What would happen if there was an App to tell you who was carrying a gun near you?

[IdaBriggs]

Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2014, 04:28 PM - Edit history (2)

Would this be a privacy violation or a useful thing?

Discuss.

ON EDIT: Does your opinion change if it identifies hand guns versus hunting rifles (and can be put in "sleep mode" when appropriate)?

ON EDIT 2: If your "app" went off with a job applicant, would this affect your hiring decision?

[The Straight Story]

1. Undercover cops/govt agents would ban it

When it infringes on the rights of the government people tend to get upset.

[IdaBriggs]

3. So if it was developed, you believe "the App Store"

wouldn't sell it? Or would delete it?

Do you think people would want it or use it?

[The Straight Story]

11. pro-government anti-citizen folks would protest it's use

Because we wholly and completely trust those in power to do what it is good and right and this could interfere with their ability to conduct their business/job it would not be allowed to be sold.

Anti-citizen-rights folks (those who feel the average US person is too dangerous to be allowed to own such things) would be against it as well and push for it's removal since they feel safer when a non-citizen becomes a government one and can carry a gun to protect them. Making it easy for people to detect who has one would then put such government officials in potential danger making those people less safe from other citizens.

[IdaBriggs]

18. So both sides would hate it.

Do you think having it on your phone/pad would be seen as a "national security" issue? Or would folks "let the market decide?"

[The Straight Story]

27. Anything that detracts from the rights of govt is a problem (citizens though is fine)

The RKBA on your person, under your coat, is one some only want the few, the proud, and the 'I work for govt' crowd to be allowed to obtain so that they can continue to save us from terrorists - so it would certainly be a nation security issue.

We WOULD allow people who work for the govt to have the app to arrest and punish all those citizens who fail to comply (and would be great to drive by each house and check up on folks).

[alp227]

2. Orwellian totalitarianism. nt

[IdaBriggs]

4. Please clarify. nt

[alp227]

19. It's none of my business what other people want to carry. nt

[MineralMan]

5. How would such an App work?

It wouldn't, so your question doesn't really make any sense. There's no "gun detector" technology.

So, I wouldn't think about this too much. There are many things worth thinking about that can actually happen.

[IdaBriggs]

10. This is a hypothetical discussion, with a focus on "civil liberty" issues.

Is the public entitled to know who has a gun near them (like the "Convicted Sexual Predator" websites share)?

If your phone "beeped" every time you were within twenty feet of a gun, would this be a danger to law enforcement personnel and other law abiding citizens? Or would it be a tool?

Who would want to know and how would the information be used by society?

Again, hypothetical, and intended for intellectual exercise / debate.

[MineralMan]

13. But, such an App isn't possible.

So it's a waste of time to discuss such a possibility. Unless every firearm had something like an active RFID chip in it, there's no way to detect firearms from a distance if they are concealed.

Your app is impossible, so it's not worth being concerned about.

[IdaBriggs]

20. When the discussion started, an active RFID chip wasn't in the original specs.

But we have to realistically now be aware that active RFID chipping things is a possibility (seriously, we chip our pets).

I used to have a boss who very wisely said, "nothing is impossible - just expensive."

And back to the theoretical nature of this discussion (where we pretend such a thing can be done) --

Would anyone WANT it?

[PowerToThePeople]

84. an RFID chip in every firearm SHOULD be the law of the land. n/t

[Whisp]

30. waste of time to discuss except you are discussing.

[MineralMan]

32. Well, there is that...

[randome]

45. Oh, it may be possible.

Envision a device that makes a spectrum analysis through clothes, can gauge shapes and weight, even a person's posture. It's not here yet but it will be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

52. I'm not seeing the potential for developing such

technology in a form that would be cheap enough, small enough, or useful enough to be adopted. Since they're still using magnetometers and very bulky scanning equipment to do this, I don't foresee any such pocketable device in anything like the near future.

[randome]

87. Probably not the 'near' future but I can see it happening someday.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

92. Actually, about the only technology that would

really work would be active RFID. And that could be done now, but would require that all firearms have the chip, including older ones. And, as someone said, the bad guys would get this "app" so they could tell who wasn't carrying to help them choose victims.

We can't even agree in this country that firearms are too ever-present and easily available. I can't imagine ever deciding that everyone's firearm had to be retrofitted with RFID. I can't see such a thing happening.

As for other technologies, I can't envision anything that would fit in your cell phone at all, except maybe active RFID detection.

[LanternWaste]

152. Through the mid-nineties, I thought the same thing about home computers.

"technology in a form that would be cheap enough, small enough, or useful enough to be adopted..."

Through the mid-nineties, I thought the same thing about home computing.

[Lost_Count]

74. If there was magic in the world...

We'd have much bigger issues.

An intelligent conversation would revolve around implementation and just declaring what if makes it pointless.

[proudretiredvet]

179. Yes there is.

There's no "gun detector" technology.

Very low tech and very easy to do with the proper experience. I can train a dog to alert on pot, or to sit down when he detects explosives. I can train a dog to lick my hand, or bump my leg or tug on a leash toward where he detects the smells that go along with firearms.
All it takes is a knowledge of basic dog training skills and the possession of what you want them to detect. I have trained dogs for two decades and own firearms. It would not be hard at all.

[MineralMan]

180. Hard to carry a dog in your cell phone, though.

A dog is not an "app."

