Slashdot Mirror


NYPD Developing Portable Body Scanner For Detecting Guns

Zothecula writes "You have to feel sorry for the police officers who are required to frisk people for guns or knives — after all, if someone who doesn't want to be arrested is carrying a lethal weapon, the last thing most of us would want to do is get close enough to that person to touch them. That's why the New York Police Department teamed up with the United States Department of Defense three years ago, and began developing a portable scanner that can remotely detect the presence of a gun on a person's body. The NYPD announced the project this week."

90 of 575 comments (clear)

  1. My oh my ... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's one big gun you've got there buddy.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:My oh my ... by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What an appropriate place to say this. What happens when the police get a false positive?

      But seriously.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:My oh my ... by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The same thing that happens if they don't have a gun.

      They die of cancer.

  2. This device empowers criminals. by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have four knives on me right now. This is what I carry with me on a daily basis give or take. Three of them are Leatherman brand, but none are the traditional multi-pliar, I find having the tools spread across multiple devices better as a tech for various reasons.

    I first fired a shotgun at the age of five. At six my dad handed one to carry with me when we were out quail hunting.

    New York, like Chicago, Great Britian, and many other places too much fear in the tool and not enough effort into education, trust and tollerance.

    The reason I could carry a shotgun at the age of six is my dad took me out at the age of four, shot some rabbits and explained death and danger to me. He taught me to respect the tools that guns are. When I was seven he gave me a pocket knife and expected me to carry it as it is one of the most ancient, practical and useful tools known. I got in trouble if I didn't have it on me when he asked. I often didn't have it on me because the school system had the same mentality as NYPD and I knew better than to got with my dads logic, which I considered supperior.

    In an urban setting, guns are like fire extinquishers. They're something you hope you never need, but you should have one around anyways. In a rural setting they're a meal ticket, something to protect your livestock with, and occasionally a form of entertainment - when used responsibly.

    When everyones armed the random individual who wishes to victimize others has less power to do so. Things like this scanner empowers criminals as it prevents otherwise law abiding citizens from carrying their tools of protection.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Azuaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're not talking about scanning random people on the street and taking their guns. They're talking about scanning arrestees instead of frisking them. If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".

      Granted, they certainly could use this device to scan random people. But that's an unconstitutional search which the Supreme Court would slap the Hell out of. Remember: fear the people, not the tool.

      --
      I'm a psychologist (amongst other things).
    2. Re:This device empowers criminals. by RazzleFrog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no legitimate reason for a normal person to carry a gun in New York.

    3. Re:This device empowers criminals. by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they're only talking about scanning people they arrest, why do they want the capability to scan from over 80 feet away?

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    4. Re:This device empowers criminals. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately, it's a bit more complicated that that. I live in fairly rural Alaska, people have guns all of the time. It's not all that uncommon to see a couple of guys walking down the main road, rifles in hand, going off deer hunting. If we go out into the backwoods, I typically carry a 12 gauge for bear defense (first rounds are the shotgun equivalent of an M-80, designed to scare the bear off). I don't carry a pistol around because there is really no need to - the human animals are fairly tame compared to the batshit insanity found in a bigger city.

      But in the batshit insanity of a big city, feral humans are a big problem. Especially if you are law enforcement. It's useful to know that the hophead idiot wired up on six different drugs has a pistol (although those people tend to remind me of the scene in '5th Element' where Bruce Willis disarms the guy). It's useful to know that the stoner is unarmed.

      If you are carrying a gun and a policeman stops you, you'd best put your hands where they can see them and tell them slowly and carefully that you're armed. Be professional. It saves lives.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:This device empowers criminals. by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, surprise. A gun owner who jumps to the wrong conclusion as an excuse to go on about guns. Naturally using anecdotes to show how safe they are.

      I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:This device empowers criminals. by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you been paying attention to what's going on with the TSA? They're expanding like a cancer and the constitution doesn't seem to matter. The Second American Revolution will be started in response to the TSA and the fact they allowed to operate without restraint. They're moving onto public streets in some places.

      Random scans are coming if they don't get shut down.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    7. Re:This device empowers criminals. by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      Except the constitution? Oh, sorry, i forgot, it is not a legitimate reason.

    8. Re:This device empowers criminals. by RazzleFrog · · Score: 2

      The Constitution says we have the right to bear arms - not that we should be bearing arms. I mean the Constitution gives me lots of rights that I don't necessarily use on a daily basis.

