That was an infomercial, not a piece of journalism. What happens when the batteries go dead? What happens if I have to switch hands to fire the gun? What happens if I'm not wearing the magic decoder ring? What's the error or failure rates for the technology? What is the cost?
Expect to see these gadgets added to European firearms soon. Guns made elsewhere or sold in the American market will continue being the reliable weapons that we've come to expect.
You really crack me up, Greg. Your inconsistency is laughable. 3D printing is going to revolutionize gun rights but this technology is fraught with problems, according to you. Do you happen to remember the first cell phones? Did you happen to notice how fast they evolved into the products we all use today?
I have a cell phone. The bloody thing is unreliable and difficult to use. It only lets me do things that it thinks I want to do. And don't tell me that I should choose another type, since they're all that way.
What 3-D printing promises is another way to make guns according to a design that is already worked out. It's a new way to make an old thing.
Some old farts have problems with technology. They don't even try. Set in their ways, they think all new technology should just be tossed out. They don't believe in science and technology anyways. Like the climate change deniers. Brick wall idiots who can't use a new phone. Did you flip out when we changed from dial to push button?
"Some old farts have problems with technology. They don't even try. Set in their ways, they think all new technology should just be tossed out."
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting Greg is technophobic and making push button phone jokes in response to his comments on an internet blog he visits regularly. And where his comments lauded a technological advance. Yep, makes perfect sense....
What I'll suggest is that Greg is full of shit. I'd bet he doesn't feel that way about his cell phone at all but just made all that up to support his contentious and disagreeable position with what I said. He likes the 3D printing but hates the smart gun technology - that's major inconsistency.
Mikeb, I said exactly what I meant to say. I have a phone that I despise, but it came with the plan, and I don't really care. It's a damned phone. But if you can't understand the point I made, I can't help you.
"The bloody thing is unreliable and difficult to use. It only lets me do things that it thinks I want to do." This is not lauding technical advance, and shows he has no clue how to use a phone. Talk about illogical, this coward thinks it's logical to disregard the law and punish people himself. That's not only illogical but criminal.
A very interesting video. The head of the NSSF and the VPC having much the same concerns. I'm pretty confident that there is the potential for smart gun technology to be a viable once they get a handle on the reliability issue. However legislatively mandating the use of an unreliable technology is inviting disaster. If the technology is truly viable, then perhaps the government should lead by example and require the use of these arms by the military and police before requiring their use by civilians. Think of it like a government version of corporate sponsorship. Gun companies could advertise that their product is the standard arms of the Army, etc. Glock uses this quite regularly. After seeing how well they work for the government, then civilian sales will take off all on their own.
Training has a lot to do with safe and responsible gun use. You brought up the cops and military, saying like a whining baby, if they go first then civilians could go. My point was the cops and military have way more training than civilians, so would you also accept mandatory civilian training at that level?
Mike, I brought up the police and military because its become almost a tradition that whenever legislation enacted restricting what kind of firearm can be used for self defense, an exemption is included for the police and military. The state of New York made them look silly because they were in such a hurry to pass the SAFE act that they forgot to include an exemption for police and until they fixed it the police would have been limited to seven rounds in their weapons. When this exemption is put in the law it gives the appearance that the life of a civilian is worth less than a policeman or a soldier. If the technology is so good, why am I required to use it, but the police don't have to?
That was an infomercial, not a piece of journalism. What happens when the batteries go dead? What happens if I have to switch hands to fire the gun? What happens if I'm not wearing the magic decoder ring? What's the error or failure rates for the technology? What is the cost?
ReplyDeleteExpect to see these gadgets added to European firearms soon. Guns made elsewhere or sold in the American market will continue being the reliable weapons that we've come to expect.
You really crack me up, Greg. Your inconsistency is laughable. 3D printing is going to revolutionize gun rights but this technology is fraught with problems, according to you. Do you happen to remember the first cell phones? Did you happen to notice how fast they evolved into the products we all use today?
DeleteI have a cell phone. The bloody thing is unreliable and difficult to use. It only lets me do things that it thinks I want to do. And don't tell me that I should choose another type, since they're all that way.
DeleteWhat 3-D printing promises is another way to make guns according to a design that is already worked out. It's a new way to make an old thing.
Try logic sometime, would you?
Some old farts have problems with technology. They don't even try. Set in their ways, they think all new technology should just be tossed out. They don't believe in science and technology anyways. Like the climate change deniers. Brick wall idiots who can't use a new phone. Did you flip out when we changed from dial to push button?
Delete"Some old farts have problems with technology. They don't even try. Set in their ways, they think all new technology should just be tossed out."
DeleteSo, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting Greg is technophobic and making push button phone jokes in response to his comments on an internet blog he visits regularly.
And where his comments lauded a technological advance. Yep, makes perfect sense....
What I'll suggest is that Greg is full of shit. I'd bet he doesn't feel that way about his cell phone at all but just made all that up to support his contentious and disagreeable position with what I said. He likes the 3D printing but hates the smart gun technology - that's major inconsistency.
DeleteMikeb, I said exactly what I meant to say. I have a phone that I despise, but it came with the plan, and I don't really care. It's a damned phone. But if you can't understand the point I made, I can't help you.
Delete"The bloody thing is unreliable and difficult to use. It only lets me do things that it thinks I want to do."
DeleteThis is not lauding technical advance, and shows he has no clue how to use a phone. Talk about illogical, this coward thinks it's logical to disregard the law and punish people himself. That's not only illogical but criminal.
Greg, what kind of an expression is "The bloody thing?" You're from North Carolina and Arkansas, for crissake.
DeleteMikeb, I grew up watching PBS and the B-movie of the week on Sundays. And I read a lot.
DeleteA very interesting video. The head of the NSSF and the VPC having much the same concerns. I'm pretty confident that there is the potential for smart gun technology to be a viable once they get a handle on the reliability issue.
ReplyDeleteHowever legislatively mandating the use of an unreliable technology is inviting disaster. If the technology is truly viable, then perhaps the government should lead by example and require the use of these arms by the military and police before requiring their use by civilians.
Think of it like a government version of corporate sponsorship. Gun companies could advertise that their product is the standard arms of the Army, etc. Glock uses this quite regularly. After seeing how well they work for the government, then civilian sales will take off all on their own.
In your scenario, I suppose you'd accept the same training requirements for civilians as for military and police then?
DeleteWhere exactly does training fall into smart gun technology?
DeleteTraining has a lot to do with safe and responsible gun use. You brought up the cops and military, saying like a whining baby, if they go first then civilians could go. My point was the cops and military have way more training than civilians, so would you also accept mandatory civilian training at that level?
DeleteMikeb, do you have any lines that you're unwilling to cross? Comparing Sarge to a whining baby is too much, even for you.
DeleteMike, I brought up the police and military because its become almost a tradition that whenever legislation enacted restricting what kind of firearm can be used for self defense, an exemption is included for the police and military.
DeleteThe state of New York made them look silly because they were in such a hurry to pass the SAFE act that they forgot to include an exemption for police and until they fixed it the police would have been limited to seven rounds in their weapons.
When this exemption is put in the law it gives the appearance that the life of a civilian is worth less than a policeman or a soldier. If the technology is so good, why am I required to use it, but the police don't have to?