OK, here are some suggestions without impeding 2A rights.

[Starboard Tack]

We have the technology to implement the following. Do we have the will?

1. All semi-automatics, handguns and long guns, must be fitted with biometric safeties and have GPS chips embedded.
2. Local authority has overriding power to declare gun-free zones.
3. All owners of semi-autos should pass psych evaluation, with periodic reviews.
4. Background checks should be limited to history of violence or mental instability.
5. Owners of revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles would only be subject to background checks.
6. No carry without special certification and carry weapon must have GPS chip.

The GPS chip is very important and totally doable. With a smartphone app, fellow carriers and others would be aware of who was armed or not. The carriers get to see where the other good guys are and the rest of us have more options in terms of our movements.

[a geek named Bob]

1. Number 2 could be considered a violation or an infringement...

[Starboard Tack]

4. Could be. I think it should be tested.

[a geek named Bob]

5. okay

Let's design the test...

What's the duration of the test?
What's the compensation level?
We'll need multiple areas, for a decent sample size.

[cleanhippie]

39. Stop it. You are asking him to actually THINK about what he says...

Why interrupt a perfectly good emotional knee-jerk?

[a geek named Bob]

40. good point...

I guess I'm just set in my ways: rational testing of ideas.

[Starboard Tack]

112. You're a geek Bob. Why don't you design it.

I'm just an old guy trying to come up with ideas. Feel free to contribute.

[a geek named Bob]

125. great... another thing ot add to the job stack...

okay... do you have any parameters, or am I just throwing darts at a board?

[rbixby]

156. I had someone say that it was a violation of 2nd amendment rights

for private businesses, churches, etc, to ban guns. I think that's a little ridiculous, if I don't want people carrying guns in my house, I think its reasonable to ask people not to bring them.

[a geek named Bob]

157. I don't see a problem there... n/t

[msongs]

2. if its not a flintlock musket or pistol you have no right to have one, as we know

the supreme court likes to enforce the constitution as it was written for its times

[kelly1mm]

9. Yep, and the 1st amendment only applies to newspapers, books, and soapboxes - not the internet,

CD's, film, as the SC likes (and you seem to support) to enforce the constitution as written. Right?

[JoePhilly]

78. The Internet, CDs, DVDs, films and TV are all regulated.

[gejohnston]

83. it is?

besides the seven words, and transmitting uniformity? copyright and trademark?

[a geek named Bob]

126. well...

you can get busted for fraud and threats, and criminal materials.

That sounds like regulation in my book.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

193. And the Pirate Bay is just a figment of someone's imagination

[NYC_SKP]

3. Not bad, let me pick at it a bit:

We have the technology to implement the following. Do we have the will?

1. All semi-automatics, handguns and long guns, must be fitted with biometric safeties and have GPS chips embedded.

That leaves, what, shotguns and air rifles? Both can be pretty deadly, but I catch your drift.

2. Local authority has overriding power to declare gun-free zones.

Maybe good, maybe bad, depends upon application.

3. All owners of semi-autos should pass psych evaluation, with periodic reviews.

Not bad.

4. Background checks should be limited to history of violence or mental instability.

As opposed to what other criteria?

5. Owners of revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles would only be subject to background checks.

Got it, consistent with #3, sort of.

6. No carry without special certification and carry weapon must have GPS chip.

This one I love.

Thanks for a well-reasoned proposal.

[Starboard Tack]

11. Thanks

I left shotguns and air rifles because they account for relatively few killings. Trying to draw a reasonable line, see how it goes and if necessary, down the road, impose the same restrictions on them as on semi-autos.
Number 4 was about not restricting people who stole a pizza, or a car, or sold a few ounces of pot. But I would be looking at people with 3 or more DUIs within a time frame.

[NYC_SKP]

15. I think it's a thoughtful approach.

Interesting about the shotgun part, as my ownership preference for purposes of self and home defense are for a shotgun.

They won't hurt the neighbors or others in a quarter mile radius, and I don't need great aim.

I am not in the league with CCW proponents, but as a one time NYC resident I can understand circumstances that warrant these, so won't try to regulate their lives.

Not a bad plan, overall.

[gejohnston]

6. my thoughts

We have the technology to implement the following. Do we have the will?

No we don't. If we did, a European company like Walther, FN, or Glock would have already done it. Maybe a US upstart to get a fat cop contract.

1. All semi-automatics, handguns and long guns, must be fitted with biometric safeties and have GPS chips embedded.

so, not machine guns? Why not just say all guns, that is what you said. Oh wait, you misused a comma. My bad.

2. Local authority has overriding power to declare gun-free zones.

they do. Schools and malls are generally gun free zones. Some speculate that is why Holmes picked the theater he did. Out of the several theaters playing Batman, including one near his home, he happened to pick the one that was a gun free zone.

3. All owners of semi-autos should pass psych evaluation, with periodic reviews.

Never happen, HIPPA laws, subjective tests etc. No other country AFAIK does this, could be for a reason.

4. Background checks should be limited to history of violence or mental instability.

I would remove nonviolent pot possession or something, but I would add what I added before.

5. Owners of revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles would only be subject to background checks.

status quo

6. No carry without special certification and carry weapon must have GPS chip.

I like our federal system, each state do its own thing. No forced ban or forced reciprocity. Just a ban on an arbitrary criteria. GPS chip needs power source, like cell phones. Guns are mechanical.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. thank you for stating this so much better than I did below. but, this mental stuff has to be careful

there is a thread in Meta about this very thing.

[atreides1]

7. Suggestion

You need to make sure that none of these violate any other rights.

[hack89]

8. Number 2 is unconstitutional

do you really want state rights?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. microchips. how sci-fi of you. define mental instability. GPS chip? kiss my ass.

[Starboard Tack]

16. GPS chips are part of life now, like it or not

The only way to have an effective gun-free zone is with the application of GPS tracking. It's already in every cellphone and a shitload of other devices out there. Hell, my point-and-shoot camera has one built-in.
Wouldn't you want to know where your missing gun was?

Professionals would define mental instability.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. you do realize that most pros get in the field to try and understand their own neuroses/psychoses?

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Please. This is a people issue. Our laws are in place and law abiding, tax paying citizens are already following them

The data shows this.

We need to get our schizophrenics diagnosed and on the right medicine.

We need to provide support groups for the families.

We need to help our veterans with PTSD.

We need to remove the stigma of depression.

You are in violation of HIPAA with what you suggesting.

and individuals have the right to privacy in their movements. isn't that the very basis of the meaning of Freedom?

[LeftofU]

24. This can't agree with this post more.....

we are discussing huge changes to our freedoms for the chance that we may have a little less gun violence.

[Starboard Tack]

46. No, a lot less gun violence. Think about it.

[Ashgrey77]

206. There isn't a lot of gun violence to begin with. 300 million people, 100 million guns

15000 to 20000 a year dead total, from accidents, homicides, and suicides? That's not even a drop in the bucket when you look at the big picture. 1 million people die a year from HEART DISEASE AND CANCER, do something about that first and maybe, just maybe, you'll be taken seriously when you scream at the top of your lungs about how much gun violence there is in the USA.

[Starboard Tack]

208. Tell that to the families of the 30,000+ who lose their lives every year.

Heart disease and cancer have nothing to do with gun deaths. Nice try at deflecting.
You, my friend, will never be taken seriously until you address the problem at hand. Enjoy your stay.

[Ashgrey77]

215. Death is death, nice try at deflecting that fact. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

216. So what? We're here to talk about gun violence.

[Starboard Tack]

45. I agree with all you say except vioalation of HIPAA

But it is more than a people issue, it is a gun control issue and that's what we discuss here.
For me, the issue is about saving lives, or preventing deaths, while not infringing on Constitutional Rights. If we can't find such a solution, then we risk losing those rights.