    9. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Anon-Admin · · Score: 5, Informative

      What they are talking about is a terry stop. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop) They can stop and frisk you for weapons based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity.

      Just because it happened to me once, they can have a "reasonable suspicion" that you are going to j-walk because you are walking down the side walk!

      You will find that they can find "reasonable suspicion" in just about anything. S/His eyes were blood shot (Drunk or stoned), S/He looks out of place in this neighborhood, and my all time favorite "Three white guys under 25 at the mall must be there to cause trouble"

      Note that "Reasonable Suspicion" is defined as a point where the investigating officer has weighed the totality of the circumstances to determine whether sufficient objective facts exist to create reasonable suspicion. VERY open and abused quite regularly in my opinion.

    10. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Granted, they certainly could use this device to scan random people. But that's an unconstitutional search which the Supreme Court would slap the Hell out of.

      My milk came out of my nose. Mod funny +5.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    11. Re:This device empowers criminals. by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please, place a huge sign on your front door that says "No guns here, and they're not welcome."

      Guns are by no means the most dangerous thing I'm around on a regular basis. I would qualify that 2005 Saturn out in the parking lot as a much bigger danger to me than my rifles and pistols, I'm much more likely to die from it. I also work around high voltages on a regular basis, and I'm not talking 115 AC.

      My guns and knives may not the be the safest things I own, but they're far from the most dangerous thing I'm around regularly. When it comes to my other tools I'm more afraid of my circular saw than I am my guns.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    12. Re:This device empowers criminals. by pecosdave · · Score: 2

      They're expanding beyond trains and they're trying to get to highways.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    13. Re:This device empowers criminals. by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're not talking about scanning random people on the street and taking their guns.

      Meh.. give it a couple years.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    14. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Brain-Fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      who are you hunting on a plane?

      Terrorists! If all (or most) passengers were armed, there is no way a terrorist would be able to hijack the plane. In fact, I think, for safety, we should require all adult passengers to carry loaded guns when they board the plane. We can keep a supply of rentals at every airport.

      Ok, I jest. I agree that passengers shouldn't have guns on the plane. However, the TSA's methods of preventing that are way beyond reasonable. We can keep safety within acceptable tolerances without sexually assaulting passengers and giving them cancer.

      Like, locking the cabin door. That change did more for airplane security than the entire TSA. Metal detectors are sufficient for finding guns or knives, and sniffer dogs are fine for finding bombs. These levels of security would be more effective than what the TSA does now, far less intrusive/harmful to the passengers, and would save the taxpayers a fortune.

      But they wouldn't make Michael Chertoff even richer than he already is, so they are not acceptable.

    15. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Informative

      TSA is no longer just doing planes. They are performing random stops and searches on highways and public roads. They are installing industrial grade X-rays at, near and possibly away from the border. They are jack booted thugs with absolute license to infringe on everyone's liberty. Remember that they may operate within 200 miles of the border and every airport is now considered a border. They can now operate anywhere. They are the enemy of the constitution and the people of the United States of America.

    16. Re:This device empowers criminals. by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      I'm generally in favor of an educated and armed population, but I don't see how the existence of this scanner makes it easier for criminals.

      The scanner detects firearms, it doesn't mean that you can be arrested for one. Presumably, you could be asked for your concealed carry license if they saw you with yours, but that's just the law. Criminals would be scanned as well. So in the sense of detection, this seems more like a tool than anything else. That is unless you are trying to ensure that the police have no way of knowing you are armed either, and while I understand that could cause licensed carriers to possibly be unduly harassed if the cops decided that every weapon carrier was a criminal, it doesn't discriminate against legal gun owners.

      The reason that concealed carry exists is not to hide the fact that you are armed, because honestly, it works better as a deterrent if you don't carry concealed. The actual reason to carry concealed is that you want to be able to carry it in public without alarming the general population, and sometimes the law requires you to conceal it for that purpose. However, I don't see many good reasons to conceal a licensed sidearm from an officer of the law in pursuit of their duties.

    17. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      Just because you don't necessarily use them on a regular basis does not mean you should not be allowed to use them on a regular basis (or at all).

    18. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".

      Right. Because police accusation means you abandon presumption of innocence.

