Can't Wait for Coakley's Response

dcmdon said:
I didn't say whether or not a smart gun is a good thing or a bad thing. I said its not inherently evil.

You and Mike seem to be missing my key point, which is that the free market system provides choice and products succeed or fail based on their attractiveness to buyers. All of the things you both mention may be true.
Click to expand...

Attractive to what buyers? You mean the handful of douchebags that think its a good idea? [laugh] The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The entire purpose of the technology at this point is to act as a delivery vehicle/adapter/enabling technology for anti gun policy, and this is what makes it inherently evil. Smart guns are the equivalent of putting in a jar of AIDS and EBOLA with every children's chemistry set. Serves no purpose and only will kill the owner. If it was a viable tech big manufacturers would be sinking a lot of money into developing it- they're not- because it's a terminally stupid idea at this juncture.

-Mike
 
Let's not forget that the manufacturer has already admitted that a "kill " signal is possible.
You really don't think that the same people who turn rapists and killers back out on the streets like free pass day at the carnival have a hard on for this out of concern for public safety do you? [rofl]
 
milktree said:
You could say the same thing about a mechanical safety, it it fails "safe", you're screwed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but most safeties are mechanically pretty simple, and a shitload of guns don't even have mechanical safeties, or very minimal ones. If you take "non sucky pistol X" that's not terribly complicated- (like let's say an M&P or a Glock) and you add this pile of trash to it to control whether or not it can fire, you're still introducing another point of failure that didn't exist before.

I can imagine that in another 10 years something like a smart gun might be not only possible, but desirable.
Click to expand...

What will ever be desirable about it? (from the user's perspective) It's addressing a problem that doesn't exist. "Cop shot with own gun" is almost a statistically insignificant stat. In a non LE application, the best it can do is pretend to compensate for someone's gross negligence. This technology will only ever be desireable by people who aren't actually carrying the guns, whether it's a PD that wants control of a cop's gun, or an out of control government that wants to be able to disarm it's citizens at the press of a button.

But we're *way* far away from there, and there's some fundamental policy problems with every implementation scheme I've heard.

Before they can be a requirement (and this is not an endorsement even if all the below are met) smart guns need to be:

- good enough that the secret service uses them (and only them) to protect the president
- good enough that the army uses them
- good enough that all police forces to use them (and only them)
- unable to be disabled remotely
- able to loaned without extra cost or significant hassle
- don't require special extra hardware to be programmed
- battery life of multiple years, weather used regularly or stored
- able to disable the system entirely, so anyone can use it

Anything less is unacceptable.


These are huge hurdles, big enough that I don't see them being met for *at least* 20 years.
Click to expand...

So in other words, "As soon as unicorns arrive.".

Well, there is that end, but there's also the huge, obvious problem that the industry would basically be ****ing itself in the ass if invested in this technology, because the .gov (particularly numerous anti states like CA, NY, NJ) will turn right around and **** everyone with it. Anyone in the industry who invests in developing this stuff is beyond mentally retarded.

We can start having serious conversations about developing "smart guns" in the mainstream when we live in a libertarian utopian theme park land that has lots of fairies and unicorns running all over the place, where a government would never misuse either the technology itself, or even the mere presence of the technology in the marketplace to drive some agenda. Until then, it's just a fundamentally terrible idea; it just has the potential to trigger/set off/give way to/enable a bunch of bad things happening, none of which are good for the industry and for gun owners alike.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
Yeah, but most safeties are mechanically pretty simple, and a shitload of guns don't even have mechanical safeties, or very minimal ones. If you take "non sucky pistol X" that's not terribly complicated- (like let's say an M&P or a Glock) and you add this pile of trash to it to control whether or not it can fire, you're still introducing another point of failure that didn't exist before.
Click to expand...

Yes. But you sidestepped my point: The technology *now* sucks, it's terrible, and fraught with nearly every possible technical problem. But technology moves very fast. It wasn't that long ago that nobody trusted fuel injection or electronic ignition in cars, and ABS was in lots of cases worse than conventional brakes. But those things changed, the technology got more robust, better designed, lasts longer, etc. I'm not saying "reasonable smart guns are around the corner", I'm saying, "just because the tech. sucks now, doesn't mean it won't be viable sometime in the future."


What will ever be desirable about it? (from the user's perspective) It's addressing a problem that doesn't exist. "Cop shot with own gun" is almost a statistically insignificant stat. In a non LE application, the best it can do is pretend to compensate for someone's gross negligence. This technology will only ever be desirable by people who aren't actually carrying the guns, whether it's a PD that wants control of a cop's gun, or an out of control government that wants to be able to disarm it's citizens at the press of a button.
Click to expand...

I'm playing Devil's advocate here, work with me:

- A smart gun could make safe storage unnecessary for a home defense gun.
- They might be useful for prison guards (yes, if it gets to the point where it matters, you've already lost.)
- A smart gun might be ideal for teachers, doctors, or other professionals where a self defense (good guy to kill the bad guy) would be tricky otherwise.
- Fodder for James Bond movies?



