Armatix Smart Gun

[ABACA]

Your a lost cause.

I continue to answer your question concisely and you skirt with this bullshit. Im done. Pat yourself on the back

Hahaha, ok buddy.

I wonder if they'll spend money on lobbyists in an attempt to make their product mandatory.

I highly doubt they'll outspend the NRA, thankfully.

Also, are mechanical safeties mandatory?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

They already have. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into trying to make this shit mandatory.

Do tell...

 

[Throttlehead]

It wont prevent irresponsible gun owners from taping the rfid to the stock and leaving a loaded firearm on the table, thus it wont prevent in home accidents.

Don't be ridiculous, I would think someone buying this gun and its technology is buying for an exact reason, and it is NOT to override its feature.

Why are you against someone wanting to buy a gun of their choice? Do you not support the 2nd?

 

[ABACA]

Don't be ridiculous, I would think someone buying this gun and its technology is buying for an exact reason, and it is NOT to override its feature.

Why are you against someone wanting to buy a gun of their choice? Do you not support the 2nd?

Sorry to tell you, but I've gone down this road with Snackbar.

He is unable to learn, apparently.

 

[HIMBOB]

Bro, I don't own 1/3 of a billion guns. Yet. LOL.

There is so much cool shit being produced these days I really don't want to be dictated that I need training wheels on my toys. You know what I'm saying?

Like....don't fuckin install an interlock device into my car to prevent future DUI's. I don't drink and drive. I know it's for the safety of the children and all - but FFS, man. Let's swing the pendulum back towards a stronger sense of personal responsibility.

But what if a measure like this allowed you to get cooler toys?


This thread really enforces the view for me that many pro gun guys are against any and all forms improve gun safety not because of the measure it self but because of some drawn out theory that might possibly result.

I think this unwillingness to form any sort of middle ground will lead to harsher gun control as it becomes obvious that these kinds of people are useless to have in gun control debates.

 

[Throttlehead]

They already have. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into trying to make this shit mandatory.

Oh, where is the article on that, I would like to read it. Also, have you found that legislation law in California regarding smart guns, I can't seem to find it by google.

 

[Scrody]

But what if a measure like this allowed you to get cooler toys?


This thread really enforces the view for me that many pro gun guys are against any and all forms improve gun safety not because of the measure it self but because of some drawn out theory that might possibly result.

You're willing to let regular folks who can potentially go on shooting sprees the opportunity to own a fully automatic weapon as long as it has a stupid watch that won't let it fire when it's a certain distance away.

I think this unwillingness to form any sort of middle ground will lead to harsher gun control as it becomes obvious that these kinds of people are useless to have in gun control debates.

I don't think you should debate guns ever, to be frank.

 

[Snackbar]

Don't be ridiculous, I would think someone buying this gun and its technology is buying for an exact reason, and it is NOT to override its feature.

Why are you against someone wanting to buy a gun of their choice? Do you not support the 2nd?

I never said i was against anyone buying a firearm with this technology, do you guys just pull this shit out of thin air?

Here let me explain this as simply as possible for you, there are two kinds of gun owners, responsible and irresponsible owners.
The responsible gun owner stores his unloaded firearms in a safe at all time, with trigger locks. ammunition for said firearms is locked away in a seperate lock box.
The irresponsible gun owner leaves a loaded shotgun behind his bedroom door.

Which of the two is more in need of this technology?
Which of the two would purchase this technology?

Ill ask you the question i asked the other guy who cant muster a straight answer.
How is this technology more effective than education and combating the causes of gun crime?

 

[HIMBOB]

What if you can't?

1st, Hope the other guy doesn't have a gun.
2nd, Hope I had one.

Avoiding a gun fight is the best way to protect yourself from getting shot in a gun fight.


If I am in a situation where I find out I can't leave I would prefer both of us to be unarmed as opposed to both of us armed.
Which would you prefer???

 

[ABACA]

I never said i was against anyone buying a firearm with this technology, do you guys just pull this shit out of thin air?

Here let me explain this as simply as possible for you, there are two kinds of gun owners, responsible and irresponsible owners.
The responsible gun owner stores his unloaded firearms in a safe at all time, with trigger locks. ammunition for said firearms is locked away in a seperate lock box.
The irresponsible gun owner leaves a loaded shotgun behind his bedroom door.

Which of the two is more in need of this technology?
Which of the two would purchase this technology?

Ill ask you the question i asked the other guy who cant muster a straight answer.
How is this technology more effective than education and combating the causes of gun crime?

Jesus you're dumb. Now education and combating the causes of gun crime are parts of Armatix's corporate charter.

Also, nice binary - gun owners who do everything perfectly so they need no new safety equipment and gun owners who are so fucked up that they'd tape the rfid transmitter to the pistol grip. Of course that binary doesn't remotely resemble reality, but none of your arguments have, so no surprise.

 

[ABACA]

You're willing to let regular folks who can potentially go on shooting sprees the opportunity to own a fully automatic weapon as long as it has a stupid watch that won't let it fire when it's a certain distance away.



I don't think you should debate guns ever, to be frank.

First, you're not Frank, and second, why would anyone debate a gun?

 

[HIMBOB]

You're willing to let regular folks who can potentially go on shooting sprees the opportunity to own a fully automatic weapon as long as it has a stupid watch that won't let it fire when it's a certain distance away.