      Taken to it's logical extension, you advocate suspicion==conviction. You may be a "psychologist", but your also a Nazi. Godwin be damned to hell!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    19. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seriously think that even one cop isn't going to use this tool illegally? You sound like a teenage girl who hands out her passwords as a sign of intimacy.

      The way this tool will be used is simple. The cop will scan random people. If an item the cop disapproves of (even if it is legal) shows up, the cop will approach the person for questioning "because they behaved suspiciously". After a few questions, the cop will claim "probable cause", and move forward from there. At no time will the use of the scanner be claimed as the reason for the confrontation.

      The only way that these devices should even be considered is if they log every time they are used, the police are required to give an explanation prior to it's use, and the logs are in a read only environment that has no mechanism for the police department to tamper with the data. A simple audio recorder that time stamps the event and lets the cop say "Making arrest on 4th st." into the device before it will scan should be enough to keep cops from abusing this.

    20. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      In all seriousness, they belong to the bears.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    21. Re:This device empowers criminals. by RazzleFrog · · Score: 2

      Again. I know people in the small towns of this country believe New York is this big scary city with muggers and rapists on every corner but if you've ever lived or worked there you would see that it just isn't the case anymore. This isn't the 70's. If you want to see a real dangerous city travel somewhere like Johannesburg, South Africa. There I endorse carrying a gun.

      Now if you are somebody who routinely works late at night in the crappy parts of town then sure - bring a gun. But for 99.99% of New Yorkers there is never going to be a situation where a gun is going to help you. And that's based on real violent crime rates - not just pulling a number out of the air.

    22. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Metal detectors have ALWAYS worked to find guns. The new invasive search procedures the TSA has introduced are not needed at all.

    23. Re:This device empowers criminals. by RazzleFrog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are laws in place that restrict where and when it is appropriate to restrict your constitutional right to bear arms. Just like there are times when laws restrict your right to free speech. I am not saying that it should be illegal to have a gun in New York but that for 99.99% of New Yorkers there is no good reason to do so.

      Not sure how saying you shouldn't do something means that you aren't allowed to.

    24. Re:This device empowers criminals. by mjr167 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know you're from some redneck small town who thinks New York is full of big bad criminals like in the movies but I hate to tell you that New York is one of the safest cities in the country. Unless you are a car service driver in the South Bronx you aren't going to be anywhere near a criminal.

      Isn't Wall Street around there somewhere?

    25. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2

      Well, here's the thing: having a gun in an urban setting does not decrease the likely hood that people will shoot you. A conceled carry will not prevent random violence typical of urban settings.

      All gangs have guns.
      All gangs know all other gangs have guns.
      All gangs use their guns on other gangs, knowing full well that they have guns.

      So they use their guns to surprise the other gangs when they will be less likely to strike back immideatly. Tactics such as drive by shootings and other psuedo gurrila warfare accomplish this.

      If an individual wants to victumize another and assumes the other individual does not have a gun, they can reasonable assume they can do what ever they want in the short term.
      or

      If an individual wants to victumize another and assumes the other individual does have a gun, they know they have to kill/injure the person to prevent them from effectively fireing back before they can do whatever they want.

      So as long as the primary crime the individual wants to commit is not murder, I think you are better off with them assuming that you do not have a weapon.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    26. Re:This device empowers criminals. by RazzleFrog · · Score: 2

      So you are saying because the Constitution says I can bear arms that I should be bearing arms? How does that make any sense? If I don't have a reason to carry a gun then why should I? Just because I have the right to?

    27. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      The flaw here, is not everybody was raised that way, in fact most people weren't, and what about the elderly and young? Do you think you could have legitimately defended yourself w a shotgun at 6? Not against an adult w a gun you can't. The systems already in place though, concealed weapons permit + firearm = legal, whether your getting arrested or not. Of course, they'll take it from you upon arrest, but (sometimes w great pain) you can get it back. That's different from having a gun in your home. I always thought the goal was for everybody to have a gun in their home to prevent home intrusion and the like, picture the wild west, where most people carried a gun, random gun fights broke out and people died. A gun is a much more attractive option of settling an argument a 5th of whiskey later. And I assure you, human nature hasn't changed since then.

    28. Re:This device empowers criminals. by JeanCroix · · Score: 2

      Depends on your state and your instructor. My instructor was an off-duty cop. He gave two sides to the "inform during traffic stop" decision, and basically said (in states where it's not mandatory) that it's up to your own discretion, since some traffic cops will see it as a courtesy, and others will see it as a threat and act accordingly.