So in other words, "As soon as unicorns arrive.".
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. That was kind of my point. If all, or even most of those, were possible and/or happened, I can imagine I might see the advantage of one. But until then, I wouldn't trust the technology except as perhaps a novelty.
 
Have you ever been reading a thread, and your blood pressure goes up so high and so fast that you have to shut the browser down?

Yeah, that just happened to me.

I just cannot believe that any pro 2a person is happy about "smart" guns. It boggles the mind.
 
teaser452 said:
Have you ever been reading a thread, and your blood pressure goes up so high and so fast that you have to shut the browser down?

Yeah, that just happened to me.

I just cannot believe that any pro 2a person is happy about "smart" guns. It boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world, it would be nice to have a gun that only you could fire... like on some James Bond 007 type of stuff.
 
How long til the advertisers get their hooks into smartgun technology and we end up like youtube with a button that says "skip to gunshot in :30?"

On a serious note, I would never trust my life to anything with code. It's too vulnerable to bugs and attacks from outside (because there has to be a method to update the code.) Attacks can come from hackers or the other hacker .gov. What happens if the code install process encounters a problem? Do I call my buddy "Steve" in india? I'm guessing the code would be hardwired into a silicon chip that we would swap - I sure wouldn't feel safe plugging my gun into the internet for updates. How long til a replacement chip arrives if the one i get is bad (and they've decided to code a "use by" date into the chips?)
 
the advantage to smart gun is that martha coakley can adjust your trigger pull from her bathroom WiFi and her iPad.
 
So in case of a EMP (which i hope never happens) do the guns work? That would easily nullify the 2A by there being no guns available to defend the country or ones self. I guess that would readily disable someones device at very least.

If its electronic and uses a transmitter or receiver it can be hacked. That is the problem with the whole idea.

New for Safe guns act of 2020.

Auto disabling of the entire population in time of governmental emergency.

The future holds:
You will have to request your firearm turned on or off by the local constabulary to use it.
You get a certain amount of requests per month.
These track and send data of the time between firing, caliber and shots number of shots fired with a tax on each price point.
Year end taxes on the number of shots taken and the accounting of each round returning brass to the local constabulary collection facility.
Only able to use it within the confines of the range or local established hunting area during the proper game shooting times.
Automatically disabled when pulled over by a police car or in a gun free zone.
Automatically calls police when in a gun free zone.
Must be near a wireless station so it can be accounted for in the wireless smart safe.
 
Last edited:
Squib308 said:
the advantage to smart gun is that martha coakley can adjust your trigger pull from her bathroom WiFi and her iPad.
Click to expand...

What if she accidently tries to turn up the power on her butt plug and uses the wrong remote?
 
JohnZ said:
How long til the advertisers get their hooks into smartgun technology and we end up like youtube with a button that says "skip to gunshot in :30?"

On a serious note, I would never trust my life to anything with code. It's too vulnerable to bugs and attacks from outside (because there has to be a method to update the code.) Attacks can come from hackers or the other hacker .gov. What happens if the code install process encounters a problem? Do I call my buddy "Steve" in india? I'm guessing the code would be hardwired into a silicon chip that we would swap - I sure wouldn't feel safe plugging my gun into the internet for updates. How long til a replacement chip arrives if the one i get is bad (and they've decided to code a "use by" date into the chips?)
Click to expand...

See bolded part.

So you don't trust your life to a car? Or you drive a very old beater?

Cars for quite a while now are computer-controlled. A bug leads to some of the recalls and some of the deaths mentioned in various articles posted here.

NOTE: I don't disagree with you, but we've already crossed that line wrt life-dependent items a long time ago.
 
To work around an EMP, you just set up the electronics to fail unsafe. It's like electronic door locks - in the case of a fire/power outage, they are generally supposed to unlock when they fail so people can escape.
 
teaser452 said:
Have you ever been reading a thread, and your blood pressure goes up so high and so fast that you have to shut the browser down?

Yeah, that just happened to me.

I just cannot believe that any pro 2a person is happy about "smart" guns. It boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

What thread are you reading?

I haven't seen a single post suggesting that anyone is happy about smart guns.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Maybe we should start another thread about smart guns?
Click to expand...

^ this.

Let's get back to discussions about Comm2A's efforts to kick Coakley in the vag. I read something between the lines from the FaceBook comment about being 'happy' with the latest .gov response (nobody has standing so the whole thing should be thrown out). I imagine it's because .gov overlooked something that now can be used against them. Is that something that can be commented on? Or should we just wait for the next filings?

Draper v. Coakley update: The AGs office has responded to our challenge against the AGs regulations by filing to dismiss the complaint as effectively frivolous and stating in effect we have no hope of prevailing. Having taken a look at what they said, we couldn't have hoped for a better response...
http://comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/205-draper
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
teaser452 said:
Have you ever been reading a thread, and your blood pressure goes up so high and so fast that you have to shut the browser down?

Yeah, that just happened to me.

I just cannot believe that any pro 2a person is happy about "smart" guns. It boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

You are one of the non-thinkers blindly repeating dogma without ever considering the logic behind someone else's position.

NOBODY has said that smart guns are:
1) A good idea
2) Safer
3) Better.