The status quo isn't working. The current laws are useless and unenforceable, because there is so little accountability.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

82. "....we risk losing our rights."

blink. blink.

[Starboard Tack]

85. This entire thread is about not losing our rights.

It's also about not losing your guns.

[Starboard Tack]

91. My whole point to you was they wouldn't have been stolen with this technology

Or you would know where they are. Also they would be inoperable by anyone other than you.
I hope you get them back before they are used to cause harm.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. How well did they work in the Mexican gun thing?

The technical challenges here are more than you realize. Power, antenna, 2 law transmission.

A better approach might be some sort of LoJack but many of the same challenges would remain

[Starboard Tack]

47. Try to be positive here please.

The technology is there and it's a great opportunity for a hi-tech company. It is a form of LoJack. Power is no more difficult than powering a cellphone.
I see it working pretty much the same as an AIS system combined with an ankle bracelet type system. I use AIS all the time to avoid collisions in shipping lanes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

80. All the optimism in the world will not trump the physics

Serious RF issues alone

[Starboard Tack]

86. Quit being a naysayer. We have the technology.

If your only issue is with the physics of it, then we have a winner, because the geeks will figure it out. They do shit like this in their sleep.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

97. As a geek with some RF background, no we don't

[Starboard Tack]

98. Care to tell us how we don't or do you want to figure out how we do?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

149. The first problem is RF propagation through metal

A sticky problem regardless.

There is a basic fail in trying to solve exclusively through technology what is a non-techincal problem

[Starboard Tack]

152. Of course it isn't the best solution

That would be eliminating all guns from the planet, but that's not gonna happen. So we have to deal with a mentality that sees RKBA is a fundamental right and work with that in the hope of saving a substantial number of lives in the future.
From my POV, technology is the obvious answer. I'm sure it can be worked out. Plus, aren't some guns, like Glocks, made of plastic?

Anyway, if you understand this stuff, why don't you help figuring out how to make it work? Unless you've got some better ideas, which I haven't seen yet.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

190. Because you are trying to solve problems in society with a less than adequate

technical solutions. Address the underlying problems.

[Starboard Tack]

191. The underlying problem is easy access to firearms, period.

The only way to diminish the death toll of mass shootings is to develop the necessary technology to prevent them. That is, if you want to keep your guns. More guns and armed guards will only create more victims. The mental health factor is not the underlying problem. Nor is gang violence. Nor is the war on drugs.
The Second Amendment makes no mention of GUNS. In that light, it would be constitutional to ban all existing semi-automatic weapons, or other specific kind of weapon.
I am not suggesting that, but it is an option.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

192. Not true

We have had easy access to such firearms since the end of WWI, even longer if you want to add semiautomatic handguns to the milieu. What has changed since then that all of a sudden this weapons are now a problem?
- Hopelessness?
- A tolerated subcultural of crime?
- Oppressive police tactics on drugs?

Right now there is no technical magic pill in the immediate future. Some are trying to sell it, but it is not yet practical. Something may emerge, and I will support if and when it does.

[Starboard Tack]

195. Obviously, that easy access needs to be stopped.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

197. Access used to be much easier and we did not have these problems

what has changed?

[Starboard Tack]

198. I think you are wrong.

Legal access may have been easier, not real access. Millions more guns in circulation equals much more access.
So you ask "what has changed?" Out of control proliferation - that's what has changed.

[gejohnston]

199. relative to the population

it is the same number, so the acess is was easier.

[Travis_0004]

109. Ive seen many post about GPS, I find it kind of funny.

Once again, its more technology, that accomplishes nothing.

First off, GPS satellites don't record any data, they just send it out, so you also need a cell phone connection to send the data out live. Most guns don't have a lot of wasted space, so good luck finding a place to put that stuff.

Plus, here is an idea, that the criminals will probably eventually figure out. Don't charge it. My cell phone last about 2 days without a charge, so if somebody buys a gun, on day 3, the GPS will be useless.

I have incentive to charge my phone, and charge my camera. I'm not going to charge my gun.

[Starboard Tack]

110. And if it won't function without being charged?

Then maybe you'll be incentivized.

[Starboard Tack]

111. You might want to check this out

http://www.lightninggps.com/personal-tracking/gps-implant.html

If we can implant them (size of a grain of rice) we can sure as heck embed one in a gun.

[Travis_0004]

142. And what do you do when the battery dies (or is removed)

[Starboard Tack]

144. I do nothing and neither does the gun.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

194. Only if its a phaser

Analog/mechanical firearms not so much.

Take a cutaway diagram of a 1911A pistol. Where would you put the update kit?

[Starboard Tack]

196. Not my problem. The manufacturer would have to figure that out.

I'm looking for solutions so YOU can keep your guns. You keep throwing up road blocks. Good luck with that. I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if every semi-auto were banned tomorrow.

[Clames]

200. You haven't provided any solutions.

Not even close. You've done nothing but thrown out half assed ideas without even doing the slightest effort to discuss the obvious technical shortcomings. Asking others to do your homework for you? No, this isn't grade school and we aren't your parents...

[Starboard Tack]

209. Right Mr. Negativity, except it will be you who loses his guns, not me.

You may well roll your eyes. I'm coming up with solutions that many here have embraced and you don't even want to contribute. You, and those like you, are a major part of the problem. Have a nice day!

[gejohnston]

210. what you think is a solution is really

just a good "first step" to others. Using an analogy I've used before (and depending on your knowledge of US history, may or may not get) if we accept going on this reservation, what guarantee is there that there won't be missionary boarding schools next? Calls for another concession for some other reason will soon follow your idea.
Even if we had murder rates like Switzerland and Canada, there would be still pushes for gun control just like there is in those countries. The reason? It is a culture war that has nothing to do with public safety. In the US, it is urban vs rural. In Switzerland, it seems to be more French/Italian vs German. That doesn't mean that there isn't well meaning people that honestly believe that it will make their communities safer, there are. They just happen to be the minority.

[Starboard Tack]

212. Are you saying a minority want safer communities?

I hope not. There is something essentially wrong when you look at the stats of the US along with the rest of the world. If the majority actually think more guns in circulation with less restrictions is the answer then we have a broken/failed society.
The problem isn't rural vs. urban, but each trying to impose it's values on the other. Guns have a valid place in rural America, just as gun-free zones have a place in urban America.
That's why I offer these suggestions, so that we can find a way to be safe without giving away any basic rights. I'm very encouraged by many of the positive responses I've received. We can do it if we want to.

[gejohnston]

214. I'm saying the minority is motivated by

the belief that it will make their communities safe.
Compared to the world at large, we are doing OK.
Compared to the other OECD countries, we are third in murder behind Mexico and Estonia. Worldwide, we are about 88th
Belgium is first in robberies
Denmark is first in burglaries
New Zealand is first in auto theft
Australia is first in rape
Scotland is first in assault
www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932

[JDPriestly]

12. That is a good step in the right direction but would it be expensive to implement?

And what about guns that are not fitted with biometric safeties and embedded GPS chips?

How could we be sure that people made these changes to their guns.

Shouldn't background checks also include the person's criminal history? Isn't it that way now?

Also, if a GPS chip can be embedded, couldn't it be removed?

[Starboard Tack]

48. Good questions

Those not fitted would be retrofitted. Obviously this would take a while, so there would be a grace period for compliance. We could never be sure that all guns comply, but if we make non-compliance so unattractive that it would not be worth it, like a minimum of 5 years for having a non-compliant firearm outside your home.
Background checks do include criminal history, but should concentrate on violence or propensity toward violence. There are many non violent felons out there who should not forfeit their constitutional rights for non violent or victimless crimes.

