Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the or-maybe-that's-exactly-the-right-kind dept.

United States 1374

R3d M3rcury (871886) writes "How's this for a good idea? A gun that won't fire unless it's within 10 inches of a watch? That's the iP1 from Armatrix. Of course, don't try to sell it here in the United States." From the NY Times article linked: "[Armatrix employee] Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. 'Belinda?" the person wrote. "Is that you?" ... "I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote." The article paints a fairly rosy picture of the particular technology that Armatrix is pushing, but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state, which might not always be an attractive feature. And given that at least one state — New Jersey — has hinged a gun law on the commercial availability of these ID-linked guns, it's not surprising that some gun owners dislike a company that advertises this kind of system as "the future of the firearm."

cancel ×

1374 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gun nuts (-1, Troll)

qbast (1265706) | about 3 months ago | (#46889369)

... as usual go ape shit at slightest reason. Calm down morons, nobody is taking away you dick extensions.

Re:Gun nuts (5, Insightful)

sgbett (739519) | about 3 months ago | (#46889411)

Why yes! Those kind of people sound *exactly* like the kind of people that should have guns!

Re:Gun nuts (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#46889647)

Not sure if you're American or not, so I'll try to explain:

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill.

Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm, and wish to dictate under what conditions they are possessed. There is a route by which this can be accomplished, but it would require amending the US Constitution, which is notoriously hard to do (as it should be - capricious changes are painful, to say the least.) Any other route (including most attempts at federal "gun control" laws) is a circumvention of this process, and IMHO should not be taken, lest it set a dangerous precedent - after all, if you can circumvent one amendment, you can circumvent them all, and down that road lies fascism.

If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.) However, please do not try to impose such things across the whole nation. There is no "reasonable" restriction in the eyes of those who wish to promulgate these laws, save for complete abolition.

As for the people you speak of? As long as they do not commit a felony, so what? The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.

Re:Gun nuts (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889721)

Nobody who wants a gun should have one.

Re:Gun nuts (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889723)

People who threaten to murder other people should be locked up and denied their precious access to guns.

Gun nuts usually threaten to murder anyone that even questions them.

Why are the people harassing this woman not on trial? Enjoy exercising your 2nd amendment rights when you have a felony on your record, assholes. Hahahaha!

Re:Gun nuts (-1, Flamebait)

ynp7 (1786468) | about 3 months ago | (#46889783)

"The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

The Constitution guarantees the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for the purposes of having a militia. You're an idiot and you need to go fuck yourself.

Re:Gun nuts (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889861)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not say anything about the arms being for a militia, do you not read English?

You're an idiot and you need to go fuck yourself.

Re:Gun nuts (5, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#46889867)

The Constitution guarantees the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for the purposes of having a militia.

The Supreme Court disagrees with that interpretation and says that the prefatory clause is not a limiting clause. This was the proper decision, given the context of "the people" in the 2nd Amendment, and for that matter every other mention of "the people" in the document and its amendments.

Re:Gun nuts (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889785)

"If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative "

Again for those that aren't Americans, and apparently some that are... The above statement is WRONG. Local laws MAY NOT supersede the constitution.

Re:Gun nuts (5, Insightful)

unimacs (597299) | about 3 months ago | (#46889797)

"I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote."

The constitution doesn't prevent the nation as a whole from deciding which sort of weapons are appropriate for self defense and which aren't. Nor does the constitution restrict anybody from developing a weapon that has safeguards built in designed to prevent it from being fired by anybody other than its owner.

The above quote is a not so veiled threat and yes the poster has a right to question whether the person behind the quote is somebody who should be trusted with a gun, - constitutional rights aside.

Re:Gun nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889847)

"guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense" - Bullshit. The language doesn't say that at all, it says a regulated MILITIA.

It's since been INTERPRETED to mean "each American individually" but the 2nd Amendment does NOT say that explicitly, nor was it referring to anything but 1-shot muskets.

Re:Gun nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889853)

There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill.

Well, given the development of incarceration rates, most of U.S.-Americans will be convicted felons in the intermediate future (basically, you have to accept a plea deal when farting in public). And frankly, those that don't emigrate while they are not yet convicted are mentally incompetent or ill.