    29. Re:This device empowers criminals. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      TSA can only make suggestions to local governments about train security. They don't control it. What is your support for them trying to "get to highways"?

      Sigh. You thought you were safe on the road, eh.

      What have you got to hide, citizen?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    30. Re:This device empowers criminals. by cstacy · · Score: 2

      If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".

      RIght on! The police never arrest people who are innocent. If you're arrested, you're guilty!

      Granted, they certainly could use this device to scan random people. But that's an unconstitutional search which the Supreme Court would slap the Hell out of.

      Yes, they've already ruled on this, regarding scanning anyone who enters certain parking lots in Queens, or tries to go into the buildings there to use a public conveyance. (Oh, wait! They ruled that you give up your rights when you enter those "special" places. Like airports. Or bus terminals, or subways, or many buildings. Or when you try to drive a car into a tunnel in New York City. Or, well, like anywhere in New York City, where as you well know you give up your Second Ammendment rights. )

      New York, New York, it's a hell of a town!

    31. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Guns are for hunting - who are you hunting on a plane?

      There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution about hunting.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    32. Re:This device empowers criminals. by mjr167 · · Score: 2

      Sheriff Urges All Women To Carry guns

      He suggests a .45. Go check your crime stats for NYC again. The data clearly indicates that more crime happens in big cities than in small, rural towns. It has to do with population density.

    33. Re:This device empowers criminals. by RazzleFrog · · Score: 2

      I don't carry a firearm because more can go wrong from carrying one than go right by carrying one. Just ask Plaxico Burress.

      And the odds of you getting into a car accident are FAR higher than even needing a gun.

    34. Re:This device empowers criminals. by tmosley · · Score: 3, Informative

      Terrorists didn't use guns to take over planes on 9/11. They certainly didn't use guns on the ground.

    35. Re:This device empowers criminals. by tmosley · · Score: 2

      If only the bears have guns, we'll all be bottoms!

    36. Re:This device empowers criminals. by g0bshiTe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People should not have a gun on a plane. Quarters are far too close to fire. Had someone on one of the planes had a handgun, do you fire at a terrorist 20 or 30 feet from you with passengers to the left and right of the terrorist less than 2 feet from? Take a chance on a bullet going through the cockpit into the pilot or other flight crew? Or how about missing them and damaging flight gear? Say the landing gear.

      1 Federal agent with a weapon is plenty on a flight. Not every citizen needs one on a plane.

      Before you go crying that I'm an anti-gun person. I've held a concealed carry permit for the last 20 years.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    37. Re:This device empowers criminals. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Funny

      last rabbit I saw in NY was diesel powered, half rusted and had its rear badge hanging on by one screw.

      (those are fair game to shoot, right?)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    38. Re:This device empowers criminals. by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

      You're not very smart are you? The closest armed person during the Gifford shooting was in a coffee shop around the corner and down the road(The shooting occurring at an anti-gun democrat rally), who didn't arrive at the scene until the gunman was already being wrestled down. As for you claims to the nature of guns on crime, I'll merely point out that none of the statistical studies which aren't pure bullshit bear out your side of the story. Then there's the fact that with the amount of drugs and PEOPLE that are smuggled into this country every day the idea we could ever keep guns out is absolutely absurd.

    39. Re:This device empowers criminals. by tmosley · · Score: 2

      A pool is more dangerous than a firearm, and they almost always kill children. Should we outlaw pools?

    40. Re:This device empowers criminals. by gknoy · · Score: 2

      Risking damage to an engine when you shoot [at] a hijacker is better than letting the plane get turned into a giant cruise missile with the target of their choosing.

      That said, I agree. I'd rather simply have the right to carry a knife on the plane. When five out of six guys, and several of the women, are carrying weapons, hostage situations are unlikely to happen, or last long. (Also, locking doors are awesome and effective.)

    41. Re:This device empowers criminals. by dbet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds great until you realize that everyone they consider suspicious just happens to be black. And even though they weren't doing anything wrong, they end up arrested for resisting arrest (and no other charge).

      Random stops are NOT okay.