Removal of chips can be monitored and would constitute a serious felony. Same as removing a tracking bracelet. Also possible to deactivate the weapon if removed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. A couple of technical points

- Biometric sensors are not adequately reliable and liability looms large.
- GPS chips are not doable since firearms do not have a power source. Antenna performance would also be a major problem.

[Clames]

22. Yup, once again technical ignorance sinks another "reasonable" proposal.

ST, do yourself a favor and research the difference between a GPS receiver chip and a GPS transceiver system.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. The antenna is even harder.

While I did not pay a lot of attention to the Mexican gun scandal, I want to recall those guns were supposed to have locators in them. How well did that work?

[gejohnston]

25. they bought cheap batteries from Radio Shack

that died too soon. John Stewart had a field day with that.

[Starboard Tack]

57. Check your cellphone and learn about tethering.

I come up with actual solutions and you try to shoot them down because you don't think it's doable. You obviously haven't researched it. We follow migrating wildlife using this king of technology. We track out kids with this kind of technology. We date and place stamp photos with this kind of technology. Stick your head out of your cave sometime and see the light.

[Clames]

64. Still requires a transceiver.

You just don't get it do you. Trackable GPS systems with CDMA/cellular assistance require considerable amount of power when active. Even more so when signal degrades. My cellphone's temperature rises noticeably when I'm using data in 3G or 4G modes and the signal is weak. I work with military grade GPS systems. Wildlife trackers are passive and store the data on flash memory that has to be downloaded directly from the unit. Far from real-time SA. You have no idea what you are talking about. Suggest solutions when you actually have some and lay off the SciFi television...

[Starboard Tack]

67. Tsk, tsk! Such negativity.

How about we not worry too much where the signal is weak for now. Use your brain for solutions instead of laughing at those who are trying to fix a serious problem. You really can be quite offensive.

[Clames]

104. Sorry you find facts so troubling...

...but then with my engineering and technical background I see the way things work and not how I wish them to be. You still aren't offering solutions.

[Starboard Tack]

108. And your solutions are what precisely? Putting down good ideas?

Put your thinking cap on like others are doing and we might be able to accomplish something worthwhile.
Let's here your objections, in detail, from a technical and engineering background, so that others with similar knowledge can respond.

[Clames]

129. I don't advocate any of these measure.

GPS tracking devices for CCW holders? That's just a plain violation of privacy. I disable the location recording information on my cellphone. Never have one on any gun I own. Biometric triggers? Horribly unreliable and no manufacturer is going to stick their neck on the chopping block if one fails when needed the most. None of these measure will matter to the hundreds of millions of existing firearms so I can't possibly see why anyone would fathom these suggestions as having any potential effect on crime. What it looks like is suggestions on implementing a defacto ban since you know these measures would add hundreds if not thousands of dollars to the end cost of firearms and turn many others away from ownership. Dishonesty at its finest.

[gejohnston]

131. or he has investments

in the industry.

[Starboard Tack]

133. So, you've got nothing. No surprise there.

[Clames]

134. Nothing that would make you happy.

Oh well.

[bobclark86]

130. It's only a good idea...

if it works. It doesn't. Ergo, not a good idea.

[Starboard Tack]

136. Please explain what would not work

No point saying it doesn't if it hasn't even been tried

[Starboard Tack]

52. Biometric sensors are getting better by the day

I'm sure it can be figured out.
GPS chips are no problem. Power source is minimal. Any gun can accommodate a battery and antenna, just as easily as a cellphone does. Power can also be delivered wirelessly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. You are overestimating the state of the art with biometrics

GPS chips are doable, the RF signal will be a real problem.

Wireless power is years away

[Starboard Tack]

90. Wireless power is already here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. Its not in general use and the EMI issues remain unaddressed

[RegieRocker]

17. Not bad...however

change it to semi auto to semi auto assault weapons. Many hunters would object to this and also those with automatic pistols for protection. History of violence would have to be carefully worded and limited to initiated violence. Even then it can come down to word against word. Maybe a history of x number of occurrences. Certain types of violence one occurence. Remember most of the shooters had no previous criminal records. They only had a history of mental illness. The rest is good. Military and law enforcement are already using RFID. Maybe both GPS and RFID. Also RFID in the ammo?

[Remmah2]

20. Screw the hunters.

Their semi-autos can be retrofitted with after market magazines. Twenty round magazines already exist for stock hunting rifles. A semi-auto is a semi-auto.

[RegieRocker]

21. Screw you

I am a hunter.

[Remmah2]

18. Only as long as law enforcement agencies agree to the same conditions in reference to the technology

Given enough dedication any technology can be overcome.

I can just see Anonymous hacking guns from a continent away.

[Starboard Tack]

58. Agreed. Make the penalties for hacking unpalatable.

[Remmah2]

135. Ban high cap flash drives!

nt

[Justin_Beach]

27. The GPS chips

would be handy ... it would allow you to equip schools, airports, public buildings etc., with alarm systems that are triggered by the chips ... alarm goes off, all classroom doors lock.

[Common Sense Party]

29. Unless the chip has been disabled or the battery in it has died.

It's a nifty idea, but for the fact that it might not work.

[Justin_Beach]

32. It's already borderline possible

to make nanochips that cannot be disabled and could operate for decades (possibly longer) without needing to be powered up.

[link:http://www.nanomatic.net/|http://www.nanomatic.net/
]

http://www.nansulate.com/sustainability/Nansulate_for_Facility_Sustainability.pdf

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/02/12/gps-chips-are-now-sm.html

Throw a little money at MIT and the entire gun will be coated in thousands of tiny GPS chips.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Good post thanks. We need more positive voices here.

[Bjorn Against]

114. Nothing is going to work every time, but if it works sometimes it could save lives

[gejohnston]

31. RFID chips

like WalMart shoes. Question is, how long do they last?

[Justin_Beach]

33. See above n/t

[Common Sense Party]

28. I'll have to think about some of those...the tracking thing sounds too Patriot Act to me.

I don't know if I want the government knowing where I am all the time. I'm funny that way.

Are you thinking this chip will be fitted into newly manufactured arms only? Or in all existing semi-autos? And how do you get all the owners of the millions of semi-auto handguns out there to comply?

As a reasonably sane person, I'm liking the psych eval idea, but I'm also wondering if psychiatrists will want to stick their necks out and be on the hook by delaring someone "fit" to own a firearm, only to have them snap.

[Starboard Tack]

62. Thanks for the feedback. Lots of details to be ironed out.

If you carry a cellphone, the government knows where you are, if it wants to. Or at least it has the ability to track your phone. Retrofitting would take time. Grace period. How, by having centers established for compliance updates of your firearms. Like going for a smog test.
The healthcare industry has a lot at stake here and needs to work hand in hand with the public safety sector in figuring out a just and equitable solution to this serious problem. There comes a point where public safety trumps individual rights.

[tortoise1956]

30. Sorry, gotta disagree on most of this

1. GPS chips have a couple of issues. The first one, of course, is a power source. (Should have thought of that myself, but it's been a long day) Another huge one is that what you've done with this is make it easier for thieves with a reasonable knowledge of modern electronics to locate weapons they can steal.
2. Local authority is part of the problem we already face. What's to stop a city council form declaring the entire city a gun-free zone - including your house?
3. HIPPA laws would prevent this.
4. I think this runs into HIPPA also.
5. Why would you not include all weapons? I'm not beign snarky. Charles Whitman used a Remington model 700 6mm bolt-action and a shotgun, among other weapons, to kill 18 people.
6. What type of certification? Most states require a CCW license - is this similar?

I really worry about the whole GPS chip thing. I'm guessing that it wouldn't be hard to disable the chip so that no one knew you were carrying, which would then mean that only the law-abiding citizens would show up on your app. Of course, that's the problem now - criminals don't worry about laws.

