Can NFC (Near Field Communication) solve the gun issue?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

People love their firearms and anything done could be seen at an attack on the second amendment. So why not change the tools themselves? As I'm sure some of you are aware Near Field Communication allows people to make all type of transactions without having the physically swipe a card or write a check. Well why not apply that type of technology to weapons?

This was recently demostrated in Metal Gear Solid 4, weapons were tied to an unique ID and could only be fired by that person with the proper clearance. They used nanomachines in the action game, but in real life this technology could be applied to any device you would like (a card, a patch you could wear on your clothes, etc) and the weapon wouldn't fire without those unique ID's matching and thus unlocking the weapon for use.

What are your thoughts on this? I know there would be some initial cost issues and this would be for future weapons as it would be really hard to retroactively gather weapons and ID tag them. Also the legislation could be on the business side of things to not burden the consumer with this process. I believe this could in effect make firearm theft and accidental child deaths through curiosity a non-issue!

#2 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151861 posts) -
I think you shouldn't use video games as a reality....
#4 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
Invasion of fourth amendment.
#5 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

I think you shouldn't use video games as a reality....LJS9502_basic
Why? It's a realistic concept (well the nanomahine part is far off for the time being) with current technology.

#6 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

Invasion of fourth amendment. Fightingfan
Explain?

#7 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
That also breaks the second amendment because you're asking for ID to have possession of a gun/weapon; that's illegal. America isn't Nazi Germany I don't have to provide an ID in an open carry state, doesn't matter if I even appear underage.
#8 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]Invasion of fourth amendment. Yusuke420

Explain?

If you're talking about those antibodies in MGS4 that' invasion of privacy and provide's the state with the power to seize any individual if they didn't have "any IDs".
#9 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

That also breaks the second amendment because you're asking for ID to have possession of a gun/weapon; that's illegal. America isn't Nazi Germany I don't have to provide an ID in an open carry state, doesn't matter if I even appear underage. Fightingfan
It wouldn't be something you display, in fact, it'd be better if no one knew what your NFC device was. It would work like a key as we haven't made it to the point yet that we can tie them to an individual and only that individual (maybe through a DNA/NFC combo that could be done though). It would just inhibit people from using that weapons if they don't have it's matching NFC device.

#10 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]That also breaks the second amendment because you're asking for ID to have possession of a gun/weapon; that's illegal. America isn't Nazi Germany I don't have to provide an ID in an open carry state, doesn't matter if I even appear underage. Yusuke420

It wouldn't be something you display, in fact, it'd be better if no one knew what your NFC device was. It would work like a key as we haven't made it to the point yet that we can tie them to an individual and only that individual (maybe through a DNA/NFC combo that could be done though). It would just inhibit people from using that weapons if they don't have it's matching NFC device.

So what would happen if someone who's high in office/state went rogue? Or if a sociopath obtained this? It's the same thing as using traditional guns. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
#11 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]Invasion of fourth amendment. Fightingfan

Explain?

If you're talking about those antibodies in MGS4 that' invasion of privacy and provide's the state with the power to seize any individual if they didn't have "any IDs".

Nanomachines aren't going to be viable for a long time, I'm just talking about NFC tech that we are using in stores through America, also why doesn't the fourth amendment apply to businesses drug testing policies and the police and their no refusal blood tests?

#12 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]That also breaks the second amendment because you're asking for ID to have possession of a gun/weapon; that's illegal. America isn't Nazi Germany I don't have to provide an ID in an open carry state, doesn't matter if I even appear underage. Fightingfan

It wouldn't be something you display, in fact, it'd be better if no one knew what your NFC device was. It would work like a key as we haven't made it to the point yet that we can tie them to an individual and only that individual (maybe through a DNA/NFC combo that could be done though). It would just inhibit people from using that weapons if they don't have it's matching NFC device.

