An interesting video that seems to disprove claim that the evil gun industry isn't interested or working on this technology. Mossberg is a well known product. In fact, my son uses one in his high school trap league. And as he put so well, he is dead set against mandating the use of the technology through legislation. And just so we can be sure he wasn't misquoted or misunderstood, here is what they have put on their website,
"iTC realizes that the concept of a personalized firearm can conjure up fears of potential legislation, safety concerns, and technology limitations. These concerns are our concerns as well and we have given them careful consideration during the development and launch of the iGun. iTC does not want to see our technology or anyone else's mandated by law. Personalized firearm ownership should be a choice based on one's own careful consideration of available options and the proper weighing of risks versus benefits of such technology. Industry and consumer firearm associations continue to do a superb job of promoting firearm safety through educational programs. This has resulted in a steady decline in the number of gun related accidental fatalities. ITC wishes to acknowledge these efforts and the commendable results of the hard work in promoting safety through education by organizations such as the National Shoot Sports Foundation, Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, and the National Rifle Association. iTC strongly agrees that to continue to reduce firearms accidents, the key is continued education, not the mandating of personalized firearms. iTC also believes that for certain people, personalized firearms may offer additional safety benefits not found in traditional firearms. iTC does not think that personalized firearms should replace traditional firearms." "Our concerns of certain pro-gun groups regarding personalized firearms are our concerns as well, yet we believe that by addressing these concerns through education and not by denial, the most benefit will occur. We believe that ownership should be a choice based on individual situations, not a legal mandate."
"We are not aware of a single lock, safe, computer, vault, or other security system that cannot be breached by a determined individual. Therefore, it is iTC's position that personalized firearms will not stop criminal misuse of firearms. In our opinion, some legislators are naive to reach this and other dangerous conclusions regarding their interpretation of the concept of personalized firearms. ITC agrees with the industry and much of the public's viewpoint that to reduce crime, strict enforcement of the existing law is much more important than the introduction of additional "Feel-good" legislation based on reaction instead of information."
It's an interesting technology that has met industry and military standards and all that keeps it from being marketed is enough people wanting to buy it, in other words demand. Plus one other little requirement,
"Unfortunately, there has been not enough demand for them to be brought to large scale production. Once enough demand exists, and if certain other conditions are met, they will be introduced. We are working on plans to introduce this product to select markets, but will do so only in a free-market environment. NO MANDATES."
http://www.iguntechnology.com/faq/index
So it looks like New Jersey is potentially holding up progress in the introduction of this technology to improve safety. Currently they are looking at replacing their current law mandating the sale of smart guns with a different mandate. In my opinion, it's a shame that politicians are holding up progress in this area of technology. But then, they have a long history of that.
Exactly, SSG. Did you notice that NJ has a Senate bill (and an identical House bill) that would require gun shops to carry guns with this silly tech, and to display them prominently?
And we're not supposed to believe that the advancement of this technology carries with it the very real risk that it will be forcibly mandated? Puh-leeze. The process is already well underway.
I think Mr. Mossberg made it clear that your concerns about this are just stupid. Were you not paying attention to what the man said? Was your knee-jerk reaction so strong that you couldn't even hear?
"Were you not paying attention to what the man said?"
What part Mike? The part where he said that the design of his invention makes it resistant to hacking or jamming? I was a bit skeptical in regards to that, so I found Mossberg's patent application which makes me more comfortable with the design. His decision to work in the low frequency range which results in a requirement to be exceedingly close to affect the system. Yes, I know something about radio. And when you throw in his insistence that he won't market it at all if there are any legal mandates for the technology also helps. Here's a good use for the system. We've been seeing a lot of people lately being shot by police when they make a grab for an officer's gun, which is what happened with the shooting in Ferguson. If law enforcement were required to use this technology, then that would remove the possibility of using this claim since the LEO's gun wouldn't function. Of course, you'd need to sell the police unions on it.
I think Mr. Mossberg made it clear that your concerns about this are just stupid.
Where did he give you that impression, Mikeb? Was it with this sentence?
"iTC realizes that the concept of a personalized firearm can conjure up fears of potential legislation, safety concerns, and technology limitations. These concerns are our concerns as well and we have given them careful consideration during the development and launch of the iGun.
Or maybe this part?
There's also a concern--a valid one--of legislators wanting to mandate this stuff. I'm dead-set against mandate.
No, Kurt. It was the part where he repeatedly said the gun folks who oppose this technology are wrong to do so- that's guys like you, Kurt.
I, and "guys like [me]" are right, he's wrong, and you're wronger, but perhaps your bravely Anonymous little buddy will come along to save you from being wrongest.
An interesting video that seems to disprove claim that the evil gun industry isn't interested or working on this technology. Mossberg is a well known product. In fact, my son uses one in his high school trap league.
