Armatix Smart Gun

[panamaican]

A question for anyone who supports this technology . . .

Would you also support all new cars being equipped with breathalyzers that you had to use and pass before you could start the car and drive?

How about the cell phone kill switch technology that seems to be gaining momentum?

Would you want something that you bought be controlled to this extreme?

I support the technology. I don't support it as a mandatory thing and I think that's where some people want to push it.

But I would support breathalyzers in cars since there's no constitutional protection to use a car...to a degree. I'd have know more about impact on car usage on private property, as opposed to public roads, before I made a final decision.

I wouldn't support cell phone kill switches because that means that someone else can both autonomously turn off your private property and restrict your constitutional right to free speech. 2 no-no's.

But the technology in this gun thing is perfectly fine for those people who want it, so long as those who don't want it don't have to deal with it.

 

[spamking]

Difficult question - I think yes though. The analogy is bad though. Not ALL guns are going to be equipped with this thingy nor has anyone advocated that.

Never said all or any guns were going to be equipped . . . I wasn't trying to create an analogy, just if you support one would you support the other.

The point of the smart gun is NOT to be able to switch it of remotely but to make it impossible for others to use it (against you).

Sure, that's the point now. But if you don't think that turning it off remotely isn't being discussed or also a part of the discussion somewhere I've some ocean front property here in Oklahoma I'd like to sell you.

As there is a fairly high risk of getting shot with your own gun in a self defense situation you would have to be stupid NOT to want this.

Right. Completely stupid.

Now the other question could ( and would ) it be misused - probably, but I'd really have no problem with the police being able to stop a gunfight b4 it happens.

Naw . . . it would NEVER get misused . . .

 

[spamking]

I support the technology. I don't support it as a mandatory thing and I think that's where some people want to push it.

Sure. Make it available if you want, but don't force me to buy it.

But I would support breathalyzers in cars since there's no constitutional protection to use a car...to a degree. I'd have know more about impact on car usage on private property, as opposed to public roads, before I made a final decision.

I have mixed feelings about it. I don't drink so this would never prevent me from driving my vehicle due to detecting a high BAC . . . just not sure about it being a requirement.

I wouldn't support cell phone kill switches because that means that someone else can both autonomously turn off your private property and restrict your constitutional right to free speech. 2 no-no's.

But the technology in this gun thing is perfectly fine for those people who want it, so long as those who don't want it don't have to deal with it.

I agree . . .

 

[Groundmaster]

Never said all or any guns were going to be equipped . . . I wasn't trying to create an analogy, just if you support one would you support the other.

Then it would have as much relevance to the matter then asking if you are pro choice.

Sure, that's the point now. But if you don't think that turning it off remotely isn't being discussed or also a part of the discussion somewhere I've some ocean front property here in Oklahoma I'd like to sell you.

Well it does not make much sense to me to totally neglect the positive sides of something just bc it could be used in a way it wasn't meant to.
With that attitude you should ban guns, cars, the internet etc pp ( and in all these cases they have already been used in a way they weren't meant to so its more then just pure speculation )

Right. Completely stupid.

I don't get the rolleyes. I thought the point is to protect yourself and your family - and however imperfect weapons are in this respect they would be better if you could not be shot with them.

Naw . . . it would NEVER get misused . . .

Wow great argument especially considering that I wrote that they probably would. Sarcasm for sarcasms sake - and bc you ran out of arguments me thinks.

 

[oldshadow]

Difficult question - I think yes though. The analogy is bad though. Not ALL guns are going to be equipped with this thingy nor has anyone advocated that.

The point of the smart gun is NOT to be able to switch it of remotely but to make it impossible for others to use it (against you).

As there is a fairly high risk of getting shot with your own gun in a self defense situation you would have to be stupid NOT to want this.

Now the other question could ( and would ) it be misused - probably, but I'd really have no problem with the police being able to stop a gunfight b4 it happens.

I know the 2nd amendment we need gunz to protect us from corrupt officials crowd will be up in arms but:

- If you are fixed on civil disobedience anyway you will find a way to remove the chip

- I generally do not see arming the public with small arms as a great means of stopping a dictatorship.

Bold


In NJ the law would require this type of gun.

There is a chance of your own weapon being use against you but it is not high. If the person was able to take the gun then they would have no problem being in range of the weapon to kill you and take the activator.
I do have a problem if this tec could be misused by anyone.

By the way why are you so concerned with guns in the US when you don’t live here?

And as I said as long as it was not required I don’t have a problem with how someone modifies their property.

 

[RIPWarrior]

As there is a fairly high risk of getting shot with your own gun in a self defense situation you would have to be stupid NOT to want this.

Now the other question could ( and would ) it be misused - probably, but I'd really have no problem with the police being able to stop a gunfight b4 it happens.

I know the 2nd amendment we need gunz to protect us from corrupt officials crowd will be up in arms but:

- If you are fixed on civil disobedience anyway you will find a way to remove the chip

- I generally do not see arming the public with small arms as a great means of stopping a dictatorship.

If you

 

[ABACA]

Never said all or any guns were going to be equipped . . . I wasn't trying to create an analogy, just if you support one would you support the other.

Why would you be against that option in a car?

I mean, what possible reason would you have to be against allowing alcoholics to instal a breathalyzer in their own vehicle, or purchasing a vehicle with one pre-installed?