[MattBaggins]

198. Having smart phones that could detect guns near them might

be a possibility.

[Pholus]

202. Just like many traffic apps.

See a gun nut carrying an AK-47 through Sears, press a button, earn points to buy a fancier avatar.

[calimary]

6. I might want to get one.

Just to know which end of the room to stay away from.

[IdaBriggs]

22. Do you think you would "adjust" to the "alarm" nature as normal --

sort of like people have adjusted to the annoyance of car alarms?

"Yes, yes, I am at a grocery store - of course Mr. Higgins has a gun - he *always* has a gun. Whatever! I need to turn the sound down - everyone is looking at me!"

Or would they respond differently....?

[calimary]

43. I think I'd have it on vibrate if that was possible.

Seriously. I'd want to know. The ol' aviation thing - "see and avoid." Well, here it'd be "know and avoid."

Wouldn't want to start anything. Wouldn't want a confrontation since I would certainly be - er - um - outgunned, shall we say.

I'd just want to get away - as far distant and near the exit as possible if I had not finished my business inside. Or it might make me want to skip whatever I'd gone in there to do and just leave, and come back later.

Hey, people's cell phones go off all the time. What kind of alarm would it be? Would it sound like a phone ring or call waiting?

Or would it sound like Jim's cell phone did every time Dwight called (in "The Office&quot ? Jim programmed his phone with a recording of Dwight's voice during one of his rants - so that the ringer whenever Dwight called would be his own voice, saying "Idiot. Idiot. Idiot."

[MH1]

7. I'd find it useful.

And legit undercover cops, etc. could get their equipment tagged in some way that would cause it to be excluded from the app. (while we're fantasizing, anyway) Of course then the crooks would figure out how to counterfeit the tags. So, in theory, fine. In practice, probably wouldn't really work ... I'd rather have better background checks and stricter regulations including required safety training and stronger punishment for demonstrated negligence.

[IdaBriggs]

26. It might be interesting for stores to use on their merchandise to prevent theft.

(Since that application is already used in retail establishments.)

[Vashta Nerada]

8. You mean like make every gun have an RFID chip on it so the app could read it?

I could get behind that. I would like to know how many idiot(s) were around me with guns.

[IdaBriggs]

12. That would be interesting....

Would we then have issues where criminals learn to disable the RFID chips, like thieves learn to file off VIN on cars?

[Vashta Nerada]

24. Maybe make it so that if they tamper with the RFID chip, they lose their gun privileges.

[IdaBriggs]

49. But how would you know? Would it have to send a "burst" - "BEING MESSED WITH

BY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON" - and then gone?

[Vashta Nerada]

61. I don't see why not.

[NutmegYankee]

199. RFID doesn't have a power source.

It only responds when hit with a signal.

[seveneyes]

81. Criminals losing their gun privileges

The horror.

[Vashta Nerada]

86. Yeah, I wasn't talking about criminals, cowboy.

[seveneyes]

93. Since it was in response to this comment...

"Would we then have issues where criminals learn to disable the RFID chips, like thieves learn to file off VIN on cars?"

You may understand my response. Keyword "criminals."

[Vashta Nerada]

104. Well, I was talking about the "law abiding citizens" that carry guns.

That should be clarified.

[hack89]

101. Criminal don't usually have gun privileges to start with.

so of course they will tamper with the chip. Or simply buy a gun on the black market that has no chip.

[IdaBriggs]

113. It would be harder to "opt out" law enforcement if we just use "shape recognition."

Would it matter? A lot of people are saying they would expect it to be beeping non-stop in their areas.

Of course, then there might be a market for "fake guns" like some of the alarm companies put in the yards: "this house protected by xxx company" could end up being "wear this to convince apps you have a gun so you can be SAFE!"

Which could get dangerous if the POLICE think you have a gun (as opposed to a cell phone - ).

[hack89]

127. So everyone is going to walk around with body scanning technology?

that is a huge step up from an App. Do you really want to live in a surveillance society where personal privacy is destroyed?

[global1]

9. We Would Probably Need A 'Conceal & Carry' Law Passed To Have That App On Our Phone.....nt

[IdaBriggs]

50. Would it be covered under "free speech" --as in,

"My phone has the ability share my FREE SPEECH to talk about the people around me?"

[Blue_Tires]

14. I live in Virginia, so it would probably ping nonstop and wear out my battery....

[IdaBriggs]

54. Ah, the car alarm theory. (nods sagely)

At first, they were fancy and new fangled, and everyone loved them.

Then they were just freaking annoying, and if a thief was stealing the car / it would make the noise stop, the neighborhood was ready to cheer them on.

For you, sounds like it would be less of a "warning/danger Will Robinson" and more "duh, whatever."

[PowerToThePeople]

15. I like the idea, plus add..

Maybe it can even put a light over your head. Green for PvE and Red for PvP.

[Whisp]

25. lol!

PVP Player vs. Player and PVE Player vs Environment
for those wondering.

[IdaBriggs]

55. On the screen? Or as you point your phone, it would "arrow" at you?

Or are you talking more like a flashlight at people?

[PowerToThePeople]

65. hologram over your head irl

Make every person wear one. That way every person knows who might shoot them and who is safe.

[Cleita]

16. Whose rights? Their rights to carry a gun or my right to not be

shot by knowing there is a person close by carrying a gun?

I think it could be done, maybe one that detects metal. That way you would know if some one is carrying a knife as well. It would have to be refined to point out weapon type metals, maybe by the shape.

