Armatix Smart Gun

[Byron Carter]

Voting is a right we also remove for life with due process.

Which I also completely disagree with.

Because we're not talking about locking someone up for possessing a 'certain' gun. We're talking about whether or not felons deserve the right to buy guns having had that right removed via due process due to their own actions. Byron thinks it's a natural right than can't be infringed, I pointed out that we limit natural rights for public safety all the time and shouting 'fire' in a theater was an example. Clear now?

Your analogy doesn't quite line up.

You are impacting other people by shouting "Fire" in a crowded place.

I'm not impacting anyone by possessing a firearm. Criminals aren't impacting anyone by merely possessing a firearm either.

The proper analogy analogy would be for them to use a firearm recklessly, like discharging it in a public place.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Voting is a right we also remove for life with due process.

Not quite true. Only a few states permanently take away that right. Most states it is a temporary loss, varying by state.
Oddly enough I was looking into this last night while talking with my wife about a friend of ours who had once made a comment about not being able to vote.

 

[RIPWarrior]

All Ive suggested is that Murka should have stricter regulations so morans with mental health problems cant just walk into Walmart or Billy Bobs gun shack and buy a gun with their Hot Pockets,

Are you talking about people on prescribed medication? I think they should stop giving kids these pills. Maybe that will stop a lot of massacres from happening.

 

[RIPWarrior]

You need really strong medicine that hits producers and sellers and that basically makes the sale of certain kinds of guns (handguns, mostly) totally illegal if you want to reduce shootings, but the US will never do that. It's probably not legal anyway as much as I'd like it to be.

What if there is high demand for certain models of handguns? Why should the company not be alble to make large quantaties of that model? You need to solve the gang and antidepressant problem.

So yeah, I respect your rights in the sense that I'm not going to take your gun away (not that I could, since you have...a gun), but if I could limit that right by changing the constitution and do something like ban and confiscate handguns I would. That's the only sort of gun control that would have a meaningful impact, anything else is just for show.

 

[RIPWarrior]

So what are people's feelings on the Armatix smart gun technology?

http://www.armatix.us/?L=7

You have to wear a watch or bracelet to fire the gun, using RFID technology. If the watch is farther than 10 inches from gun, the firearm will not work.

To be honest, it's embarrassing and I would feel pretty bad if people had to wear those.

I would be surprised if a lot of police officers felt comfortable wearing the bracelet all day long.

 

[dc207]

Well it kinda defeats the point of a handgun - after all accidental discharge and juvenile suicide are helped by guns much more then crime is deterred.

Jesus Christ. School shootings, anyone? See if you can follow.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

So what are people's feelings on the Armatix smart gun technology?

http://www.armatix.us/?L=7

You have to wear a watch or bracelet to fire the gun, using RFID technology. If the watch is farther than 10 inches from gun, the firearm will not work.

lol right. I'm not sure because I have barely been following this shit storm pissing match but I think my post (#273) was the last one to even mention the gun itself. Many thoughts/opinions came earlier itt on it including opinions from an leo that posts here. Maybe go find and quote those?

 

[Tankeray]

If people want it good for them, let them purchase one and the risks associated with it.
Just don't make me buy it.

I'll keep my good ole dumb guns.

this

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Are you talking about people on prescribed medication? I think they should stop giving kids these pills. Maybe that will stop a lot of massacres from happening.

Anyone who is too mentally deficient to handle the responsibility.

 

[Stoic1]

Hypothetically, lets say that nobody is allowed to have guns anymore. They are illegal.

How do I defend myself and my family?


....



Think about that one for a moment. Is the answer that I should not? Or that I cannot? Or do we have an inherent right to self-defense? Forget the 2nd amendment for a minute. I am talking about a more natural right. DO I OR DO I NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF?

......




This question causes a lot of people to become uncomfortable on both sides of the gun debate. We will all say, YES! EVERYONE HAS THAT RIGHT! The far right will say that should allow anyone at any time to own the tools neccessary while the far left will say yes, but for the common good we use law enforcement to protect our citizens.

That is generally the lefts thought process - that because of police the citizens do not need to be armed, and that guns are only safe in the hands of Law Enforcement.

Then I begin to wonder - why do police need guns?

Ahhhhh....criminals! The police need guns to fight criminals!

But then I realize that the police ARE NOT OBLIGATED IN ANY WAY TO PROTECT CITIZENS. Yes. That is a fact. The police are not legally required to protect citizens. Well then - if they are not bound to protect me, and cannot be held liable for my safety, then we have a serious problem.



I have the right to defend myself but cannot, by law, do so. And the rationale is ambiguous: Police will do that for me, but are not obligated to. Interesting logic.

 

[Throttlehead]

lol right. I'm not sure because I have barely been following this shit storm pissing match but I think my post (#273) was the last one to even mention the gun itself. Many thoughts/opinions came earlier itt on it including opinions from an leo that posts here. Maybe go find and quote those?