    42. Re:This device empowers criminals. by gknoy · · Score: 2

      Random crazies who want to cause damage will always find a way to do so -- whether it's with a gun (obtained legally or not), a car, or a bomb. Anyone sufficiently motivated to try to assassinate someone else (or even just go on a rampage) will not be deterred by not having a gun. They'll either make a gun, make a spear, make a shiv, rent a truck, and so on. Where having a weapon helps is (in theory) not being prey.

    43. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Metal detectors are sufficient for finding guns or knives, and sniffer dogs are fine for finding bombs.

      Minor correction, they are fine at finding those items if the operator had been trained properly but my experience is that the average TSA agent hasn't given the number of prohibited items I have accidentally brought through. Things like ammunition (rifle and shotgun), knives (multiple times), tools, and lets not forget liquids and gels. Yet "suspicious" items like my old Pentax Spotmatic F with lenses, or a box of magic cards gets me pulled off to the side for extra scrutiny every time.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    44. Re:This device empowers criminals. by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, if you could see it, it wouldn't be concealed then, would it?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    45. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Brain-Fu · · Score: 4, Informative
    46. Re:This device empowers criminals. by PRMan · · Score: 2

      That's what I don't get. Resisting arrest should not be allowed to stand alone. How is that even possible in a supposedly free country?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    47. Re:This device empowers criminals. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you get questioned and you are innocent you lose 5 minutes of your time.

      You should never, under any circumstances, talk to the police; this is why. Summarized: there is no such thing as an innocent person to a cop, only criminals who haven't turned themselves in yet.

      If the police doesn't question a suspicious person they risk letting a criminal off the hook.

      Untrue: First off, 'suspicious' is subjective; judging from personal experience, a teenager with long hair and a guitar case is considered 'suspicious,' even if he has done nothing illegal.

      Secondly, unless a person has been reported for or is in the process of committing a crime, they are not criminals. Traveling in any fashion, whilst looking a certain way, is not a crime. Google 'DWB' to see my point.

      Policemen are not mindreaders, they can't decide for sure who is guilty just by looking at them.

      Exactly; it is not their duty to judge who is guilty and who is not, because they are not judges. Oh, and FYI, no one can decide who's guilty by cursory glance. Expecting anyone to be able to do so shows a great amount of ignorance regarding the legal system, as well as human nature in general.

      Expecting them to only stop criminals is unreasonable.

      No it's not, that's their JOB . Just like determining whether the accused is guilty or not is the JOB of judges and juries. See previous point regarding ignorance of the legal system.

      You see, those few minutes you spent answering some questions helped the police and made your neighbourhood a safer place. Being infuriated over that is just selfish.

      No; what's selfish is expecting the police to make you feel all warm and fuzzy by harassing every person in an x block radius and violating their civil rights, because according to you, everyone in your neighborhood (except you, of course), is a potential threat. Newsflash: You ain't that important, and your stuff ain't that great.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    48. Re:This device empowers criminals. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      If it's so safe, why do the police feel the need to be able to illegally search your person from 80 feet away?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    49. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Informative

      My understanding is that it was within 100 miles of the border. As far as sources I can offer these after a quick google search:

      This one about searches in Tennessee

      Or this from the ACLU about the constitution free zone

      Or any number of incidents that have occurred. Granted the border patrol isn't the TSA but they are both part of the DHS and even have some permanent "interior checkpoints" as they call them most are on the southern border but it is mentioned that there are number in northern states within 100 miles of the Canadian border.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    50. Re:This device empowers criminals. by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      9th and 10th seem to apply. The lack of something being in the Constitution prevents the feds from regulating it in theory, but as so many have said we really don't have a Constitution anymore.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    51. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't imagine any sane person thinks preventing guns on plans is a bad thing.

      No, a sane person knows that:
      a) Penetration testers regularly get guns past the TSA
      b) Guns/knives aren't very useful to terrorists since they started locking the cockpit door.
      c) If a person pulls out a gun on a plane he's instantly going to be jumped by the other passengers.
      d) If a person does something bad on a plane he's got no escape route. When it lands there'll be a whole bunch of people with M16s waiting for him. You'd have to be a complete idiot to try anything on a plane. Even a suicidal crazy only has a small chance of success (see point c).

      So...what's the incentive for people to try to commit gun crimes on a plane? What sort of crime can they even commit? Robbery? Mugging?

