Track Guns with GPS?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

For those of you who answered "great idea" in the poll, please tell us why you think that way.

Isn't it interesting how 7 people voted "great idea", but none of them have come forward to explain why? Perhaps they can't...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If the device were 99.9999999% foolproof, lasted 100 years, weighed under a gram and was smaller than a BB, the pro-gun people here would be just as against it. It's primarily a gun-registration issue, not a technical one.

That is true, but that would just be getting down to the root of the issue, such as privacy and registration, as you mention.

But in the meantime, gun owners shouldn't be forced to incur financial expense and legal risk, over an idea that is utterly impractical and worthless.

[billvon 2,406]

>But in the meantime, gun owners shouldn't be forced to incur financial
>expense and legal risk, over an idea that is utterly impractical and
>worthless.

I agree. However, there will come a day when the idea will be practical and useful from a technical viewpoint, and I will then support it (although I suspect most gun supporters will be just as strident in their opposition to it.)

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

>But in the meantime, gun owners shouldn't be forced to incur financial
>expense and legal risk, over an idea that is utterly impractical and
>worthless.

I agree. However, there will come a day when the idea will be practical and useful from a technical viewpoint, and I will then support it (although I suspect most gun supporters will be just as strident in their opposition to it.)

Although I can understand the usefulness of doing this I'd still be against it. What right does the government have keeping track of what guns I own and where they are? Granted, if they were stolen it would make it easier to find and recover them but should the government ever decide to repeal the second ammendment it would also make it easier for them to find and confiscate them.

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[billvon 2,406]

> What right does the government have keeping track of what guns I own and where they are?

It does not. HOWEVER, it does have the right to know if you are carrying them in certain public areas (IMO.) Thus, a simple and relatively foolproof way of identifying guns inside a certain area, to me, is not abridging anyone's rights. It is in many ways simply an easier way to implement airport and courtroom security. Whether that uses RFID or GPS or UWB is a detail.

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

> What right does the government have keeping track of what guns I own and where they are?

It does not. HOWEVER, it does have the right to know if you are carrying them in certain public areas (IMO.) Thus, a simple and relatively foolproof way of identifying guns inside a certain area, to me, is not abridging anyone's rights. It is in many ways simply an easier way to implement airport and courtroom security. Whether that uses RFID or GPS or UWB is a detail.

So, by using the GPS to know when you have a firearm inside a 'restricted area' you could be stopped and arrested for transporting your favorite hunting rifle in the trunk of your vehicle while driving out to your favorite hunting location and pass a school building on a Saturday morning.

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[billvon 2,406]

>So, by using the GPS to know when you have a firearm inside a
>'restricted area' you could be stopped and arrested for transporting your
>favorite hunting rifle in the trunk of your vehicle while driving out to your
>favorite hunting location and pass a school building on a Saturday morning.

No. But if you forget and bring your .45 into the courthouse one morning you might indeed be hassled a bit.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

>But in the meantime, gun owners shouldn't be forced to incur financial
>expense and legal risk, over an idea that is utterly impractical and
>worthless.

I agree. However, there will come a day when the idea will be practical and useful from a technical viewpoint, and I will then support it (although I suspect most gun supporters will be just as strident in their opposition to it.)

Although I can understand the usefulness of doing this I'd still be against it. What right does the government have keeping track of what guns I own and where they are?

Before I ever go within a thousand miles of accepting this kind of infringement on the rights of gun owners, I would expect the government to have already installed tracking devices that automatically give a driver a speeding ticket as soon as GPS detects that he or she has exceeded the speed limit.

Of course, that would necessitate some device that keys exactly who is driving a given car at the time -- perhaps some biometric key assigned to the authorized (and listed and registered-with-the-government) drivers of that car.

Cars are responsible for FAR more carnage annually than guns are -- that is beyond dispute. So why not put our money where our mouths are and address the largest problems first, since solving them will save more lives than solving the smaller problems?

Let's see drivers accept this, and then we can talk about whether gun owners should accept needless regulation that won't stop crime.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 2,406]

>Before I ever go within a thousand miles of accepting this kind of
>infringement on the rights of gun owners, I would expect the
>government to have already installed tracking devices that
>automatically give a driver a speeding ticket as soon as GPS detects
>that he or she has exceeded the speed limit.