 

[UpaLoompa]

The problem is, your "point" is not true.

I'm very well aware of the actual difference. Read what I actually wrote:
It is a distinction irrelevant to policy discussions.

Do you understand what "to policy discussions" means? Do you understand that everyone knows what someone means when they say they support a ban on high capacity "clips"?

As I mentioned in another thread, it is very reasonable to be pedantic about technical issues when they're relevant to the discussion being had but otherwise, less so.

 

[Groundmaster]

Bold
In NJ the law would require this type of gun.

And I nor anyone else (afaik) has argued for it to be mandatory.

There is a chance of your own weapon being use against you but it is not high.

High enough for me

If the person was able to take the gun then they would have no problem being in range of the weapon to kill you and take the activator.

That is a very good argument. I might add that there is the posibility of sb removing the gun not from you but from wherever you keep it. I must admit that this kinda kills the 'better in self defense situations argument a bit.

The only caveat is the range - if its only a few inches it might still be feasible.

I do have a problem if this tec could be misused by anyone.

Me to - doesn't stop me with seing its benefits though. Same can be said about many things (weapons, cars, the internet etc)

By the way why are you so concerned with guns in the US when you don

 

[spamking]

Then it would have as much relevance to the matter then asking if you are pro choice.

Ok. Maybe I should've started a different thread, but since the technology is some form of control I thought a similar discussion was relevant.

Well it does not make much sense to me to totally neglect the positive sides of something just bc it could be used in a way it wasn't meant to.
With that attitude you should ban guns, cars, the internet etc pp ( and in all these cases they have already been used in a way they weren't meant to so its more then just pure speculation )

So neglect the negative in favor of the positive but not the reverse?

I don't get the rolleyes. I thought the point is to protect yourself and your family - and however imperfect weapons are in this respect they would be better if you could not be shot with them.

The rolleyes was because you seemed to imply that everyone who pulled their gun to defend themselves was for sure going to get shot with it . . .

Wow great argument especially considering that I wrote that they probably would. Sarcasm for sarcasms sake - and bc you ran out of arguments me thinks.

Ran out of arguments? Pffft. I know for a fact it would get misused. So do you.

The sarcasm was in fact for sarcasms sake . . . please inform me what argument I should've continued?

 

[spamking]

Why would you be against that option in a car?

I mean, what possible reason would you have to be against allowing alcoholics to instal a breathalyzer in their own vehicle, or purchasing a vehicle with one pre-installed?

I'm more against it being standard equipment . . .if a drunk wants to install it in their own car that's fine. I'd see it like enhancing the stereo system. But not all of us would need it.

 

[oldshadow]

However I am not joining discussions in these Forums bc I believe than I can sway anybodys policies. I am here bc I have an interest in a logical discurs.

Fair enough. I enjoy a good debate. I don

 

[UpaLoompa]

the US have been a beacon of what I would call modern western secular values. Therefore I do have an interest in what happens in the US.

Fucking Roberts court.

 

[ABACA]

I'm more against it being standard equipment . . .if a drunk wants to install it in their own car that's fine. I'd see it like enhancing the stereo system. But not all of us would need it.

Never said all or any guns were going to be equipped . . . I wasn't trying to create an analogy, just if you support one would you support the other.

Interesting...

 

[Throttlehead]

A question for anyone who supports this technology . . .

Would you also support all new cars being equipped with breathalyzers that you had to use and pass before you could start the car and drive?

How about the cell phone kill switch technology that seems to be gaining momentum?

Would you want something that you bought be controlled to this extreme?

How is this Armatix technology being controlled by anyone other than yourself when you buy the gun? Do you understand RFID technology?

 

[oldshadow]

How is this Armatix technology being controlled by anyone other than yourself when you buy the gun? Do you understand RFID technology?

If it sends or receives it can be hacked.

 

[ruthless robert]

I could see law enforcement adopting this. Then when a cop needs it and there is a malfunction that results in a cop losing his/her life then no more cops will want to pick up another gun with this technology.

.

 

[Throttlehead]

If it sends or receives it can be hacked.

He used it in the context of cell phone kill switch.

This stuff is not even in the same realm, its pure nonsense to compare the two. Yes there is a possibility it could be hacked, now is it the kid with mental problems in the home of this gun owner who is going to hack it, is it the criminal that wants to take a cops gun and shoot him with it going to hack it? People are reading way too much into this, they basically are saying government is going to control your guns with this technology, thats bunk.

If all states make a law saying you can'y use anything but these, you then have a huge problem, the odds of that I would say are 0%

It was a very simple debate of should theses guns be allowed for sale in the USA, and if so, why do the pro gun groups including the NRA threaten to kill dealers who want to sell them. I don't get the problem, all I feel is the usual paranoia of Obama taking all the guns, but in fact more gun laws have loosened while he has been prez.

 

[Throttlehead]

I could see law enforcement adopting this. Then when a cop needs it and there is a malfunction that results in a cop losing his/her life then no more cops will want to pick up another gun with this technology.

.

What happened when their mechanical gun has jammed over the past, did they abandon guns?

 

[jlagman]

What happened when their mechanical gun has jammed over the past, did they abandon guns?

Tap, rack is a hell of a lot easier than tap, rack, check batteries, check signal strength, call IT for troubleshooting...