      Having armed people on a 'plane is really no dangerous than, say, having armed people in a restaurant. Driving to the airport is probably more risky than allowing guns on planes.

      America needs to get it out of their collective skulls that airports are somehow special places which need massive extra protection. All you need is old fashioned metal detectors (with sensible policies for people who forget to check in their weapons) and smart, well trained people watching for troublemakers in the queues. More than that is counter-productive.

      --
      No sig today...
    52. Re:This device empowers criminals. by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      1 Federal agent with a weapon is plenty on a flight.

      This still isn't guaranteed. Doesn't generate any profits.

    53. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Do you really think someone (such as the TSA) won't start using this for random scans?

      Honestly? It would be way better than what they're doing right now.

      --
      No sig today...
    54. Re:This device empowers criminals. by citylivin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My guns and knives may not the be the safest things I own, but they're far from the most dangerous thing I'm around regularly.

      All the things you listed are tools with their primary use being legitimate. A circular saw, can be used to cut up bodies, but it is primarily used for sawing wood. Same deal with a car. A gun however is designed to shoot out small metal bits which rip through soft tissues. This is the primary use for firearms. To hurt or kill living tissues - humans or animals. Of course if you live in the country, it is legitimate use to carry a gun for protection from bears and the like. In the city though? You are pushing it to say that there is a legitimate defence based use for any firearms.

      Here in canada guns are mostly not used in violent crime, unless there are gangs involved. I personally have been held up at gunpoint once about 10 years ago, but if I had a gun of my own, what could I have done? Got into a shooting match like counterstrike? Much more likely I would be dead now, rather than just missing 40$ from my wallet and a cel phone.

      That all said, if I lived in america, I probably would own a gun. Because people down there are fearful and violent. Its kind of like somalia or Afghanistan. There are valid countries for sure where carrying a firearm is necessary. I think the USA might be one of them, but thats more of a cultural problem. I can't say for sure that it is because of the easy availability of guns that causes it, but it does seem likely.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    55. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 2

      You'd have a case that the constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to ban hunting. I can't even see the commerce clause being stretched far enough to cover that one.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    56. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      And 75,000 is 10% of 8,000,000? I think you might want to check the decimal places in your calculation. It's still under 1%.

      Yes, under 1% per year.

      So you have a 99% chance of avoiding a violent crime in 1 year.
      So you have a 90% chance of avoiding a violent crime in 10 years.
      So you have a 78% chance of avoiding a violent crime in 25 years.
      So you have a 67% chance of avoiding a violent crime in 40 years.
      So you have a 55% chance of avoiding a violent crime in 60 years.

      Have you woken the fuck up yet?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    57. Re:This device empowers criminals. by Garybaldy · · Score: 2

      So you completely missed the story of the TSA VIPR teams searching passengers as they got off/on trains?

  3. I can not see these being abused at all by danbuter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure they won't abuse these items by just randomly scanning pedestrians. After all, they uphold the law!

  4. It doesn't even have to work... by ElmoGonzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All that matters is that people on the street THINK that every cop has one that does work.

  5. Re:What happened with the "with warrant only" sear by forkfail · · Score: 2

    You have a knife in your pocket? Quick, taze and spray!

    --
    Check your premises.
  6. Can remotely detect guns: by Hartree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And give a blurry image of it.

    Or any other object that blocks the normal IR radiation from the body.

    "Your honor, we had probable cause to search the individual because we thought that vague rectangular outline in his pocket was a gun. Our bad. It was a cell phone with a metal case. But, we did find the joint in his backpack during the search that we only did to ensure our own safety."

  7. PROBLEMS: Civil Liberty, Health and Welfare by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your new cancer and lack of presumed innocence are a small price to pay, in order to defeat statistically non-existant terrorists.

    Police Commissioner Kelly said the scanner would only be used in reasonably suspicious circumstances and could cut down on the number of stop-and-frisks on the street.

    But the New York Civil Liberties Union is raising a red flag.
    "It's worrisome. It implicates privacy, the right to walk down the street without being subjected to a virtual pat-down by the Police Department when you're doing nothing wrong," the NYCLU's Donna Lieberman said.

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/17/nypd-testing-gun-scanning-technology/

    After years of rebuffing health concerns over airport scanners, the Transportation Security Administration plans to conduct new tests on the potential radiation exposure from the machines at more than 100 airports nationwide.