They already have such things - cameras that take pictures of your car at an intersection when you run a red light. Then they mail you a ticket. Most cars made now have 'black boxes' that record your speed, braking effort, accelerator position etc. These are occasionally used to ticket people for speeding if the car is involved in an accident. Some rental car companies even use black box data to fine you if you speed or operate the car unsafely. And of course systems like OnStar keep track of your position and communicate with the car.

So all that technology is already there and in cars. Looks like you've only got a few hundred miles to go!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

They already have such things - cameras that take pictures of your car at an intersection when you run a red light. Then they mail you a ticket.

That is not the same, Bill. Are you gonna discuss this in good faith?

I'm talking about something that automatically issues you a ticket as soon as you commit an infraction. Speed. Change lanes without signaling (where that's illegal). And I'm talking about biometric stuff (think "smart-gun") that links you to the vehicle being driven because you can't start it without your little card or ring or whatever. If it's good enough for gun owners, who as I said cause far less carnage than car drivers... Plus, if the chip or whatever failed, a car you can't start is hardly as big a problem for you as a gun that won't fire when you need it most, in a life-or-death conflict.

Quote

Most cars made now have 'black boxes' that record your speed, braking effort, accelerator position etc. These are occasionally used to ticket people for speeding if the car is involved in an accident.

Again, Bill, those aren't used by municipalities to ticket people as soon as they commit an infraction. They come into play, as yet, only when there's been an accident, yes?

Quote

Some rental car companies even use black box data to fine you if you speed or operate the car unsafely. And of course systems like OnStar keep track of your position and communicate with the car.

So all that technology is already there and in cars. Looks like you've only got a few hundred miles to go!

Hardly, Bill. That stuff is not used, as yet, in the Big-Brotherly fashion I explained. The rental car thing is, in my view, deplorable, because it acts as though every instance of speeding is a horrible, must-be-punished crime. They're full of shit when they argue that a car rental patron driving 75 down I-95 in Florida when the limit might be 65 is a danger, and increases their liability to some appreciable degree. They are doing this to make money -- and possibly to earn dubiously justified insurance rate breaks.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 2,406]

>I'm talking about something that automatically issues you a ticket
>as soon as you commit an infraction.

That's fine, but that's not analogous to the situation with gun tracking devices.

Currently there are devices in cars that CAN be used to automatically record speed for law enforcement purposes; they are not currently used for that. Similarly, we are talking about embedding tracking devices in weapons that CAN be used for tracking purposes, but would not necessarily be used for that.

I assume you are against putting such devices in guns even if there are no current plans to use them - am I correct? Even though there ARE such devices in cars now. So we're at the stage where cars have em and guns don't.

>They're full of shit when they argue that a car rental patron driving
>75 down I-95 in Florida when the limit might be 65 is a danger . . .

They are not arguing that; they are fining people for not following the terms of their rental agreement. It's like signing an agreement that says "I agree to return the car with no scratches" and then returning it with scratches. It doesn't matter that they are easy to fix or that there were other scratches somewhere else beforehand; what matters is you didn't fulfill the terms of the agreement and thus get penalized.

Heck, if I could rent a car for $20 a day cheaper with a tracking device, I'd save the money and not speed. Would be a good deal for me most of the time.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Then the rental agreement should not include language that prohibits you from speeding, and there should not be language in there that says they'll fine you for breaking traffic laws. They should be concerned with who bears liability for accidental damage, etc. It's disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that people will rent cars and then never exceed the speed limit.

And come on, Bill, you think you could rent a car for even one day and not do 32 in a 30, or 60 in a 55? That's ridiculous. I don't believe you for a second.

Go see the knot thread, btw.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[craddock 0]

Quote

I agree. However, there will come a day when the idea will be practical and useful from a technical viewpoint, and I will then support it (although I suspect most gun supporters will be just as strident in their opposition to it.

