TexasCHLforum.com

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/this-g ... y-obsolete

Created by University of Michigan electrical engineering professor Kamal Sarabandi with funding from the Department of Defense, the technology pairs polarimetric radar with Doppler radar signal processing to identify an individual who might be carrying a weapon.

Not sure I agree with the conclusions of the article, and the tech is probably a few years out, but it's not hard to imagine all kinds of interesting things happening ---legalization of open carry perhaps?

What did you try to link me too? Got this message....

Sorry,
vice.com
is not currently accessible because it is categorized as porn

I doubt people will be walking around with this radar gun checking people.

nightmare69 wrote:What did you try to link me too? Got this message....

Sorry,
vice.com
is not currently accessible because it is categorized as porn

I doubt people will be walking around with this radar gun checking people.

From what, your company computer system? It's not porn, but it is a left-leaning website that has some pretty raw reporting.....like a 10 minute video I saw yesterday on snipers in Syria. I get the same kind of message for the Oleg Volk gun blog when I'm using the network at another company. There may be some lewdless on the vice site, I haven't looked it over that much, just followed links to articles there, but it's mostly just more raw coverage than you see in the MSM.

The comments follow a customary pattern. Stay tuned......

The work filters blocked it, will watch at home.

Though I didn't work the systems myself, I worked along side electronic warfare technicians in the USAF. And they had a saying something like, "Wherever there is a measure, there is a countermeasure".

K.Mooneyham wrote:Though I didn't work the systems myself, I worked along side electronic warfare technicians in the USAF. And they had a saying something like, "Wherever there is a measure, there is a countermeasure".

Yeah, I was thinking about that.....and in this case, not just a "countermeasure" but perhaps a chance to set up some antis.

Typical liberal nonsense.

Obviously, this proliferation of guns obviously poses a big threat to public safety, as evidenced by the unspeakable tragedies in Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut, last year, not to mention the roughly 85 gun deaths that happen each day in the U.S.

85 gun deaths a day? That's 31,025 deaths per year. What stats are they using, Mexico's?

Edit: found it. This includes suicides, assuming that this article is correct.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and- ... tatistics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here are suicide stats from the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"In a large group of people, it adds an additional layer of security," Sarabandi told me. "At a big gathering, like a stadium or shopping malls—situations where you might want to scan a large group—you could implement this technology so that rather than searching everybody, you can pick out a few people who you might want to investigate."

Why would LEO's need to investigate or search everybody? Just having a concealed gun does not mean you are breaking the law.

JJVP wrote:Typical liberal nonsense.

Obviously, this proliferation of guns obviously poses a big threat to public safety, as evidenced by the unspeakable tragedies in Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut, last year, not to mention the roughly 85 gun deaths that happen each day in the U.S.

85 gun deaths a day? That's 31,025 deaths per year. What stats are they using, Mexico's?

"In a large group of people, it adds an additional layer of security," Sarabandi told me. "At a big gathering, like a stadium or shopping malls—situations where you might want to scan a large group—you could implement this technology so that rather than searching everybody, you can pick out a few people who you might want to investigate."

Why would LEO's need to investigate or search everybody? Just having a concealed gun does not mean you are breaking the law.

Well, like I said above, it's a lefty site. A lot of it is wishful thinking on their part. My only interest here is in the tech, not their collectivist fantasies.

Why would LEO's need to investigate or search everybody? Just having a concealed gun does not mean you are breaking the law.

Just following what the NSA does already. The assumption has become Every One is a possible suspect of criminal actions and treat them accordingly.

This isn't technology you should be afraid of.
Generally speaking, if the government wanted to shoot low-wattage microwaves into your house (think cell phone signals) and put a big enough means to catch those signals behind you home at specific resolution, even from far away, they could begin to identify people in the home, objects in the home, etc. It's entirely possible.

However, courts have ruled that in areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the government may not engage in evasive searches without probable cause. That probable cause is a pretty high standard... Excluding the NSA "secret courts" stuff, it generally means that they can't do it on a whim.

A dog could be considered another type of "illegal stuff" detector. Courts have ruled that the PD can't show up at your door and let the dog sniff..

cb1000rider wrote:This isn't technology you should be afraid of.
Generally speaking, if the government wanted to shoot low-wattage microwaves into your house (think cell phone signals) and put a big enough means to catch those signals behind you home at specific resolution, even from far away, they could begin to identify people in the home, objects in the home, etc. It's entirely possible.

However, courts have ruled that in areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the government may not engage in evasive searches without probable cause. That probable cause is a pretty high standard... Excluding the NSA "secret courts" stuff, it generally means that they can't do it on a whim.

A dog could be considered another type of "illegal stuff" detector. Courts have ruled that the PD can't show up at your door and let the dog sniff..

Things change.

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.


I love Big Brother.

However, courts have ruled that in areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the government may not engage in evasive searches without probable cause. That probable cause is a pretty high standard... Excluding the NSA "secret courts" stuff, it generally means that they can't do it on a whim.

A dog could be considered another type of "illegal stuff"
detector. Courts have ruled that the PD can't show up at your door and let the dog sniff..

The same courts that just ruled that silence equals guilt?.....

Seems like a non issue. Any public use would most likely be as a replacement for metal detectors and other search devices we already have. As long as you are carring legally who cares? Might speed up entry into some venues is they have automatic detectors instead of making everyone empty their pockets. If they could get it to work which is far from certain.