[geckosfeet]

37. Oh. Brother. No wonder the world is so fucked up.

[IdaBriggs]

57. Interesting. Could be odd in a restaurant....?

Or would it be "next to the body" instead of "held in the hand" which could be an interesting programming challenge!

[hack89]

17. Privacy violation. nt

[IdaBriggs]

59. Valid answer - you think it would be like "x-ray goggles" (if they worked)

where people don't have the right to see you naked without permission, so people don't have the right to see what you have in your pockets (as it were)?

[hack89]

95. It implies a huge government database being shared with everyone

how else would such an app work?

How much of your private information would you want to be freely available to everyone?

[hunter]

21. Gangsters would know who to mug when they needed a gun.

Beats breaking into the house with the "Forget the Dog, Beware of Owner" sign on the front gate.

[Cleita]

31. You just destroyed the gun ownership excuse of needing firearms

for protection. If you can't protect yourself from a mugging, the whole premise falls apart.

[IdaBriggs]

60. Would gangsters stop, if they were in a store and their App was going off?

Sort of like, "don't try to hold up a gun store, because the owner might be armed?"

Or just a 'target this yahoo' -- ?

[hunter]

126. I have a couple of very funny stories about that...

... unfortunately of the "tales too ticklish to tell" on DU sort.

Suppose your life as a criminal or edge-of-the-law tough guy are looking up. Then one day you trip off a street curb. As you reach for your dropped gun a bus runs over your hand.

In summary, if anyone ever thinks they "need" a gun then the odds are good they've already lost.

It's a rare situation where a gun is a useful tool. Mostly guns are just dangerous.

[Whisp]

23. Very interesting question! n/t

[IdaBriggs]

62. Thank you!

[Common Sense Party]

28. How would it know?

[ileus]

36. X-ray glasses using the phones camera app.

[Hoyt]

128. They used to advertise xray glasses in comic books 50 years ago? But they were for perverts.

[ileus]

157. Well what kind of folks do you think want to know what's stuffed in your pants?

[randome]

48. How do we know the chemical composition and makeup of planets hundreds of light years away?

Metal-detecting capabilities, spectrum analysis, instant judgment of shape, contour, even the posture of an individual. It's all possible, just not yet.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[Common Sense Party]

68. Okay...

I am not in favor of hypothetical apps. Call me when it's reality.

[randome]

91. Where can I reach you? Never mind, I'll look it up.

Kidding!

I am no fan of extrapolating reality from science fiction but I am still enamored with the Canadian sci-fi series, Continuum (which returns in March!). The technology they showcase there -obviously unlikely in the near future- nevertheless presents some intriguing possibilities along the lines of the OP. Not any time soon but...someday.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[IdaBriggs]

125. Love that show! Hadn't been thinking of it when I wrote the post, but...

a lot of science fiction becomes science fact (see tablets, cell phones, space travel) when someone first conceives it.

It would be interesting to see how it changes society.

[randome]

176. It would. And if we manage to survive climate change, technology will only get better.

And if everyone has the same technology, it would be a little like everyone being Superman. Things could get complicated, better, worse but society will definitely change no matter how much some dig their heels in.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[IdaBriggs]

69. Options discussed so far --

RFID chip, shape or body imaging sensor. Don't know how it would work - not sure how car alarms work, but they do - but would "how" it worked matter to you or change your opinion of having it on your phone, depending?

You are sitting in a restaurant. Your phone beeps/vibrates and three dots near you are displayed on the screen, color coded for weapon type. Do you care?

[Common Sense Party]

73. Not really. Where I live, half the people are probably armed anyway.

Damn thing would be beeping like a steam kettle.

[YarnAddict]

79. Okay when I first read this I assumed

it would notify you of people who have a concealed carry permit. Seems like that would be easy enough to do, but wouldn't let you know if someone was carrying without a permit.

[IdaBriggs]

116. When I first started thinking of it, it would just let you know if there was a gun near you.

The "how and why" were fantasy land, since I was wondering if people would object based on privacy concerns, or even be interested (see the "car alarms numb you to car thieves" sub-threads).

Realistically, if facial recognition could be tied to gun purchases, that could be doable, which again brings up the "beep if there is a gun person near you."

Then we have the whole "grandpa left me his antique hunting gun" which, of course, has never been registered.

[YarnAddict]

148. You would probably know if someone was carrying

an antique hunting gun. The bigger problem would be stolen guns, which facial recognition wouldn't help with, obviously.

I know quite a few people with concealed carry permits. If they are representative (and I have no reason to think that they aren't) then people who are legally carrying weapons present no threat--literally none.

[oldhippie]

172. I wouldn't care ....

I assume everyone is armed anyway. At my weekly lunch today two of the 5 of us were armed. Two of the other three would have been armed but they work on a federal installation and cannot carry at work, so usually don't carry on work days. We all know who in our group is carrying. Our waitress, also the restaurant manager, also knows we carry. There are usually uniformed cops and plain clothes detectives there for lunch. Nobody cares.

[HereSince1628]

181. Facial recognition matched to a database...could yield just suspected gun carriers

based on association of information gleaned from social media, membership lists, on-line browsing/television viewing habits etc.

all you need is Google glass connected to the cloud...

or in a more tin-foil world a link to a state's list of licensees.