I don't think you should debate guns ever, to be frank.

I would consider it, that is just something I thought would interest people who want such guns for target practise etc.



I think the idea that any law in existance to be perfect and doesn't require evolution is flawed. Guns, marriage, property, whatever times change, laws should too.

 

[Stoic1]

But what if a measure like this allowed you to get cooler toys?


This thread really enforces the view for me that many pro gun guys are against any and all forms improve gun safety not because of the measure it self but because of some drawn out theory that might possibly result.

I think this unwillingness to form any sort of middle ground will lead to harsher gun control as it becomes obvious that these kinds of people are useless to have in gun control debates.

1) I have all the cool toys.

2) I am not against gun safety. You just don't like my idea of gun safety - it comes from what I said earlier: Education, familiarization, and training. AGAIN HOW CAN I BE AGAINST GUN SAFETY IF I WANT THOSE 3 THINGS??? Guns are perfectly safe BTW - they don't just go off. It's the *PEOPLE* who are unsafe. Let's work on *THE PEOPLE*, eh?

3) I disagree on how useful this "technology" will be. I see the exploits, flaws, and failures that have been listed already. The degree of safety that will come is so miniscule when compared the flaws I feel that it is worthless and would prefer not to be mandated to use it.

4) I'm sorry that you feel that *I* need to come to the middle ground when it comes to gun control. And I don't feel that I am useless in these debates. I am a huge gun safety advocate. I bet I have taught more people to shoot, and been a range safety officer for probably 1000+ people in the last 10 years. No kidding. I feel like gun safety is an individual responsibility - not a mechanical gimmick.

5) And yes, admittedly, I do feel that if I give an inch they will take a mile. History has shown that much of the gun legislation/control out there is idiotic, unenforced, and created by people who have no experience or understanding in the matter. Hence why I said, much earlier, that I understand why the NRA has to be so far right on the spectrum - because of people like Feinstein and Bloomberg. I don't see those people coming toward the middle ground. Fuck no - the agenda is clear.

 

[Scrody]

1st, Hope the other guy doesn't have a gun.
2nd, Hope I had one.

Avoiding a gun fight is the best way to protect yourself from getting shot in a gun fight.


If I am in a situation where I find out i can't leave I would prefer both of us to be unarmed as opposed to both of us armed.
Which would you prefer???

Do you disagree that in any confrontation, it's better to have the guy outmatched? I'm not talking about avoiding the confrontation, it's here. What do you do? Jabs or big nasty blood shitting hooks? It's better to have a Glock 19 over a .38 special. You have more shots. A better offense.

 

[Scrody]

First, you're not Frank, and second, why would anyone debate a gun?

lol

 

[Scrody]

I would consider it, that is just something I thought would interest people who want such guns for target practise etc.



I think the idea that any law in existance to be perfect and doesn't require evolution is flawed. Guns, marriage, property, whatever times change, laws should too.

So you're willing to let people have fully automatic weapons as long as it has the safety watch thing?

 

[HIMBOB]

1) I have all the cool toys.

2) I am not against gun safety. You just don't like my idea of gun safety - it comes from what I said earlier: Education, familiarization, and training. AGAIN HOW CAN I BE AGAINST GUN SAFETY IF I WANT THOSE 3 THINGS??? Guns are perfectly safe BTW - they don't just go off. It's the *PEOPLE* who are unsafe. Let's work on *THE PEOPLE*, eh?

3) I disagree on how useful this "technology" will be. I see the exploits, flaws, and failures that have been listed already. The degree of safety that will come is so miniscule when compared the flaws I feel that it is worthless and would prefer not to be mandated to use it.

4) I'm sorry that you feel that *I* need to come to the middle ground when it comes to gun control. And I don't feel that I am useless in these debates. I am a huge gun safety advocate. I bet I have taught more people to shoot, and been a range safety officer for probably 1000+ people in the last 10 years. No kidding. I feel like gun safety is an individual responsibility - not a mechanical gimmick.

5) And yes, admittedly, I do feel that if I give an inch they will take a mile. History has shown that much of the gun legislation/control out there is idiotic, unenforced, and created by people who have no experience or understanding in the matter. Hence why I said, much earlier, that I understand why the NRA has to be so far right on the spectrum - because of people like Feinstein and Bloomberg. I don't see those people coming toward the middle ground. Fuck no - the agenda is clear.

What gun control measures would you want legally enforced to help ensure guns don't fall into the hands of criminals?

 

[HIMBOB]

Do you disagree that in any confrontation, it's better to have the guy outmatched? I'm not talking about avoiding the confrontation, it's here. What do you do? Jabs or big nasty blood shitting hooks? It's better to have a Glock 19 over a .38 special. You have more shots. A better offense.

Not what I am asking,

Say You are going about your business and I want to rob you.

Would you prefer both of us armed or neither of us??

 

[Scrody]

Not what I am asking,

Say You are going about your business and I want to rob you.

Would you prefer both of us armed or neither of us??

Depends on the size of the guy. If he's bigger, armed. Smaller? Unarmed.

 

[HIMBOB]

Depends on the size of the guy. If he's bigger, armed. Smaller? Unarmed.

Its me Vs you. (I don't know how big you are and I presume you don't know how big I am)

All you know is I am the aggresor.