Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   You'd think gun enthusiasts would be eager to support sales of a firearm that only the owner can fire. Yeah, think again   (rawstory.com) divider line 532
    More: Asinine, CEO, gun enthusiasts, U.S. Division, firearms, Crooks & Liars  
•       •       •

8073 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Apr 2014 at 12:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



532 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-29 10:36:18 AM  
Why would anyone think that?
 
2014-04-29 10:45:06 AM  

clydedog: Why would anyone think that?


Yeah.  'Cause what if my wife or son needs to use it in an emergency?

Not to mention the obvious issues with battery life, possibility of electronics failure on top of the the already bad enough mechanical and chemical failures.

Sorry to say, but sometimes "progress" really isn't.
 
2014-04-29 10:45:52 AM  
Why are they mad?

I'm definitely pro-2nd Amendment, but what's the gripe for these groups against this weapon?

Fear that all guns will be required to have that tech?
 
2014-04-29 10:48:42 AM  

dittybopper: clydedog: Why would anyone think that?

Yeah.  'Cause what if my wife or son needs to use it in an emergency?

Not to mention the obvious issues with battery life, possibility of electronics failure on top of the the already bad enough mechanical and chemical failures.

Sorry to say, but sometimes "progress" really isn't.


Yeah, or what if your wife wants to kill you during a domestic dispute, or your infant son wants to play with a new toy? This might prevent those all too common tragedies, and we have to focus on what's  really important here: dying as quickly and painfully as possible.
 
2014-04-29 11:00:30 AM  

Theaetetus: dittybopper: clydedog: Why would anyone think that?

Yeah.  'Cause what if my wife or son needs to use it in an emergency?

Not to mention the obvious issues with battery life, possibility of electronics failure on top of the the already bad enough mechanical and chemical failures.

Sorry to say, but sometimes "progress" really isn't.

Yeah, or what if your wife wants to kill you during a domestic dispute, or your infant son wants to play with a new toy? This might prevent those all too common tragedies, and we have to focus on what's  really important here: dying as quickly and painfully as possible.


LOL. Hyperbolic much? Did you poop your pants in fear just typing that?
 
2014-04-29 11:00:32 AM  
Why would anyone actually want this version of a "safer" firearm?  It's something that can/will break/malfunction, adds cost, and nobody asked for it.
 
2014-04-29 11:02:49 AM  

dittybopper: Sorry to say, but sometimes "progress" really isn't.


Regardless of all that, you'd at least think gun owners would - perhaps in an effort to counter some of the bad press they've gotten lately - stick to letter-writing (of the non death-threat variety) rather than doxing, stalking and making vague threats.

I know we're all upstanding citizens who would never threaten someone here, but it becomes very hard to see gun owners as rational people when someone making a good-faith effort to make a product they want becomes Public Enemy #2 (second only to BLM). She's not an elected official, and as far as I know, isn't the one who tried to make them mandatory (that was the CA legislature).

I thought gun owners were taught to be sure they've properly sighted their target before opening fire...

// pretty much unless you're an NRA spokesperson or an R elected official, anything you say about guns means the derpers threaten your life and family
// but let's trust them to know what's best for gun owners and gun law, since we can't seem to keep from calling them "clips"
 
2014-04-29 11:03:29 AM  

clydedog: Theaetetus: dittybopper: clydedog: Why would anyone think that?

Yeah.  'Cause what if my wife or son needs to use it in an emergency?

Not to mention the obvious issues with battery life, possibility of electronics failure on top of the the already bad enough mechanical and chemical failures.

Sorry to say, but sometimes "progress" really isn't.

Yeah, or what if your wife wants to kill you during a domestic dispute, or your infant son wants to play with a new toy? This might prevent those all too common tragedies, and we have to focus on what's  really important here: dying as quickly and painfully as possible.

LOL. Hyperbolic much? Did you poop your pants in fear just typing that?


Considering that it's the gun nuts who are calling in death threats to the CEO of the company making these devices, you may be projecting your own fear on others.
 
2014-04-29 11:03:53 AM  

LordZorch: Why would anyone actually want this version of a "safer" firearm?  It's something that can/will break/malfunction, adds cost, and nobody asked for it.


I think it's interesting technology. And certainly, I have no problems with it being available as an option, unlike some of the type of weirdos allegedly making threats, but it's certainly not something I would have an interest in. But then, I'm sort of a casual gun owner - one handgun locked up and my great uncle's old single shot .22 rifle that needs to be completely refurbished before using again - not any sort of enthusiast.
 
