Opinions large and small, worth everything you pay for them.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Chiappa Firearms: they ought to have to buy all the tinfoil hats
they made snotty comments about. Chiappa says "Oh, we won't do that in the US!"; question would be, do you trust them on that? And will they hold to it?
I don't see any significant difference between that and a serial number, both of which uniquely identify the gun.
The big difference being, if the RFID chip is embedded in the frame cleverly enough, you can't remove it without destroying the gun.
It doesn't seem any more dangerous to liberty than the existing and unobjectionable requirement of serialization - and if it's harder to remove, or impossible without ruining the gun, it seems like it'd be actively helpful in identifying stolen property.
The only objection would be a law requiring that your personal information be added to the data if you don't want it in there.
(A notional new registration law is a problem in itself, whether it uses serial numbers or this new RFID chip.
But the problem is the law, not the chip.
If the chip, as they say, has production run data, that's actually damned useful for recall situations, for instance.
And if someone WANTS to put their name in their gun, that would make recovery from, say, a pawn shop where some thief sold it, much easier.
Like all technology, it's not a problem in itself - it can be used for good or for ill.)
Sigivald: It depends on many factors. First off, what is the range at which the chip can be detected? And I don't mean by the cheapest-possible scanner, which I expect Chiappa is selling at a huge markup for use in reading their ID chips, but by a scanner with a good antenna and amps. I don't mind a gun that can be traced once it lands in a gunshop or an evidence locker, but that hardly means I'm OK with someone able to detect a concealed it from across the room. AFAIK, you don't get readability at any range without making the chip detectable from several yards with a slightly better scanner.
Second, review some of the stories of people legally open-carrying getting harassed by big city PD's. This includes being forced to the ground, handcuffed, and detained while the cops try to think of something they could be charged with. Now, think about what these PDs would do if they could stand on a street corner and check everyone walking by for concealed weapons...
Chiappa says "Oh, we won't do that in the US!"; question would be, do you trust them on that? And will they hold to it?
2 comments:
What's supposed to be the problem with it?
I don't see any significant difference between that and a serial number, both of which uniquely identify the gun.
The big difference being, if the RFID chip is embedded in the frame cleverly enough, you can't remove it without destroying the gun.
It doesn't seem any more dangerous to liberty than the existing and unobjectionable requirement of serialization - and if it's harder to remove, or impossible without ruining the gun, it seems like it'd be actively helpful in identifying stolen property.
The only objection would be a law requiring that your personal information be added to the data if you don't want it in there.
(A notional new registration law is a problem in itself, whether it uses serial numbers or this new RFID chip.
But the problem is the law, not the chip.
If the chip, as they say, has production run data, that's actually damned useful for recall situations, for instance.
And if someone WANTS to put their name in their gun, that would make recovery from, say, a pawn shop where some thief sold it, much easier.
Like all technology, it's not a problem in itself - it can be used for good or for ill.)
Sigivald: It depends on many factors. First off, what is the range at which the chip can be detected? And I don't mean by the cheapest-possible scanner, which I expect Chiappa is selling at a huge markup for use in reading their ID chips, but by a scanner with a good antenna and amps. I don't mind a gun that can be traced once it lands in a gunshop or an evidence locker, but that hardly means I'm OK with someone able to detect a concealed it from across the room. AFAIK, you don't get readability at any range without making the chip detectable from several yards with a slightly better scanner.
Second, review some of the stories of people legally open-carrying getting harassed by big city PD's. This includes being forced to the ground, handcuffed, and detained while the cops try to think of something they could be charged with. Now, think about what these PDs would do if they could stand on a street corner and check everyone walking by for concealed weapons...
Post a Comment