ReplyDeleteAnd as he put so well, he is dead set against mandating the use of the technology through legislation. And just so we can be sure he wasn't misquoted or misunderstood, here is what they have put on their website,
"iTC realizes that the concept of a personalized firearm can conjure up fears of potential legislation, safety concerns, and technology limitations. These concerns are our concerns as well and we have given them careful consideration during the development and launch of the iGun. iTC does not want to see our technology or anyone else's mandated by law. Personalized firearm ownership should be a choice based on one's own careful consideration of available options and the proper weighing of risks versus benefits of such technology.
Industry and consumer firearm associations continue to do a superb job of promoting firearm safety through educational programs. This has resulted in a steady decline in the number of gun related accidental fatalities. ITC wishes to acknowledge these efforts and the commendable results of the hard work in promoting safety through education by organizations such as the National Shoot Sports Foundation, Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, and the National Rifle Association.
iTC strongly agrees that to continue to reduce firearms accidents, the key is continued education, not the mandating of personalized firearms.
iTC also believes that for certain people, personalized firearms may offer additional safety benefits not found in traditional firearms.
iTC does not think that personalized firearms should replace traditional firearms."
"Our concerns of certain pro-gun groups regarding personalized firearms are our concerns as well, yet we believe that by addressing these concerns through education and not by denial, the most benefit will occur.
We believe that ownership should be a choice based on individual situations, not a legal mandate."
"We are not aware of a single lock, safe, computer, vault, or other security system that cannot be breached by a determined individual. Therefore, it is iTC's position that personalized firearms will not stop criminal misuse of firearms. In our opinion, some legislators are naive to reach this and other dangerous conclusions regarding their interpretation of the concept of personalized firearms. ITC agrees with the industry and much of the public's viewpoint that to reduce crime, strict enforcement of the existing law is much more important than the introduction of additional "Feel-good" legislation based on reaction instead of information."
http://www.iguntechnology.com/Our-Position-6-8.html
It's an interesting technology that has met industry and military standards and all that keeps it from being marketed is enough people wanting to buy it, in other words demand. Plus one other little requirement,
"Unfortunately, there has been not enough demand for them to be brought to large scale production. Once enough demand exists, and if certain other conditions are met, they will be introduced. We are working on plans to introduce this product to select markets, but will do so only in a free-market environment. NO MANDATES."
http://www.iguntechnology.com/faq/index
So it looks like New Jersey is potentially holding up progress in the introduction of this technology to improve safety. Currently they are looking at replacing their current law mandating the sale of smart guns with a different mandate.
In my opinion, it's a shame that politicians are holding up progress in this area of technology. But then, they have a long history of that.
Exactly, SSG. Did you notice that NJ has a Senate bill (and an identical House bill) that would require gun shops to carry guns with this silly tech, and to display them prominently?
DeleteAnd we're not supposed to believe that the advancement of this technology carries with it the very real risk that it will be forcibly mandated? Puh-leeze. The process is already well underway.
I think Mr. Mossberg made it clear that your concerns about this are just stupid. Were you not paying attention to what the man said? Was your knee-jerk reaction so strong that you couldn't even hear?
Delete"Were you not paying attention to what the man said?"
DeleteWhat part Mike? The part where he said that the design of his invention makes it resistant to hacking or jamming? I was a bit skeptical in regards to that, so I found Mossberg's patent application which makes me more comfortable with the design. His decision to work in the low frequency range which results in a requirement to be exceedingly close to affect the system. Yes, I know something about radio.
And when you throw in his insistence that he won't market it at all if there are any legal mandates for the technology also helps. Here's a good use for the system. We've been seeing a lot of people lately being shot by police when they make a grab for an officer's gun, which is what happened with the shooting in Ferguson.
If law enforcement were required to use this technology, then that would remove the possibility of using this claim since the LEO's gun wouldn't function. Of course, you'd need to sell the police unions on it.
http://www.google.com/patents/US6219952
I think Mr. Mossberg made it clear that your concerns about this are just stupid.
DeleteWhere did he give you that impression, Mikeb? Was it with this sentence?
"iTC realizes that the concept of a personalized firearm can conjure up fears of potential legislation, safety concerns, and technology limitations. These concerns are our concerns as well and we have given them careful consideration during the development and launch of the iGun.
Or maybe this part?
There's also a concern--a valid one--of legislators wanting to mandate this stuff. I'm dead-set against mandate.
No, Kurt. It was the part where he repeatedly said the gun folks who oppose this technology are wrong to do so- that's guys like you, Kurt.
DeleteUh, no, he said it is a legitimate concern, it's a concern of his as well, and these are the steps he is taking to alleviate those concerns.
DeleteNo, Kurt. It was the part where he repeatedly said the gun folks who oppose this technology are wrong to do so- that's guys like you, Kurt.
ReplyDeleteI, and "guys like [me]" are right, he's wrong, and you're wronger, but perhaps your bravely Anonymous little buddy will come along to save you from being wrongest.
Oh, and I checked again, and couldn't find the part where he said that "[our] concerns [you know--the ones that he says are their concerns, as well] are just stupid." Maybe you could help me out in my search, Mikeb?