2014-04-29 11:05:45 AM  

Dr Dreidel: I know we're all upstanding citizens who would never threaten someone here, but it becomes very hard to see gun owners as rational people when someone making a good-faith effort to make a product they want becomes Public Enemy #2 (second only to BLM). She's not an elected official, and as far as I know, isn't the one who tried to make them mandatory (that was the CA legislature).


There are literally tens of millions of lawful, sane, rational gun owners in this country and if you choose to judge them all based on the acts of some disturbed few, that is all, 100% on you, not the other tens of millions of sane, rational, law-abiding gun owners out there.
 
2014-04-29 11:06:37 AM  

Nabb1: Dr Dreidel: I know we're all upstanding citizens who would never threaten someone here, but it becomes very hard to see gun owners as rational people when someone making a good-faith effort to make a product they want becomes Public Enemy #2 (second only to BLM). She's not an elected official, and as far as I know, isn't the one who tried to make them mandatory (that was the CA legislature).

There are literally tens of millions of lawful, sane, rational gun owners in this country and if you choose to judge them all based on the acts of some disturbed few, that is all, 100% on you, not the other tens of millions of sane, rational, law-abiding gun owners out there.


Remind me to keep this copypasta in case you ever show up in a bad cop thread.
 
2014-04-29 11:10:52 AM  

Nabb1: Dr Dreidel: I know we're all upstanding citizens who would never threaten someone here, but it becomes very hard to see gun owners as rational people when someone making a good-faith effort to make a product they want becomes Public Enemy #2 (second only to BLM). She's not an elected official, and as far as I know, isn't the one who tried to make them mandatory (that was the CA legislature).

There are literally tens of millions of lawful, sane, rational gun owners in this country and if you choose to judge them all based on the acts of some disturbed few, that is all, 100% on you, not the other tens of millions of sane, rational, law-abiding gun owners out there.


So how about we stop letting them set the terms of the debate?
 
2014-04-29 11:12:08 AM  

Theaetetus: Nabb1: Dr Dreidel: I know we're all upstanding citizens who would never threaten someone here, but it becomes very hard to see gun owners as rational people when someone making a good-faith effort to make a product they want becomes Public Enemy #2 (second only to BLM). She's not an elected official, and as far as I know, isn't the one who tried to make them mandatory (that was the CA legislature).

There are literally tens of millions of lawful, sane, rational gun owners in this country and if you choose to judge them all based on the acts of some disturbed few, that is all, 100% on you, not the other tens of millions of sane, rational, law-abiding gun owners out there.

Remind me to keep this copypasta in case you ever show up in a bad cop thread.


I tend to stay out of those, but if you feel like you need to, be my guest.
 
2014-04-29 11:13:01 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Nabb1: Dr Dreidel: I know we're all upstanding citizens who would never threaten someone here, but it becomes very hard to see gun owners as rational people when someone making a good-faith effort to make a product they want becomes Public Enemy #2 (second only to BLM). She's not an elected official, and as far as I know, isn't the one who tried to make them mandatory (that was the CA legislature).

There are literally tens of millions of lawful, sane, rational gun owners in this country and if you choose to judge them all based on the acts of some disturbed few, that is all, 100% on you, not the other tens of millions of sane, rational, law-abiding gun owners out there.

So how about we stop letting them set the terms of the debate?


Still on you, man.
 
2014-04-29 11:17:38 AM  

Dr Dreidel: dittybopper: Sorry to say, but sometimes "progress" really isn't.

Regardless of all that, you'd at least think gun owners would - perhaps in an effort to counter some of the bad press they've gotten lately - stick to letter-writing (of the non death-threat variety) rather than doxing, stalking and making vague threats.

I know we're all upstanding citizens who would never threaten someone here, but it becomes very hard to see gun owners as rational people when someone making a good-faith effort to make a product they want becomes Public Enemy #2 (second only to BLM). She's not an elected official, and as far as I know, isn't the one who tried to make them mandatory (that was the CA legislature).

I thought gun owners were taught to be sure they've properly sighted their target before opening fire...

// pretty much unless you're an NRA spokesperson or an R elected official, anything you say about guns means the derpers threaten your life and family
// but let's trust them to know what's best for gun owners and gun law, since we can't seem to keep from calling them "clips"


Yes because we know how well those without a clue do in doing whats best, you know like the God fearing old men and their Abortion laws!
 
