The First Smart Gun Comes to America

Wrecked Em said:
I think the worst part is that if people adopt these and trust them, they'll eventually start thinking it's okay to leave them laying around with kids in the house, which in turn will lead the kids to think it's no big deal to pick up a random gun.
Click to expand...
Yep, and IMO the best solution is one that's not terribly high tech and far more foolproof to prevent theft of a firearm that a criminal can still bring to someone to "fix" later anyway... get a quick-release safe.

There are small spring loaded safes you can have bolted or wire looped wherever you like, with quick release combinations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl2-ccCEGC4

Then for your longarm, same thing a simple (I much prefer digital) safe in a closet somewhere, and you can have your backup key hidden wherever you keep your spare car fob and crap like that.
 
I was expecting this.

SkyF-pistol-2.jpeg
 
Wrecked Em said:
I think the worst part is that if people adopt these and trust them, they'll eventually start thinking it's okay to leave them laying around with kids in the house, which in turn will lead the kids to think it's no big deal to pick up a random gun.
Click to expand...

That's actually a good point. Nobody I know completely trusts a mechanical safety.

I can see people saying, yeah, it's loaded but I am not wearing the watch and this is a smart gun. Then they pull the trigger while pointing it at someone. Eventually, something bad will happen. Mark my words. Someone is going to die because of this.
 
Travolta said:
"The pistol (.22 Cal) sells for $1,399 and the watch retails for another $399. :eek:
Click to expand...

Sweet Jesus that's expensive.

The one group of people that would most benefit from a firearm and the protection if can provide are....wait for it.... poor folks that are stuck in a poor neighborhood.

This "firearm safety feature" bullshit will price them right out of the market.
 
so this is the way we're going huh... making shit more complicated and expensive.
nothing is idiotproof
 
kindasmart said:
The one group of people that would most benefit from a firearm and the protection if can provide are....wait for it.... poor folks that are stuck in a poor neighborhood.
Click to expand...
The rich liberal hypocritical types will love it though, as they or their armed security guards won't have to worry about it, and their hugely expensive home security systems in a well policed safe community render it moot at home.

They aren't walking to the grocery store near a bunch of apartments in a bad neighborhood in the dark after work, or have to worry about walking in on a home invasion with some crackhead busting in to steal their TV who gets cornered when you come in and tries to stab his way through you.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...un-permits-reserved-for-the-rich-again-still/
 
Twisted Kidney said:
How can it possibly be controversial to add an option to the market? It's a bad option that costs too much to make any sense. Why would that even become a significant thing?
Click to expand...

Because states will require garbage that does not work and make everything else illegal. Just like they are doing in CA with micro stamping. Essentially it will make all pistols illegal though I think models designed before a certain date are okay. Though if the model changes, including color, grip size or where they buy the material (metals, plastics ect.) or if the factory location changes then they are no longer eligible to be sold.

The problem? Micro stamping technology goes not work and it is flawed in two ways:

1) Revolvers do not automatically eject spent casings. And a significant amount of crime guns are revolvers.

2) Pick up spent casings from the local range. Shoot someone, pick up your brass, and drop the innocent person's at the crime scene.

3) I do not think it works with steel cases? Someone can correct me on that.


It is a worthless idea though you can bet people will try and make it a requirement legally.
 
I'd rather take my chances unarmed than with that gun.
As with your typical anti-gun bullshit, this isn't doing a thing against the people who circumvent the device.
I don't price .22 pistols, but I'm pretty sure $1400 is about 10 times the price of a non-smart gun even before the watch.

We also have yet to see how quickly someone out-smarts this system.
 
From the article:
the Armatix iP1 is the country’s first smart gun
Click to expand...
Ya think they could have come up with a better model name than the eye Pee one. Am I the only one who got a chuckle over that? :D
 
Flogger23m said:
Because states will require garbage that does not work and make everything else illegal.
Click to expand...

^ This.

The folks of a mind to eliminate firearms have been hoping to use technological requirements like this, microstamping ammo, and the like to incrementally "slippery-slope" their way to the complete or near-complete ban of firearms ownership they know they can't get directly. And even in the case where proponents are not after a gun ban, they are pushing technology that is impractical, and in this case downright dangerously so. I can think of a half-dozen situations in which relying on this could get you killed.

When this technology was merely hypothetical, bills introduced to require it were so patently unrealistic that they didn't get far. Now that these folks can point to a impractical, overpriced monstrosity like this and say "this technology is already on the market and freely available, blah, blah, blah", you'll see a lot more bills introduced making it mandatory for new firearm manufacture.

Honestly, I don't see too many (if any) such legal attempts passing in the current political climate, but I suspect you'll see more of them and the fight to maintain gun ownership rights will get more difficult in the long run.

-Tuthmose
 
Lith1um said:
Colt did this around 1996, their's used a special ring worn by the user.
Click to expand...

Prototypes only, from what I remember.

That got me to looking some stuff up, and apparently at least New Jersey has a "technology waiting" law already passed. Smart guns are already the law in NJ, as soon as the technology is deemed to be ready by the state. Germany's got such a law too, which probably explains why the company making this is German. The Armatix iP1 just makes the NJ law that much closer to being put into force.

-Tuthmose
 
I've only got one question.....

Can it be used against Xenomorphs?
 
This system has a lot of potential failures and will not solve a lot of the issues that are claimed it will. No wonder gun haters love it. More expensive and impractical......sounds like something Obama can get behind.
 
Watch battery dies?
Battery in gun dies?
Forget your watch?
Someone steals your watch?
Someone cuts your fucking hand off and takes your gun?

Where exactly is the safety?

Here's a foolproof safety mechanism for handling a firearm: don't put your fucking finger on the trigger until it's pointed at something you want to shoot.
 
Tuthmose said:
Prototypes only, from what I remember.

That got me to looking some stuff up, and apparently at least New Jersey has a "technology waiting" law already passed. Smart guns are already the law in NJ, as soon as the technology is deemed to be ready by the state. Germany's got such a law too, which probably explains why the company making this is German. The Armatix iP1 just makes the NJ law that much closer to being put into force.

-Tuthmose
Click to expand...

Like CA they will randomly claim the technology is ready now, even if it isn't. Essentially what they did with Microstamping.
 
Concept is ok, watch is hyper ugly, cost is ungodly expensive, and it's only for a .22. This won't get wings for QUITE some time.

I'd rather it be a bracelet or a ring or some kind. Locking users to something like a watch is a very, very bad idea. Maybe come up with something that is bluetooth via phone needing a custom pin and such to use?

Again, concept is ok, but implementation is FAR from being remotely close to widespread. (However, it IS CA though...)
 
Another thing I just thought of, if something like this got widely adopted, it would also allow the government to hit a "kill switch" to disable all guns. I could see them do that. Basically make it a requirement that guns have a wireless disabling device. The watch would be the "key" (the unique code it sends, or w/e) but there would also be a master key that the government has.
 
Just wait, it will soon escalate to needing a matching RFID chip. I could see law enforcement doing this in the near future.
 
Gun control is one thing, but can't the government just shut off your gun whenever it wants? It's in bed with the manufacturer...
 
This is not new people have been laughing at this thing for the past two years. Only idiots will buy this. There are so many ways to make this firearm stop working for the owner of the guy, it would never have made it out a pipe dream if there were not clueless people who think the criminals will turn into fluffy teddy bears if they take the guns from law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

But the point is not who will buy it. The point is who is going to try and pass a law that requires this. If you give it some though, it will be the same people who don't even want you to have it at all, and will be perfectly happy if it doesn't work anyway, that would suite them just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top