So what would happen if someone who's high in office/state went rogue? Or if a sociopath obtained this? It's the same thing as using traditional guns. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Not really sure what the first question has to do with what I am talking about. I think with this technology in place it could prevent stolen weapons from being used in crime and prevent children from accidentally discharging one and hurting/killing themselves.

#13 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13635 posts) -

Why don't we just make everyone in the country wear a patch on their shirt?

#14 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

Why don't we just make everyone in the country wear a patch on their shirt?

GummiRaccoon

The beauty of NFC is that it could be in anything, there's limitless place where you could keep your key. All of your weapons would have the same (or different if you'd like) tag. I don't really see how this could inconvience anyone as it would be handled by the manufactuer for not much cost.

#17 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

So what happens if someone breaks into my house beats me up and my son grabs the gun? He simply can't use it? So now he gets murdered too?

#18 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151861 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Why don't we just make everyone in the country wear a patch on their shirt?

Yusuke420

The beauty of NFC is that it could be in anything, there's limitless place where you could keep your key. All of your weapons would have the same (or different if you'd like) tag. I don't really see how this could inconvience anyone as it would be handled by the manufactuer for not much cost.

Your ideas are beyond scary.
#19 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

So what happens if someone breaks into my house beats me up and my son grabs the gun? He simply can't use it? So now he gets murdered too?

Fightingfan

Well in a situation like that if your son is aware of your gun, you'd probaly trust him enough to tell him what your "key" is and this technology can't be tied to individuals quite yet so as long as he's close enough to your key (ideally it'll be on your person and since he's coming to save you it should function since your close by). he'll be able to discharge the firearm.

#20 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

So what happens if someone breaks into my house beats me up and my son grabs the gun? He simply can't use it? So now he gets murdered too?

Yusuke420

Well in a situation like that if your son is aware of your gun, you'd probaly trust him enough to tell him what your "key" is and this technology can't be tied to individuals quite yet so as long as he's close enough to your key (ideally it'll be on your person and since he's coming to save you it should function since your close by). he'll be able to discharge the firearm.

Seems to complicate things for everyone except criminals.
#21 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Why don't we just make everyone in the country wear a patch on their shirt?

LJS9502_basic

The beauty of NFC is that it could be in anything, there's limitless place where you could keep your key. All of your weapons would have the same (or different if you'd like) tag. I don't really see how this could inconvience anyone as it would be handled by the manufactuer for not much cost.

Your ideas are beyond scary.

I'm just here for discussion as I cannot implement anything because I'm not a member of anytype of legislation body. Your fear of simply batting around ideas though it quite troubling though as the status-quo is something no rational person should find acceptable.

#22 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
I still we should just take the Texas approach and give everyone and their grandma fully automatic Ak47s
#23 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

It's not complicated in the least bit. The technology is really simple, if the two pieces aren't together, the weapons won't function. It'll take time, but with consistant buyback programs and insentives, the transition to this type of weapon could be sped up and maybe in 15 or 20 years, a marjority of the weapons would have this type of technology and be unaccessible to the criminal element.

#24 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
We should just cut off everyone's hands at birth. This way they can't even use guns.
#25 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151861 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"] The beauty of NFC is that it could be in anything, there's limitless place where you could keep your key. All of your weapons would have the same (or different if you'd like) tag. I don't really see how this could inconvience anyone as it would be handled by the manufactuer for not much cost.

Yusuke420

Your ideas are beyond scary.

I'm just here for discussion as I cannot implement anything because I'm not a member of anytype of legislation body. Your fear of simply batting around ideas though it quite troubling though as the status-quo is something no rational person should find acceptable.

The ideas you are batting about are dangerous.
#26 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

We should just cut off everyone's hands at birth. This way they can't even use guns. Fightingfan
Please, you were actually offering some legitimate critism, stick with that instead of trying to make jokes about something that no one finds funny.