Well, we did hear:

1- people drown in swimming pools
2- anyone who owns a gun is not self confident
3- convicted criminals should have the right to own a gun
4- having a dui on record is the same as a convicted murder record
5- something about cars and guns are the same (I forget)
6- this is just government trying to grab all the guns
7- all guns are bad
8- the watch that needs to be worn is embarrassing (although you could use anything, even implanted chip)

People can't even look up the website or watch a 3 minute youtube to check it out, it goes straight to nonsense and talking points. I think you could just start a thread with a title "guns" and no message body, the same 8 people would make 50 pages of shit.

Is it any wonder that rational talks about guns or laws can never take place?

Please help me out here

 

[Throttlehead]

Hypothetically, lets say that nobody is allowed to have guns anymore. They are illegal.

How do I defend myself and my family?


....



Think about that one for a moment. Is the answer that I should not? Or that I cannot? Or do we have an inherent right to self-defense? Forget the 2nd amendment for a minute. I am talking about a more natural right. DO I OR DO I NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF?

......




This question causes a lot of people to become uncomfortable on both sides of the gun debate. We will all say, YES! EVERYONE HAS THAT RIGHT! The far right will say that should allow anyone at any time to own the tools neccessary while the far left will say yes, but for the common good we use law enforcement to protect our citizens.

That is generally the lefts thought process - that because of police the citizens do not need to be armed, and that guns are only safe in the hands of Law Enforcement.

Then I begin to wonder - why do police need guns?

Ahhhhh....criminals! The police need guns to fight criminals!

But then I realize that the police ARE NOT OBLIGATED IN ANY WAY TO PROTECT CITIZENS. Yes. That is a fact. The police are not legally required to protect citizens. Well then - if they are not bound to protect me, and cannot be held liable for my safety, then we have a serious problem.



I have the right to defend myself but cannot, by law, do so. And the rationale is ambiguous: Police will do that for me, but are not obligated to. Interesting logic.

Of course people should be able to own guns, that shouldn't be debatable. The laws and which guns should be debatable. Also, with 1/3 of a billion guns in circulation, NOTHING will ever be reversed and confiscated, you will only hear this when Wayne LaPierre is told to go out and sell more guns.

But, I have learned from this thread that if you want to protect yourself, build a pool, they are more dangerous than guns, there is a good chance the perp will drown himself.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

If I owned a gun Id like the idea of only me being able to fire it. I dont think it would quickly replace normal guns nor should it.

I dont think it would be that easy to hack as many have posted in this thread. I could see police forces being interested in using it once the tech is tweaked and optimized.

I think some traditional gun owners feel threatened by it because they think that if it catches on in time owners of traditional guns could be a minority within the gun owning demographic. So they might see it as a 'trap' but I think a reduction in gun violence with stolen guns would be a benefit.

 

[Byron Carter]

Hypothetically, lets say that nobody is allowed to have guns anymore. They are illegal.

How do I defend myself and my family?


....



Think about that one for a moment. Is the answer that I should not? Or that I cannot? Or do we have an inherent right to self-defense? Forget the 2nd amendment for a minute. I am talking about a more natural right. DO I OR DO I NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF?

......




This question causes a lot of people to become uncomfortable on both sides of the gun debate. We will all say, YES! EVERYONE HAS THAT RIGHT! The far right will say that should allow anyone at any time to own the tools neccessary while the far left will say yes, but for the common good we use law enforcement to protect our citizens.

That is generally the lefts thought process - that because of police the citizens do not need to be armed, and that guns are only safe in the hands of Law Enforcement.

Then I begin to wonder - why do police need guns?

Ahhhhh....criminals! The police need guns to fight criminals!

But then I realize that the police ARE NOT OBLIGATED IN ANY WAY TO PROTECT CITIZENS. Yes. That is a fact. The police are not legally required to protect citizens. Well then - if they are not bound to protect me, and cannot be held liable for my safety, then we have a serious problem.



I have the right to defend myself but cannot, by law, do so. And the rationale is ambiguous: Police will do that for me, but are not obligated to. Interesting logic.

Once again, a perfectly placed overhand-right to the jaw.

Well done sir, well done.

 

[Stoic1]

Is it any wonder that rational talks about guns or laws can never take place?

Please help me out here

Sure. I'll help you out.

Rational talks about guns or laws have taken place. And the voting is pretty clear. Stop trying to fuck with them. Guns aren't the problem - mentally ill and criminals are.

 

[Throttlehead]

Sure. I'll help you out.

Rational talks about guns or laws have taken place. And the voting is pretty clear. Stop trying to fuck with them. Guns aren't the problem - mentally ill and criminals are.

So when 80% + are in favour of a law and it gets shot down, thats rational?

You can't even go with a universal background check, how in the world are you going to find out who is mentally ill before they buy a gun and while? There is also that small problem of so called sane people doing insane gun crime, as Scrody stated "anyone committing a crime on my property deserves the death penalty". Some kid stealing an iPod out of your car does not deserve to be killed. But thats the "normal sane" rational.

