Smart gun leader is in chapter-11 style restructuring (Engage Armament Considered)

danb · May 27, 2015

501st said:
If somebody can only be trusted with a smart gun, do you really want them around you with non smart guns?

We already have "smart" quick access safes, that should be more than enough.

huh? Did I say any of that? I do not think so!

Schipperke · May 27, 2015

501st said:
If somebody can only be trusted with a smart gun, do you really want them around you with non smart guns?

We already have "smart" quick access safes, that should be more than enough.

Where did this trust someone else with a gun just materialize? So it's much better they purchase your choice of firearm. Sounds a bit FSA2013 to me :innocent0

How many states are there on your 21st birthday you can walk in a store, and walk out with a say a 1911, and they've never held a gun, let alone fired one? You worry about someone buying a smart gun?

SigMatt · May 27, 2015

danb said:
What is to stop gun prohibitionists from doing anything? Stop approving handguns for the handgun roster effectively whittling the roster to zero over time? Or banning certain kinds of handguns?

Can't live in fear of what they might do because they might do anything at all at any time.

Smart guns are not for me, but they could be a good choice for someone else.

The problem with "smart guns" is they will promote stupid handling. There's a reason the Four Rules exist. Follow those rules and you can handle any firearm with a "smart gun" being a subset with additional safeties.

But raise someone to believe that the technical solution to a human problem will guarantee no bad things will happen with a "smart gun" is a guarantee that things will happen. Which will cause people to wonder why the "smart gun" wasn't smart enough not to go off because they believed the technology of the gun would save them. They will hand a loaded "smart gun" to someone else and have them pull the trigger to prove how smart it is and depending on the mechanism of that decision making will likely incur a tragedy (i.e. RFID watch just an inch too close).

Technology is not a substitute for common sense. Interestingly while some anti-gun forces promote "smart guns" as a means to restrict supply, others fear them because it would create a potential acceptance of firearms to more people due to being child safe, safer to own, etc. It's a nasty double-edged sword for them and one I enjoy seeing them trying to avoid cutting themselves on.

As to what the anti-gun people might do or we live in fear of, sorry, they made this bed. I don't fear them but I will fight them because I question their motives and knowledge in general. They aren't interested in "gun safety". When was the last time Everytown put on a "gun safety" class? Or held a safe gun handling range day?

Anti-gun beliefs got to politicians with the promise of technical solutions to a non-problem at a time when the tech didn't exist. And got it codified into law so badly that it has poisoned the well for "smart gun" approaches in general. This is their own fault, not ours.

I personally don't oppose "smart guns". But as long as anti-gun people push for them I will fight them at every turn because they aren't acting in the interests of citizen's firearm rights in the long-term. They're looking for a wedge to exploit. If "smart guns" weren't attached with that stigma, I say let them succeed or fail on their merits in the marketplace of ideas. But the marketplace we have today is tainted by politics and it isn't my job to establish trust.

If the NJ politicians really believe in the idea that "smart guns" should come to market, let them pass a law in a normal session as a matter of routine legislation rather than being driven by a visible agenda. Let them actually repeal a gun law without pressure from the outside. Then I might believe in their sincerity. But I don't in this case. They want to open the door so they can close it again on their residents later. Sorry, I won't be a party to that.

As I said, this is in the proper court of LE and military. Let the engineers throw themselves at battle-proofing the idea. If it works I think the market may accept it and let it in. But as long as the threat of mandates remain being pushed by extremist gun control folks, "smart guns" are a dumb idea.

Matt

Z_Man · May 27, 2015

a smart gun is like a smart dog, it does what its told... oh wait all guns are already smart.....

K31 · May 27, 2015

Rather than celebrate, this is the time to look out for big pushes to have this crap mandated to save their sorry asses.

Smart gun is an oxymoron.

501st · May 27, 2015

Schipperke said:
Where did this trust someone else with a gun just materialize? So it's much better they purchase your choice of firearm. Sounds a bit FSA2013 to me
How many states are there on your 21st birthday you can walk in a store, and walk out with a say a 1911, and they've never held a gun, let alone fired one? You worry about someone buying a smart gun?

