quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

I think it's interesting that the gun can only be shot by the owner of the gun. While that might result in difficulties in teaching your kid how to shoot the gun, it certainly does help prevent someone from using a gun that was stolen.

You miss the big benefit... it keeps the children from shooting themselves or others... If you want your child to shoot buy them a gun for themselves that only they can use...not their friends... It is a wonderful idea and not new.

The only problem I can see is the technology dependable.. if it is I would love to see a law requiring all new weapons to have this technology.

But watch the NRA come out against it... oh!!!!! you are trying to make it hard for citizens to get guns!!!!. But of course they don't seem to care how many lives it could save.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

What are your credentials to determine that this is "ramboesque"?

The ability to read the following sentence.


For me, I would want a weapon available at a moments notice, under any possible circumstance

quote:

I would have wear the freakin wrist thing even in the shower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I would have wear the freakin wrist thing even in the shower.

Do you bring a gun into the shower?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I would have wear the freakin wrist thing even in the shower.

Do you bring a gun into the shower?

Not likely but you may need to go grab it in an emergency while you're in any place at any time. If you're in the shower without the wrist thingie you would have to go for the gun then put the wrist thingie on. I wouldn't want to wear a thingie on my wrist or a ring on my finger just to have access to my gun. If some one wants to buy that crap on their gun, that's fine. I don't want it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As I said... if it proves dependable...and only then... I don't see anyone testing or evaluating the technology. Unless I am mistaken this is not the only technology developed for this purpose.

Tell me luvmuffin... If there were dependable easily used technology in the future that would limit the operation to only the owner would you approve of it? And if you did would you be in favor of a law requiring all new civilian weapons to be equipped with the device?

If not why?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As I said... if it proves dependable...and only then... I don't see anyone testing or evaluating the technology. Unless I am mistaken this is not the only technology developed for this purpose.

Tell me luvmuffin... If there were dependable easily used technology in the future that would limit the operation to only the owner would you approve of it? And if you did would you be in favor of a law requiring all new civilian weapons to be equipped with the device?

If not why?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
What goes around comes around. When the libs in New York published the home addresses of gun owners back in January, they opened the door to this sort of nonsense. Now it's biting libs in the ass and all they do is cry.
Boo fucking hoo...
-SD-

The problem, is, though, it was wrong when the Lib's in NY did it, and it's wrong now.

I think it's interesting that the gun can only be shot by the owner of the gun. While that might result in difficulties in teaching your kid how to shoot the gun, it certainly does help prevent someone from using a gun that was stolen.

I have to wonder how that's done and if it can be used to allow others to be acceptable users. And, if it's sold, is there a way to remove the previous owner and add the new owner? Is this something that can be controlled remotely (if so, how do you prevent the government from "shutting off" everyone's smart guns?)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As I said... if it proves dependable...and only then... I don't see anyone testing or evaluating the technology. Unless I am mistaken this is not the only technology developed for this purpose.

Tell me luvmuffin... If there were dependable easily used technology in the future that would limit the operation to only the owner would you approve of it? And if you did would you be in favor of a law requiring all new civilian weapons to be equipped with the device?

If not why?

Butch

Pretty much what Bama said. As dependable as the technology might get it can still fail. There are already enough things that can fail on even the best quality firearms such as ammo or a rough spot on the feed ramp or a faulty magazine. I have a Glock Model 23. When I shot it for the first time I kept getting stove pipes (empty case hanging up in the ejection port). It happened way too many times for 100 rounds (2 different ammo types). I called up Glock and they suggested I was shooting with a limp wrist. I said bull shit and sent it to them under warranty. They sent it back to me and told me nothing wrong. Again I take it to the range and 150 rounds later its still hanging up at least once or twice on every magazine full. It did it with my friend shooting it too. I sent it back again with the 2 magazines I was using and this time it came back with a new recoil assembly. A couple of thousand rounds later and I haven't had any problems. The Glock is an ultra reliable handgun. A friend had a Sig Sauer .380, another quality handgun that started hanging up. We finally figured it out after several trips to the target range. The problem was lint in the crevice around the extractor pin spring.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

What are your credentials to determine that this is "ramboesque"?

The ability to read the following sentence.