And how is a discussion about Armatix technology fucking with you? Its the irrational part of the gun freak that lets things like this bleed their brain. Every time you hear Armatix, buy another gun and send the NRA another 20.00, that will fix em...right?

Now back to Armatix!

 

[Throttlehead]

If I owned a gun Id like the idea of only me being able to fire it. I dont think it would quickly replace normal guns nor should it.

I dont think it would be that easy to hack as many have posted in this thread. I could see police forces being interested in using it once the tech is tweaked and optimized.

I think some traditional gun owners feel threatened by it because they think that if it catches on in time owners of traditional guns could be a minority within the gun owning demographic. So they might see it as a 'trap' but I think a reduction in gun violence with stolen guns would be a benefit.

I personally think it has big possibilities in the future.

 

[Stoic1]

So when 80% + are in favour of a law and it gets shot down, thats rational?

You can't even go with a universal background check, how in the world are you going to find out who is mentally ill before they buy a gun and while? There is also that small problem of so called sane people doing insane gun crime, as Scrody stated "anyone committing a crime on my property deserves the death penalty". Some kid stealing an iPod out of your car does not deserve to be killed. But thats the "normal sane" rational.

And how is a discussion about Armatix technology fucking with you? Its the irrational part of the gun freak that lets things like this bleed their brain. Every time you hear Armatix, buy another gun and send the NRA another 20.00, that will fix em...right?

Now back to Armatix!

1) 80% statistic is bullshit. Disproven.
2) Universal Background = registration of all firearms. You can't have one without the other.
3) Hey man, a fringe element that says shoot anyone for minor property crimes isn't a majority. I'm not killing anyone for egging my house, etc.
4) The "technology" isn't fucking with me. It's people who think to have "rational talks about guns" really only want to talk about restrictions - not education, training, and familiarization (not to mention personal responsibility). I want to talk about guns and laws. I love to talk about guns and laws! I would love to talk rationally about guns and laws. Unfortunately both sides perceive the other as crazy - and it's difficult to talk to crazy people.
6) I skipped 5.
7) I did but another gun - but I don't belong to the NRA.
8) Hey, it's your money. Spend it on the Armatrix! (doubt you have a gun though). Enjoy! But every gimmick in the world won't take the place of education, training, and familiarization. I'm very knowledgable about firearms and this shit is completely impractical. I know it seems so easy and will save so many lives to the uninitiated.



FYI - I'm gonna bail out of these threads for a while. New rules in the sticky area is making me leary. Mods are about to go on a shooting spree, so to speak, and a bloodbath is about to ensue.

 

[Throttlehead]

1) 80% statistic is bullshit. Disproven.
2) Universal Background = registration of all firearms. You can't have one without the other.
3) Hey man, a fringe element that says shoot anyone for minor property crimes isn't a majority. I'm not killing anyone for egging my house, etc.
4) The "technology" isn't fucking with me. It's people who think to have "rational talks about guns" really only want to talk about restrictions - not education, training, and familiarization (not to mention personal responsibility). I want to talk about guns and laws. I love to talk about guns and laws! I would love to talk rationally about guns and laws. Unfortunately both sides perceive the other as crazy - and it's difficult to talk to crazy people.
6) I skipped 5.
7) I did but another gun - but I don't belong to the NRA.
8) Hey, it's your money. Spend it on the Armatrix! (doubt you have a gun though). Enjoy! But every gimmick in the world won't take the place of education, training, and familiarization. I'm very knowledgable about firearms and this shit is completely impractical. I know it seems so easy and will save so many lives to the uninitiated.



FYI - I'm gonna bail out of these threads for a while. New rules in the sticky area is making me leary. Mods are about to go on a shooting spree, so to speak, and a bloodbath is about to ensue.

1- Show where it was disproven
2- Thats paranoid bullshit about registration, in the Manchin Toomey bill there was a huge fine or sentence for trying for a registration. You heard that crap from LaPierre and his gun makers.
3- That fringe element is pretty big apparently, there are 2 posters in this thread alone that agree with Scrody's statement.
4- Not sure what you are saying other than I agree both extreme sides are crazy, but don't discount your positions as extreme, you are constantly on the fringe, while trying to be rational. So I would say you have a chance to debate. Why is it you think that when a debate breaks out, it means they want your guns?
7- good for you not supporting the NRA, no doubt you bought another gun, its your business.
8- Yes I own guns, I know your favourite (as many other freaks) goto is to say "you don't even lift bro" so it means IF I didn't own a gun I have no say, or it means nothing. You are the same guy that just said you can't have a rational debate, now you want to exclude people who don't own guns in the debate? I use my guns for hunting 100% of the time, no other reason, I have no fear of home invasion, government takeover etc. If I had to defend myself with my guns, I would, I just don't think about it 24/7.

If I laid my guns on the floor beside my dog bone (as you did) and took a picture, would that make you feel better? I doubt you would get a woody looking at an AR7 or a DU special edition Ithica lite, or a DU special edition .22

 

[Snackbar]

Hey Throttle

As a gun owner would you replace or add to your collection with this technology?