#1: There are no smart guns on the market, so you don't have a choice in the matter at all.

#2:

Please show me where I stated this is something I worry about.

mpickering said:
The problem with "smart guns" is they will promote stupid handling. There's a reason the Four Rules exist. Follow those rules and you can handle any firearm with a "smart gun" being a subset with additional safeties.

But raise someone to believe that the technical solution to a human problem will guarantee no bad things will happen with a "smart gun" is a guarantee that things will happen. Which will cause people to wonder why the "smart gun" wasn't smart enough not to go off because they believed the technology of the gun would save them. They will hand a loaded "smart gun" to someone else and have them pull the trigger to prove how smart it is and depending on the mechanism of that decision making will likely incur a tragedy (i.e. RFID watch just an inch too close).

Technology is not a substitute for common sense. Interestingly while some anti-gun forces promote "smart guns" as a means to restrict supply, others fear them because it would create a potential acceptance of firearms to more people due to being child safe, safer to own, etc. It's a nasty double-edged sword for them and one I enjoy seeing them trying to avoid cutting themselves on.

As to what the anti-gun people might do or we live in fear of, sorry, they made this bed. I don't fear them but I will fight them because I question their motives and knowledge in general. They aren't interested in "gun safety". When was the last time Everytown put on a "gun safety" class? Or held a safe gun handling range day?

Anti-gun beliefs got to politicians with the promise of technical solutions to a non-problem at a time when the tech didn't exist. And got it codified into law so badly that it has poisoned the well for "smart gun" approaches in general. This is their own fault, not ours.

I personally don't oppose "smart guns". But as long as anti-gun people push for them I will fight them at every turn because they aren't acting in the interests of citizen's firearm rights in the long-term. They're looking for a wedge to exploit. If "smart guns" weren't attached with that stigma, I say let them succeed or fail on their merits in the marketplace of ideas. But the marketplace we have today is tainted by politics and it isn't my job to establish trust.

If the NJ politicians really believe in the idea that "smart guns" should come to market, let them pass a law in a normal session as a matter of routine legislation rather than being driven by a visible agenda. Let them actually repeal a gun law without pressure from the outside. Then I might believe in their sincerity. But I don't in this case. They want to open the door so they can close it again on their residents later. Sorry, I won't be a party to that.

As I said, this is in the proper court of LE and military. Let the engineers throw themselves at battle-proofing the idea. If it works I think the market may accept it and let it in. But as long as the threat of mandates remain being pushed by extremist gun control folks, "smart guns" are a dumb idea.

Matt

+1, this is basically what I was trying to say.

There is no demand for smart guns. It is falsely generated from the anti's.

Who in their right mind is lining up to drop ~$1800 on a semi auto .22lr that is comparable to options from established manufactures that cost ~$300-$500? (and who know how much more centerfire versions will cost)

Considering what we already have:

Firearms with internal locks
Trigger guard locks
Chamber locks
Secure quick access/individual firearm safes (hell you could even store the firearm dissembled if you wanted to go the extra mile)
Locked storage for ammunition/magazines (unloaded or loaded)

In addition to training for the safe handling/usage of firearms?

What more is necessary?

Best case "smart guns" make people dependent on technology for "safety", which is bad.

Worst case it is shoved down our throats/made mandatory as we have seen in recent times. (attempted)

Schipperke · May 27, 2015

There is no demand for smart guns. It is falsely generated from the anti's.

I don't recall the demand for pet rocks either. Marketing has created many wants and needs. Engage was on the cutting edge, to at least test the waters. Other than gun enthusiasts having fear that these guns would introduce new laws banning other guns, not sure why anyone would care who bought one.

JohnnyE · May 27, 2015

I think we (not the folks in this thread, but all human beings) need to take a step back and see the big picture. It appears to me there is a continuing push to take people out of every decision-making and operational process, in a larger effort to "idiot-proof" the world. No more personal accountability! There are countless examples around us, and the list, and push, grows every day. No time to develop my comments further, and I may add more later, but I think you get my drift.

danb · May 27, 2015

501st said:
...

