The Liberal Gun Club Forum

My local paper reprinted an article from the Washington Post on "smart guns", i.e. guns with electronic locks to prevent unauthorized use, like some laptops and phones.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/we- ... story.html

If this really was just an (extra cost) option for buyers, I'd say fine, I guess. But one concern is that it will eventually become required by law, making firearms more costly and arguably less reliable in critical situations.

For a range queen I'd be ok with it, as long as the price wasn't impacted, I certainly wouldn't pay more. For something that my life depended on? Not a chance. "Shit! Where's my gun bracelet at?? Double shit! Battery is dead!"

Is useless shit of goat are proposing, Tovarisch.

I'd just as soon not have a gun that can by design be remotely disabled, but thanks anyway.

justaguy wrote:I'd just as soon not have a gun that can by design be remotely disabled, but thanks anyway.

Good point. If it's electronic, it can be hacked.

Hmmm...perhaps that should be our response - to call them "hackable guns."

Does California have a bill for these pending yet?

For something that my life depended on? Not a chance. "Shit! Where's my gun bracelet at?? Double shit! Battery is dead!"

^^^This

and

I'd just as soon not have a gun that can by design be remotely disabled, but thanks anyway.

^^^this.

SwampGrouch wrote:

justaguy wrote:I'd just as soon not have a gun that can by design be remotely disabled, but thanks anyway.

Good point. If it's electronic, it can be hacked.

Hmmm...perhaps that should be our response - to call them "hackable guns."

In this case it's active RFID tags, which rely on RF transmitted between the gun and the watch. If RF is moving through the air, it can be overcome by hitting the receive node (pistol) with one more watt of radiated EM power than the signal you're trying to overcome. That's plain vanilla dumb jamming; you can do it with a microwave or many other household items. If you want a little more precision (and who doesn't?), google "RFID jamming/jammer".

rltriumph wrote:Does California have a bill for these pending yet?

From what I hear NJ has already passed one—all handguns sold in NJ will have to be "smart" guns within 3 years of one being sold anywhere in the US.

(Not that they will relax any of their other restrictions.)

SwampGrouch wrote: "hackable guns."

DING!!

The only RFID enable device I am interested in is possibly a Gun Box. Actual firearm that can be defeated by close proximity to a magnet? Uh, HELL NO!

There has been exactly one workable design - moding a S&W revolver to require a magnetic ring in the strong hand for the revolver to be fired. Even that has been a ... less than resounding success. IIRC Ayoob has one and has commented on it.

As for electronic ones, I like the "hackable guns" bit. Also remind people how Amazon remotely deleted content that people had paid for from their Kindles. That's why I won't buy any of those "book" gadgets.

wlewisiii wrote:As for electronic ones, I like the "hackable guns" bit. Also remind people how Amazon remotely deleted content that people had paid for from their Kindles. That's why I won't buy any of those "book" gadgets.

Lol. We need a slick marketer to spread the story that anonymous has figured out a way to "remote detonate" the "hackable" smart guns! There are plenty in the news media who would believe it, and the rest would report on it just for fun!

justaguy wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:

justaguy wrote:I'd just as soon not have a gun that can by design be remotely disabled, but thanks anyway.

Good point. If it's electronic, it can be hacked.

Hmmm...perhaps that should be our response - to call them "hackable guns."

In this case it's active RFID tags, which rely on RF transmitted between the gun and the watch. If RF is moving through the air, it can be overcome by hitting the receive node (pistol) with one more watt of radiated EM power than the signal you're trying to overcome. That's plain vanilla dumb jamming; you can do it with a microwave or many other household items. If you want a little more precision (and who doesn't?), google "RFID jamming/jammer".

Yep. This is the story to leak. "Rise in criminal use of jammers to block cell phone and firearm use during break ins" More at 6. Hell, you can buy them (but not legally use them) from various sites shipped to your door from China. Deal Extreme being one source for cheap Chinese electronics of all kinds. (Their motto is, Deal Extreme, going broke $1 at a time)

shinzen wrote:Yep. This is the story to leak. "Rise in criminal use of jammers to block cell phone and firearm use during break ins" More at 6. Hell, you can buy them (but not legally use them) from various sites shipped to your door from China. Deal Extreme being one source for cheap Chinese electronics of all kinds. (Their motto is, Deal Extreme, going broke $1 at a time)

Simple noise jammers are quite easily made. Been meaning to make one that plays Rick Astley's Never Ganna Give You Up on any near by radios.

The whole idea is an attempt to cure human behavioral issues with technology - and is thus doomed to failure. (Not to mention still another example of people whose only knowledge comes from Hollywood script writers trying to legislate technology.)

Marrok wrote: Been meaning to make one that plays Rick Astley's Never Ganna Give You Up on any near by radios.

You just had to fucking name that song. Seriously? Just the mere mention of it makes it stick in one's head.

10% of cops shot to death in the line of duty are shot with their own weapons.

If this is such an awesome technology, have them beta test it.

What? No takers??

Shock (not).

whitey wrote:

Marrok wrote: Been meaning to make one that plays Rick Astley's Never Ganna Give You Up on any near by radios.

You just had to fucking name that song. Seriously? Just the mere mention of it makes it stick in one's head.

Let's fix that for you.

Hell NO! I'm not too sure "smart phones" are a good idea either, and I would never call 'em smart! Just as bad as giving an object the power to act without you or thinking it does. I may give 'em all names, but they don't peep without me!

senorgrand wrote:10% of cops shot to death in the line of duty are shot with their own weapons.

If this is such an awesome technology, have them beta test it.

What? No takers??

Shock (not).

I knew a small town cop who wore the magnetic rings on each hand to make his revolver work in my hometown back in the mid 90s. I've never known anyone else to voluntarily make their gun less reliable though.

I'll *think* about buying one after they issue them to the police, The Armed Services and the Secret Service. Until then...

James Bond had one inthe last movie so they have to work right?

Dave the range guy: "I'd like to pull the trigger now HAL!"
HAL a smart gun: "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that."

rltriumph wrote:Does California have a bill for these pending yet?

They tried last year with SB 293... as I recall it was postponed or suspended, but it's entirely possible for it to return this year or later.

The bill was set up so that once there were two smart guns on the "roster" then, after a 2-year grace period, all future handguns added to the roster would first require smart gun technology.

They've already added the first of the two: the Armatix iP1 pistol (because all electronic gadgets need a lower case "i" in front these days). It's a 10 round .22lr handgun activated by typing a passcode into a watch (not exactly a speedy operation, nevermind when fumbling with it in a crisis) which must be kept within 10 inches of the firearm or the gun becomes disabled. You can have this fancy, "scifi" gizmo version of a Walther P22 for the modest price of $1,800.

Once they get a second smart gun on there and pass that bill... well, nevermind, it doesn't even matter. With the absurd biometric requirement already in effect for a technology that doesn't even exist yet ("oh we have a patent, that totally counts!"), they've already entirely prevented most new guns from ever making the roster. So the biometric thing is already moot.

Man I hate that damned roster.