DescentBB

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:07 pm**

That's where you shoot out to left field, TG. Protecting the kids sounds good, but in truth it's a huge revolving door plummeting from the sky. Society should not be in the business of dictating people's lives, and you can't take all dangerous things away from people just because their kids might get into them. IMO some people are dazzled by the involvement of "guns!", but they're not really nefarious, they just require respect like any other dangerous object/substance.

Vander wrote:I want anyone who would see a benefit to have the option.

So we'd better revoke the ban on manufacturers making smart firearms then?

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:53 pm**

I'd like to see the gun lobby ease up on boycott threats, sure. (which has about as much a chance to happen as the government taking away your guns)

If I were to use some of the logic on display in this thread, I could say that you guys just don't want liberals owning guns.

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:31 pm**

Removing firearms from America is a documented goal, Vander, which has seen significant advances. It may be alarmist to say they're going to roll through in tanks any day now and yank them from our hands/safes/... but if a very determined and unscrupulous minority, and a very intellectually shallow majority in this country have any say, and the constitution isn't respected, it will happen. How it will happen/what it will look like is all that separates the conspiracy theorists from the rest.

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:48 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Removing firearms from America is a documented goal

links, please?

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:53 pm**

Krom wrote:You're talking about a totally different type of "impossible" slick. The reason smart guns are impossible is because it is basically the same as trying to un-invent the wheel. It is the opposite end of the spectrum entirely from modern "impossible" gadgets that depend on physics so small and complex that you need specialized tools to even measure them.

the automobile, maybe? I mean, an internal combustion driven machine is really pretty simple, but today's cars are computer controlled marvels, with a host of technology piled on for pure safety reasons.....sort of the rationale of a Smart Gun. Sorry, your reasoning doesn't wash. We complicate simple machines every day and have been doing so since the dawn of tools.

You are talking about re-inventing the hammer so it can't hit your finger anymore, unfortunately it also won't be able to drive in nails either.

how would either of us know? Neither of us is a ballistics/firearms engineer, neither of us has seen or performed any research or development projects. Were we to do so, history shows that we will be economically threatened by an supposed spokesman for manufacturers, who could potentially expand sales. Why not study the matter, I ask again?

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:40 pm**

Krom wrote:Yeah, I thought of that too, but then it occurred to me that it would be an additional excuse for idiots to leave loaded guns sitting around in places where they really shouldn't be.

Yea, that occurred to me in work today.

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:43 pm**

Vander wrote:Heh, but now we're getting into the 'we can't make guns safer because they're dangerous' argument.

Guns are dangerous things, that's what they are supposed to be, the trick is to make people smarter, then we will have a safer society.

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:01 pm**

Vander wrote:

I want anyone who would see a benefit to have the option.

Everyone does. Did you click on my links?

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:56 pm**

woodchip wrote:
Where did I compare a criminal to a enemy? And nice try at cutting out a piece of my sentence to try and prove your point.

It's already there, in the first quote. You got some real short-term memory issues. Nothing to get apoplectic about.

--------------
Smart guns being a practical impossibility? Two words for you guys: Metal Storm.

Posted: **Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:47 am**

Ferno wrote:
woodchip wrote:
Where did I compare a criminal to a enemy? And nice try at cutting out a piece of my sentence to try and prove your point.
It's already there, in the first quote. You got some real short-term memory issues. Nothing to get apoplectic about.

--------------

Except I didn't. I suggest you re-read and try to use that self touting intellectualism to parse better.

Posted: **Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:50 am**

woodchip wrote:Except I didn't..

so he takes it from you thinking to shoot the attacker/one reason the military will not go the biometric route

your words. not mine.

Posted: **Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:43 pm**

Ferno wrote:
woodchip wrote:Except I didn't..

so he takes it from you thinking to shoot the attacker/one reason the military will not go the biometric route
your words. not mine.

No, those are your words trying to reconstruct my words:

Pointing a biometric at someone with intent to use it and then finding out it doesn't work is worse than not having one. Not having one makes you think harder about avoiding risky scenarios instead of thinking you have a tool that will mitigate the circumstance and then fails. For example, you and a friend are out on the town. A bad guy comes along and attacks you, semi incapacitating you. Your friend knows you are carrying the pistol so he takes it from you thinking to shoot the attacker...only to find out the gun does not work for him. Now you know one reason the military will not go the biometric route. In a fire fight it would not be uncommon for a soldier to pick up a wounded comrades firearm and use it. Starting to see why a biometric might be worse than no firearm? My question to you, why would you pose your question when mechanically operated firearms are available?

Stop trying to manipulate the discussion to fit your distorted view of what you think I wrote.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:22 am**

woodchip wrote:
Stop trying to manipulate the discussion to fit your distorted view of what you think I wrote.

So, you're either lying to save face or trying to pull a save out of your ass.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:06 am**

I'll assume Ferno, at this point you are trolling. End of discussion.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:19 am**

Woody…it’s pretty obvious to anyone with proper reading comprehension skills that you were using two different examples and how they both relate to the usage of smart guns, and not a direct comparison of the two examples.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:22 am**

I'm not sure either woody or Ferno are making a good-faith effort to actually understand what the other is trying to say.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:23 pm**

Spidey wrote:Woody…it’s pretty obvious to anyone with proper reading comprehension skills that you were using two different examples and how they both relate to the usage of smart guns, and not a direct comparison of the two examples.

Thanks. I thought it was pretty obvious also.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:24 pm**

Lothar wrote:I'm not sure either woody or Ferno are making a good-faith effort to actually understand what the other is trying to say.

It's tough trying to understand someone who is trying to make it seem like you said something you didn't. Perhaps you would like to explain what Ferno was saying.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:40 pm**

Lothar wrote:I'm not sure either woody or Ferno are making a good-faith effort to actually understand what the other is trying to say.

I just want a better comparison than what I got.

DescentBB

Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns

Re: Smart Guns