A REALLY different idea...

[Carjosse]

Same anti-tampering and anti-removal systems that the now-in-use tracking bracelets use. You remove or tamper, the "come arrest me!" alarm radios the cops.

If you have computer knowledge that can probably be pretty easily nullified.

 

[Goshin]

We shall see a rise in crossbow murders.

So now you agree with me that gun control doesn't work, glad to hear it. :mrgreen:

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Saran-wrapped bullets probably aren't going to work very well. I foresee a ****load of failure-to-feed and failure-to-eject malfunctions.

Nah, wrapping the sensor in saran wrap.
If it's on your arm, leg, whatever, just wrap it in some plastic.

 

[Goshin]

If you have computer knowledge that can probably be pretty easily nullified.

So why are they using tracking bracelets more and more in law enforcement? Why don't all the criminals just spoof theirs?

Prolly because 99% of them are way too damn ignorant to begin to know how...

 

[Goshin]

Nah, wrapping the sensor in saran wrap.
If it's on your arm, leg, whatever, just wrap it in some plastic.

I'm pretty sure there's an easy anti-tamper solution to that... like if all the sudden the sensor can't detect ANYTHING, set the alarm off....

 

[Fisher]

I don't think chemical gloves would defeat it... unless the ammo were shrink-wrapped before it came within range of the sensor. I don't know what the exact capabilities of the airport sniffers are, but apparently they are pretty sensitive.

As for fusing fingers and cutting off hands... Uh, not really very comparable there Fisher...

Surely criminals would find a may to render the technology useless. Or use a different type of weapon. I think the bigger problem is finding out why people commit these crimes in the first place. That is the root of the problem, not the relationship between criminals and access to guns.

An anti-tamper sensor for that would probably be easily doable...


... why do you keep bringing up cutting their hands off??

because having no hands to load shells and pull triggers is pretty tamper proof and makes about as much sense to me. those airport sensors get false positives if you have walked across fertilized grass you know......

 

[Carjosse]

So why are they using tracking bracelets more and more in law enforcement? Why don't all the criminals just spoof theirs?

Prolly because 99% of them are way too damn ignorant to begin to know how...

I guess you have a point the criminals aren't smart enough to nullify it. They could always just find someone who does though, I could probably figure out how to do it.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I'm pretty sure there's an easy anti-tamper solution to that... like if all the sudden the sensor can't detect ANYTHING, set the alarm off....

It would have to be a very expensive sensor cluster then.
If I understand it right, these things are designed to detect a very narrow range of chemical properties.

 

[Goshin]

because having no hands to load shells and pull triggers is pretty tamper proof and makes about as much sense to me. those airport sensors get false positives if you have walked across fertilized grass you know......

I know very little about the airport sniffers, I've already said that. I don't know if the technical issues can be overcome, I'm just floating an idea.

And lopping off hands is going to be a very hard sell in modern civilization, you know....

 

[Goshin]

Anyway, my main point is that, whatever the exact method, the best way to approach this problem is from the end where the criminals and crazies are, rather than the gun end.

 

[spud_meister]

It could be possible: NASA Unveils Chemical-Sniffing Device for the iPhone | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

And if you calibrate if specifically for chemicals in bullets, give it anti-tampering measures (Have a something on the other side of the bracelet, if it can't smell the something, alarm goes off) it could be a good idea.

 

[Fisher]

I don't think chemical gloves would defeat it... unless the ammo were shrink-wrapped before it came within range of the sensor. I don't know what the exact capabilities of the airport sniffers are, but apparently they are pretty sensitive.

As for fusing fingers and cutting off hands... Uh, not really very comparable there Fisher...

Surely criminals would find a may to render the technology useless. Or use a different type of weapon. I think the bigger problem is finding out why people commit these crimes in the first place. That is the root of the problem, not the relationship between criminals and access to guns.

I know very little about the airport sniffers, I've already said that. I don't know if the technical issues can be overcome, I'm just floating an idea.

And lopping off hands is going to be a very hard sell in modern civilization, you know....

i'm old testament like that....you would probably have better luck developing a device that had to be present for a gun to fire--an e-key if you will like a rfd card that had to be with the gun for the gun to work. if someone steals your guns, they still wouldn't work if you had the rfd card. maybe add in some tracking software to the stock/grip

 

[LaMidRighter]

It would have to be a very expensive sensor cluster then.
If I understand it right, these things are designed to detect a very narrow range of chemical properties.

I'm trying to remember off hand the chemical composition of modern gunpowder, but I think it would have to detect some mixture of phosphorous, magnesium, and possibly sulphur. This is going off of inexact knowledge of the current powder compositions though.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I'm trying to remember off hand the chemical composition of modern gunpowder, but I think it would have to detect some mixture of phosphorous, magnesium, and possibly sulphur. This is going off of inexact knowledge of the current powder compositions though.

KNO3 + C + S = Potassium Nitrate + Carbon + Sulfur = Gun Powder.

 

[LaMidRighter]

KNO3 + C + S = Potassium Nitrate + Carbon + Sulfur = Gun Powder.

That's one formula(I think the most common in fact). The tricky part is that some rounds went sulphurless, there are magnesium rounds, and a few phosphorous rounds as well. I think though that the average criminal won't be using the latter two. If the chemical composition could be "sniffed" to around 90% accuracy the idea is not too far off, and we are talking about criminals here so it's not like they have the right of refusal.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That's one formula(I think the most common in fact). The tricky part is that some rounds went sulphurless, there are magnesium rounds, and a few phosphorous rounds as well. I think though that the average criminal won't be using the latter two. If the chemical composition could be "sniffed" to around 90% accuracy the idea is not too far off, and we are talking about criminals here so it's not like they have the right of refusal.