But hey, it's still fun to debate rational ideas presented without any personal invective, unlike so many other recent posters.

[Starboard Tack]

65. OK let me respond

1. Power source is no issue. Look at your cellphone. You can either plug it in, have a solar charger or a wireless charger.
Stealing the weapon would be beyond stupid. First it has a tracker built in, second it would have a biometric safety, which if tampered with would render the weapon inoperable. Plus, anyone caught with a non compliant weapon would be subject to a mandatory minimum.

2. Local authority starts at home. You decide what comes into your house. If you live in a gun free zone/town, then your gun must be inoperable between your property line and the outside limit of the zone.

3. HIPPA laws need to be studied and, if necessary, amended in the name of public safety. Remember, this is not mandatory. It is only for those who want certain kinds of weaponry.

I'm excluding the less dangerous weapons, because I think we need an opportunity to show how effective these measures could be. There is no absolute answer, beyond total elimination of all guns and that will never happen.
If every semi-auto has a chip that is trackable, then if it is hacked or deactivated, an alert would be triggered and/or the firearm would become inoperable.

[tortoise1956]

72. These coudl work

Some of the tech you discuss isn't feasible yet. If/when it becomes available, I'll revisit #1, especially biometric locks on weapons. I have all my guns locked up in a cabinet so that my grandkids can't get at them. Biometric locks would be an even better answer.

I don't like gun-free zones, but that may be the only viable answer right now. I would require implementation of gun-free zones to be accomplished through initiatives voted upon by those that will be affected by these zones.

I agree that the current laws would need to be amended. If they are, then as long as this is not an overriding requirement for all weapons, in my opinion it stands a pretty good chance of passing constitutional scrutiny.

And I still believe that these measures by themselves are not going to fix the problem. We need to get these people help before they go over the edge. Until then, I'm afraid that all we'll do is reduce the body count, not stop it.

[Starboard Tack]

76. I agree that no measure will completely fix the problem.

Reducing the body count works for me. Thanks for your input.

[Spryguy]

123. In reply...

1. GPS chips have a couple of issues. The first one, of course, is a power source. (Should have thought of that myself, but it's been a long day) Another huge one is that what you've done with this is make it easier for thieves with a reasonable knowledge of modern electronics to locate weapons they can steal.
True, but that gives bigger incentive to either not own a death spewer or to lock it up tight!


2. Local authority is part of the problem we already face. What's to stop a city council form declaring the entire city a gun-free zone - including your house?

Nothing, and that is awesome

3. HIPPA laws would prevent this.

4. I think this runs into HIPPA also.

Change HIPPA law.

5. Why would you not include all weapons? I'm not beign snarky. Charles Whitman used a Remington model 700 6mm bolt-action and a shotgun, among other weapons, to kill 18 people.
Good point. I agree it should be all weapons.


6. What type of certification? Most states require a CCW license - is this similar?

I guess.

I really worry about the whole GPS chip thing. I'm guessing that it wouldn't be hard to disable the chip so that no one knew you were carrying, which would then mean that only the law-abiding citizens would show up on your app. Of course, that's the problem now - criminals don't worry about laws.

Well, I see gun owners AS potential criminals, so the app would at least give me some warning about a ds toter coming my way. You would have to make SEVERE criminal penalties, with affirmative justice adjustments, to discourage the existence of unchipped death spewers.

But hey, it's still fun to debate rational ideas presented without any personal invective, unlike so many other recent posters.

Thanks

[gejohnston]

124. Do you smoke pot?

then you are a criminal. Check the law books. So, many nongun owners are hidden criminals as Mikeb once said.

[AlexSatan]

34. Which of these

would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting?

[jeepnstein]

36. None of them.

Proper mental health care for the shooter would have gone a long way.

Oh, and here's a pro tip of the day. If you live in a house with a person who is mentally ill you should probably keep your guns under lock and key. You should probably do that anyway unless it's riding in a holster or otherwise under your direct control.

[Starboard Tack]

70. These

Biometric safety. Guns weren't his.
GPS would have sent alarm and/or disabled weapon when entering a gun-free zone

[AlexSatan]

71. But it is pretty likely

that he would have been programming in to allow him to use them since his mom had them.. Yes, I'm assuming she taught the kids to shoot, but most parents do.

[Starboard Tack]

77. Obviously a detail that would have to be worked out.

In the age of computers and nano-technology, all this is doable. In this case, the guns were all registered to the mother and, as such, would be tethered in some way to her to make them functional. Especially in terms of movement of the weapons.

[hack89]

35. Once you prove that the technology will never fail

get back to us.

It will be a long time.

#2 is blatantly unconstitutional.

[Atypical Liberal]

37. Thoughts

1. All semi-automatics, handguns and long guns, must be fitted with biometric safeties and have GPS chips embedded.

I have designed hardened electronics systems with embedded GPS. It is very hard to do with metal-bodied objects, because the metal of the object interferes with the reception of the GPS antenna. The antenna is usually placed on the top surface of the object in question, often under a RF-transparent plastic dome or cover. This is where sites go on firearms.

Then of course, there is the issue that these GPS systems don't transmit location, they simply receive signals from GPS satellites so that they can compute, internally, their global position. If you want the device to transmit, now you need another antenna and much more power.

And passive or active, these devices consume a fair amount of power. Defeating them would be a simple as removing the battery. Or putting a piece of metal tape over the antenna. And of course they would not reliably function indoors.

I have also designed hardened biometric equipment, including iris scanners, facial recognition, and fingerprint scanners, including conductive and optical. Very few of these devices will fit within the envelope of a handgun. You might have a shot with the tiny "swipe" fingerprint readers as you see on some notebook computers. Hardening these devices to survive the repeated shock of being directly attached to the frame of a firearm will be very difficult. And again, power is an issue.

Then there is the issue of fail-safe. When the battery goes dead or the electronics become damaged, does the weapon fail such that the safety is engaged or not? In other words, if the biometric safety fails, does it brick the firearm. No doubt many of you will say, "yes". Someone is going to get sued to oblivion when they try and use their firearm to defend themselves and it fails to function because of a faulty biometric lock-out.

Both of these devices would be much easier to implement in long arms as there is plenty of space in the rifle stock. It will be much harder in handguns.

2. Local authority has overriding power to declare gun-free zones.

I figure if you are going to have special certification CCW carriers then they should be able to go where they want. Make these people deputy police officers.

3. All owners of semi-autos should pass psych evaluation, with periodic reviews.

Sure. Make it part of licensing.

4. Background checks should be limited to history of violence or mental instability.

I'm not sure what this means. This is the case today. But today it is too narrowly defined. You can be crazy as a loon but if you have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, you can buy a gun.

I think in addition if you are on any SSRI or anti-psychotic that should disqualify you also.

5. Owners of revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles would only be subject to background checks.

Sure.

6. No carry without special certification and carry weapon must have GPS chip.

And this special certification should include hands-on practical and tactical training. Let's not half-ass this anymore. In Alabama, all you have to do is pay $20 and you can have a CCW permit. Let's have 2 weekends of police training with annual follow-ups. I'm tired of hearing people who wish that a police officer could be present to stop a shooting but are horrified at the idea of a CCW permit holder doing the same thing. Let's make these CCW permit holders special deputies.

[Starboard Tack]

75. Excellent points! I think we are now on the same page.

Regarding the GPS, couldn't the transmitter be external, carried separately, yet tethered to the embedded chip? You obviously know a lot more than I do about such things. I'm sure there is some way of using nano-technology to accomplish the desired results.

[Atypical Liberal]

88. I don't know about transmitting.

Regarding the GPS, couldn't the transmitter be external, carried separately, yet tethered to the embedded chip? You obviously know a lot more than I do about such things. I'm sure there is some way of using nano-technology to accomplish the desired results.