Turnabout is fair play (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889443)

If a journalist wants to go around posting the addresses of all registered gun owners, then expect the opposite to happen.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#46889527)

So... the turnabout is gun owners publishing the addresses... of ... a gun owner?

I don't think you know what "turnabout" means.(they eat their own because of paranoia)

Re:Turnabout is fair play (0)

qbast (1265706) | about 3 months ago | (#46889559)

So the opposite is posting addresses of employees of company manufacturing various types of gun safety? Yes, absolutely logical if you go by gun nut logic.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (1)

imatter (2749965) | about 3 months ago | (#46889653)

I think gun nut logic should be a new, single word gunnutlogic. Somethinig along the line of nonetheless.

Re:Gun nuts (3, Informative)

chiefcrash (1315009) | about 3 months ago | (#46889549)

Are you saying they're not trying?

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns." Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. ” Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases." U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey's State Legislature, May 9, 2013

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest.

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013

Should I continue?

Re:Gun nuts (3, Funny)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 3 months ago | (#46889667)

Should I continue?

Well that all depends. Did the person you plagarised this from actually write any more examples for you to pass off as your own research?

Re:Gun nuts (1)

koan (80826) | about 3 months ago | (#46889617)

Engrish plz kthnx.

Re:Gun nuts (1)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | about 3 months ago | (#46889767)

Actually, in NJ they'd love to: as the article mentions, a law was passed a few years ago requiring that once such technology is available, all new handguns in NJ would be required to have it. Stupid stupid stupid.

And cue.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889375)

the fireworks

Because sociopaths don't wear watches? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889383)

I guess I don't quite understand the point. Perhaps my own gun couldn't be used against me? That would be nifty for burglars who do not BYOG. However, for ones that do, it might spell trouble for me when I realize that my battery has died...

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches? (1)

generic_screenname (2927777) | about 3 months ago | (#46889505)

Couldn't the criminal just hit you with the gun?

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#46889515)

It's because half-measures are all that's constitutional to enforce, thus you can't actually contain the problem at a societal level, so people grasp at straws for limiting abuse of firearms.

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889643)

This, being an infringment on the right to keep and bear arms, is unconstitutional. Who told you otherwise?

That's right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889775)

Because, if we read the law literally, a law can be written where you can have arms but no: firing pin, barrel, ability to hit anything beyond 50 feet, .....

Basically neuter a gun by law but yet have a legal definition of an "arm" so that the Constitution isn't violated but yet the arms you bear are nothing." Here's a bullet firing stick that can't hit anything beyond 50 feet and if hit it's a hurtful sting - like a pinch" - It wouldn't violate the Second Amendment.

As it is, the NRA being legal gun owners, have ALL their arms recorded and cataloged by the government. So, if I were a despot, I know EXACTLY where to find my adversaries!

Just say'in.

A firearm that depends on a battery? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889385)

Count me out. No way would I rely on this technology, or the electronics, or the battery.

When I pull the trigger I don't want to hear a "beep" that's the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death.

Thanks, but NO FUCKING THANKS.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889469)

You may be right, but none of that is a reason to threaten the people who make them.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (4, Insightful)

koan (80826) | about 3 months ago | (#46889603)

Depends on the threat, a legal threat sure it is, threaten away with litigation or protest or any of the legal means.

A death threat? Well that's just stupid no matter what the case.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 3 months ago | (#46889497)

Then don't buy one.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889597)

Then don't buy one.

And if that's the only kind that's legally available?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889671)

...Then don't buy one.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 3 months ago | (#46889773)

Then take it up with your elected officials. You elected them, if you don't like the laws they make for you, then it's your responsibility to do a better job at the voting booth. Or move to someplace where your fellow citizens vote the way you like.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (5, Insightful)

MikeDataLink (536925) | about 3 months ago | (#46889781)

A pacemaker that depends on a battery? No way I would rely on such a device!

Don't like those guns (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889403)

Don't like those guns, don't buy them.