[ileus]

33. Open Carry would become default mode.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. ^this^

[geckosfeet]

34. Moranic. How would it know? At best it would tell who is licensed to carry.

I have a concealed carry license. But I do not carry everywhere I go.

Again, publishing a list of licensed gun owners is problematic on many fronts.

[IdaBriggs]

75. So, you think if it can *identify* the people around you (face recognition?)

and then the database could check your face against "registered gun owner", that would be one way to go?

I was mentally assuming it would only identify (method unknown) when actual guns are "on" people around you (somehow), but your way is actually very doable, which brings us back to the original questions --

Privacy violation? Useful thing? Illegal application? Standard annoyance? Other?

[geckosfeet]

165. rfid on the firearm makes some sense

Several issues there tho

Power source
Standardization between vendors
Older unchipped guns
Device failure rates

[onehandle]

35. Eventually, all weapons sold will contain identification chips.

If anyone thinks otherwise, they are fooling themselves.

Of course by then, sensible, but perceived as crushing by gun nuts, gun control laws will be in place.

As the country crowds and bluifies, sanity will return, destroying this age of white power centered GOPNRAteahadism.

[Cleita]

39. That last acronyms/word is a mouthful.

[marions ghost]

66. I think you're right

all weapons will contain unique ID. That, along with sensible gun control laws, will help make the country much safer. Which is the goal, because otherwise we accept an unreasonable state of danger (and subjugation) inflicted by those who carry guns.

It has to come to this. There is no other way.

[IdaBriggs]

77. Sadly, my first reaction was "wow, that is more fantasy than my original post!"

Which shows how sad and cynical I have become!

I like your thinking, tho.

[hack89]

108. And a thriving black market of chipless guns will spring up

Or RFID blocking material for holsters, bags and clothing.

Talk about people fooling themselves.

[cali]

38. I just assume that anyway, but I don't feel unsafe.

[IdaBriggs]

82. Not a popcorn thrower, eh?

Ah, dark humor! Sigh.

[TeeYiYi]

40. What would be the point?...

Where I live in Utah, almost everyone carries a gun.

TYY

[IdaBriggs]

83. So it would "beep" (or whatever) and kill your battery.

Maybe it would be a "regional interest" thing?

[Hoyt]

41. I think chips in a gun are a good idea. Folks have the right to know a gun toting yahoo is nearby.

[Cleita]

42. Couldn't a chip be removed? I would prefer something like a Geiger counter or

maybe heat sensor that detected any gun shaped metal object close by.

[Hoyt]

51. I'm fine with that too. Of course, I thought all those gun fanciers are "law-abiding."

I'd do the chip, and police could use the xrays/heatseeking stuff. if someone has a gun with a disabled chip, off to jail.

I can hear the 2nd Amendment folks whine and howl, but tough.

[Cleita]

72. That could work too. I just think we need something. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

200. Metal doesn't give off a signal like radiation.

Metal detectors work by inducing a current in metals and reading the resulting magnetic field that is generated by the metal. You'd have to blast everyone in the area with the inducing magnetic field. As for thermal, if the gun was unfired, it wouldn't show up any hotter than the room. You could look under people's clothing by comparing the object in contrast to their body temp, but then you are using FLIR technology to look under people's clothes, which is creepy stalker like behavior.

[sked14]

46. Folks have the right to know a gun toting yahoo is nearby.

What right would that be?

[Hoyt]

56. Well, Sked, in most cases I can tell. But, in those cases where the signs aren't obvious, I see

nothing to prohibit it except the BS and whining from gun toting yahoos who think they have all the rights -- like Zimmerman, taggers, bigots, etc., that make up the majority of gun toters.

[sked14]

63. You said that people have a right to know,

and I asked what right would that be?
Was there an amendment added to the bill of rights that I'm not aware of?

[Cleita]

85. It's in the Declaration of Independence.

the right to health, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution is not the only document our government is based on.

[sked14]

89. It still doesn't give the public the right to know what an individual has

on their person.

[Hoyt]

115. Why not, if they are carrying something like a gun in a public area?

I suppose requiring open carrying of lethal weapons is one way, but I see no reason to force us to look at what some yahoo considers a perfectly normal thing to do. Make em wear a "Wide berth, I'm afraid of my fellow citizens and don't care what they think, so I am carrying a gun, maybe two."

[sked14]

117. Because it would violate the 4th Amendment, that's why.

[Hoyt]

121. So, how do open carry states get by with it? Besides, you clearly don't understand the Constitution.

[sked14]

130. I beg to differ sir,

no state has just open carry, all states now have some form of CCW at their diposal.
It would seem that you are the one who knows little of the US Constitution.

[Hoyt]

135. The Bill of Rights protects you from government, not from the 95+% of society who

would never carry a gun in public, and have the right, or deserve, to know who is in that dangerous/menacing/intimidating minority.

[sked14]

142. Man oh man,

so you're telling us that the general public has the right to know what I'm carrying on my person? And you would force those that choose to get a CCW to wear something ID'ing them?

[Hoyt]

149. Yes, I have the right to know when someone is callous enough to strap a gun or two on to venture out

to Chuck E Cheese or something.

[sked14]

153. So we've gone full circle here,

show us your right to know what others are carrying on their person.

[Hoyt]

154. I'm claiming I have the right, the laws need to catch up, not stay in 1950s protecting

yahoos who strap gunz on to go to a city park.

[sked14]

158. You can claim you have the right from a pedestal in Central Park in NYC,

but in reality, you really don't, not even close.
BTW, it's spelled guns, not gunz.

[Hoyt]

160. I have no respect for toted gunz, so I don't worry about spelling it "guns." Similarly,

I have not capitalized "bush" since 2003, even in formal documents.

[sked14]

162. Ok, but it just looks silly to me.

[Hoyt]

164. As does your promotion/defense of gunz to me.

[sked14]

166. I'm not promoting/defending anything except one's right to privacy.

[sked14]

159. Per chance,

do you walk up to everyone you suspect are carrying and tell them you have the right to know what they're carrying?

[Hoyt]

163. Nope, I walk up and in my best crusty pirate whisper in their ear, "r u an undercover agent, or

someone with no respect for your fellow woman/man?"

[sked14]

167. Very good satire,

well done sir, well done.

[friendly_iconoclast]

169. Not only that, he thinks people should try and detain them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#471995

Hoyt Sun Oct-23-11 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
32. Excellent example of why police need to be check out anyone suspected of carrying a gun.

I know those who carry in public think the police are just supposed to wink at those who might have a weapon. But, this shows why police need to stop and check out anyone toting in public.

Further, every citizen should report anyone carrying a gun in public -- Maybe even hold them until police arrive. You just never know when the gunner is a criminal, has bad intentions, or just walked off their compound with a plan to harm innocent people.

I will also note that, despite repeated requests Hoyt has never confirmed that he has even
once practiced what he preaches...

[sked14]

170. I hope nobody took his advice,

it's a good way to get arrested or punched out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

171. Hoyt's pronunciamentos re guns are usually of similar quality...

[Hoyt]

192. I just give gun fanciers the respect they deserve. But sans gunz, I love you guys.

Roughly the same respect they give society when they stockpile weapons and strap them on before walking among the 95+% who would never carry a gun in public.

[NutmegYankee]

204. If he practiced what he preached...

He'd be in jail. Seriously.

[geckosfeet]

168. Ha. Look at it this way - they do and they are. But they have privacy

rights just like you.

[sked14]

147. You want those with CCW's to have to wear something Identifying themselves?

And who do you think would be enforcing such a rule/law? Why, it would be the GOVERNMENT!!!
Wouldn't that be a violation of the 4th Amendment?

[oldhippie]

173. No, it's not

That phrase is not in the Declaration of Independence. If you are going to use it to back your position, at least get it right.

[Cleita]

185. Look on page 1, paragraph 2 of the pdf I have linked to.

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office%20of%20Citizenship/Citizenship%20Resource%20Center%20Site/Publications/PDFs/M-654.pdf

[oldhippie]

186. I did, and your phrase is not there ......

Try *life*, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I know why many people are trying to sneak "health" in there, but it is not there.

I understand your point, but when relying on a famous historical document to make your point, misquoting it harms your credibility.

[sked14]

188. Good catch, I missed it,

and it still does not give the right of someone to know what others are carrying on their person.

[Cleita]

190. Fer chrissakes, the lack of quotes were because I was paraphrasing.

Nevertheless the right to pursue happiness means you aren't afraid every time you go into a mall, a movie theater or a school.

[sked14]

187. It still does not give you the right to know what others have on their person.

[Cleita]

189. It gives me the right to be safe and protected from those who would

harm me and that requires laws that insure that.

[sked14]

191. But it still doesn't give you the right to know what others are carrying

on their person, in other words, you can't walk up to someone and tell them that you have the right to know if they're carrying a gun and expect them to answer you, matter of fact, they'd probably tell you to go pound sand and walk off.

[Cleita]

193. If it's something that can kill me? It better give me the right.

How about open carry? If you think that this is okay, then you shouldn't object to anyone knowing what you are hiding.

[sked14]

194. No, I don't like open carry, it causes too much angst with people.

Even if I did agree, it still does not give you the right to know what one has on their person, especially something that's legal to carry.

[NutmegYankee]

205. Ok, I walk up to you -

Are you carrying a vial of deadly anthrax? You would probably state "No". Well, I don't believe you and now demand to search your purse...

Give up the paranoia. I don't have the right to ask you that without probable cause. And if you did ask some stranger if they were carrying a gun, they'd probably just say "no". What now?

[Cleita]

206. You would have the right to know I'm carrying it and I think

an app for that would be appropriate too. I don't want to search your person for a gun. I do want to know if you have one so I can leave your presence far behind. I think if you noted some signature for anthrax or other deadly thing on my person, you don't have to go through my purse to leave my presence and maybe notify the right authorities.

You see we don't want to know everything you are carrying, just the items that could kill other people. Also, it's very unlikely the average joe would have access to anthrax whereas a legal gun is very easily available.

[NutmegYankee]

208. Well, in response to your app -

I'll having a cloaking app that renders anything in my pockets invisible to scanners. Have a nice shopping day!

[Hoyt]

96. I don't think an amendment is necessary. I think you ought to be forced to wear a shirt with

"Gun toter" (personally, I'd prefer "gun toting yahoo," but that is probably a bit much).

If it is Constitutional to require open carry in some states, why not a warning to the 95+% of us who would never think of toting a gun in public.

If my state can prohibit me from carrying a sword, folding baton, etc., why do they allow just about any fool to carry a gun?