There is no demand for smart guns. It is falsely generated from the anti's.

Who in their right mind is lining up to drop ~$1800 on a semi auto .22lr that is comparable to options from established manufactures that cost ~$300-$500? (and who know how much more centerfire versions will cost)
...

Best case "smart guns" make people dependent on technology for "safety", which is bad.

Worst case it is shoved down our throats/made mandatory as we have seen in recent times. (attempted)

Who in their right mind spends 180,000 GB pounds (about $275,000) on this: https://hollandandholland.com/lifestyle/range-rover/

Why do people spend tens of thousands on speed boats when they hit mid life? Why did people plop down $2,000 on scary black rifles in 2013.

Ans: Because they can, and who cares what other people do with their money. I've seen people plop down a lot more than $1,800 on "dumber" things than a .22 pistol.

The same luddite ("dependent on technology") arguments were made about microwaves and cruise control (and calculators and computers). I agree that the technology should not be mandatory, but its still an idea that should succeed or fail in the marketplace on it's own merits.

501st · May 27, 2015

Schipperke said:
I don't recall the demand for pet rocks either. Marketing has created many wants and needs. Engage was on the cutting edge, to at least test the waters. Other than gun enthusiasts having fear that these guns would introduce new laws banning other guns, not sure why anyone would care who bought one.

So where are the products? Surely with such demand (no matter how it was created) why is there only 1 smart gun that was close to reaching the market? Why have none of the established firearms manufacturers put out a "smart gun"?

danb said:
Who in their right mind spends 180,000 GB pounds (about $275,000) on this: https://hollandandholland.com/lifestyle/range-rover/

Why do people spend tens of thousands on speed boats when they hit mid life? Why did people plop down $2,000 on scary black rifles in 2013.

Ans: Because they can, and who cares what other people do with their money. I've seen people plop down a lot more than $1,800 on "dumber" things than a .22 pistol.

The same luddite ("dependent on technology") arguments were made about microwaves and cruise control (and calculators and computers). I agree that the technology should not be mandatory, but its still an idea that should succeed or fail in the marketplace on it's own merits.

Way to let my point fly over your head.

And you are basically contradicting yourself. You are acting like this is the next evolution in firearm design. But then say it should not be mandatory. Not to mention your foolish equation of microwaves and cruise control being anywhere near the same as a "smart" gun.

We see how the "product" is performing. It hasn't even gotten off the ground. So much for its "merits".

Schipperke · May 27, 2015

danb said:
Who in their right mind spends 180,000 GB pounds (about $275,000) on this: https://hollandandholland.com/lifestyle/range-rover/

Why do people spend tens of thousands on speed boats when they hit mid life? Why did people plop down $2,000 on scary black rifles in 2013.

Ans: Because they can, and who cares what other people do with their money. I've seen people plop down a lot more than $1,800 on "dumber" things than a .22 pistol.

The same luddite ("dependent on technology") arguments were made about microwaves and cruise control (and calculators and computers). I agree that the technology should not be mandatory, but its still an idea that should succeed or fail in the marketplace on it's own merits.

NEVER limit yourself guessing what other people will spend. My friend once sold $30K of stereo equipment, because the guy with the next "up" on the floor saw prospect and he was dirty and disheveled, and asked my friend to please trade places..

One of my wife's clients drive Bentleys that are over $300k ea.. Another client years ago, has a Gulfstream IV. Once you hit $250-300M "your a player". The couple with the jet flew the interior designer to Paris to help pick bathroom mirrors and fixtures.

danb · May 27, 2015

501st said:
So where are the products? Surely with such demand (no matter how it was created) why is there only 1 smart gun that was close to reaching the market? Why have none of the established firearms manufacturers put out a "smart gun"?

Way to let my point fly over your head.

And you are basically contradicting yourself. You are acting like this is the next evolution in firearm design. But then say it should not be mandatory. Not to mention your foolish equation of microwaves and cruise control being anywhere near the same as a "smart" gun.