They're nuts but right (1, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 3 months ago | (#46889405)

Well they're clearly a bunch of moron rednecks but they're still right. What if the watch runs out of batteries? What if somehow the signal is disrupted? What if you take the weapon off someone who's robbing a bank and now it won't fire? Guns do what they do and there's no need to cripple them in this way. It's the PEOPLE with the guns that need work. Stop selling them to idiots with mental problems or people who, oh I don't know, maybe send letters to places saying they're going to kill everyone.

Re:They're nuts but right (5, Insightful)

Hypotensive (2836435) | about 3 months ago | (#46889453)

What if you take the weapon off someone who's robbing a bank and now it won't fire?

Now the bank robber doesn't have a gun and can't threaten people.

Re:They're nuts but right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889581)

But you cant finish him off execution style then...

Re:They're nuts but right (2, Insightful)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 3 months ago | (#46889633)

Until he kicks your ass and takes back his gun.

Re:They're nuts but right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889831)

Until he kicks your ass and takes back his gun.

Nope. Once the gun is out of the equation, it becomes a "vote" and the robber's ass is kicked.

Re:They're nuts but right (1)

chiefcrash (1315009) | about 3 months ago | (#46889645)

Until he takes his gun back, which will now fire...

Re:They're nuts but right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889765)

If we're playing hypothetical, then he'll just shoot anybody who gets close to him.

Re:They're nuts but right (2)

Chas (5144) | about 3 months ago | (#46889801)

And if you think criminals are going to buy these guys, instead of getting a regular gun through illicit channels, you're smoking some SERIOUS ganja there.

Re:They're nuts but right (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889607)

FTFA:
"I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote.

Stop sellinfg them to idiots like this for a start.

No, they are just nuts (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889631)

If it is disrupted, it doesn't fire. End of story. If a robber is stupid enough to use such a gun, the robbery turns into a comedy sketch. End of story.

Cars and airplanes have been repeatedly "crippled" in the last decades, which made them incomparably safer and saved countless lives. Hell, even guns have locks for more than a century now. Should we outlaw gun locks? If not how do you decide which locks to allow and which not? Nanny state, anyone?

Most importantly: NO ONE forces you to buy this gun. She was just selling it to whomever wanted to buy it - and was getting hated for that. That's absolutely, unqualifiedly nuts.

> Stop selling them to idiots with mental problems

This story just shows how frighteningly many idiots are there in the US of A...

Re:No, they are just nuts (1)

chiefcrash (1315009) | about 3 months ago | (#46889661)

"Most importantly: NO ONE forces you to buy this gun. She was just selling it to whomever wanted to buy it - and was getting hated for that. That's absolutely, unqualifiedly nuts."

Except in New Jersey in about 3 years. The law is already on the books, just waiting for a "smart gun" to be sold somewhere. CA and other states have been trying to get the same laws passed...

Re:They're nuts but right (0, Troll)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 3 months ago | (#46889687)

Stop selling them to idiots with mental problems

I think that will kill the gun market right there.

Re:They're nuts but right (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889701)

That is, without a doubt, the absolutely LAMEST list of "what if" questions that I've ever seen. Runs out of batteries? Replace the battery. Robbing a bank with the gun and someone takes it from the robber? Good. Now nobody is getting shot.

Only Americans would find issues like those to actually be insightful... Sad...

Re:They're nuts but right (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889727)

What if your gun is stolen and used in a crime? What if your gun is found by your kid and he harms himself or another with it?

Because these scenarios are statistically far more likely than any self-defense fantasy.

Big picture wise, that's not even what guns are. They're a hot button issue used by extreme right wing groups to rile up their base. The NRA is an ultra-conservative fear promulgator first and a gun rights advocate maybe a distant 10th.

I will continue to fight for restrictions on guns that match our laws and rules for all other types of dangerous machinery and equipment. Mostly because gun advocacy groups themselves are dangerous and harmful to society and our country as a whole.

Find better champions of your cause.

Re:They're nuts but right (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 3 months ago | (#46889737)

We already have proximity keys on automobiles. How often do they let people down? How often are people locked out of their car because the key doesn't work?
Not often enough for it to be an issue. But then car owners aren't nearly so hysterical as gun nuts.