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to accomplish having the weapon broadcast its location, the way this is usually done with cell phones is the GPS is only used for the phone to figure out where it is by receiving the GPS satellite signals. It broadcasts this information back over the standard cell network or just uses the information locally for an application, like, say, a mapping application. It takes a much smaller antenna and a lot less power to talk to your local cell tower than to talk to a satellite.

And you don't even need GPS for this. Cell phones (and carriers, for that matter) can get a pretty good idea of their location just by triangulating signal strength from various cell phone towers.

If you are wanting to build a weapon tracking system the easiest way, and perhaps even the most robust way would be to use the cellular network, which is nearly ubiquitous today. But someone is going to have to pay for all that data transmission now. You'd need a battery about like you find in your cell phone and it would probably last a week to two weeks before it would need recharging. Maybe you could design the weapon so it would not function if it was not broadcasting its homing beacon but again, someone is going to end up suing the pants off of someone the first time they try and protect themselves with a gun and it refuses to operate because of a safety lock-out.

I won't say it is an impossible engineering problem but it is not a trivial one.

Definitely easier to implement in a long arm than a handgun.

........

AHAH!

I just had a good idea how to do this. Time for a patent application!

[Starboard Tack]

95. Great stuff. I love it when people start to really think.

And great points about tying in with cellular network. That's how my Ship Finder app works. A full AIS system transmits GPS, but the app, which costs next to nothing, combines both systems.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. No.

1. All semi-automatics, handguns and long guns, must be fitted with biometric safeties and have GPS chips embedded.
Such devices are not yet completely reliable. Further they will rely upon batteries which can run down. You need to learn the difference between a GPS receiver and a transmitter.

2. Local authority has overriding power to declare gun-free zones.
Don't you mean "unarmed victim zone"? Criminals and nuts don't pay attention to such zones.

3. All owners of semi-autos should pass psych evaluation, with periodic reviews.
There aren't enough psychiatrists in America to take care of all the semi-auto owners. And no pysch would want to take on the liability risk.

6. No carry without special certification and carry weapon must have GPS chip.
In most states a carry permit is needed. I can agree to that. But no to the GPS chip.

[Starboard Tack]

81. I guess your cup is always half empty. What a shame.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

41. Notice How the Gun Clutching Crowd Will Call You Stupid After

they find a thousands ways to tell you:

-it's already being done
-it can't be done
-it's unconstitutional
-it's not necessary
-it's ineffective
-it's too costly
-it's _______

And then they wonder why folks just throw up their arms and say screw the 2nd Amendment. I'm not one of them but I sure as heck can see how someone gets to that place.

I haven't read this tread entirely yet but tell me I'm wrong...tell me how many posts fall into this category.

This doesn't help
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022013130

[gejohnston]

42. to avoid the "it's already being done"

learn the current laws
"it's unconstitutional" so, start trying to repeal the fourth and fifth amendments.

maybe the problem isn't the "gun clutching crowd" maybe it is the quality of ST's ideas.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Exhibit A

.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. meanwhile back in reality

Four more found dead today in a house in Colorado.

[tortoise1956]

49. ST posted suggestions

I assumed it was posted here for input. I provided my input. I didn't call him stupid. I did however go over the flaws I see in the suggestions.

You, on the other hand, provided no input that I saw, just a snarky attempt to fan the flames. I mean, c'mon! If it violates current law, then it can't be done. Rewrite the current law, then the answer changes. The same with effectiveness. GPS chips don't stop cell phones form being stolen, why would they work any better in guns? The concept is good, but the current technology doesn't provide an adequate answer. I'm not gonna lie and say something's wonderful.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Exhibit B

.

[tortoise1956]

51. And still no constructive input

At least you're consistent.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

55. Correct

I'm tired of gungeon land arguments. I grow tired of the same old BS about why something can't be done or why we can't find ways to end this violence.

Expect better from me at another time. For now, my glib response reflects my disdain for all things guns.

And yes...it was indeed Exhibit B.

Why don't you tell me what can be done so I can read after I take a Latte break?

[tortoise1956]

59. Fair enough

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117294407

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117294407#post12

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=93791

I'm not invested in blind adherence to RKBA. Even my RW co-workers agree that there are steps that can and should be taken to reduce these incidents. However, until you get at the real cause, they will continue to occur.

Comments? I do appreciate constructive criticism. Especially now that I'm properly caffeinated and relatively stable...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

69. Thank You

A latte can solve everything.

I appreciate your links and applaud these ideas worth repeating:

1. Form 4473 requirements for any gun sales, including private sales, with the forms kept in a central database.
2. Background checks for all gun sales, including private sales.
3. Limit purchases to 1 every 2 months. This one shocked the shit out of me, it came from a guy who collects WW2 firearms and has an extensive collection.
4. Limit magazine capability. No one - except the dick with ears, or course - disagreed with that.
5. Place limits on ammunition purchases, or require a license to be able to buy more than, say, 500 rounds at a time.
6. Put a tax on weapons and ammunition, to be directed toward something such as funding mental health initiatives, or possibly a victim's fund.

Bravo! Thanks.

Now....wait for the naysayers to tell us

-it's already being done
-it can't be done
-it's unconstitutional
-it's not necessary
-it's ineffective
-it's too costly
-it's _______

But alas......back to the Latte......

[tortoise1956]

73. Work with me

and I'll work with you. I will give you my honest opinion. If that means I don't think something can be done, I'll say so, and list my reasons. I will also try to suggest alternatives.

As for the knee-jerk reactions, from either side, they're not interested in being part of the solution.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

143. Not Sure I Agree

I have more respect for those I disagree with who fight passionately for their beliefs as I do (call it knee jerk if you want) than I do for the indifference by so many that has put us in this situation. Those who have a vested interest fight for their beliefs. From my perspective, I can't help but ask how many massacres do we have to have before the public takes responsibility for ending the carnage.

And I dispute your notion that those fighting for gun control (or for that matter gun rights) are not interested in being part of the solution. What is 'knee jerk'? Fighting for what you believe? We need more 'knee jerk' reactions to see if this country still has a pulse.

The status quo is unacceptable. Your ideas are good ones.

[tortoise1956]

164. Sorry, last night was a little hectic. Didn't get around to answering

Let me explain what I meant.

There are those on both sides who have no interest in compromise at all. Examples:

"Take everyone's guns away!"
" I have a right to walk down the street with a bazooka!"

They may be sincere in their beliefs, but all they really accomplish is to provide ammo for the other side to use as objecty examples. They're also not living in the real world.

I see it this way:
1. You will never get rid of all the guns in our society while the second amendment stands.
2. The chances of repealing the second amendment are vanishingly small.
3. This is an excellent time for advocates of gun control to get some incremental changes implemented.
4. The longer they wait, the less chance there is of accomplishing anything.
5. If they aren't willing to compromise, they won't get anything done.

And none if this will matter if we don't move to deal with the issue of mental health care. Crazy people will always find some way to hurt others if they want to badly enough.

I hope this answers your questions.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

165. I don't disagree with a thing you say.

Thanks.

[Starboard Tack]

101. Not all. Quite a few are very positive. I'm really encouraged by the response.

We will never accomplish anything without the support of truly responsible gun owners who believe in public safety and accountability.
Those who hate all guns and want to ban them all are not helping any more than the NRA parrots.
Read through the posts and you'll see very little hostility to these ideas. Most of the negative comments are about the technology, which I think is totally resolvable.
It will all come down to motivation and priorities and the techno-geeks stand to make some well deserved money developing it.

[HockeyMom]

53. Replace CCW with OPEN Carry

No more CCW. If you have a carry permit, it is only for open carry. "The bad guys" will see that gun and leave you alone. Those people who don't want a gun will be able to see your gun and stay away from you too if we choose to. If we want to take our chances with the bad guys not seeing any guns on us, our CHOICE.