We see how the "product" is performing. It hasn't even gotten off the ground. So much for its "merits".

methinks thou doth protesteth too much. If its a terrible product it will die all on its own no matter what is said about it on MDS. Nowhere did I say "this is the next evolution in firearm design." I said it should succeed or fail on it's own merits. If demand truly is conjured by anti's, you have nothing to worry about.

jc1240 · May 27, 2015

danb said:
All guns fail, even revolvers. The only way to know is to shoot with it and see (and: learn what to do to fix it).

I understand that, but I'm focusing on the wireless electronics that I don't really trust. Weak/dead battery? Basic faulty programming? RF interference (accidental or other). Things like that. Maybe it's rock solid. Not sure I want to be the one to find out it isn't when I need it the most. The potential for purely mechanical problems is enough.

Anyone know why they went with a .22 instead of something bigger? Bigger bang = too much for the tech maybe?

Schipperke · May 27, 2015

jc1240 said:
I understand that, but I'm focusing on the wireless electronics that I don't really trust. Weak/dead battery? Basic faulty programming? RF interference (accidental or other). Things like that. Maybe it's rock solid. Not sure I want to be the one to find out it isn't when I need it the most. The potential for purely mechanical problems is enough.

Anyone know why they went with a .22 instead of something bigger? Bigger bang = too much for the tech maybe?

Anyone have a keyless car? Unreliable?

BigSteve57 · May 27, 2015

Schipperke said:
Anyone have a keyless car? Unreliable?

My car has no key to start it. What it does have is a battery powered "fob" that has lock, unlock, trunk open & panic buttons on it. Inside the fob is a key that can unlock the doors and trunk, should the battery in the fob completely die in the fob.

When you approach the car it detects the fob and turns on the interior & exterior puddle lamps. As soon as I touch the car door handle the car unlocks. Once in the car I press the start button. You can also program the car to open just the driver's door or all doors when you touch the handle. The trunk works the same way - you just press a button on the trunk after the car has seen the fob.

If the battery is totally dead in the fob, you use the key to get into the car and hold the fob over the start button. Something in the car interacts with the fob (an RFID I think) and allows the car to be started.

It has never failed in the 8 years I have owned the car and I have come to enjoy the system as completely natural and very convenient. All I ever do is leave the fob on m y key chain in my pocket.

echo6mike · May 27, 2015

BigSteve57 said:
My car has no key to start it. What it does have is a battery powered "fob" that has lock, unlock, trunk open & panic buttons on it. .... Something in the car interacts with the fob (an RFID I think) and allows the car to be started. .... All I ever do is leave the fob on m y key chain in my pocket.

Yeah, those are a problem for some workplaces.

Sent from my mobile excuse the types pleasde!

John from MD · May 28, 2015

Mas Ayoob showed me a revolver that had a device that rendered it inoperable unless you were wearing a special ring. He said tha he had tested it enough so that he felt it was dependable for his use.

This was some years ago and I don't know if he still carries it.

John

SWO Daddy · May 28, 2015

Knuckle Dragger said:
The NJ AG already ruled that the Armatix gun doesn't meet the statutory requirement for 'smart' guns. I think the Bradys may have tried to sue NJ over NOT implementing the law.

All it would take is the next AG changing his mind, of course.

SWO Daddy · May 28, 2015

John from MD said:
Mas Ayoob showed me a revolver that had a device that rendered it inoperable unless you were wearing a special ring. He said tha he had tested it enough so that he felt it was dependable for his use.

This was some years ago and I don't know if he still carries it.

John

That sounds like the same POS S&W was marketing before the AWB in the 90's.

jc1240 · May 28, 2015

No idea about the mentioned revolver, but with the Armatix - allow me to restate my opinion for clarity - It's not for me. I wouldn't mind having one as a novelty item, but I'm not ready to depend on it for my life or my family's life. I don't want to be the guy who "found a bug" at the worst time or to find out it can be disabled with a jamming gizmo. I'm reminded of the schmuck who was arrested for driving with an active cell phone jammer.

Maybe one day I'll have faith in it, though. One step would be seeing police and sheriffs willfully adopting it (at an appropriate caliber).

Smart gun leader is in chapter-11 style restructuring (Engage Armament Considered)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

"Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

American Patriot

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics