agamoto
Soldier
Greetings and salutations one and all!!
Posts: 239
|
Post by agamoto on Apr 16, 2004 15:15:00 GMT -5
What about hunters? A homemade musket or other barrel loaded firearm or flintlock is rather hard to put an electric key into. Not to mention the fact that other devices could be included in the chip, like tracking devices and tags. I for one would not like that done to me. The criminals yes, me NO!
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Apr 16, 2004 16:01:12 GMT -5
Hmm, that is a very good point. I guess my brain has become really fuzzy lately with all the stuff going on in RL or I would have noticed that sooner. Theoretically, these chips could be used to track a person the same way RFID tags in merchandice could, but the range of these chips is much much shorter. For example, you need to actually touch the gun for it to read the signal of the chip in your hand, that's how close the reader needs to be. BTW, these things are already being routinely being implanted in pets to aid in returning the animals home. You can't just walk out of your home with a scanner and find Fluffy, though. Somebody has to actually pick up your cat/dog/parrot and bring it to someplace that has a reader to get the information off of the chip. The very short range is what makes these things less threatening than commercial RFID chips because it's much much easier to avoid touching a reader for the chip in your hand than to aviod walking by a reader for the chip in your shirt. But yes, the privacy violation potential is still there. I think I was so attracted to the idea initially that I blocked out the possibility of something other than the gun peeking at your chip.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Apr 16, 2004 22:53:28 GMT -5
To my argument of preventing a cop from having his gun used against him, my dad says, "How often does that happen?" "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." Every illegal gun on the streets used to be a legal one bought for home protection or hunting that got stolen and sold on the black market. To me, that makes a compelling argument for total illegalization of guns. Of course, since I trust the pigs and the army less than I trust my fellow civilians, I think they should be the first ones disarmed.
|
|
Jemima
Peasant
The Lioness of Kor'Danil
Posts: 23
|
Post by Jemima on Apr 20, 2004 15:29:01 GMT -5
I feel so small and insignificant. I feel my country is small and insignificant. I've never even considered getting some kind of weapon to defend myself. What would it be anyway? Maze sprays are illegal as well. And you know what? our society is peaceful. Sure now and then someone does get killed... in traffic. Well actually sometimes someone does get shot, but it is so incredibly few when compared to the countries, where everyone has guns.
Oh and Merkuri, seeing as it's easier to pull a trigger than to stab someone. There's a risk that the highly shocked and slightly panicked woman holding the gun might shoot the intruder on his way out... Nope, I wouldn't want a gun - not even for this. If you wanna defend yourself against would-be rapists, learn Karate or Kung Fu. Killing ppl by accident because you wanted to pacify them is a lot less common in Karate than it is with guns.
I've seen many of these gun debates, but I have yet to understand why ppl NEED guns. Yes, I can easily understand why ppl WANT them, but why do ppl need them?
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Apr 20, 2004 15:31:59 GMT -5
Its American culture. People feel as if its their duty to be armed (its directly mentioned in our constitution that citizens have the right to own weapons or form militias). Its an antiquated tradition that was necessary in our colonial days, but is facing a good amount of domestic controversy these days.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Apr 20, 2004 15:58:54 GMT -5
For an interesting look about violence in America (including guns), go to your video store and rent "Bowling for Columbine" by Michael Moor. An excelent movie that every American (or people who want to understand Americans a little better) should see.
America is a very violent country with a very violent past. People feel like they need guns to be safe. My dad is a case in point. I don't really feel like I need one, at least, I didn't until I started thinking about living all by myself, and now I'm not sure anymore. Maybe if I lived in Europe or even Canada I'd feel safer.
I do agree with you, Jemima, that there are other methods of self-defense other than owning a gun. I acually took karate lessons for four years (though I've been another four years out of it and have gotten extremely rusty). But my father (who is by and large the source of my paranoia, which I suppose I can understand because I'm still his little girl) keeps telling me that no matter how much karate I know I won't be able to overpower some crazed guy who's intent on raping me (I'm 5'0, and not incredibly strong). On the other hand, I've successfully thrown guys who weigh twice as much as me and can hold my own in a sparring match with one of them, but those are controlled conditions and I am incredibly rusty at the moment.
I'm still conflicted on the matter, but I probably will never get a gun. I'm not sure I'd have the guts to fire at anybody anyway, being too scared to kill somebody, even if they're trying to rape/kill me. And the chances of me being raped are incredibly slim, even in America. I remember reading somewhere that most rapes victims knew their attackers, and in that case a gun probably wouldn't help me anyway. I'll just stick with my mace/pepper spray (it's legal here... I think... I know it was legal in the state where I bought it). Never had to use it, but it did make me feel safer the one night I had to walk through a city at midnight by myself and the time I had to wait in a dark parking lot for my father who was stuck in traffic.
|
|
agamoto
Soldier
Greetings and salutations one and all!!
Posts: 239
|
Post by agamoto on Apr 21, 2004 9:33:20 GMT -5
Guns dont kill people, people kill people. With proper firearm education kids will know that that rifle in the gun cabinate is not a toy, and the lady protecting her self will be comfortable enough with that colt 45 longbarrel to not accedentl pull the trigger. I don't think we NEED guns, but I do believe we have the right to have them, I for one will not go back to bows and arrows for hunting. If it weren't for gravity I couldn't hit the ground with one of them.
|
|
agamoto
Soldier
Greetings and salutations one and all!!