[sked14]

100. Why not just tatoo those that carry?

[Hoyt]

103. Some yahoo toters do tatoo gunz, and other signs of bigotry, on themselves.

[sked14]

112. But that's their chose, they're not forced to do so,

what you want is to force those that choose to carry to wear something that ID's them as a CCW person.

[Hoyt]

114. Why not? We deserve to know, and some states have taken that position by requiring open carry.

In fact, I'm of the opinion that I should be able to check a registry -- like a sex offender registry -- and determine if a gun fanatic (toter, accumulator of multiple weapons, has pulled a Zimmerman even if acquitted, etc.) is close by.

[sked14]

120. You've gone from right to know to deserve to know.

And now, you're equating those with a CCW to a sex offender.

[Hoyt]

124. Public toting is an affront to society.

[sked14]

134. That's an opinion.

[Hoyt]

138. Of course it is an opinion, as are yours that promote more gunz in more places.

[MicaelS]

44. Would not make a difference to me.

Lots of people in Texas carry. Women as well as men. If I were married my wife would have a gun because I would buy her one.

I just assume people are carrying and go about my business. But then I'm not going to start shit where someone would be forced to draw their weapon on me. I am a low key person. I don't have stickers on my car. I drive the speed limit, don't get road rage. Don't get drunk, and stay out of certain areas. As the old street saying goes "Don't start none, won't be none."

Now, you start talking apps that show a person's name, address, phone number, etc and whether or not they have guns or carry, I would fight that like hell.

[IdaBriggs]

88. The stickers on your car thing - that bothers me a bit.

The idea that you find it necessary to not be public about your opinions to make sure you don't get into confrontations about your beliefs ... I am not sure if that is "just polite" or "rather sad" that it isn't "safe".

Does that makes sense?

Do you distinguish between "says they have a gun" and "says they have a gun/here is who they are/where they live" applications?

[MicaelS]

122. It's not that I'm worried about confrontations as much as

I don't like crap on my car. I think it ruins the look of a car to see it "defaced" with a bunch of what I think of as crap. I don't like the fact I have to have a parking sticker on my windshield for my job. I don't like it when I car dealers put their advertising plaque on the car's trunk paint. On the license plate frame, barely tolerable. It's one of my tics.

Frankly I'd rather deal with people in public without knowing what their politics are, unless I'm going to, or avoiding a political rally.

Yes, I distinguish between the two apps. I don't want some internet database that shows who owns guns and where. That violates people's privacy in the sanctity of their home. That could lead to burglaries or home invasions. And that type of database would be nothing more than an attempt by some to "shame" or "out" their neighbors.

Seriously, what would people do with the a phone app that let's say "pings" every time they get close to someone carrying? What are they going to do where a place like Texas where 1 in 40 people have a carry permit? You going to avoid all crowds? All movie theaters, restaurants? If someone who hates guns starts a confrontation with someone who is lawfully carrying then the gun hater will be the aggressor. What if the person carrying is an undercover cop, or worse a drug dealer or gang banger?

There's another street saying.."Alligator mouth, hummingbird ass." In other words, some people talk tough, but if it comes to actually doing something they back down quick.

[IdaBriggs]

182. "What would people do with a phone app --"

That is actually part of the point of the (hypothetical) post. What *would* people do? Would they use it? Would they ignore it? Would it just be an annoyance? Would it only be something relevant in certain places? Would someone want to know if their co-worker, children's teacher, pharmacist, physician, waitress, etc. was carrying? What would you do if they were?

I am thinking I would want to know about assault weapons in inappropriate places, because I would consider that a "danger, Will Robinson" warning. Part of me also wants to know if the person sitting next to me in the movie theater is armed so I can make sure my kid isn't sitting next to them in case they have an accident.

It is an interesting topic, isn't it?

[sarisataka]

53. Personally

I wouldn't care or use it. Carrying a gun in and of itself is no more an indicator of itself than carrying a cell phone.
Better to keep your nose out of the phone and aware of activity around you.

[Hoyt]

58. You could set it to make a repulsive sign/sound when it detects a gun toter.

[IdaBriggs]

94. I assume the "alerts" could be customized for each user.

Some might put "American Flags" up, while others put "skull and cross bone" symbols? (Available for a small upgrade fee, of course!)

[Hoyt]

98. The sounds are limitless and are becoming more appealing as we flesh this out.

[sarisataka]

99. As entertaing as that would be

My phone already makes more noise than I like.

[IdaBriggs]

90. That is an interesting take -- in the "be aware/stay safe" department.

Do you expect to be safe when you go about your daily business? Would any *specific* kind of "be aware/hunting rifle" get your attention?

[sarisataka]

110. I assume you mean notice as i go anout

Yes, I do expect to be safe every day. The odds of becoming a victim on a single day are very low. Awareness just helps lower the odds more.

Any person I detect carrying will get some attention. If they are carrying a long arm they will get even more. If it is physically in their hands I would immediately be alarmed. If slung I would not approve but not expect immediate carnage.

[IdaBriggs]

119. Long arms in inappropriate places - schools, grocery stores, restaurants, shopping malls, etc. -

are immediate triggers for me at this point in time. That nutjob who was "open carrying" an AK-47 at a JCPenny store shortly after the kindergarten carnage occurred set that stuff in stone for me. People carrying "hunting rifles" when the only thing to "hunt" are people --



At the same time, a bunch of guys out deer hunting, since that is an appropriate use of the tool, only scares me when they start drinking.