No HIDING guns in public. Let the WORLD know.

[Starboard Tack]

54. I'm with you on that.

But it seems most people are too embarrassed to show their guns and some states, like Florida, have outlawed OC.

[HockeyMom]

56. I live in Florida which now has a proposal

remove the Gun Free Schools Zone. If they can do that, they they can, and should, change the Open Carry.

I don't like guns at all, BUT let me know as a non gun ower what I am dealing with, and who I choose to avoid. I would not work in a school where the teachers were carrying guns. Trained Armed Police Officers, which I have seen, is ok. TheyT were at the doorss and not sitting next to me all day. Teachers, Aides, Lunch Ladies, Janitors? No, thank you.

[gejohnston]

61. why did Florida ban OC?

Oh wait, it was because the sight of African American migrant workers with guns offended the sensibilities of some white people in 19th century Florida.
One conviction was overturned because they guy was white, and that the law was not intended to be enforced against whites. Yes, that was in the majority opinion.
Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (FL 1941)

[Starboard Tack]

63. Let's try to stay on subject GE. We're getting good feedback here.

[gejohnston]

68. you said Floridians banned it because

"gun nuts were ashamed" have to keep the history straight.

[Kennah]

148. It's not embarrassment, it's because it's none of your fucking business that I'm carrying

That's one of the reasons I prefer concealed.

[Starboard Tack]

153. Well, guess what? Public safety trumps that kind of an attitude.

We're talking public safety, not your right to privacy. Time to get with the program.

[gejohnston]

154. so public safety trumps

Miranda, fourth and fifth amendments? RUC and MI5 tortured people in the name of "public safety". Were you OK with that as long as it made the public safe from the IRA?
Maybe we should be more like Japan for public safety:
no exclusionary rule, illegally obtained evidence allowed in court
force confessions, including torture, allowed in court
no right to council during (often physically abusive) "questioning"
being held up to a month without charges or access to a lawyer

[Starboard Tack]

158. No. I think you know what I'm talking about.

Sometimes I wonder if you are purposely trying to derail a thread or just playing devil's advocate. I'll assume the latter.
You make good points for another debate, where I will probably agree with you 99%.

[gejohnston]

160. partly devil's advocate,

partly "just how far are you willing to go with this" Given the love some folks around here for the PATRIOT ACT, Bloomberg's stop and frisk, and "we were against it before we were for it" crowd on Bush's terrorist, which contains no terrorists, watch list, I think it is becoming a reasonable question to ask.

[Starboard Tack]

161. Well, I don't support the Patriot Act or Stop and Frisk.

Neither do I support torture or invasion of privacy. I don't think knowing what loaded weapons are being carried in public is an invasion of privacy. It is a reasonable solution to an enormous public safety issue.
And, of course, I support Miranda.

[gejohnston]

162. OK,

the important thing is who does the knowing. If someone wanting to pull robbery, hopefully they couldn't use that intel to know who the cops, and anyone with a CCW would be there. Kind of like the urban legend about the guy that walked past a couple of cop cars to knock over a gun store, only to meet those same cops and then some.

[Starboard Tack]

163. Well, there is more than one way to look at that.

I envisage a system available to LE and legitimate permit holders. However, any system is potentially hackable, in which case, the presence of legal firearms in the vicinity is more likely to serve as a deterrent. So, I don't see any increased vulnerability of gun carriers.
Also, there are different levels of tracking and what info might be available to those with various levels of access.

[Kennah]

166. This is an argument I have often with open carriers. I'm safer being anonymous.

Open carrying, in my view, is a bit of showing off. Not following why you think it's the preferred.

[tortoise1956]

66. I'm wrapping my head around this idea...

Off the top of my head:

The main reason I support most CCW laws is because they require certification. I am NOT in favor of unrestricted CCW. OC would have to fall under the same certification requirements.

Private property owners should have the right to restrict carriers from entering onto their property.

Public property should be governed by the applicable lawmaking authority.

OC without certification should be a felony.

OC in a school? Not sure about that. I'd rather see schools employing retired LEOs or former military - I would be more sanguine about their ability to deal with situations.

That's it for now. If I come up with more input, I'll post it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

92. I like this idea the best so far.

[Eleanors38]

74. It appears the GPS data would be available to LEO...

What protections are there to keep this from becoming a defacto registration system.

I hope I am treating your post with the respect I have not received from other posters.

[Starboard Tack]

84. Correct. It would be a defacto registration system for certain types of weapons.

Trying to get the body count down here, without infringing on any basic rights. If we can give a little, we might get a lot back in return.

[gejohnston]

87. how would it do that?

if a business wants a gun free zone, he pays for his own sensors right? I am against all corporate welfare.

[Starboard Tack]

94. Of course.

If a business owner, not already within a gun-free zone, wants to create his own gun-free zone, then he would have to pay for the necessary signs and technology to guarantee it.

No welfare anywhere in this deal.

[gejohnston]

100. many of those are businesses decided by those businesses

so the current ones should pay as well. The exception would be states that mandate those businesses be gun free zones. For example, I would have no problem with the Wyoming government providing them to bars and places of worship but I would oppose the Ohio government doing the same given their current laws.

[Starboard Tack]

103. Details to be worked out.

[Eleanors38]

150. Would this be applied to 10s of millions of semi-auto hand guns as well?

[Starboard Tack]

151. Of course. Not much point otherwise is there?

The semi-auto handguns do most of the killings.

[Eleanors38]

168. Then what would be the fate of revolvers?

[Starboard Tack]

169. Nothing

[GreenStormCloud]

99. Criminals would love your GPS idea.

With a smartphone app, fellow carriers and others would be aware of who was armed or not. The carriers get to see where the other good guys are and the rest of us have more options in terms of our movements.

So a criminal could use a smart phone app to make sure that their intented victim was unarmed. Maybe you could call it the Safety For Criminals Act.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

102. exactly what I was thinking about the GPS idea

Apart from the rather creepy big brother aspects of the idea - some central clearing house spying on you and your fellow carriers, it could also alert anyone who wanted to take your gun from you of where you were, when you were alone, etc.

I'm assuming that mid level hackers could disable such a device -- or enable false ones.

Does anyone else find this idea intrusive?

We can legally ban assault style weapons and expanded capacity magazines which is currently being posited as around 10 rounds.

That does NOT violate or infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

Neither does requiring full background checks for all transfers, sales, private sales, gifts, inheritances.

It is also a good idea to require all states to submit all the names of prohibited owners to the NICS data base; right now to few states have submitted all of the applicable names, and some haven't submitted any.

Another good idea - keep convicted drug users names in the system. If we have to, lets develop some method for people to get their records expunged, the way they do other records of criminal activity after a certain amount of good behavior and a reasonable time lapse. Likewise, we should be barring anyone on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun; at the same time, we darned well are overdue to clean that thing up, and get people off of it who do NOT belong on it (ditto no fly, etc.). Right now to get off of either list, you have to find out what agency (of many) put your name on it, and then you have to petition them to get off - we need a single appeal entity, and a guaranteed thumbs up or thumbs down. Like the NICS, if they can't do that in three days, you should be able to buy a gun, get on a plane, or anything else you want to do that is legal.

We should be making it HARDER for former criminals to get their gun rights back (unlike say, voting rights), because those who do tend to re-offend. Unlike voting, where when a former felon begins voting he or she is 70% LESS likely to re-offend.

We should be requiring mental health evals or testing for everyone. We should be requiring eye tests for everyone - because if you can't see, you can't determine when or where to shoot, or who you are shooting at.