Re:They're nuts but right (5, Insightful)

dirk (87083) | about 3 months ago | (#46889759)

These are all very good reason why you might not want to buy one of these weapons. None of them are good reasons why we should try and harass the company to not even produce these weapons. I don't own any guns, but if I felt like I needed to buy one, I would look into something like this. This seems like a wonderful product (assuming ti actually does work as advertised) but gun nuts are too busy screaming about "don't take my guns" to bother to even see the upside. I agree it is not a full replacement for standard guns and I don't think it should be legislated to be the only option, but that in no way means it shouldn't be available either.

Re:They're nuts but right (5, Insightful)

necro81 (917438) | about 3 months ago | (#46889855)

Well they're clearly a bunch of moron rednecks but they're still right. What if the watch runs out of batteries? What if somehow the signal is disrupted? What if you take the weapon off someone who's robbing a bank and now it won't fire? Guns do what they do and there's no need to cripple them in this way.

People can bitch about the technical merits or deficits of the technology all day long. But making personal threats against someone for trying to sell a product? That's fucking asinine and should not be accepted. Threatening to boycott a store that wants to stock and sell it? That's pretty stupid, too, since if the product is so fraught with shortcomings, people won't buy it.

I don't see anyone personally threatening to attack people at Samsung, or boycotting Best Buy, because they've released half-baked products.

And as for the "what if this is the only gun you can buy" counterargument: there are a few hundred million guns in the USofA, and the people that make them have considerable clout. The notion that suddenly all those other, conventional firearms will disappear, and that gun manufacturers will be forced to make only this type of gun, is delusional.

RFID interlock (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889407)

Keep the tag on your keychain. Done.

Re:RFID interlock (2)

koan (80826) | about 3 months ago | (#46889589)

Batteries... *click* you're dead. Done.

Untrustworthy (1, Flamebait)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 3 months ago | (#46889413)

And again, gun nuts show they are the last people that should be trusted to be responsible with anything.

Re:Untrustworthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889537)

You making an assertion with little substance, no facts to back it up and essentially no argument other than 'XYZ is true', does not make for a convincing argument.

Good people armed with guns makes the whole world safer. I say more guns.

Yes that means more training, more responsibility, but those are good things also.

You need to be armed to protect yourself from the criminal who will himself likely be armed, and he won't care at all about any laws or smart guns or safe firearm handling or any of that bullshit. Look, do you only wear your seatbelt when you are going to have an accident? Or do you wear it all the time *in case* of an accident?

It's the same with self defense.

Re: Untrustworthy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889865)

Except there are a lot of people willing to straight up murder someone and it is much easier to steal a gun and use that instead of a seatbelt.

Also did you read the article? These crazy people are threatening the lives of anyone who designs a safer gun. Convince that guy to go to gun training class and try and teach him to keep his gun locked up. I'll wait over here at a safe distance while you knock on his door.

And that story last week about another kid getting ahold of a gun left in his parents drawer and killing his 4 year old brother? This gun/watch idea would have prevented that. That kind of thing happens thousands of times every year.

So no, I don't trust you people with guns, because you are not all good people with good training. Thousands of you can't even be mature and responsible enough to keep firearms away from your kids, and many of you also post death threats online. And you want MORE guns out there? You can't even control the guns that are out there now and you think that in this perfect fantasy world you live in, everyone will all go to training and follow the rules and be responsible. Guess what, if everyone in the country followed the rules and was responsible, you wouldn't need guns for self defense would you?

Just what I need when I'm in danger (5, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | about 3 months ago | (#46889415)

a gun that might not fire.

Sounds like a good gun for the police to use. Get back to us when every police officer in the country has one of these and is forbidden to use a traditional weapon.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889583)

a gun that might not fire.

That would be all of them.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger (3, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | about 3 months ago | (#46889703)

a gun that might not fire.

That would be all of them.

Yes, if you're a pedant. However, a well-maintained modern handgun firing factory ammunition is unlikely to fail, and nearly all failures that do occur are transient and easily fixed. With a bit of practice, even type 3 malfunctions (double-feed) can be cleared in under a second and the gun restored to working order.