[sarisataka]

143. School would be an alarm

As it is illegal here.
Other places, unless they wear blaze orange, I would class them as Jack ass, not criminal. My disdain would be about equal as I believe a person should only choose to carry for self defense reasons. If a person wanted to make a statement, carry a sign.

[tosh]

64. In my "territory"...

the app would be alerting all of the time!

No, I don't think it would be a privacy violation (though a gun nut acquaintance of mine would surely insist that it is) BECAUSE it would be alerting on the presence of an inanimate object and we've all been told that those objects don't kill people.

[IdaBriggs]

97. So the "car alarm" boredom would set in quickly.

See other posts. Your view on the privacy issue being "inanimate objects" don't have privacy, versus the people who wield the objects (covertly or overtly)?

[tosh]

132. Yes, that is my view on the privacy issue.

I was partly kidding on the "car alarm" boredom, jesting on the region in which I dwell.

I would buy such an app.

[bravenak]

67. I'm paranoid enough already without knowing.

Knowing would stress me out too much. I just assume everybody is packing up here.

[upaloopa]

70. How about an app for gun nuts to tell them

people around him/her don't want fucking guns near them?
Then the gun nuts would have to face the fact that their anti social behavior isn't wanted.

[Hoyt]

156. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[YarnAddict]

71. Concealed carry people would love it

The bad guys would know who not to mess with. The rest of us would hate it. It would be like having a target painted on us.

[IdaBriggs]

102. Ah, so you see criminals using it as a tool to identify potential targets?

In the "totally vulnerable" category?

[YarnAddict]

146. Yup.

I'm not afraid of anyone who is legally armed.

[seveneyes]

76. All the criminals using guns would turn them in to authorities

And then only law abiding citizens would carry guns. Of course.

[IdaBriggs]

106. Do you think this App should be able to differentiate between "legal" and

"illegal" weapons? Since that wasn't in the original specs - just "if there is a gun nearby" - it is interesting that you went to the "criminals will turn their weapons in to the authorities"; I am curious as to how you got there from the original question?

[seveneyes]

129. my thinking

If there were no way for a criminal to hide their weapon, they would likely not carry one. I was being a smart ass, they would probably sell them to some other unsuspecting person rather than turn them in.

[Common Sense Party]

78. I'd rather have an app to show me who nearby is extremely agitated or in the midst of a psychotic

episode.

As long as we're in science fiction land.

[IdaBriggs]

107. I am starting to think I might set mine for "assault weapons only."

Apparently better battery life expectation.

[petronius]

118. Or an App that reads the BAC of everyone nearby, since drunk/impaired

folk create all sorts of problems...

[Hoyt]

131. BAC and gunz would be a double alarm.

[IdaBriggs]

139. Of course, if it can read BAC, then it could read "carries these nasty germs" too.

Privacy concerns? Public shunning of sick people? Or a reasonable use of an App for people with compromised immune systems?

[petronius]

150. No more an invasion of privacy than your hypothetical gun sensor, and likely

less so - I'd envision a BAC sensor as passively reading the chemical signal emitted into the environment through breath and evaporating sweat. If a person is actively giving off a signal, would it be privacy-invading for another person to passively detect that signal? (By contrast, your 'gun sensor' would likely need either an active scan of the carrier, or require that person to actively give off a radio signal or something for the sensor's convenience - both would be more invasive.)

So good question: is it an invasion of privacy to scan the contents of a person's pockets or purse? Is it more or less of an invasion to scan the chemical contents of the air they have given off?

(Of course, the use of any of this info could rapidly segue into the reprehensible, discriminatory, and/or unlawful, but that's not what we're talking about, right? This thread is just about measuring information in the local environment, and whether that touches anyone else's right to privacy...)

[cherokeeprogressive]

80. That even a hypothetical discussion, indirectly related to firearms brings out

the name-callers is a constant source of amusement.

[Hoyt]

105. And it brings out the gun fanciers/promoters/apologists too.

[IdaBriggs]

111. I haven't seen any name calling, but I recently put a lot of people on Ignore.

Been some interesting discussion for me.

[JoePhilly]

109. You could schedule on the fly OK Corral style shoot outs!!!

You look around, find some one else with a gun, and then send them an electronic "Invite to a game of Stand Your Ground".

Your phones play the whistle from The Good the Bad and the Ugly, people hear it and scatter for safety and then .... POW POW!!

[IdaBriggs]

123. Oooh! That is an actual doable App, isn't it?

Okay, you just freaked my mind!

[JoePhilly]

137. Absolutely doable. You could set up a website with stats too.

GunslingerMatch.com

"A great way to meet new people ... and kill them!"

[IdaBriggs]

141. Tagged only, with paintballs? Or just zapped on the phone using game specific tools?

"You are both secret government agents, trying to get your information to your handler - it is kill or be killed in this game of city-wide hide-and-seek!" (Available with discount coupons to your favorite dining locations, of course!)

[JoePhilly]

161. Do it at the Mall.

When you arrive, you join a team. You then use your phone to hunt for the enemy members, and for friendly team members.

Each game is timed. Team members can share logistical weapons. You could have snipers, medics, so on.

You can "hide" but only for short durations. You use can point your phone and "shoot". If you get killed, you are dead for a short time. Medics can heal you.

You could call in radar (maybe 3 times a round), or use a jamming weapon (again only a few times a round).