2014-04-29 11:22:33 AM  
I notice that Law Enforcement is not included when  the death threats are mentioned, but all one has to do is say "right wing death threat" and the  libs accept it without question and start their frothing, the only difference between them and the  Bundy supporters is a few Gadsden Flags and shouts of "MURICA!"
 
2014-04-29 11:26:04 AM  

Theaetetus: dittybopper: clydedog: Why would anyone think that?

Yeah.  'Cause what if my wife or son needs to use it in an emergency?

Not to mention the obvious issues with battery life, possibility of electronics failure on top of the the already bad enough mechanical and chemical failures.

Sorry to say, but sometimes "progress" really isn't.

Yeah, or what if your wife wants to kill you during a domestic dispute, or your infant son wants to play with a new toy? This might prevent those all too common tragedies, and we have to focus on what's  really important here: dying as quickly and painfully as possible.


Those aren't common, especially the "infant" one, and you know it because I've posted the data here before, with links to the source (the CDC):

Number of kids under 12 killed in firearms accidents in 2010 (last year for data):  41, for a rate of 0.08 per 100,000.  Yes, just forty-one.  But don't take my word for it:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

Yes,  the odds are literally 1 in 1.2 million.  That's so low it can be effectively discounted as a serious problem.  Especially when you consider that some fraction of those (probably the majority), are due to adult mishandling.  Cars are much more dangerous:  900 were killed accidentally that year in traffic-related incidents, for a rate of 1.84 per 100,000.

But hey, you said "infant", so I'm going to assume you mean kids 3 and under, even though that's stretching it by including toddlers.  Happened to just 17 of them.  Vast majority must be because of an adult's mistake, which no "smart gun" is going to be able to fix.

And if my wife wants to kill me in a domestic dispute?  Well, again, that's extremely unlikely.  Men more often murder women than the other-way around:

Plus, we've been married for nearly 20 years now.  If she were going to kill me, it probably would have happened already.  Especially during the whole menopause thing.  'Cause damn, that shiat makes them insane.  Kinda glad we got it out of the way early.

But even still, you don't think my wife could get close enough to me while I'm wearing whatever RFID-enabled bauble necessary to activate the gun in order to shoot me?

And if she's that close, she could stab me with one of the kitchen knives, which are about as deadly as a .22 LR handgun, which is the only available "smart gun" available.
 
2014-04-29 11:40:46 AM  

dittybopper: Cars are much more dangerous: 900 were killed accidentally that year in traffic-related incidents, for a rate of 1.84 per 100,000.


Cars are also significantly more ubiquitous, and are required use for millions of people at least twice a day. But even granting you the comparison, tell me one suggested change to make cars safer that has been met with death threats to the CEOs of Ford or GM.
 
2014-04-29 11:44:25 AM  

Dr Dreidel: I know we're all upstanding citizens who would never threaten someone here, but it becomes very hard to see gun owners as rational people when someone making a good-faith effort to make a product they want becomes Public Enemy #2 (second only to BLM). She's not an elected official, and as far as I know, isn't the one who tried to make them mandatory (that was the CA legislature).


First, pretty much no gun owners want "smart guns".  Oh, sure, there might be a very small niche market for them, but it's a very, very small niche.

Second, the reason why people get upset is because once it's on the market, it becomes mandatory in New Jersey.  California is try the same thing, and bills have even been introduced in Congress.

Plus, Armatix seems to have gotten some "special" treatment:  Their gun is approved for sale in California, but it doesn't have microstamping which is required for all new handguns to be sold in California.  It shouldn't have been added to the list, by California law.

This is the same kind of thing that screws gun owners over all the time.   Like back when someone decided to make an AR-based handgun in 7.62x39mm.  Even though they only produced one or two examples, it was enough for the ATF to classify that caliber as "can be used in a handgun" and that meant all the cheap mild-steel cored surplus Warsaw Pact ammo could no longer be imported because it was now suddenly "armor piercing".  Except that it wasn't "armor piercing" back when only rifles fired it.

And that's the kind of shiat we have to deal with.

But back to the main concept, the people who really, really should be clamoring for "smart guns" are the police:  They carry openly, and sometimes their guns get turned against them, or stolen.  So why not make it mandatory for them to use smart guns first, in order to put the fears of non-LEO gun owners to rest?

Oh, wait, their specifically exempt from the laws and proposed laws that require smart gun use, aren't they?

Ask yourself why.

Now, if Ms. Padilla is getting actual death threats, that's something she should be forwarding to the police, and it's not something that I or anyone I know would condone.

But the Gun Culture circling the wagons against a perceived threat?  That's something she should have expected.  It's happened before.  Just ask Smith and Wesson.  So getting called names and getting kicked out of your retail space should be expected.
 
