have it immediately be a threat. If somebody's in your bedroom you don't want to have to sit there and load the gun, you just want to be able to pick it up and point it at the guy. But leaving a loaded gun around is idiotic for obvious reasons. Unless, of course, it was impossible for anyone to shoot the gun but you, and since you know where it is and that it's loaded you know to be careful with it. THIS is why I would want such a device. My dad seems to assume that you will always percieve danger in time to load the gun. I don't have that much faith in my perception, especially when you're talking about waking up to find somebody in your bedroom in the middle of the night. Of course, that doesn't happen very often, but if you assume that's never gonna happen then why do you need the gun in the first place?

I suppose I'm in favor of this as an option for your gun, not as something mandatory on all guns. If I were ever to buy a gun I'd probably want the one that would only shoot for me. You guys can get one of the "old fashioned" ones, but I'll stick with the extra safety measures for the same reason I bought the car with the anti-lock breaks and the side curtain airbags. You can never be too safe in my mind.

[Challenger]

The problem with the deterent idea is that if he has a gun and you pull a loaded gun on him chances are he's going to shot you. He could probably get away with shooting in self defence, a travisty of justice but I've seen similar happen.

Challenger

[Merkuri]

That's the reason I probably wouldn't use it, even if I had it. If a guy wants to rob me, the best way to get out alive is to let him take whatever he wants.

On the other hand, nowadays a guy breaking into my house may be just as likely there for ME rather than my posessions. This is not something you'd probably think about, Challenger, because men aren't often the target of rape. If I'm faced with a guy who wants to rape me then just letting him do it isn't the right way to get out of the situation unharmed. In that case, I'd probably rather have the gun. The problem is figuring out whether he's there for me or my money in time to decide whether drawing a gun on him is worth the risk.

These are the types of things I've had to think about lately now that it's getting close to the time when I'll be getting my own apartment. I've long been anti-gun (not that I want to take them away from people, you folks have the right if you want to bear arms, I just never wanted one for myself), but lately I've been wondering if it might be better to have one, simply to have it. I once heard somebody say that if you want a gun as a deterrant, buy a shotgun. Hearing that characteristic "cha-chuck" is usually enough to send an intruder packing, whether he even sees the gun or not.

[Challenger]

You've got a point there.

That sort of thing isn't exactly common this side of the pond. (Breaking in to rape the occupent I mean rather than rape itself) I would wonder if a knife would be a more suitable weapon in that instance.

The shotgun sounds like a good idea, my only reservation would be if an unarmed intruder finds a gun you've just armed him. Of cource that brings it back to original point of the keyed in weapons which would make that alot less likely.

I guess my opinions more based on a country where pulling a gun is a bad option for a criminal, discharging it very stupid and actualy hitting anyone suicidal. (Especialy if you hit a cop) Over here a dog is a better deterent than anything else.

Challenger

[Merkuri]

Challenger said:

That sort of thing isn't exactly common this side of the pond. (Breaking in to rape the occupent I mean rather than rape itself) I would wonder if a knife would be a more suitable weapon in that instance.

It's not super common over here either, but I expect it's more common in the US than in the UK. Here you hear of cases where a woman seen walking by herself is followed to her home and raped. And knives aren't always better weapons for the simple reason that it takes a lot more guts to use a knife than a gun, and most people know that. A gun allows you to have physical distance between you and your target/victim and that physical distance allows a sort of emotional distance that you don't have with a knife. A woman ten feet away pointing a gun at you is more threatening than a woman ten feet away with a knife because while she might not have the guts to actually dig the knife in it's entirely possible that she can summon up enough courage to pull the trigger. It takes less effort, emotionally and physically, to shoot a gun.

The shotgun sounds like a good idea, my only reservation would be if an unarmed intruder finds a gun you've just armed him.

As I said, the real deterrant to the shotgun is its sound. You don't even need to keep bullets in the house because it sounds the same whether it's loaded or not. Once the intruder has found the gun you've lost your advantage anyway, whether or not it's a usable weapon. If I did go that route I probably wouldn't buy any bullets, not ever planning to shoot the gun, just to cock it.