What we're talking about here is an additional failure mode, one that is almost certainly not repairable in a second, or even a couple of minutes. In a gunfight, a couple of minutes is likely to be a literal lifetime. Further, it introduces a failure mode which can occur even when everything is working perfectly. If for some reason you need to shoot with your off hand and cannot get your strong-side wrist in range of the gun, you'll be unable to shoot.

Police will absolutely refuse to use these, and civilians should also refuse to allow them to be imposed on us.

I must live in a different country... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889641)

I hear my fellow Americans talk about needing guns in every room of the house to ward off the nightly assaults of Orc maurders but what country do these people actually live in? How many times has anyone ever personally had to fire a gun for self defense?

Someone wants to own a gun because they enjoy firing it for sport. Maybe hunt. Whatever. But they are concerned that their children get hurt. Sure, they have all the precautions. They have it locked in a safe and have spoken to their children about safety. But they remember how when they were a teenager they popped off Jobba the Hutt's head and filled him with gasoline. How they tried to make black powder bombs out of the little plastic gumball containers.

But they also know that as stupid as kids can be, they can also be crafty and clever. You really think that your kids don't know where the lock to the gun safe is? So someone is looking into technology that can keep my gun from firing if it isnt near my smartwatch/phone, whatever. What's the worst thing that can happen? I might not get to shoot a gun some night. What a damn horrible thing to happen.

Re:I must live in a different country... (4, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 3 months ago | (#46889809)

To be fair, a firearm probably is the best home defense weapon on hand; it's just that a home invasion is rare.

What gets me is people who think the gun makes them a god. I will never carry a weapon when I'm out. What if I get jumped? What if a mugger pulls a gun on me? People tell me, "Oh, I'll shoot them." "When a mugger threatens me with his gun, I'll shoot him with my gun." You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun... and you don't think you're now grappling for a firearm? The mugger will see you reach for a firearm and shoot you dead with the one already trained on your face.

I'm not bringing a liability to a fight. For a firearm to do me any good, I need to be able to take you with my bare hands first so I can get to the damn thing without having it taken from me. If I can do that, I'll just beat the shit out of you in the first place, and if you bring out your own firearm I'll take that and shoot you with it. If it's not a war, a stealth infiltration, a closed-quarter invasion, or a defense against animals (bear), carrying a firearm is the absolute stupidest thing I can do.

In a future cop movie... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889425)

The criminal is surrounded by cops... no escape. The cops yell "slowly, take off your watch.... no, you don't have to put your gun down, but you HAVE TO REMOVE YOUR WATCH... NOW!"

if it's so advanced (5, Insightful)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about 3 months ago | (#46889437)

Just mandate that the police force has to use it. Once it's been fully adopted and vetted, i'm sure us normal citizens would enjoy the chance to buy it.

Other than that, who cares?

Re:if it's so advanced (3, Insightful)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 3 months ago | (#46889535)

That's actually a good solution. One of the concerns police have is a criminal disarming them (or just making a grab for their weapon). This would ensure that only an officer actually gets to fire the gun if the situation warrants it. If a suspect snags it from them in am altercation, it's useless.

Re:if it's so advanced (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889755)

One of the concerns police have is a criminal disarming them (or just making a grab for their weapon). This would ensure that only an officer actually gets to fire the gun if the situation warrants it. If a suspect snags it from them in am altercation, it's useless.

Not exactly.

A gun that won't fire unless it's within 10 inches of a watch?

So for the safety to apply, the criminal would need to grab the gun, step away, and then try to fire. In the much more likely case where the criminal and the cop are struggling over control of the gun, it will be within 10 inches of the control watch unless the cop fights one-handed and swings his other arm behind himself. So, useless for all cases except maybe target shooting competitions where you want to be sure someone didn't swap pistols.

Re:if it's so advanced (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 3 months ago | (#46889837)

That's actually a good solution. One of the concerns police have is a criminal disarming them (or just making a grab for their weapon). This would ensure that only an officer actually gets to fire the gun if the situation warrants it. If a suspect snags it from them in am altercation, it's useless.

Yep, and in spite of that police will refuse to accept this technology. Weighed against a gun grab, they'll vote for the weapon that is more likely to work for them when they need it. To combat gun grabs they'll continue to use retention holsters and train to defend their gun.