Well, the sensor has to be designed to primarily detect the burned compositions of gun powder.
Looking at the reaction, the only likely candidate, that would reduce/eliminate false positives, would be Potassium Sulfide.

Even then though, you could just cover the sensor with something, making detection unlikely.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Well, the sensor has to be designed to primarily detect the burned compositions of gun powder.
Looking at the reaction, the only likely candidate, that would reduce/eliminate false positives, would be Potassium Sulfide.

Even then though, you could just cover the sensor with something, making detection unlikely.

True. I like Spud's idea of having a tamper alert, make it a seperate felony. I think the best case, search for the specific gunpowder concentration of potassium nitrate with a +/- margin of error to exclude fertilizer compositions. It's not a bad initial idea, a little massaging and it's got lots of potential. The reason I say to hit potassium nitrate is to get felon in possession before they can even fire a round.

 

[cpwill]

Just talking with Wiseone in another thread and I said "Sure I don't want criminals getting guns, I just haven't heard any way of doing that that would WORK and wouldn't impact the law-abiding more than the criminal. If I did, I'd give it serious consideration."

Something struck me a few moments later.

Sure, I DO want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Of course. I'm not crazy.

How can we do that?


Well, the gun control advocates have been trying to do it by controlling GUNS... and obviously it isn't working. I mean it obviously isn't, there's endless examples of how it isn't working. Let's just accept that as a starting point.

So what if we think out of the box and come at the problem from the OTHER end?

As in, how can we keep CRIMINALS from getting guns illegally and undetected... rather than how do we keep GUNS out of the hands of criminals.

Bear with me, I'm going somewhere.

Instead of controlling the guns, control the criminals and the crazies. People who have been judged unfit to bear arms.

I think we might already have, or be very close to having, the technology to do this.

We already have tracking ankle-bracelets put on criminals who are not imprisoned but whose movements are monitored to make sure they don't wander off the reservation.

We already have devices at the airport that can detect small traces of gunpowder and other chemicals used in ammunition.

Can we combine the two? Can we make an ankle-bracelet, or wrist-bracelet, that detects chemical propellants used in ammo, then notifies the police by radio?

I think it might be do-able. Criminals that are not imprisoned but which are judged a risk of recidivism, or people who have been diagnosed as mentally ill and potentially dangerous, could be made to wear these for a period until/unless they are later judged to be "no longer a potential threat".

If they come into contact with ammunition, the bracelet detects the chemical propellant, calls the police, and the latter come in and investigate and see if the person has violated his parole or the conditions under which he is not institutionalized. If so they take him in.

Maybe it isn't workable today, but if we really wanted to I'll bet we could develop this tech within a few years.

Thoughts?

I like this. Some would break the bracelets (digitally or physically), and you'd get some false-positives... but I'd bet that generally this would reduce a significant portion of the problem.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I like this. Some would break the bracelets (digitally or physically), and you'd get some false-positives... but I'd bet that generally this would reduce a significant portion of the problem.

I'm actually okay with false positives. If there is no firearm in possession it is cleared on site and everyone goes back to their business.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

True. I like Spud's idea of having a tamper alert, make it a seperate felony. I think the best case, search for the specific gunpowder concentration of potassium nitrate with a +/- margin of error to exclude fertilizer compositions. It's not a bad initial idea, a little massaging and it's got lots of potential. The reason I say to hit potassium nitrate is to get felon in possession before they can even fire a round.

I just don't see it working out all that well, for one, if someone isn't trust worthy in the first place, they shouldn't be released.
2, if a person serves their time, they shouldn't be punished outside of that.
3, I just don't see it working like it was intended to be.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I just don't see it working out all that well, for one, if someone isn't trust worthy in the first place, they shouldn't be released.
2, if a person serves their time, they shouldn't be punished outside of that.
3, I just don't see it working like it was intended to be.

I agree with #1, I don't like permanently barring people from their rights after release, however I think because of recidivism there should be one extra step, keep your nose clean and seek clemency. Number three, I'm a firm believer that everything has unintended consequences so I do share that concern.

 

[Paschendale]

Sure, this might help a little, but I don't just want to stop people from killing the second time. Plenty of killers don't have a record before they hurt someone. This is a drop in the bucket at best.

 

[the_recruit]

I would disagree with requiring the mentally ill to wear these. Being forced to wear what is effectively a Scarlet Letter bracelet simply because you have a mental illness smacks too much of "guilty until proven innocent" for my taste. I also think there are technical issues that would prevent it from being reliable.

But kudos for outside-the-box thinking.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Sure, this might help a little, but I don't just want to stop people from killing the second time. Plenty of killers don't have a record before they hurt someone. This is a drop in the bucket at best.

You do realize a violent felony doesn't reguire a fatality right? Armed robbery is a violent felony, as is assault with a deadly weapon, forcible rape, second degree battery, manslaughter, etc.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I would disagree with requiring the mentally ill to wear these. Being forced to wear what is effectively a Scarlet Letter bracelet simply because you have a mental illness smacks too much of "guilty until proven innocent" for my taste. I also think there are technical issues that would prevent it from being reliable.

But kudos for outside-the-box thinking.

I don't think Goshin is suggesting people with depression issues or other non-violent mental disorders be part of this, we are speaking of violent psychosis.