2014-04-29 11:49:32 AM  

dittybopper: This is the same kind of thing that screws gun owners over all the time.   Like back when someone decided to make an AR-based handgun in 7.62x39mm.  Even though they only produced one or two examples, it was enough for the ATF to classify that caliber as "can be used in a handgun" and that meant all the cheap mild-steel cored surplus Warsaw Pact ammo could no longer be imported because it was now suddenly "armor piercing".  Except that it wasn't "armor piercing" back when only rifles fired it.

And that's the kind of shiat we have to deal with.



Are you going to be ok? I mean, can you live with this crippling, life-altering, unthinkable pain?
 
2014-04-29 11:50:36 AM  

Nabb1: There are literally tens of millions of lawful, sane, rational gun owners in this country and if you choose to judge them all based on the acts of some disturbed few, that is all, 100% on you, not the other tens of millions of sane, rational, law-abiding gun owners out there.


Well, it would be nice if we could do some research on this topic, but the CDC has been banned: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_ v iolence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.h tml

I don't care what you think about guns- I come from a family of hunters, but I would never have one in my house- but banning research is pretty medieval thinking.
 
2014-04-29 11:59:11 AM  

nmrsnr: dittybopper: Cars are much more dangerous: 900 were killed accidentally that year in traffic-related incidents, for a rate of 1.84 per 100,000.

Cars are also significantly more ubiquitous, and are required use for millions of people at least twice a day. But even granting you the comparison, tell me one suggested change to make cars safer that has been met with death threats to the CEOs of Ford or GM.


No, they aren't more ubiquitous.  Just more *VISIBLE*.

There are more privately held guns in the United States than privately owned motor vehicles (last I checked, it was 225 to 250 million vs. 208 million).

In a normal year, US gun owners purchase (and shoot) 7 to 10 *BILLION* rounds of ammo.

Yes, *BILLION*.  And they shoot it, too:  The supply has to keep up with demand, and while the excess purchases recently might have been stockpiled by nervous gun owners, normally people don't just keep adding to their stocks without shooting it.
 
2014-04-29 12:00:36 PM  

dittybopper: Now, if Ms. Padilla is getting actual death threats, that's something she should be forwarding to the police, and it's not something that I or anyone I know would condone.

But the Gun Culture circling the wagons against a perceived threat? That's something she should have expected.


There is a concerted effort by the pro-gun lobby that uses everything from political pressure and billions of dollars to outright terroristic threatening to push an extremist position in this country; quite successfully.

How convenient for you that you can dismiss the terrorists because you don't personally know any.

But you're right about one thing: she should have expected it.
 
2014-04-29 12:01:23 PM  

what_now: Nabb1: There are literally tens of millions of lawful, sane, rational gun owners in this country and if you choose to judge them all based on the acts of some disturbed few, that is all, 100% on you, not the other tens of millions of sane, rational, law-abiding gun owners out there.

Well, it would be nice if we could do some research on this topic, but the CDC has been banned: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_ v iolence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.h tml

I don't care what you think about guns- I come from a family of hunters, but I would never have one in my house- but banning research is pretty medieval thinking.


They didn't "ban" the research. They just didn't want to fund the CDC to do it. And frankly, I'm not sure what the CDC needs to get involved in all this since the FBI and the DOJ have been doing extensive studies on gun violence for decades and one last thing - that has absolute f*ck all to do with this particular issue. But, yes, I get that you don't like the pro-Second Amendment folks.
 
2014-04-29 12:02:00 PM  

dittybopper: Theaetetus: Yeah, or what if your wife wants to kill you during a domestic dispute, or your infant son wants to play with a new toy? This might prevent those all too common tragedies, and we have to focus on what's  really important here: dying as quickly and painfully as possible.

Those aren't common...


Notice the subtle shift in goalposts.

... especially the "infant" one, and you know it because I've posted the data here before, with links to the source (the CDC):

Number of kids under 12 killed in firearms accidents in 2010 (last year for data):  41, for a rate of 0.08 per 100,000.  Yes, just forty-one.  But don't take my word for it:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

Yes,  the odds are literally 1 in 1.2 million.  That's so low it can be effectively discounted as a serious problem.  Especially when you consider that some fraction of those (probably the majority)...


And note the sudden shift from statistics to supposition.

..., are due to adult mishandling.  Cars are much more dangerous:  900 were killed accidentally that year in traffic-related incidents, for a rate of 1.84 per 100,000.

Sure. Fewer are killed by firearms than are killed by car crashes. But what's the utility of the firearm compared to the automobile? Most people would readily agree that the car is far more useful, hence why almost everyone has one, while a significantly smaller number possess firearms.

But hey, you said "infant", so I'm going to assume you mean kids 3 and under, even though that's stretching it by including toddlers.  Happened to just 17 of them.  Vast majority must be because of an adult's mistake, which no "smart gun" is going to be able to fix.

And isn't that 17 too many?

And if my wife wants to kill me in a domestic dispute?  Well, again, that's extremely unlikely.  Men more often murder women than the other-way around:

So, we agree that women who have firearms should all have these smart guns? Great, glad we're on the same page.

But back to the main concept, the people who really, really should be clamoring for "smart guns" are the police:  They carry openly, and sometimes their guns get turned against them, or stolen.  So why not make it mandatory for them to use smart guns first, in order to put the fears of non-LEO gun owners to rest?
Oh, wait, their specifically exempt from the laws and proposed laws that require smart gun use, aren't they?
Ask yourself why.


For the same reason that gun owners are pissing themselves in fear over these laws passing: the unknown.
For the record, cops had the same complaints about locking holsters that prevent drawing the gun from other angles, and protested them for years. Now they all carry them. It's amazing how a bit of education can change people's minds.

Now, if Ms. Padilla is getting actual death threats, that's something she should be forwarding to the police, and it's not something that I or anyone I know would condone.
But the Gun Culture circling the wagons against a perceived threat?  That's something she should have expected.  It's happened before.  Just ask Smith and Wesson.  So getting called names and getting kicked out of your retail space should be expected.


Oh, of course she could have expected it. I mean, asking Gun Culture to not jump immediately to reactionary fear? It goes against their entire nature, which is why they carry guns in the first place and are constantly on the lookout for imagined threats.
 
2014-04-29 12:02:39 PM  

what_now: Nabb1: There are literally tens of millions of lawful, sane, rational gun owners in this country and if you choose to judge them all based on the acts of some disturbed few, that is all, 100% on you, not the other tens of millions of sane, rational, law-abiding gun owners out there.

Well, it would be nice if we could do some research on this topic, but the CDC has been banned: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_ v iolence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.h tml

I don't care what you think about guns- I come from a family of hunters, but I would never have one in my house- but banning research is pretty medieval thinking.


Didn't Obama lift that, sort of, with an executive order?
 
2014-04-29 12:02:44 PM  

nmrsnr: dittybopper: Cars are much more dangerous: 900 were killed accidentally that year in traffic-related incidents, for a rate of 1.84 per 100,000.

Cars are also significantly more ubiquitous, and are required use for millions of people at least twice a day. But even granting you the comparison, tell me one suggested change to make cars safer that has been met with death threats to the CEOs of Ford or GM.


Removal of gun racks? ;)
 
2014-04-29 12:03:54 PM  

gilgigamesh: dittybopper: Now, if Ms. Padilla is getting actual death threats, that's something she should be forwarding to the police, and it's not something that I or anyone I know would condone.

But the Gun Culture circling the wagons against a perceived threat? That's something she should have expected.

There is a concerted effort by the pro-gun lobby that uses everything from political pressure and billions of dollars to outright terroristic threatening to push an extremist position in this country; quite successfully.

How convenient for you that you can dismiss the terrorists because you don't personally know any.

But you're right about one thing: she should have expected it.


I don't think agreeing that the threats should be investigated and those making them prosecuted would be "dismissing them." And I don't like the NRA, but I think he has a very valid point that if these things go on the market, a bunch of states will start trying to make them mandatory. As I said, I have no problem with the technology being an option, but if it goes beyond that, then I start having a problem.
 
2014-04-29 12:05:43 PM  
BTW, an interesting article on this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/california-smart-gun-store-promp ts -furious-backlash/2014/03/06/43432058-a544-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_stor y.html

Two paragraphs:

The protests echo what Smith & Wesson endured after it signed a landmark gun-control agreement with the Clinton administration in 2000 that called for the company to research and introduce smart guns. Boycotts of the company's products nearly put it out of business.
...
But many customers and gun rights advocates do not see it that way. Even though many smart-gun proponents, including the Silicon Valley group offering the $1 million prize, say the market should decide whether the technology is accepted, a fear of mandates looms.


The market *HAS* decided, and they are so far nearly 100% against it.

Effective boycotts and widespread protests among the very people you intend to sell guns to are most emphatically the market saying "Thanks, but no thanks, and don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya".
 
2014-04-29 12:07:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Oh, of course she could have expected it. I mean, asking Gun Culture to not jump immediately to reactionary fear? It goes against their entire nature, which is why they carry guns in the first place and are constantly on the lookout for imagined threats.


Trying to sell something to the very people who don't want it?

I'm farking *SHOCKED* that she got that reaction.
 
2014-04-29 12:07:38 PM  

dittybopper: No, they aren't more ubiquitous. Just more *VISIBLE*.


I stand corrected. There are more guns than cars. That still doesn't detract from the fact that cars are required use in most people's lives, while guns are voluntary recreation. Nor did you address my second point, where I challenged you to find pushback against attempts to make cars safer*.

*Outside of the car manufacturers themselves, because in this case, it's the CEO of the gun manufacturer getting the threats. One would expect gun/car manufacturers to oppose pretty much any regulation.
 
2014-04-29 12:08:36 PM  

dittybopper: Now, if Ms. Padilla is getting actual death threats, that's something she should be forwarding to the police, and it's not something that I or anyone I know would condone.

But the Gun Culture circling the wagons against a perceived threat? That's something she should have expected. It's happened before. Just ask Smith and Wesson. So getting called names and getting kicked out of your retail space should be expected.


Thank you for restating my point - that introducing anything into Gun Culture, unless you're a Republican politician or an NRA spokesperson, means you're going to be called names and kicked out of the retail space (and stalked and harassed, but that's wrong and people shouldn't do that) with extreme prejudice. Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.

Permit me to digress for a second:
In the 1950s, popular music was under assault, as was the First Amendment in general. Leo Fender decided that an electric bass was what the market needed - no need for awkward transducers or "small" microphones (this was the 1950s) if the signal's mostly electronic to start with. Guess what didn't happen? No one threatened to brain Fender with a Telecaster.

Now, it's not a perfect comparison (the laws you mentioned - which the NRA is already gearing up to fight, even though CA's didn't pass - bear only a passing resemblance to the soft censorship of the arts in the 50s), but the fact remains that the way to go about protesting the law is not to threaten or harass a CEO of a gun maker, it's to threaten and harass the politicians who passed it.

Which is also a separate issue from "reading the market" to figure out what they want. If Armatrix got it wrong and the market HATES smart guns, shouldn't The Free Market (made up of passionate gun-lovers) put them out of business?

// kidding - don't threaten or harass anyone
 
2014-04-29 12:10:22 PM  

dittybopper: No, they aren't more ubiquitous.  Just more *VISIBLE*.

There are more privately held guns in the United States than privately owned motor vehicles (last I checked, it was 225 to 250 million vs. 208 million).


For 2010, approximately 40-45% of households owned a gun.
Meanwhile, 95% of households own a car.
That's pretty ubiquitous, notwithstanding the fact that Joe Firearms keeps a hundred different guns in his basement masturbation palace.

In a normal year, US gun owners purchase (and shoot) 7 to 10 *BILLION* rounds of ammo.
Yes, *BILLION*.


And in a normal year, US drivers drive about 2.95 *TRILLION* miles.
Yes, *TRILLION*.

Come on, Ditty, be realistic. Acknowledging that cars are more ubiquitous than guns doesn't hurt your argument at all, and denying it just makes you lose credibility.
 
2014-04-29 12:12:04 PM  

Theaetetus: dittybopper: Theaetetus: Yeah, or what if your wife wants to kill you during a domestic dispute, or your infant son wants to play with a new toy? This might prevent those all too common tragedies, and we have to focus on what's  really important here: dying as quickly and painfully as possible.

Those aren't common...


Notice the subtle shift in goalposts.


Calling exceedingly rare tragedies "all too common" is begging the question.  There is no possible level above zero that is acceptable to you.

If it happened just once in 10 years, it would still be "all too common" to you.
 
2014-04-29 12:12:39 PM  

dittybopper: clydedog: Why would anyone think that?

Yeah.  'Cause what if my wife or son needs to use it in an emergency?

Not to mention the obvious issues with battery life, possibility of electronics failure on top of the the already bad enough mechanical and chemical failures.

Sorry to say, but sometimes "progress" really isn't.


Choosing not to buy one because it is unproven tech is all well and good,   Physically threatening the CEO of the company and trying to make sure the weapon is never offered for sale is quite another.   It's basically a high tech trigger lock, something that anyone who has young children and firearms is, in my opinion criminally negligent if they don;t already have and use on any loaded gun in the house
 
2014-04-29 12:13:43 PM  
Yep, everybody should want the opportunity to pull the trigger and get a Blue Screen of Death instead of a bang.
 