You may not know, but another technology in this vein (gun grab protection) is already in production and widely available. It's a more sensible and less risky approach... and by and large police officers don't like it. The technology in question is the "magazine safety". It blocks the trigger press unless a magazine is fully inserted. The idea is that if an officer ends up in a wrestling match they can reach down and hit the exposed magazine release, disabling their gun until the magazine is re-inserted. Seems sensible enough, but it still creates a small risk that the gun won't work when they want it to, so by and large police have refused to buy guns with the feature even though it was designed specifically for them.

So what? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889685)

Not everyone wants a gun to defend the nation against enemy insurgents slamming down their door. Some people use guns for SPORT or PRACTICE. They do not care if it takes 5-10 seconds to unlock the safety. They don't mind changing the batteries. They don't care if a weapon only works inside a shooting range. They care that their kids can't take the gun and bring it to school, or shoot their friends, or shoot their eye out. These sort of technologies are needed to get guns and weapon proficiency into AVERAGE JOE hands, because freedom doesn't come from gun nuts.

need to enter a PIN to enable (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 3 months ago | (#46889459)

While needing to enter a code on your watch to fire the pistol would be fine for range shooting, it would seem to be unworkable for people wanting a gun for protection.

Maybe just a distance sensor would be better.

Re:need to enter a PIN to enable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889521)

it would seem to be unworkable for people wanting a gun for protection.

Because being quickest at the draw is how you use a gun for protection? As someone who has spent their life around guns, that seems very unlikely.

Re:need to enter a PIN to enable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889623)

it would seem to be unworkable for people wanting a gun for protection.

Because being quickest at the draw is how you use a gun for protection? As someone who has spent their life around guns, that seems very unlikely.

I've been in a situation where I came amazingly close to having to shoot someone. It was terrifying, it bothered me for quite a long time afterwards, and there would have been absolutely no time to put a PIN code into a watch.

Re:need to enter a PIN to enable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889813)

it would seem to be unworkable for people wanting a gun for protection.

Because being quickest at the draw is how you use a gun for protection? As someone who has spent their life around guns, that seems very unlikely.

Any doodads you add into the basic functioning of a firearm increase the number of ways it can fail. My sidearm is emergency equipment. When I need it, it had better damn well go *bang* when I pull the trigger. I do not want to be at the mercy of a dead battery, or of which hand I'm holding it in.

"Because being quickest at the draw is how you use a gun for protection?" For someone who "has spent their life around guns" you sound like someone who gets their information about guns from movies.

Police and military? (0)

bigpat (158134) | about 3 months ago | (#46889481)

I think once the police and military adopt this kind of gun locking technology in large numbers, then we can start talking about whether it is ready for adoption. If it is a compelling safety feature without great expense, proves reliable and gun owners find it worthwhile to add to their safety and the safety of their families, then they will buy guns with these features.

Otherwise, this sounds like just another way the anti-gun fear mongering freedom hating lobbying industry are trying to increase the costs and burdens of gun ownership in order to reduce gun ownership by law abiding citizens. It is yet another straw man in the war against freedom.

Re:Police and military? (1)

AGMW (594303) | about 3 months ago | (#46889829)

LOL where you say "... freedom hating ..."!

Because people who want to reduce the chance of _everyone_ getting shot by limiting firearms obviously hate freedom!

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha - man, best one yet!

How long before a remote cutoff? (5, Insightful)

tomhath (637240) | about 3 months ago | (#46889509)

The government could disable every firearm at will. That might take a backdoor into the gun or watch, but hey...

10 feet of me. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889517)

I used to be VERY good at martial arts.

The school I went to had a deal with local police for martial arts training.

To make a long story short, we would have a trainee pull his gun and I'd disarm him from 10feet away. IOWs, if I am within 10 feet of you and you try to pull a gun on me, I will make you eat it before you can get a round off.

I am very confident of this because I have done it.

I don't care if you are at your shooting range 10 times a day popping at unintimidating stationary targets that cannot fight back.

See, while you are freaking out with me coming at you, and dealing with the ingrained safety procedure of taking aim, putting your finger on the trigger ... I am on you like white on rice, breaking your wrist, elbow, fingers, gouging out your eyes and then taking your gun and shoving it up your ass.