Anyone owning a gun should be required to carry insurance, like on your car, in case your gun is used to hurt someone. As part of a requirement for insurance, you should be required to have secure storage for your gun - and use it. You should be required to report lost or stolen guns to police. Part of buying insurance should however include that if you do have a theft or damage, you also get comp coverage for your loss. That would have the advantage of no longer putting gun owners at risk of the high cost of liability - an up side for the gun owner.

THAT is a reasonable list. The other one.....not so good.

We should be requiring microstamping.

We should be requiring that all states make it a crime not to keep guns away from children too.

[roninjedi]

105. Not bad ideas!

The individualistic, oppositional-defiant part of me chafes at the idea of many of these restrictions but I don't have a rational arguement to oppose any of them.

"requiring full background checks for all transfers, sales, private sales, gifts, inheritances."

"Gifts", eh? What about loans? I've let a friend I trust borrow a gun before. How to we stop someone from "loaning" a gun to someone who can't buy one and just never asking for it back? Presumably you'd only loan your registered gun to someone you trust not to be a criminal but you only have to be wrong once for a tragedy to occur and for you (the gun owner) to end up in jail due to failure to read another person correctly.

I'm sure there are other ways around these restrictions that I'm just not thinking of but that would instantly occur to a professional criminal.

And, yes, the GPS tracking idea *is* creepily intrusive, even if/when it becomes technically workable.

[Starboard Tack]

113. Why do you find the GPS tracking idea intrusive?

Why is it any more "creepy" than tracking your cellphone or car or child? I'm only talking about tracking semi-autos, not revolvers, bolt action rifles or shotguns. Wouldn't you want to know if your gun were stolen? And if it were stolen, wouldn't you want it to be rendered unusable by the thief?
I only envisage activating tracking when the firearm leaves your home perimeter, at which point it becomes a public safety issue.
Another thing. Never, ever loan your gun to ANYONE.

[gejohnston]

115. so, would I have control over the tracking?

or only some third party?

[Starboard Tack]

118. That's something that needs to be discussed.

It could be restricted to you and LE. I think it would help save lives if local LE were aware of who was legitimately armed in a critical situation. I like AL's suggestion that those who carry legally undergo specialized training with LE and be "deputized" to some degree. It's an idea worthy of discussion.
Or it could only be available to LE during an active investigation. What's wrong with a record of where your gun has been with a timeline?

[gejohnston]

120. as long as the you remember to leave your gun home

when you go see your FWB, so the wife doesn't ask "why were you at the Seedy Motel instead of the mall?" Seriously, I want the ability to turn it off while waiting for the cop to come by to take the stolen property report.

[roninjedi]

122. Excellent questions

I'm actually not happy with the fact that my cell phone tracks me. I also would have second thoughts about buying any car with tracking technology installed in it. I might have a tracking device placed on my child's person when but definitely not implanted. And as I indicated, I might be miserable about the government tracking my personal weaponry but if that's the price I pay to have them I'll have to suck it up.

That is until the Rick Santorum/Michelle Bachman crowd gain power, pound on my door, and order me to give them up because my liberalism and atheism makes me "politically unreliable."

[Starboard Tack]

146. Firstly, I think we are a long way from anyone pounding on doors.

Secondly, nothing that I have suggested should affect what happens on private property. We should be concerned only about guns on the move. Self defense and property defense are fine until moved into the public arena. At that point, I think we should agree that public safety trumps personal safety. Otherwise, what's the point of living in a society?

[gejohnston]

147. point of living in a society?

to get laid of course. Humans are social animals, any group of people is a society. Norms and mores evolve from there. People don't go to bars to drink, they go to socialize.

[oneshooter]

203. Would all of these proposals

also be applied to Law Enforcement officers firearms, both on duty weapons and personal?

[Starboard Tack]

204. Maybe. What do you think?

[oneshooter]

211. They are only citizens, just like the rest of us.

There should be no difference made.
Whats good for the goose and all that.

[Starboard Tack]

213. I'm OK with that.

[gejohnston]

107. most of it is good

microstamping is a corporate welfare scam. The one company has it is pushing it in the US, but in no other country that I know of.
I would allow nonviolent drug offenses to regain their rights, like Canada does. Violent offenders, of course not.

Just have the insurance as part of the homeowners renters insurance. That is how most people do it now.

do you mean safe storage, or would you criminalizing taking your kid hunting and target shooting? I'm OK with the former, but not the latter.

[Starboard Tack]

106. The app would only be available to registered users.

You can pick holes all day long, but as you pick them try to think of ways to fill those holes.
I'm trying to come up with solutions that seem viable. I'm not a scientist, engineer or techno geek. Ask those who are.
No system is or ever will be perfect, but we can try. The key principles here are one, trying to reduce killing, two, accountability and three, not losing your 2A rights.

[customerserviceguy]

116. May I add to your list

Psychological status of those who share your home? I doubt that Mama Gun Nut would have been allowed to keep her stash unperturbed if local law enforcement officials had known that she had a human time bomb living with her.

[gejohnston]

117. I doubt anyone knew

or would know. Personally, I find the idea per prior restraint repugnant.

[Starboard Tack]

119. I thought about adding that

But it's a tough one to enforce or regulate. That's why I chose the hi-tech route. I think it would be more effective if guns could be adapted/manufactured to only be operative when used by the legal owner. I think it is doable and eventually will be adopted.

[gejohnston]

121. first manufacture that does it

will have fat cop contracts around the world. Civilian sales will be bigger in Europe at first before coming here. Then the others will play catch up. In the US, Colt and Smith and Wesson had an almost monopoly on the cop market until the first Glock imports. Glock shows up with their George Jettson light weight frame, and US cops stop buying American. Everyone jumps on the polymer frame band wagon. Same thing would happen with your idea.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. How are you going to make the GPS chip work again?

Felony if you don't change the batteries in the gun?

You'd also be enabling the theft of guns. Safes are only SO safe. They can be defeated, just like a bank vault.

[gejohnston]

128. if theives defeat your bank vault and alarm,

you will be charged with unsafe storage, another felony.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. That doesn't seem terribly reasonable.

[Starboard Tack]

137. I'm not following you?

The GPS is only activated when the gun is on the move, i.e. beyond the perimeter of your home. How about the gun being programmed not to function without the GPS working?

How would it be enabling theft? I'm talking biometric safety embedded in the gun. Only the owner could use it.

[AtheistCrusader]

138. Only works when the gun is on the move...

That's 'better'. But GPS signals can be spoofed. You could force all the guns in a certain location to think they are on the move, and ta-da, now you can see which houses have gun safes, and which ones have the most guns, and would make the most profitable targets. (See: Iran, hell, they stole one of our drones using this technique)

For people who carry a gun for any possible protection use, job 1 is: pull the trigger and it goes bang, every time, without fail. This system introduces a possible failure point.

There are currently no reliable off the shelf products for this use, or you would already see the police using them. Officers are highly likely to have their firearm taken and used against them in a physical struggle, so they spend a lot of time training, and money on weapon retention hardware like leashes, special holsters, etc.

This is not to say this technology won't become viable in the near or distant future.

[Starboard Tack]

139. Technology exists. Needs to be developed and fine tuned.

I'm sure all the points you make can be addressed.

[jeepnstein]

140. No thanks on being the beta tester.

If the technology was perfected tomorrow it would be years and years before it was embraced by the law enforcement community. Their weapons and tactics are the gold standard of self defense. So I just can't see a private citizen adopting a technology that the police think is too risky for their use.

That's why citizens are increasingly switching from shotguns to AR15's for self defense. They are following the lead of their local police.

[Starboard Tack]

145. Well, we have to choose as a society which direction we want to take.

The AR15 crowd are moving toward a medieval, build and defend your castle mentality with preppers and survivalists on the extreme end.
There are others, growing numbers it seems, who want to impose some serious restrictions on gun ownership. And we all know those restrictions will be relatively meaningless lip service.
There are those who want total bans, at least for civilians, and they are getting louder.