#27 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Your ideas are beyond scary.LJS9502_basic

I'm just here for discussion as I cannot implement anything because I'm not a member of anytype of legislation body. Your fear of simply batting around ideas though it quite troubling though as the status-quo is something no rational person should find acceptable.

The ideas you are batting about are dangerous.

How about explaining your position, instead of trying to fear monger about completely harmless tecnology that is being used every day in the united states and around the world?

#28 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think you shouldn't use video games as a reality....Yusuke420

Why? It's a realistic concept (well the nanomahine part is far off for the time being) with current technology.

The concept might be possible, but I think realistically it's a terrible idea. The biggest issue, first and foremost, is the already non-NFC 300+ million guns that are currently in the U.S. today. And second of all, even if this technology could be implemented into weapons, it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone eventually figured out how to hack it so that the NFC tech was disabled.

#29 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think you shouldn't use video games as a reality....Vari3ty

Why? It's a realistic concept (well the nanomahine part is far off for the time being) with current technology.

The concept might be possible, but I think realistically it's a terrible idea. The biggest issue, first and foremost, is the already non-NFC 300+ million guns that are currently in the U.S. today. And second of all, even if this technology could be implemented into weapons, it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone eventually figured out how to hack it so that the NFC tech was disabled.

Well nothing is going to be full proof right away, but I'd think you'd agree that it'd reduce accidental children fatalities to zero. If that is the only effect from this effort, I'd say it's worth it.

#30 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24976 posts) -

But then we'd have to inject everyone with little nanobots and I hate needles.

I don't want to poo my pants a lot.

#31 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]That also breaks the second amendment because you're asking for ID to have possession of a gun/weapon; that's illegal. America isn't Nazi Germany I don't have to provide an ID in an open carry state, doesn't matter if I even appear underage. Fightingfan

It wouldn't be something you display, in fact, it'd be better if no one knew what your NFC device was. It would work like a key as we haven't made it to the point yet that we can tie them to an individual and only that individual (maybe through a DNA/NFC combo that could be done though). It would just inhibit people from using that weapons if they don't have it's matching NFC device.

So what would happen if someone who's high in office/state went rogue? Or if a sociopath obtained this? It's the same thing as using traditional guns. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Just FYI, they're working on it right now. Give a police officer a ring, or a watch, and only people with that item on can shoot that gun. if someone tries to take their gun and shoot them, it wont work because the watch/ring will be too far. Smart guns are in the works, and conversions are already available.
#32 Posted by Gen007 (10955 posts) -

The whole gun ID thing is not a good idea because it involves technology and technology can be hacked and that's that really. I mean if i remember correctly thats also a huge part of MGS. How things like that can easily be hijacked.

#33 Posted by homegirl2180 (7161 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]Why? It's a realistic concept (well the nanomahine part is far off for the time being) with current technology.

Yusuke420

The concept might be possible, but I think realistically it's a terrible idea. The biggest issue, first and foremost, is the already non-NFC 300+ million guns that are currently in the U.S. today. And second of all, even if this technology could be implemented into weapons, it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone eventually figured out how to hack it so that the NFC tech was disabled.

Well nothing is going to be full proof right away, but I'd think you'd agree that it'd reduce accidental children fatalities to zero. If that is the only effect from this effort, I'd say it's worth it.

You say it's worth it, but you have nothing to compare it to to claim that. As Vari3ty said, this doesn't address all the guns that are currently owned by many Americans, and it would be beyond decades before those simply went out of use. These aren't tea bags, people don't throw away their guns. Secondly, your proposal would, by necessity, increase the prices of guns by a likely significant margin considering the technology, raising the costs on law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, and edging out smaller manufacturers from the market completely. Lastly, FightingFan said it best: your ideas seem to complicate things for everyone except criminals.
#34 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

Few things:

1. This wouldn't solve the gun issue as a whole, it would only solve situations like one of the recent shootings where the guns were stolen or children playing with guns. In that sense, though, I'm still all for it.