What we have said is that they are not inherently evil.
What we have said is that ABSENT the presence of an anti-gun Government intent on using the fantasy of smart guns to deprive us of our 2A rights, smart technology would just be another feature that either lives or dies in the marketplace.

That is what we are saying. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with Smart guns. Gadget guys would buy them. I wouldn't. You wouldn't. Most of us here wouldn't.

But then again, most of us here don't buy Jennings, Raven, or Lorcin firearms.

What is wrong is that Government is trying to use smart guns to deprive us of the right to buy non-smart guns.

Now, I've left the logical conclusion hanging on the assumption that you and others were smart enough to arrive there on your own. But I'll finish it so nobody gets confused.

Given the current political climate, smart guns are a bad idea because they will provide anti gun Governments a tool to deprive us of our 2A rights.

There you go.

Again, no piece of hardware is inherently good or evil. Isn't that one of the things we tell anti's?

Good freaking god.

Don
 
Last edited:
dcmdon said:
You are one of the non-thinkers blindly repeating dogma without ever considering the logic behind someone else's position.

NOBODY has said that smart guns are:
1) A good idea
2) Safer
3) Better.
Click to expand...
I think you need to take a breath as well... You cannot blame a victim of a crime for over-associating key elements of that crime with their victimization.

As it stands right now with the prevailing philosophy of governance in MA, the mere existence of e-guns, even if they weren't fundamentally flawed by available technology, makes us less safe as consumers because legislatures such as ours have been proven to knee jerk to require them if they are available at all.

So, objectively speaking, they both fail technologically right now as well as present us with a profound threat to our liberty by enticing government to behave even more badly.

You are getting upset with the wrong people.

IF we had a state and federal government closer to comporting with the principles of the state and federal constitution that understood its place as governments of free people rather than surrogate parents or jailers, then there would be no cause for concern for a novelty item such as this.

Instead we find ourselves HERE where this is not the case. While I agree that we should be able to look objectively at the reality of the threat, like I said, you are getting upset with the wrong people. You need to focus your ire on idiots like Toleman...
 
StevieP said:
^ this.

Let's get back to discussions about Comm2A's efforts to kick Coakley in the vag. I read something between the lines from the FaceBook comment about being 'happy' with the latest .gov response (nobody has standing so the whole thing should be thrown out). I imagine it's because .gov overlooked something that now can be used against them. Is that something that can be commented on? Or should we just wait for the next filings?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's just that this is clearly a throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks response.
 
Warren Tollman says these "smart guns" work great. They utilize the "Wonder Twin" powers. To fire the gun, one must stand next to their partner and "fist bump" to enable the power to fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dcmdon said:
You are one of the non-thinkers blindly repeating dogma without ever considering the logic behind someone else's position.

NOBODY has said that smart guns are:
1) A good idea
2) Safer
3) Better.

What we have said is that they are not inherently evil.
What we have said is that ABSENT the presence of an anti-gun Government intent on using the fantasy of smart guns to deprive us of our 2A rights, smart technology would just be another feature that either lives or dies in the marketplace.

That is what we are saying. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with Smart guns. Gadget guys would buy them. I wouldn't. You wouldn't. Most of us here wouldn't.

But then again, most of us here don't buy Jennings, Raven, or Lorcin firearms.

What is wrong is that Government is trying to use smart guns to deprive us of the right to buy non-smart guns.

Now, I've left the logical conclusion hanging on the assumption that you and others were smart enough to arrive there on your own. But I'll finish it so nobody gets confused.

Given the current political climate, smart guns are a bad idea because they will provide anti gun Governments a tool to deprive us of our 2A rights.

There you go.

Again, no piece of hardware is inherently good or evil. Isn't that one of the things we tell anti's?

Good freaking god.

Don
Click to expand...

Thanks for the ad hominem attack. Typical leftist strategy.

I think you need a lesson in reading comprehension. But thanks for playing anyway.
 
cekim said:
Delay for elections.
Click to expand...


They're saying only a dealer who has been penalized under the law has standing to go to a lower, state court to fight the penalty during such trial and subsequent state appeals the state courts will either interpret the regulations or find them to be vague. This of course won't allow for cherry picking good litigants for Comm2A as most dealers won't risk everything to fight this.

I think they are saying the federal suit is premature, and I think it is a very serious challenge not a delay tactic, but seeing as how I am not a lawyer, they could be just FoS and the court may agree that the feds have jurisdiction to determine the meaning of a vague state regulation because its a constitutional matter?
 
Seriously, not to be a douche, but can we not let this thread get gunked up with Tollman and his retarded smart guns?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Similar threads

Thanks random emailer...cant wait to make my own silencer now
2
Replies
32
Views
718
chris_1001
chris_1001
I can't seem to win with my guns lately
Replies
21
Views
1K
kingson
kingson
Bad news LTC holders, can't buy ammo at BassPro
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Maine gets close to implementing 3 Day Wait Period and makes it illegal to do Paramilitary Training in the State
4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
5K
Uzi2
U
Larue Tactical's response to LEO request in a ban state
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
paul73
paul73
Back
Top Bottom