    But the TSA does not plan to retest the machines or passengers. Instead, the agency plans to test its airport security officers to see if they are being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation while working with the scanners.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-travel-briefcase-20120116,0,7082529.story

    "Society will pay a huge price in cancer because of this," John Sedat, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California at San Francisco, told CNET. Sedat has raised concerns about the health risks of X-ray scanners, and the European Commission in November prohibited their use in European airports.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57358146-281/dhs-x-ray-scanners-could-be-cancer-risk-to-border-crossers/

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:PROBLEMS: Civil Liberty, Health and Welfare by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think I kinda want to punch you in the face right now. What you're saying has a point, but this is the wrong story. The scanner being presented is an infrared camera, nothing more.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:PROBLEMS: Civil Liberty, Health and Welfare by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      You are easily angered. Funny how the tone of a comment gives more rise to your ire, than the supression of your rights.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:PROBLEMS: Civil Liberty, Health and Welfare by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      I think this sums it up best,

      Democratic Underground

    4. Re:PROBLEMS: Civil Liberty, Health and Welfare by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      at what point did the police get the power to randomly stop someone to frisk them

      The 1968 Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio allows the police to stop and frisk suspects upon "reasonable suspicion." Of course, this is a vaguely defined term, and in practice means whatever the police want it to mean.

  8. on the other hand by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "you have to feel sorry for the police officers who are required to frisk people for guns or knives"

    No, i dont. thats their job. I have to feel sorry for an author so desparate to spin the idea of shredding my constitutional freedoms that hes resorting to an empathetic appeal to "my fellow man."
    nothing stops gangs and crime like a job. this perpetual incarceration model where once released a felon is bankrupt, banned from food stamps, and legally unemployable is whats virtually guaranteed america will enjoy some of the highest violent crime rates in the first world. developing the ways and means to catch the bad guy do nothing if you arent willing to address the heart of the matter.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  9. It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost by Ranten_N_Raven · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), when discussing why black can't be considered citzens, the Supreme Court listed some common rights they would have:

    It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

    More guns in honest hands == less crime and fewer deaths

    --

    READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
    1. Re:It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost by ppetrakis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You clearly have never fired a gun or have any idea of what the self-defense laws look like in the U.S. Even with Castle Doctrine laws, you are only authorized to use force if you are in imminent target of lethal or non-lethal force. Shooting people in the back as they take off with someone else's property is completely unjustified, as you not in danger. Before you continue dramatically dreaming up events to justify your philosophy, think about the hard working, law abiding citizen, who is just about to lose everything he ever will be (his life) from not complying with the muggers demands vs bankrupting his future defending his life in court.

      http://itemlive.com/articles/2012/01/12/news/news01.txt

      Stuff like this should never happen, had that lawyer not stepped in to defend this man for free he would be bankrupt, and perhaps worse, plead out to a lesser crime. All because he refused to turn his back on a man with a knife.

      You don't appear to be aware that the SCOTUS ruling where the police are in fact not responsible for your
      personal safety.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

      In the end, who was really responsible for the lives of those 3 children? Now dead. The mother who wasn't keeping an eye
      on them, or the police who failed to enforce the restraining order on the estranged husband in a timely matter?

      --
      www.alphalinux.org
  10. harmful by jason777 · · Score: 2

    These are the same xray scanners that they are using at the airports. Thats right, in total disregard for the public health, these police will hit you with a harmful shot of radiation just for walking down the street. They are also doing this at the borders, but hitting the whole car with xrays. If you dont like where the country is going, if you dont like the constitution dying, vote Ron Paul as he is the only hope for us. Otherwise, watch the descent into tyranny.

  11. The real reason, of course, is to prevent... by 1800maxim · · Score: 2

    embarassing incidents such as this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T9YaDZRUTw

  12. nothing new in NYC by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sadly this is nothing new in NYC; they have been doing stop and frisks for years. I wonder what happens when they deploy this technology and find a firearm on someone who is licensed to carry one? There are actually people who hold such licenses in NYC; given the extreme anti-gun attitude of the NYPD they'll probably wind up looking at the wrong end of a Glock and discovering the wonders of face meeting asphalt. That's if they are lucky; if they aren't they'll wind up being shot 40 times as they reach for their drivers license/pistol permit.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:nothing new in NYC by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      To be fair to the cops, they're trained to keep shooting until the target is incapacitated. "shot 40 times" sounds like a lot but it's really just the few officers there following their training.