[IdaBriggs]

183. Join the team *before* you arrive at the destination.

You don't know the people, so it could be *anyone* - PARANOIA style.



Somebody should invent this App - the gamers would go nuts!

[Kelvin Mace]

133. Totally favor

It would tell me who to avoid. At this point, given the insane worship of guns, I wish they would simply get rid of "conceal carry" and require all guns to be carried openly.

[Bonx]

136. I'd rather they chip convicted sex offenders & make an app to alert on their presence. -nt

[oldhippie]

177. I would add all persons convicted of a violent crime ....

... so they can be avoided also.

I can imagine some fundies and repugs wanting to be able to detect women that have had an abortion, as they believe they are murderers and would want to avoid (maybe even punish) them. How about those privacy apples?

[Bonx]

184. I wouldn't. Public registration isn't currently required for them.

So public identification via chip would be out of bounds.

[NutmegYankee]

210. Public registration wasn't required of sex offenders at one time either.

But laws change and often expand in scope. Honestly, registration of people is a highly disturbing to me given my family history and I oppose all examples of it.

[Generic Other]

209. I can look that up on the internet now

18 offenders living within a mile. With pictures, addresses and details of their criminal background. Eeek. Yeah, I'd go for the ap. No different than a radar detector or GPS. Or a hundred other tracking devices now in use.

[tularetom]

140. Could this app be kept out of the hands of ATF agents?

Sounds to me like it would turn out to be just another tool for technological privacy invasion.

[IdaBriggs]

145. If they want to pay 99 cents, they can download it, too.

In fact, it might be interesting if someone who *isn't* supposed to have a gun gets turned in because someone's App is going off, hmmm?

[NCTraveler]

144. I don't know all that much about current gun laws.

Is it public information as to who has a gun. If so, it probably wouldn't bother me too much. It is something I would never use.

[sked14]

151. For the most part, no it isn't public,

most states have moved to restrict the info on gun owners as newspapers were publishing the names of gun owners.

Also, states like mine don't require firearms to be registered so, other than Form 4473 you have to fill out when buying a firearm from an FFL dealer, there's no central database of gun owners.

[NCTraveler]

155. In that case, I would have a serious problem with it,.

I am guessing this person is talking about a hypothetical where a device could detect a gun on a person. That should be illegal. I just wasn't sure if we were talking an address database, as is done with sexual predators, or an actual intrusive scan.

[IdaBriggs]

197. It started exactly as you described, and then some interesting

ideas started coming up - RFID chips, facial recognition, and BAC/germ levels.

But really it is all about privacy versus public information, and hence very interesting the different takes.

Bluntly fascinating what people consider intrusive versus intuitive.

[NutmegYankee]

201. It's almost never public info.

Very few places require registering and most exempt such records from FOIA requests or explicitly require them to be confidential. One concern is that a listing of addresses may make a theft of the weapons easier since a determined thief would know which house to hit. All they have to do it hit the place when no one is home and they could steal the guns. No safe is unbreakable to a thief skilled in such endeavors.

The other issue was the rather shit headed efforts of some newspapers to publish such info or make it public. No rational person would want to be listed on a database website, with address and such, like a child rapist or sex predator. A significant majority of gun owners oppose registration of firearms simply because they don't trust that information would be wisely used. Once that info is out there, it's out there.

And then there's the issue of right to privacy. Since guns are by law "household property" (like furniture, TVs, dishes, etc) and not "personal property" (like cars or boats), they are not taxable nor required to be listed on forms. My neighbor has no more right to know what firearms I own than I do what kinds of diamond or gold jewelry she owns.

[Javaman]

174. I live in Texas...

it would probably break my phone.

[MicaelS]

175. Break hell, phones in Texas would melt. n/t

[oldhippie]

178. In Texas, we will have phones that shoot ....

.... before we have a detection app.

[BainsBane]

195. Won't happen, and ultimately not a good idea

1) There are a hell of a lot of guns. Such an app would tend to create more fear than anything. It would also likely lead to more shootings as the trigger happy got especially jumpy. 2) Never would get by the NRA. They won't even approve background checks because of fears of the horror of "registration." They'd lose their nut over something like that. And on that particular point I can't say as I'd blame them. It's just too big brother.

[sked14]

196. What you said.

[kestrel91316]

203. I think it would be great, especially since the RW are the ones telling us there is

no such thing as a right to privacy.

[hack89]

207. So you agree with the RW about privacy? What a surprise. Nt

[pacalo]

212. Kick.

[NYC_SKP]

213. Even if it would work reliably and without possibility of disarmament, it violates privacy.

You ask if it would be a privacy violation or a useful thing.

I'd answer that it would be a privacy violation, and it's usefulness would be limited-- not worth the surrender of privacy.

In a vacuum, under ideal circumstances, sure, maybe it would offer some advantage.

In reality, however, it would probably be able to be over-ridden, and it could, if enacted by law, become just that slippery slope thing that we all learn about and sometimes even laugh about.

Next thing it would be our phone calls, our emails. Oh wait, we already lost that privacy. Nope, I just don't like it, Ida.

Re: One EDIT: Wouldn't matter, it's pretty easy to tell if someone in the area has a hunting rifle, I'm not sure of what range you have in mind for "carrying a gun near you".

On EDIT 2: It really depends on the conditions, the city, the state, the job involved. It would more likely than not have an impact, but for some jobs or places, no impact. Nome, Alaska or Sonora, California, little or no impact.