That is why when a cop feels threatened in any way, he's got his gun out - because of people like me - even if you are across the street.

Now, do you really want safety feature like these?

Re:10 feet of me. (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about 3 months ago | (#46889657)

You seem to be missing the point. The guy you're shooting doesn't have to wear the watch, you do.

Re:10 feet of me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889851)

Tell that to the Syrians who are fighting the al-Assad regime. Or the Ukrainians. Or any other populace.

You missed the point.

Funny that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889523)

I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans

And, yet, if someone did the same to them, they'd cry their freedom of speech was being violated.

But, when these same people get shouted down for saying they want to ban gay marriage or let religious assholes openly discriminate, it becomes all "help help I'm being repressed".

And, yes, I do believe the gun nuts, conservative idiots, and religious nut jobs share a common core group of morons.

Re:Funny that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889713)

The conservative, the "gun nut", and yes I know many of them, really do not care about gay marriage and I don't know anyone advocating discrimination of any kind whatsoever anywhere ever. But yea, go on listening to the DNC talking points, Harry Reed, Barack Obama and continue being led around by the nose like a sheep.

You know there are many gay gun clubs? And I think this is great. More guns = safer society.

When did slashdot become a NRA shill platform? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889531)

It's strange but I've noticed there is a great deal of shilling for the NRA here in the last number of years. Is there a deliberate campaign by NRA to infiltrate other libertarian but not pro gun constituencies and bait and switch them to an NRA agenda? Considering the topic in the article excuse me if I don't post with my standard account.

Re:When did slashdot become a NRA shill platform? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 months ago | (#46889699)

I've been reading Slashdot since 2001 and there have always been posts on gun laws and acrimonius debate in the comments section. Among the prominent figures in the rise of "open source" in the 1990s you have a few "gun nuts" like Eric S. Raymond [catb.org] , and the cypherpunks had at least one major figure calling for Americans to buy guns to defend themselves from tyrannical government. There has always been overlap between nerd culture and love of guns.

Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about guns (5, Interesting)

Tuidjy (321055) | about 3 months ago | (#46889541)

For a long time I thought of myself as a gun enthusiast. I kept my old Army service CZ for decades, and I kept replacing the barrel, as I was firing thousands upon thousands of rounds to 'keep my hand'.

Then I got married, and now my gun stays at the range, where we go and fire it once in a blue moon. Now that I think about it, I have not touched it since last August.

I live in a much nicer community than the one in which I used to live, and really do not think that my gun would be much extra protection over my swords and bows. (Not that they would be much protection, either) Furthermore, a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.

All of this said, I cannot imagine for the fuck of it a situation where I would want a fucking piece of shit that only fires if I am wearing a watch. I do not sleep with my watch, and I am not replacing my watch with another, for any reason. This is a stupid gimmick that will eventually screw a legitimate owner up. And I bet that if you give me two of these guns, the associated watches, and leave me alone with my PC, in my office at the plant, I'll have the gun 'unlocked' within a week.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun (2, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 3 months ago | (#46889803)

> He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.

It still would have happened, but the only death would have been his.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun (1)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 3 months ago | (#46889833)

Furthermore, a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.

Isn't 2 dead burglars, an imprisoned burglar, and a dead homeowner still better than 3 live possibly free burglars and a dead homeowner?

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun (1)

modecx (130548) | about 3 months ago | (#46889841)

All of this said, I cannot imagine for the fuck of it a situation where I would want a fucking piece of shit that only fires if I am wearing a watch

Also, assuming the watch/firearm actually work as designed: god forbid you have have to shoot with your weak hand for some reason (such as your strong arm/hand being injured) and all you can do is uselessly pull away at the trigger (since the watch is more than 10" away), as your attacker continues to do whatever it was that prompted the use of lethal self-defense in the first place.

raise our level of advance back to monkey love (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889545)

discard the guns & the watches. the hymenless monkeys still do not resort to shooting each other (turd flinging still non-fatal) & continue to share their bananas with mom monkey having full partnership rights if we change how we look at stuff stuff will change

Re:raise our level of advance back to monkey love (1)

chiefcrash (1315009) | about 3 months ago | (#46889605)

"if we change how we look at stuff stuff will change"

Let's start by not looking at "gun violence" like some special phenomenon, and simply treat it as "violence"

Subtle nationalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889567)

People like to say it's articles like these that show "the true nature" of americans.
Which sounds quite stupid to me, it's a small number of enthusiasts.