      You are half right; people who have trained with firearms (not just LEOs) are taught to shoot until the target is incapacitated. We are also taught that deadly force can only be used in response to the imminent threat of the same. You do not get to shoot someone once, twice or 40 times over reaching for a wallet.

      I have a concealed carry license; do you think I could get away with shooting someone (even if he didn't die) merely because he reached into his pocket? Those LEOs should have gone to jail; that's what would have happened to John Q. Public in their situation.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  13. NYC violating the constitution by rilian4 · · Score: 2

    NYC is blatantly violating the constitution both with its gun laws and this new scanning device. The 2nd amendment provides no exceptions to allowing citizens the right to bear arms. The 10th amendment limits the government's powers to those stated in the constitution and reverts anything else back to the states and the people. New York State adopted this constitution as law therefore they have no right to tell a law-abiding citizen that they can't carry a gun.

    --

    ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
    1. Re:NYC violating the constitution by Greyfox · · Score: 2
      Mmm. Seems like we need to add some clarifying language to the constitution:

      First, second and fourth amendments: "What part of 'shall not be infringed' did you not understand?"
      Fourteenth amendment: "What part of 'equal protection under the law' did you not understand?"

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:NYC violating the constitution by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      It is the 14th amendment that keeps local and state governments from infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms, not the 10th. Otherwise you are right.

    3. Re:NYC violating the constitution by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you really all that surprised? I mean, isn't NY the same state whose (Democrat) senators claim that the First Amendment is a privilege, not a right?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  14. They have every intention of random sweep scans by Brain-Fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will absolutely be abused, starting on day 1. In fact, the abusive possibilities are far more likely to be the driving reason for development of this tech. The line about not wanting to frisk arrestees is just PR to win hearts and minds.

    People who have permits to carry concealed weapons can expect to be needlessly hassled and targeted more than they already are.

    1. Re:They have every intention of random sweep scans by MarkvW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure it will be abused. What about the flipside, though? If the scanner is reliable, the cop won't be able to do a Terry patdown search because its no longer reasonable (because the cop can use the less intrusive scanner). So much for the patdown yielding drugs cases . . ..
      Something to think about.

  15. Hard to hit someone at 80 feet by perpenso · · Score: 4, Informative

    Indeed. Scanning for knives from 80 feet (unless the circus is in town) is useful. For guns, you might as well be close.

    Contrary to what you see on TV and in movies a person 80 feet away is hard to hit with a handgun, especially the more compact and concealable models. It requires training and periodic practice, its a perishable skill. Even police officers who don't go to the range often enough have problems. Now add stressful circumstances.

    1. Re:Hard to hit someone at 80 feet by Pope · · Score: 2

      Contrary to what you see on TV and in movies a person 80 feet away is hard to hit with a handgun, especially the more compact and concealable models.

      It's even harder to hit them with a knife :)

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  16. Guns are also for sport ... by perpenso · · Score: 2

    I agree that the TSA is out of control but I can't imagine any sane person thinks preventing guns on plans is a bad thing. Guns are for hunting - who are you hunting on a plane?

    Guns are also for target shooting. Putting holes in pieces of paper, knocking over metal plates, breaking pieces of clay, etc. Its an olympic sport. Of course your larger point is still entirely correct, none of these sporting activities are appropriate in flight entertainment.

  17. performance and cost by jimktrains · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if this is just as effective as the scanners in the airport, and what the cost difference is.

    --
    "You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
  18. Re:I like the logic by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    I also like how its a right...when you are in a Militia. I would like to see all gun owners prove that they are in a well regulated Militia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    You should try cracking a dictionary sometime:

    militia
    [mi-lish-uh]
    noun
    1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
    2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
    3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
    4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

    You probably don't even realize that "well regulated" doesn't mean 'covered in red tape.'

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  19. Suicide Vests by Catmeat · · Score: 2

    Sod guns, obviously the most useful application this technology would have, assuming it can have the range claimed for it, is spotting suicide vests as frisking is clearly impossible. I believe the only current option is to force the suspected bomber to undress at gunpoint, while standing well away from them.

    I'll be interested to see if the Israelis start buying this technology. Though I assume it'll only take a another 7/7 in London before they put these into every tube station.