2. If someone can get to the gun in the first place, why can't they also get to the ID?

3. This would seem like a better idea if they had some sort of biometric sensor, so only the person who owns the gun can use it. That could be expensive to implement, though. It would also complicate lending, so I don't know if it can be universally implremented, but it would certainly help for guns kept around the house and keeping young children from getting into accidents with them.

#35 Posted by MirkoS77 (7964 posts) -

The whole gun ID thing is not a good idea because it involves technology and technology can be hacked and that's that really. I mean if i remember correctly thats also a huge part of MGS. How things like that can easily be hijacked.

Gen007

So it's not a good idea because there's a risk of it being hi-jacked? You mean a gun that would work with everyone is preferable safety wise as opposed to one that only works with one but has the possibility of being hacked? If everyone can use a gun, you can't get much more unsafe than that.

#36 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
Eeeenh. While the idea of shutting down weapons when possessed by someone other than the owner or even being able to shut down weapons entirely in certain regions would no doubt cut down gun crime (I really fail to see how someone could argue otherwise) it becomes less a "Is this a good idea or not" (because it IS a good idea) and more about all the icky things that come with questions like "who is running this system" and "is this a violation of rights". Stuff I'm not going to get into. Also much like MGS4 you'd end up creating a market for the laundering of guns. Obviously a much higher skilled market than drugs so I'm unsure of how similar the use of this technology would mirror the absolutely terrible war on drugs but it's something to consider. Also Yusuke you're an anime type of guy, right? Psycho-Pass has pretty much the same idea.
#37 Posted by Rockman999 (7232 posts) -

Or we can commit genocide on the mentally sick.

#38 Posted by Gen007 (10955 posts) -

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

The whole gun ID thing is not a good idea because it involves technology and technology can be hacked and that's that really. I mean if i remember correctly thats also a huge part of MGS. How things like that can easily be hijacked.

MirkoS77

So it's not a good idea because there's a risk of it being hi-jacked? You mean a gun that would work with everyone is preferable safety wise as opposed to one that only works with one but has the possibility of being hacked? If everyone can use a gun, you can't get much more unsafe than that.

I just feel if your expecting it to stop shootings then your wrong it wont. Somebpdy is gonna nfigure out how to bypass whatever counter measures there are and do it anyway and people will still be outraged. People just need to be more careful with their guns period. If you do own a gun it should really stay locked up in like a safe or something and of course the ammo should be in a different place stuff like that ect. These things will be more effective imo.

#39 Posted by Palantas (15322 posts) -

I believe this could in effect make firearm theft and accidental child deaths through curiosity a non-issue!

Yusuke420

Let's assume this is true. Okay. The "gun issue" goes way beyond child deaths. This would be a phenomenal effort that wouldn't make anyone on the Right or Left happy.

EDIT: And to mirror what everyone else is saying, this would be hacked in no time.

#41 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

I believe this could in effect make firearm theft and accidental child deaths through curiosity a non-issue!

Palantas

Let's assume this is true. Okay. The "gun issue" goes way beyond child deaths. This would be a phenomenal effort that wouldn't make anyone on the Right or Left happy.

EDIT: And to mirror what everyone else is saying, this would be hacked in no time.

Okay, but Rosco you average gang banger isn't going to be hacking these things because it would take a high level of computer skill. I'm sure the encryption would be on the level of what the federal government uses for it's sensitive data and you don't see a huge amount of issues about that. It's just another layer we could use, if we can get better by even 10 or 20%, I think that is better then the status quo.

#42 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13283 posts) -

The beauty of NFC is that it could be in anything, there's limitless place where you could keep your key. All of your weapons would have the same (or different if you'd like) tag. I don't really see how this could inconvience anyone as it would be handled by the manufactuer for not much cost.

Yusuke420

Do you realize how easy that signal would be to jam?