Are you OK with a tracking device integrated in your DL so that Big Brother always knows where your at? Or how about in your car.(I am not talking about On Star, but a goverment mandate that they actually use to track civilians. Better yet how would you feel if every pair of shoes required a GPS tracking device? Talk about an invasion of privacy.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

>So, by using the GPS to know when you have a firearm inside a
>'restricted area' you could be stopped and arrested for transporting your
>favorite hunting rifle in the trunk of your vehicle while driving out to your
>favorite hunting location and pass a school building on a Saturday morning.

No. But if you forget and bring your .45 into the courthouse one morning you might indeed be hassled a bit.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but isn't carrying a gun in a school zone just as illegal as carrying one in a courthouse, or post office for that matter?
The point I was trying to make is that once they have a way to track where your guns are they can come and take them any time. Owning a gun and living next to a school is now illegal, a GPS transponder would show you had guns and you'd be thrown in jail and have your property confiscated even if they're kept locked in a safe except when you're on your way out hunting.
We need less government involvement in our lives, not more.

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

Are you OK with a tracking device integrated in your DL so that Big Brother always knows where your at? Or how about in your car.(I am not talking about On Star, but a goverment mandate that they actually use to track civilians. Better yet how would you feel if every pair of shoes required a GPS tracking device? Talk about an invasion of privacy.

[sarcasm] Hell, why stop with shoes... let's just insert a subcutaneous gps tracking device in every person and use a super computer to track each device. The obvious reason would be to help fight crime, you could use the computer to track where the killer is at all times. [/sarcasm]

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[craddock 0]

Quote

Owning a gun and living next to a school is now illegal

Where Do you live? It is not illegal in any parts of the county that I am aware

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[craddock 0]

Quote

So, by using the GPS to know when you have a firearm inside a 'restricted area' you could be stopped and arrested for transporting your favorite hunting rifle in the trunk of your vehicle while driving out to your favorite hunting location and pass a school building on a Saturday morning.

First they would have to make that act illegal which it is not.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

Quote

So, by using the GPS to know when you have a firearm inside a 'restricted area' you could be stopped and arrested for transporting your favorite hunting rifle in the trunk of your vehicle while driving out to your favorite hunting location and pass a school building on a Saturday morning.

First they would have to make that act illegal which it is not.

Congress enacted the Gun Free School Zones Act in 1990, as part of the Omnibus Crime Bill making it illegal to possess a gun within 1000 feet of a school zone. However a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Lopez, that Congress exceeded its authority when it enacted the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The law passed in 1990, forbids possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school.
For a 5 year period, 1990 to 1995 it actually was illegal to possess a gun within 1000 feet of a school, if Congress made it illegal once you can bet your ass that an anti-gun majority will find a way to make it illegal again.

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[shropshire 0]

<>

Do you carry a mobile phone? Is it always switched on? If Yes - they already know where you are!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[craddock 0]

Quote

Do you carry a mobile phone? Is it always switched on? If Yes - they already know where you are!

Yes and no respectively. Most weekends I let my battery go dead and the phone has no power. Regardless carrying a mobile phone is a choice not a law. You can't see the difference?

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[craddock 0]

I am well aware of the Act which was the reason for both my posts. I did not want people to misinterpret your posts for Fact and feel the need to remove firearms from their home or alter their route on the way hunting.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[shropshire 0]

Yes I can see the difference but I work with technology [RFID] all day long and often hear people moaning about it, yet they carry mobile phones without knowing the implications of even that (oh and using Store loyalty cards!!).

As can be seen from my other posts, I'm not a lover of gun ownership but I'm even more worried about our gradual loss of rights.

The worst thing about the original story (that John raised) is that dick head politicicans jump on band wagons and spout off before thinking things through properly.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Nightingale 0]

Like most other gun laws, that one would be really stupid, because, like most other gun laws, the law would only affect law-abiding citizens, who aren't usually the people that the public needs to worry about. It would simply make gun ownership more inconvenient and expensive, while doing nothing to remove guns from the hands of criminals.

[Nightingale 0]

IIRC, congress can't prohibit guns within 1000 feet of schools because it goes beyond congress' ability to regulate commerce. However, I don't think there's anything currently stopping states from doing so. (haven't had a chance to look it up, though)

[kallend 1,635]

I disagree with you on the validity of Billvon's argument (I think it's a good one) but change "car" to "airplane" and it gets even better. Just read about the DC ADIZ if you don't believe me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.