Then, there are those, like me, who are trying to come up with viable solutions that would actually make a difference, without destroying RKBA.
The technology already exists. All it needs is development for this application. Anybody working in the field of biometrics and GPS tracking systems should be thinking about this. I have no doubt that it will happen soon, maybe not my rough model, but something similar.

[AtheistCrusader]

141. Someday, quite likely.

When I see a police department adopt it, I might well purchase that technology voluntarily. I already take multiple, redundant steps to ensure my child doesn't obtain a firearm from me somehow, this would fit nicely into that hierarchy.

[farminator3000]

155. all great ideas, the GPS thing would be the hardest/most expensive

cars have gps and lock and licensing, etc.

guns are more dangerous than cars. a no-brainer, really

[Starboard Tack]

159. Thanks for the positive input and welcome to DU and the Gungeon.

[GreenStormCloud]

177. Cars are a lot bigger.

There is plenty of room in a car to mount a GPS transmitter and the antenna, and the car has a big battery that is constantly recharged by the engine. Impossible to fit all of that into the handle of a handgun at today's level of technology.

[farminator3000]

178. you should google things sometime, it's fun!

http://news.yahoo.com/smart-guns-show-promise-not-readily-available-u-113603655.html

there is a little more to it than that.

more like gun manufacturers don't want to do it, because they think they'll lose money. but they won't

[gejohnston]

179. I saw that on the local TV news

in the context of Tampa cops being murdered with their own issued pistols. I remember reading about a similar device in Guns and Ammo in the 1970s. My first thoughts were:
Why not approach European gun makers like FN, Glock, SIG, Walther, Beretta, etc? South American ones like Taurus, Bersa etc?
Why can't I buy one after market? I would buy one if I could.
One or two fat police contracts. NYPD would be about 40K to start. Sell another 30K to the RCMP. Prices drop. They would catch on like lightweight frames since the 1980s after Glock started exporting to the US.

[GreenStormCloud]

180. GPS and Smart Chips are not the same.

"Smart guns" is the term for guns that can recognize their owner and respond only to their owner. Their chips only need an effective range of a few inches. Further, the chip's battery can be off when the gun is not being held. A grip switch in the handle can take care of that.

GPS units in a gun would have to transmit all the way to a cell phone tower to report their location. That takes a lot more power, and the gun would be turned on all the time for the feature to be useful.

Perhaps you should learn what you are talking about.

[farminator3000]

181. no duh, what's your point?

you said "gps sucks"

i said "what about this"

how big were cell phones 20 years ago?

BOTH of them are great ideas, try and be more open minded.

so.. imagine the gps only turns on when the gun is moving...

or imagine that somebody who knows way more than you is getting millions of dollars to make something sensible work

perhaps you should think about what your fingers are typing. they seem a bit off.

[GreenStormCloud]

184. You can't require something until the technology is actually available.

Right now it isn't. RELIABLE, INEXPENSIVE, smart chips for guns would be great. Let me know when the technology is actually there.

[farminator3000]

185. how does two weeks sound? or go to ireland and try one

http://news.yahoo.com/smart-guns-show-promise-not-readily-available-u-113603655.html

or 6 months would be more realistic, i'd guess.

why are gun makers dragging their feet?

[GreenStormCloud]

186. How long is the battery in the gun good for?

The RFID reader will have to be in the gun so there is room for the battery, and the reader will have to be always on to be able to sense the hand grabbing the gun. And that would drain the battery fairly quickly.

OK, the RFID could be turned off to save battery life, but if you are a cop or security guard with the gun in the holster, you don't want to be slowed down by having to turn the gun on. Having the battery die and you not being aware of it until you have to use the gun could get you killed.

Nope. Gunners won't go for it.

[farminator3000]

187. couldn't tell you. Ireland, laddy!

here is a gunner "going for it". all i'm saying is you could have said your stuff 20 years ago about smartphones/google maps/siri

gejohnston (10,301 posts)
179. I saw that on the local TV news

View profile
in the context of Tampa cops being murdered with their own issued pistols. I remember reading about a similar device in Guns and Ammo in the 1970s. My first thoughts were:
Why not approach European gun makers like FN, Glock, SIG, Walther, Beretta, etc? South American ones like Taurus, Bersa etc?
Why can't I buy one after market? I would buy one if I could.
One or two fat police contracts. NYPD would be about 40K to start. Sell another 30K to the RCMP. Prices drop. They would catch on like lightweight frames since the 1980s after Glock started exporting to the US.

[GreenStormCloud]

188. Current battery technology will not build one that lasts long.

The gun will have to have a rechargable battery and be put in the charger from time to time. Considering the small size of the battery and the fact that it will have to move a mechanical part, I doubt the battery life will be more than a few hours.

You will need a far better battery to fit into a handgun for that to work.

[ralfy]

167. Well Said

Good ideas. This is a good compromise between gun bans and using firearms without being accountable for their use.

[jody]

170. What laws do you support that protect an individual's inalienable right to self-defense against

criminals that also enforce society's alienable right to defend groups against mass-murderers?

[Starboard Tack]

172. Laws? Self defense is a natural right. Doesn't require laws.

[jody]

173. Doesn't matter. Laws will be passed to prevent another Sandy Hook Tragedy. We who support RKBA must

be involved in the debate or risk losing an inalienable right to a hysterical group whipped up by a few rabid anti-gun types.

[Starboard Tack]

182. I'm trying to find a viable solution to save lives.

I don't buy into the hysteria on either side of the debate. There is a basic human right to self defense, not to owning or using any particular kind of weapon. However the horse is out of the barn regarding gun ownership. Now it needs to be reined in to the point where everyone, or mostly everyone can live with it.

[Ashgrey77]

205. It's not viable though. And you know that. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

207. Care to explain why not?

[Glassunion]

171. My only question is the technology

What happens in 3 months after the technology is implemented, Anonymous posts a hack and criminals can disable any police officer's gun with an iPhone app?

[Starboard Tack]

174. How about on duty cops are not part of this system.

There will always be those who would attempt to thwart any security system, but breaking into a system like this would come with a heavy price. Not the price your average hacker is prepared to pay. Messing with public safety is terrorism.

[Glassunion]

175. Fair enough.

[GreenStormCloud]

176. Anonymous means anonymous.

What makes you think that you will know who made the hack? Certainly it would not be "your average hacker". All it needs if ONE extremely skilled hacker. What about security guards guns?

[SEMOVoter]

183. Bearing Arms doesn't exclusively mean guns.

We could ban all guns and not infringe on the right to bear arms.

What is being proposed is a protection to own guns. Not the same thing.

[Starboard Tack]

189. I agree 100 per cent

[samsingh]

201. my responses below - good suggestions btw

1. All semi-automatics, handguns and long guns, must be fitted with biometric safeties and have GPS chips embedded.
WE SHOULD INSIST ON THIS. REFLECT IT IN THE PRICE OF THE WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION.

2. Local authority has overriding power to declare gun-free zones.
ABSOLUTELY.

3. All owners of semi-autos should pass psych evaluation, with periodic reviews.
YES

4. Background checks should be limited to history of violence or mental instability.
AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES

5. Owners of revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles would only be subject to background checks.
OK

6. No carry without special certification and carry weapon must have GPS chip.
DEFINITELY

[Starboard Tack]

202. Thanks.

In terms of number 4, I have a problem with the inclusion of "criminal activities". It is too broad brush. The whole point about guns is their propensity to violence when used by violent people. Criminal activity is not usually violent. In many states it includes recreational drug use. People pass bad checks, shoplift, embezzle, commit bigamy, commit all kinds of non-violent criminal acts, while many truly violent individuals, such as spousal abusers, never see a courtroom.