I thought conservatives were all about the free market. I guess they aren't.
Armatix said it had an agreement with the Oak Tree Gun Club, a large gun range and retailer about 20 minutes north of Los Angeles, to sell its iP1 pistol, which can be fired only after the owner enters a five-digit PIN into a watch that transmits a signal to the gun. The gun, which retails for about $1,800, disables itself if it is more than 10 inches from the watch.
But once Oak Tree’s owner, James Mitchell, went public in The Washington Post saying the iP1 “could revolutionize the gun industry,” Second Amendment activists went into overdrive, flooding social media with threats to boycott the club. They took to Calguns.net, a forum for gun owners, and called for vigilante-style investigations of Ms. Padilla and Armatix.
Ms. Padilla is also receiving threats of violence as well. They simply can't allow technology like this to be available for sale to the general public. Imagine what would happen...gun SAFETY and RESPONSIBILITY. Gadzooks!
So much for allowing the free market to work itself out...
4 comments:
Smart guns only have a very narrow use case regarding safety and responsibility. In fact, they really don't offer a different use case than a trigger lock or cable lock other than novelty. This is a bigger issue though:
Second Amendment defenders argue that once guns with high-tech safety features go on sale, government mandates will follow. They cite a decade-old New Jersey law requiring that within three years of the recognition technology’s becoming available in the United States, all guns sold in the state would have to be “smart.”
It isn't about the technology, it is about the force to use the technology which is already a fact. Government has already mandated trigger lock sales, and safe storage laws, and background checks, and even this smart gun technology requirement. What problem use case do you envision that this technology fixes?
The manufacturers argue that these new technologies could prevent suicides, accidental shootings and the deaths of police officers whose guns are wrested away in a struggle.
These are easily refuted arguments. If they buy the gun, they have the RF device too. Want to suicide? punch in the pin and pull the trigger. You think a police officer is going to have his hand more than 10 inches from a gun when wrestling for it to prevent being shot? Further, you think the police (or person) has time to punch in a 5 digit code in a life or death situation?! These arguments are completely unrealistic and nothing more than attempts to justify something that does very little for safety and responsibility. You know what works better, costs less, and has been working until gun control advocates started getting involved? Education.
Now if the Government and gun control advocates weren't trying to use this nefariously, this technology wouldn't be an issue at all. In fact, it would probably have quite a niche market. Unfortunately, government can't stay out of the market to let it work.
Yup, it's ecause of people like you Mark - people who automatically think, without actually thinking that this is a good idea. And since you think it is actually a good idea, anyone who would oppose it on practical ground just HAS to be an unthinking Neanderthal.... and must be forced to do something for their own good.
Uhh, boycotts are part of market forces, you dolt. It's certainly not physical force, nor is it government force of any kind. And one person posted something that might be considered intimidating by some. There's always a few assholes in any group. Though with this cause, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that, like so many college racism/sexism threats/intimidation/vandalism incidents, if some of it were a false flag op. To "raise awareness", don'cha know?
There are so many ways that this is NOT something that will "revolutionize firearms". There's a reason why police forces in states that have been pushing for this kind of thing have gotten exemptions for police written in. Because they know (from testing) how unreliable it can be when you need things to "just work". The ten inch limit is another thing. No cop has ever, ever been injured/wounded in a fight and needed to use his/her off hand to shoot with. Right? Right? Dominant arm broken? Too fucking bad you can't get it within the limit. Oh well. Live and learn. Or maybe don't live and don't learn. Whatever. At that point, what difference would it make?
And, yes, 6Kings is correct about how this would be a complete non-issue if it weren't for the state government pushing the idea. And $1800 for an ugly, not terribly reliable pistol? Chambered in .22 -- a gopher or plinking round, not self-defense. With an even uglier watch you have to wear if you want to shoot it? In a free market, this would sink like a stone. Methinks that the "fast-talking" businesswoman and the company she represents either don't know their intended market at all, or are counting on Sacramento pols to drive business their way.
I have no problem with someone developing new tech.
I have a huge problem with dumbshit left-tards who believe this should become a standard enforced by law.
Post a Comment