Posts: 239
|
Post by agamoto on Apr 21, 2004 9:42:04 GMT -5
Oh I almost forgot, Merkuri's response to my post.
" Theoretically, these chips could be used to track a person the same way RFID tags in merchandice could, but the range of these chips is much much shorter. For example, you need to actually touch the gun for it to read the signal of the chip in your hand, that's how close the reader needs to be."
How do we know that that is what they are implanting. They could very easly say one thing and do another. They could even add sound resepters to the chip.
TEXT
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Apr 21, 2004 9:55:35 GMT -5
I believe the reason the range is so short is because they're so small, but I'm not entirely familiar with the technology so I can't say for certain. Yes, it's entirely possile that "they" (whoever "they" is... the gun manufacturers?) will implant a different chip or a chip with extra features, but I think that's already against the law somehow. False advertising or performing a different medical procedure without your consent or something like that. It's illegal to install programs on your computer without your consent (claiming to be installing one thing and actually installing another falls under this category), so logically it would be illegal to "install" a chip in your hand that you did not consent to.
Like RFID tags, I think this technology is coming and there's not much we can do about it. We can, however, keep bringing up issues like this so we can get laws passed for our protection when these technologies actually get here.
Edit: Oh, one more thing. A sound receptor inside a chip this small is impossible with today's technology. Even if there existed microphones that small (and they may exist) you probably wouldn't be able to hold more than a second of sound on a chip that small. It would have to broadcast that signal somewhere and the listening device would probably have to be close enough that it may as well do the recording rather than the chip. Remember that the only thing these chips are capable of at the moment is "echoing" pre-stored data (such as an ID number). We'd need to shrink our technology a lot more before we could embed anything more than that into something the size of a grain of rice. And if we do have significantly small technology already that somebody's not telling us about then we have more to worry about than chips to unlock guns.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Apr 21, 2004 16:48:24 GMT -5
I bet people like the CIA or government research labs have tons of tiny bugs that fit the bill.
|
|
agamoto
Soldier
Greetings and salutations one and all!!
Posts: 239
|
Post by agamoto on Apr 21, 2004 21:47:52 GMT -5
CIA, FBI, NSA, whatever other letters you can think of. That is who I am refering to as "THEY". The government organasations that would suppervise the implants on people. There are longrang transmitters that are smaller than the head of a pin.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Apr 22, 2004 10:56:44 GMT -5
I realy realy doubt that. They can do some very cool things small size (micro engines smaller than a hair etc) But a transmitter that size with any sort of power or range I find unlikely.
Even if they did it wouldn't have much of a battery life on such a small scale. Not if all the other gear is being carried along with it.
Sound sensors are right out they would have to be super sensivite at that size and the majority they would pick up would be natural noise and to be frank unless your in the habit of talking to your hand its not going to pick up anything through all that flesh anyway. Of cource the first time you fire your gun the electical impulse that would create in any such microphone would burn it to a cinders anyway.
Which brings me on to my final point. At such small sizes heat is very important. More than a few components with a small electrical charge will start to raise temperatures excessively. I'd wager on such a small chip which can't have any sort of decent coolent system you can't put anything more powerful than the short range transmitter Merkuri was talking about. Atleast with current materials. (This isn't a mater of technollogy but what current materials are capable of handling)
Challenger.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Apr 22, 2004 11:05:06 GMT -5
(This isn't a mater of technollogy but what current materials are capable of handling) Challenger. You mean current known materials. Materials used in large manufacturing processes are chosen because they're durable and cheap. When you have a multi-million dollar budget, and you only need a few hundred units, you can be pretty sure that they'll be dishing out for the best of the best. This is not even to mention the possibility that if they decide to start manufacturing mini, durable listeners in bulk (for, say, placing in guns), the price would reduce drastically, making it quite feasible. Excuse the tangent.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Apr 22, 2004 11:11:29 GMT -5
From what I've read, it sounds like this chip is a tiny little RFID tag. It has absolutely no active electronics in it, nor would it be able to, for the reasons Challenger mentioned. It has no battery (doesn't need a power source) or moving parts and it shouldn't produce heat (if it does, not very much). Its only function is to "echo" a radio signal. It can't even produce a signal itself unless it's being bombarded by another activating signal. And like I said before, if the government does have tiny technology more advanced than RFID tags that can be embedded in a person's skin, then we have much more to worry about than unwanted technology being implanted when you buy a gun. However, I have more faith in my government than that. As much as I dislike Bush, I don't believe that he or his administration is "out to get me." Even if they could bug your hand and hear anything useful from it (as Challenger said, a microphone inside your hand would pick up more biological noise, like my pulse or the sound of me typing than any actual conversation), they'd need just cause to put it there. There are laws to prevent that sort of thing, and if there aren't now then you can bet your congresspersons will be pushing to make some. ...Although looking back at the Patriot Act, that might not always be true.
|
|
agamoto
Soldier
Greetings and salutations one and all!!
Posts: 239
|
Post by agamoto on Apr 22, 2004 12:53:41 GMT -5
It is not the known adminisration I am worried about, it is the blackops people that worry me. Whatever technology we have the we know about, they have much better stuff we DON"T know about. Take cloking technology, that has been possible for a while now, just not safe or cost efective.
|
|