2014-04-29 12:14:10 PM  

dittybopper: Theaetetus: dittybopper: Theaetetus: Yeah, or what if your wife wants to kill you during a domestic dispute, or your infant son wants to play with a new toy? This might prevent those all too common tragedies, and we have to focus on what's  really important here: dying as quickly and painfully as possible.

Those aren't common...


Notice the subtle shift in goalposts.

Calling exceedingly rare tragedies "all too common" is begging the question.  There is no possible level above zero that is acceptable to you.


That's not true. I think there's probably a baby or two that need shootin' each year.

If it happened just once in 10 years, it would still be "all too common" to you.

I'd like to point out that you're complaining about specific fallacies in a comment that was clearly facetious, considering that it stated that the primary desire of gun owners was to meet their maker as quickly as possible.
 
2014-04-29 12:14:35 PM  

LordZorch: Why would anyone actually want this version of a "safer" firearm?  It's something that can/will break/malfunction, adds cost, and nobody asked for it.


Isn;t that a question for the free market to decide?   The actions of people to harass the maker and any seller of the item to the extent that they never offer it for sale is, on the other hand essentially using mob violence to cut off debate.
 
2014-04-29 12:18:25 PM  

dittybopper: Theaetetus: Oh, of course she could have expected it. I mean, asking Gun Culture to not jump immediately to reactionary fear? It goes against their entire nature, which is why they carry guns in the first place and are constantly on the lookout for imagined threats.

Trying to sell something to the very people who don't want it?

I'm farking *SHOCKED* that she got that reaction.


When I'm not interested in a product, I simply don't buy it. I do not try to remove it from the marketplace, threatening the CEO of the company for its existence.
 
2014-04-29 12:18:42 PM  
Let me know when all LEOs and military personnel accept this tech in the guns they look to, then it might actually be a mature tech.
 
2014-04-29 12:25:17 PM  

dittybopper: And that's the kind of shiat we have to deal with.


You're breaking my farking heart, man
 
2014-04-29 12:25:56 PM  

dittybopper: Theaetetus: dittybopper: Theaetetus: Yeah, or what if your wife wants to kill you during a domestic dispute, or your infant son wants to play with a new toy? This might prevent those all too common tragedies, and we have to focus on what's  really important here: dying as quickly and painfully as possible.

Those aren't common...


Notice the subtle shift in goalposts.

Calling exceedingly rare tragedies "all too common" is begging the question.  There is no possible level above zero that is acceptable to you.

If it happened just once in 10 years, it would still be "all too common" to you.


But it doesn't happen once a decade, in fact Children get shot about 8000 times every year, with 500 killed and 7,500 wounded per annum

More generally, doing just the accidental deaths, Statics find 11,000+ People are shot per year accidentally with about 600 or so, or about two per day dying of their injuries

and that number may be low because
the New York TImes found that kids are accidentally shot about twice as often as is offically reported due to how such cases are reported


None of those number seem "exceedingly rare" to me
 
2014-04-29 12:26:01 PM  

dittybopper: Theaetetus: dittybopper: clydedog: Why would anyone think that?

Yeah.  'Cause what if my wife or son needs to use it in an emergency?

Not to mention the obvious issues with battery life, possibility of electronics failure on top of the the already bad enough mechanical and chemical failures.

Sorry to say, but sometimes "progress" really isn't.

Yeah, or what if your wife wants to kill you during a domestic dispute, or your infant son wants to play with a new toy? This might prevent those all too common tragedies, and we have to focus on what's  really important here: dying as quickly and painfully as possible.

Those aren't common, especially the "infant" one, and you know it because I've posted the data here before, with links to the source (the CDC):

Number of kids under 12 killed in firearms accidents in 2010 (last year for data):  41, for a rate of 0.08 per 100,000.  Yes, just forty-one.  But don't take my word for it:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

Yes,  the odds are literally 1 in 1.2 million.  That's so low it can be effectively discounted as a serious problem.  Especially when you consider that some fraction of those (probably the majority), are due to adult mishandling.  Cars are much more dangerous:  900 were killed accidentally that year in traffic-related incidents, for a rate of 1.84 per 100,000.

But hey, you said "infant", so I'm going to assume you mean kids 3 and under, even though that's stretching it by including toddlers.  Happened to just 17 of them.  Vast majority must be because of an adult's mistake, which no "smart gun" is going to be able to fix.