So you get someone without such a device on their weapon (hey I can make a gun if I had to, $50 and a trip to home depot) jamming everyone who's gonna attempt to shoot back. How do you figure that scenario would play out?

Not well, hunh?

#43 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

The beauty of NFC is that it could be in anything, there's limitless place where you could keep your key. All of your weapons would have the same (or different if you'd like) tag. I don't really see how this could inconvience anyone as it would be handled by the manufactuer for not much cost.

br0kenrabbit

Do you realize how easy that signal would be to jam?

So you get someone without such a device on their weapon (hey I can make a gun if I had to, $50 and a trip to home depot) jamming everyone who's gonna attempt to shoot back. How do you figure that scenario would play out?

Not well, hunh?

Again, that for the egg heads to come up with, but I'm sure you can prevent jaming and the common criminal isn't going to have access to this type of equiptment. I don't understand just staying with the status quo when we have so many gun related deaths and injuries!

#44 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Yes, let the government control the controls. And how long do you think it will take for the Drebin's to show up?
#45 Posted by comp_atkins (31711 posts) -
like any technology used to thwart criminal activity, someone will bypass it.
#46 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

like any technology used to thwart criminal activity, someone will bypass it. comp_atkins
This is like saying the internet shouldn't have been invented because some people share CP. We should make all attempts to make things safer for people and this is just one method of attempting to do so without increasing the amounts of guns in society.

#47 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

Yes, let the government control the controls. And how long do you think it will take for the Drebin's to show up? Zeviander
It would actually be the manufactuers making the NFC enabled guns. The governments role in this would be to pass legislation making the standards and maybe lending assitance with encryption.

#48 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13283 posts) -

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

The beauty of NFC is that it could be in anything, there's limitless place where you could keep your key. All of your weapons would have the same (or different if you'd like) tag. I don't really see how this could inconvience anyone as it would be handled by the manufactuer for not much cost.

Yusuke420

Do you realize how easy that signal would be to jam?

So you get someone without such a device on their weapon (hey I can make a gun if I had to, $50 and a trip to home depot) jamming everyone who's gonna attempt to shoot back. How do you figure that scenario would play out?

Not well, hunh?

Again, that for the egg heads to come up with, but I'm sure you can prevent jaming and the common criminal isn't going to have access to this type of equiptment. I don't understand just staying with the status quo when we have so many gun related deaths and injuries!

You cannot prevent jamming, it's simply not possible. If you flood the frequency range with noise, the reciever cannot even tell there's a signal within the noise.

And it's not an egg-head thing...you can convert anything that emits radio signals into a jammer easily, and Google is free.

Look at cell phone jammers...people do it on buses and subways and in libraries and anywhere else they don't want to be bothered.

2cngtpx.jpg

Seriously, just a few bucks and anyone capable of using Google can make one in no time. If someone really wants to do it, you aren't going to stop them by suggesting it's only for egg-heads.

#49 Posted by comp_atkins (31711 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

Do you realize how easy that signal would be to jam?

So you get someone without such a device on their weapon (hey I can make a gun if I had to, $50 and a trip to home depot) jamming everyone who's gonna attempt to shoot back. How do you figure that scenario would play out?

Not well, hunh?

br0kenrabbit

Again, that for the egg heads to come up with, but I'm sure you can prevent jaming and the common criminal isn't going to have access to this type of equiptment. I don't understand just staying with the status quo when we have so many gun related deaths and injuries!

You cannot prevent jamming, it's simply not possible. If you flood the frequency range with noise, the reciever cannot even tell there's a signal within the noise.

And it's not an egg-head thing...you can convert anything that emits radio signals into a jammer easily, and Google is free.

Look at cell phone jammers...people do it on buses and subways and in libraries and anywhere else they don't want to be bothered.

2cngtpx.jpg

Seriously, just a few bucks and anyone capable of using Google can make one in no time. If someone really wants to do it, you aren't going to stop them by suggesting it's only for egg-heads.

frequency hopping ftw...