For me, I would want a weapon available at a moments notice, under any possible circumstance

Isn't that sentence basically the whole idea if you have a defense weapon? Ramboesque would be something like 5 enemy guys ambushing you with fully automatic weapons, missing you and then you kill them all with your handgun shooting the last guy after doing a summersault out of your cover into the open to get a shot at em.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I believe I read that in California the have a mandatory proposal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


That would mean that you would, if you were married, need two shotguns(or whatever you weapon of choice) as your wife could not use yours if something happened while you were gone.

According to the manufacturers website that is not true. More than one weapon can be controlled with the same rfid. Multiple rfid can be programmed for the same or several weapons.

It would be another step toward only the wealthy can own guns as firearms with this technology will always be considerably more expensive that firearms without it.

No one is mandating this. If you dont want it dont buy it.

This is just one of the many practical problems with it.

So far you have failed to identify any practical problems with the unit.

Batteries run down circuits get wet.

Computers,cell phones,your car all have batteries and circuits. If that shit fails on the freeway at 60 mph there could be some issues.


The more complex the hardware the more chances for it to
screw up.

So no double actions, no auto loaders, no more bisexual safteys, no more decocking levers, no more red dot lazer sights...all that added complexity

(in reply to BamaD)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
Pretty much what Bama said. As dependable as the technology might get it can still fail. There are already enough things that can fail on even the best quality firearms such as ammo or a rough spot on the feed ramp or a faulty magazine. I have a Glock Model 23. When I shot it for the first time I kept getting stove pipes (empty case hanging up in the ejection port).


That is not a "stovepipe". That is a failure to eject.

It happened way too many times for 100 rounds (2 different ammo types). I called up Glock and they suggested I was shooting with a limp wrist. I said bull shit and sent it to them under warranty. They sent it back to me and told me nothing wrong. Again I take it to the range and 150 rounds later its still hanging up at least once or twice on every magazine full. It did it with my friend shooting it too. I sent it back again with the 2 magazines I was using and this time it came back with a new recoil assembly. A couple of thousand rounds later and I haven't had any problems.

At about .40 cents a round...sure you did.

The Glock is an ultra reliable handgun. A friend had a Sig Sauer .380, another quality handgun that started hanging up. We finally figured it out after several trips to the target range. The problem was lint in the crevice around the extractor pin spring.

From a practical standpoint, when I get a new or used handgun that I may want to depend on, I'll put at least 4 or 5 hundred rounds through it,

At .40 cents a round

with the magazines and ammo I intend to use if it's an automatic, to make certain its accurate and reliable. If I buy extra magazines for an automatic, I'll try them out before I rely on them. I never buy junk.

You bought a glock that failed to eject properly and you bought it from a company that said you had a "limpwrist" and tried to stonewall you on your warranty


In no way shape or form, no matter how reliable it's been proven to be, would I ever want some electronic smart junk crap on my handgun, rifle or shotgun.

So no red dot lazer sights for you ehh?





< Message edited by thompsonx -- 5/1/2014 6:49:07 AM >

(in reply to lovmuffin)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaitresseErica

A "safer gun" is an oxymoron. Firearms are meant to do one specific job and building them to try to outsmart the operator is idiotic...says me and anyone else who actually operates a firearm with any regularity.

This thread is quite full of lunacy, mostly by those who don't operate firearms with any sort of proficiency.

Needing a firearm at a moments notice is exactly why Glock has led the way in REMOVING the mechanical safety lever from its handgun line for the specific purpose of making it FASTER to utilize your firearm in a life or death situation. Most handgun manufactures now offer the 'no mechanical" safety option.

Asserting that you will never need your firearm in a moment's notice is false and foolish... says me and everyone else who operates firearms regularly...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

What are your credentials to determine that this is "ramboesque"?

The ability to read the following sentence.


For me, I would want a weapon available at a moments notice, under any possible circumstance

Isn't that sentence basically the whole idea if you have a defense weapon? Ramboesque would be something like 5 enemy guys ambushing you with fully automatic weapons, missing you and then you kill them all with your handgun shooting the last guy after doing a summersault out of your cover into the open to get a shot at em.

No ramboesque is believing that you are in such danger 24//7/365 that you need your gat at a moments notice.
No one is forcing you to buy this. If you don't like it don't buy it but the "needing a gun at a moments notice is just beyone any sort of reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Wrong. I shoot on a regular basis and would never own a handgun without at least one mechanical safety. As a matter of fact the only handgun I might consider owning is a 1911 and those have 2 safeties.