And if my wife wants to kill me in a domestic dispute?  Well, again, that's extremely unlikely.  Men more often murder women than the other-way around:

Plus, we've been married for nearly 20 years now.  If she were going to kill me, it probably would have happened already.  Especially during the whole menopause thing.  'Cause damn, that shiat makes them insane.  Kinda ...


Well and good, but I'm curious what the numbers are for the other side (by which I mean the reasons given for needing to be armed and why you might need it fast)?

How many times in the last year did a good guy with a gun actually stop a bad guy, using a gun that wouldn't have been available if this tech was in place? How many times last year did a citizen have to take up arms and actually shoot in a hurry against a tyrannical government?

I'm not saying I'm in favor of this stuff (I'm not), but I think most of the people who are upset are probably imagining themselves in a scenario that will never happen.
 
2014-04-29 12:26:14 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Which is also a separate issue from "reading the market" to figure out what they want. If Armatrix got it wrong and the market HATES smart guns, shouldn't The Free Market (made up of passionate gun-lovers) put them out of business?


The free market has already decided:  Remember that the market in this case is made up entirely of the Gun Culture:  The people who buy guns.

I have a better analogy for you:  Ignition interlocks in cars.

Right now, they're only required generally for people convicted of drunk driving.  No big deal.

But imagine if some company, say, Ford, decided that they were going to include them in all their new cars as standard, non-removable equipment.

What do you think would happen to their sales?

Now, imagine if some state, say, New Jersey, passed a law years ago saying that once an automaker starts selling ignition interlocks on all their cars, 3 years after that, the only new cars you could sell in that state must have built-in ignition interlocks.

Imagine that similar bills had been introduced in other states, like California and New York, and even in Congress.

Oh, and government vehicles are exempt from the requirement, btw.

Can you imagine what the reaction of the car buying public would be to that?
 
2014-04-29 12:29:25 PM  
If this tech were available as an option (as has been noted) and would not be made mandatory, I would support it.

As it is, ditty and nabb have made some good arguments.

I would also like to note that it's easy to support introducing legislation, added hurdles, and restrictions to an activity in which one doesn't participate and which has no bearing on one's life, activities, recreational pursuits, or choices.
 
2014-04-29 12:32:05 PM  

dittybopper: Trying to sell something to the very people who don't want it?

I'm farking *SHOCKED* that she got that reaction.


She's marketing a product that the market isn't ready for.  So instead of merely not buying the guns, or tacos, or golf clubs, or digital music players, it is perfectly reasonable for the death threats and stalking to commence?

That is pretty deranged-sounding.

Theaetetus: When I'm not interested in a product, I simply don't buy it. I do not try to remove it from the marketplace, threatening the CEO of the company for its existence.


That's because you live in a fantasy-land called "civilization."
 
2014-04-29 12:37:39 PM  

factoryconnection: dittybopper: Trying to sell something to the very people who don't want it?

I'm farking *SHOCKED* that she got that reaction.

She's marketing a product that the market isn't ready for.  So instead of merely not buying the guns, or tacos, or golf clubs, or digital music players, it is perfectly reasonable for the death threats and stalking to commence?

That is pretty deranged-sounding.

Theaetetus: When I'm not interested in a product, I simply don't buy it. I do not try to remove it from the marketplace, threatening the CEO of the company for its existence.

That's because you live in a fantasy-land called "civilization."


It's true. That's why I'm more afraid of spears than guns.
apolyton.net
 
2014-04-29 12:40:12 PM  

dittybopper: Can you imagine what the reaction of the car buying public would be to that?


They'd find Ford's CEO's cellphone number, post it online, call him incessantly, threaten him, mail him pictures of himself walking in his own front door, and also refuse to buy Fords.

No, wait - that was Gun Owners harassing the CEO of Armatrix. Car people would more likely write their Reps/Senators, Jalopnik, and Consumerist, refuse to buy Fords, have Google and Wikipedia put black bars over their logos, and probably march on the capitals of whatever states for an impromptu car show.

There is a segment of gun people, it seems, who are very quick to refer to their hobby when you suggest even the most minor of alterations. One might say they instinctively reach (or "grab") for their guns, but I wouldn't want to offend anyone.
 
2014-04-29 12:41:35 PM  

dittybopper: Can you imagine what the reaction of the car buying public would be to that?


They would stalk and threaten the CEO of Ford?
 
2014-04-29 12:42:39 PM  
This thread needs a gun that only fires popcorn if held by the owner.
 
Displayed 50 of 532 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report