The real tell is the comments on the articles, on pages like these. Where the tone might not be as "redneck guntoting", but you will surely see the overall tone of US. citizens vs the rest of the world(aka. most posts regarding "let the police vet them first", is a clear sign of the US problem in a nutshell. They are way to reliant on guns to function as a society).

Gun nuts aren't people (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889569)

They are human excrement.

The simpler the better (1)

koan (80826) | about 3 months ago | (#46889577)

If we are talking about functionality, the simpler the better with a firearm, the last thing I want to worry about is a battery failure, radio interference or "forgetting" to wear my "watch".

Consider that in this case you need 2 devices to talk to each other, so how simple would it be for someone to interfere with the communications between the devices, a jammer of some sort (something the cops would enjoy I'm sure) and in other cases with biometrics involved I would poo to that as well, electronics are not reliable enough for firearms.

Re:The simpler the better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889719)

Guns are already so easy to use that kids can use them.
Which is one of the reasons that people are trying to make them less simple.

Smart Guns (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 3 months ago | (#46889587)

I'll trust a smart gun when the police are required to use the same technology on their service firearms.

If they're not willing to stake their lives on it working properly in an emergency, why should I?

Re:Smart Guns (3, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 3 months ago | (#46889779)

Indeed. Gun legislation often is scoffed at because almost every time an exemption is put in for law enforcement. 10 round magazines for everyone . . . except cops.

Its hard to keep a straight face when these people are saying that "anything more than 10 rounds is good for nothing but mowing down crowds of people" while they insist that the police need to keep their hi-cap mags.

Bottom line is that most gun regs put a needless and artificial burden. I wouldn't accept an artificial and arbitrary limit on my computer of 1GB of RAM, a 160GB hard drive, and a single core 1Ghz processor to keep me from hacking, nor will I accept artificial magazine capacity limits, or "smart gun" technology on my guns to keep me from misusing it.

Sci-fi foresaw this (3, Insightful)

haapi (16700) | about 3 months ago | (#46889635)

"Weapon Shops of Isher" (A.E.Van Vogt) or the Harry Harrison "Deathworld" novels.

Radio controlled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889677)

The website says that if the gun loses radio contact with the watch, it disables itself. So if I'm a criminal and have a regular gun, all I need is a radio jammer to disable my victims gun? Nice.

Just chip everyone (1)

randomErr (172078) | about 3 months ago | (#46889743)

Put an RFID into everyone's shoot hand you're set.

It's people that write shit like this... (1)

Red_Chaos1 (95148) | about 3 months ago | (#46889751)

..."In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. 'Belinda?" the person wrote. "Is that you?" ... "I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote.""

That help give gun owners a bad image/name. Stupid motherfuckers.

Then again, how do we know this wasn't purposely put out by an anti-gunner? I hate tossing conspiracy stuff out there, but there's no way to really know.

Boot's on the other foot... how's it feel? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889761)

Ironic that the libtards are crying now, while a few weeks ago they were happily leveling the personal and professional life of Brendan Eich for exercising his constitutional rights in private.

Kind of like when they cry "freedom of choice"
-as long as it's their freedom to murder the unborn
-and not freedom to buy the gun you want
-or the health insurance you want
-or to take pictures where/when you want

Not that the wingnuts on the other side are much better, but today the libtards are feeling the effects of their own techniques.

Not good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889763)

I can see the situation desired.. A loaded gun is no threat. Can leave it on the coffee table, no one can fire it. Daddy doesn't have to watch his gun as the kids play, secure in knowing that his weapon is not useful to the kids at play. Before the Smart gun, Daddy always had to be vigilant and actually watch his children to make sure they are playing safely.

Little Timmy picks up the gun, walks up behind Daddy working away at his computer, and now is in electronic range. So begins the story of Little Orphan Timmy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>