German arms maker Armatix to release second smart gun in U.S.

>>31767633
no

>>31767633
Is that picture what these people think "smart guns" actually do?

>>31767633
>Discuss the stupidity
Very short discussion.

-Not as reliable as any conventional duty weapon
-No noticeable safety improvements over a good retention holster
-Screws over every gun owner in the state of New Jersey, and thus there are people out there who won't tolerate it hitting the market, and will threaten to kill any FFL that stocks it.

File: 1476210428697.png (1MB, 1220x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1220x1280px

>>31767633
Did they actually manage to make it centerfire and last more than 1 shot?
>That picture
Fukkin triggered. It's a servo attached to a RFID go no go chip linked with a shitty watch set up to operate a disconnect.

This is the future you choose if you don't make America great again November 8th

I'm sure there will be plenty of luddites shitting on it.

>>31767633
When this shit becomes mandatory in like 20yrs, we will simply bypass it

If someone buys this gun and the software fails and gets person killed, how much can you sue off the maker?

>>31768041
You're only supposed to sue firearm manufacturers if their products kill people

t. bad bitch hilldawg

I'm a laissez-faire type of guy so I don't really give a shit about smart guns existing and being sold so long as they aren't forcing them upon us. I certainly will never own one, but if someone wants to roll the dice with their life and buy one, fine by me. I mean, a smart gun is better than no gun, I guess...

>>31767686
RTFA.

Apparently, yes, that's one of their implementations.

Thought about this for a bit, and I have a hunch that the types buying "smart" guns will be those voting for Hillary today: they will just buy a gun, get the warm and cozy feeling of being in control, put away that gun into their purse, will never train, and keep on living "because now the hooligans won't be able to shoot me with my gun". The idea that the hooligans might just very well club them to death with their gun won't cross their mind.

>>31768099
>I'm a laissez-faire type of guy so I don't really give a shit about smart guns existing and being sold so long as they aren't forcing them upon us.

I live in NJ. In 2002 they passed a law stating that 3 years after a viable smart gun hits the market, it will be illegal for any FFL in the state to sell or transfer anything other than smart guns. The law hasn't been repealed. It's being forced on people.

>>31768354
Holy fuck. I live in Maryland which is pretty gun-cucked, but that is outright terrible.

>>31767698
Sounds like Joisey alright.

>>31767873
>technology which's biggest potential is to set statutes and precedents to oppress people's rights
You'd call someone a luddite for opposing the Rapinator 2000 police drone or something

Does anyone have that article that shows how armatix is a huge scam that pushed for mandatory gun locking laws in Germany in which they had a monopoly on with some sort of high tech (but exceedingly easy to defeat) lock or something?

>>31768166
>Thought about this for a bit, and I have a hunch that the types buying "smart" guns will be those voting for Hillary today:
The fact that I'm building a "smart" gun myself out-right disproves your hunch. I'm not alone either.

There's more to the idea than locking the gun, namely in the form of logging performance data in real time and also moving the sight picture from the slide to literally in front of your eye. If I could figure out how to put an intracranial implant in my skull I'd feed it right to my brain directly. Maybe someday.

>>31768972
There's a point where science transfers over into madness.

File: faragemosiac.jpg (381KB, 1008x672px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1008x672px

the NIJ has put out requirements for "smart guns"
If someone wants to sell me something that meets those requirements, I'm open to it.
Also, fuck NJ

File: bustin a FAT32 wad.jpg (46KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 720x720px

>>31769164
Usually people who say that are gigantic pussies, but I won't assume anything about you.

I'll drag this world into a cyberpunk future, even if it's kicking and screaming.

>>31768166
I actually think it's totally the opposite - the buyers of these things will be conservative housewife types who feel that they need a gun but don't actually care about them.

Living in CA I've met a lot of liberal gun owners, and they actually tend to be the exact opposite of the people you're describing - serious enthusiasts who have guns because they like guns, spend a lot of time at the range, and often compete in shooting sports. The rest are mostly poor people living in dangerous areas, and they're definitely not the market for a gun like this, it's too expensive and they want proven, simple guns that they can trust if shit goes south. (As a public school kid I had friends with families exactly like that, and given the choice they'd always buy revolvers over autos for the same reason.)

File: 1449980942789.jpg (123KB, 813x606px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 813x606px

>>31767633
What I don't understand about smart guns is that it makes significantly more sense to just build that shit into the holster and use one of the already available quick access pistol safes for storage when the gun is out of the holster if you want those features.

>>31767759
>Did they actually manage to make it centerfire and last more than 1 shot?
>muh electronics can't handle the recoil of a gun
Yeah, completely disregard how the tracking point and Barett BORS exist.

>>31768972
Cut out the middle man and implant a skull gun

>>31767633
This will eventually happen. Will be good to get people that are scared to keep a gun in the house interested in smart guns.

>inb4 but muh unreliable wont work

Yes they will. Maybe not now, but eventually they will work 99.99% like the rest of guns. People said the same thing about automobiles instead of horses in the army at one point too. There are countless examples of things like this.

I mean yeah it sucks for NJ, but it won't concern the rest of us. Probably would be better for most guns owners that are filthy casuals anyways.

File: 1461011808075.png (42KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x500px

>>31769466
>Cut out the middle man and implant a skull gun

>>31769368
Unfortunately the holster still has issues, how do you quickly unlock it? Drawing from a holster can take a fraction of a second, from my point of view the best way to get around this is to have a dual key system. Either key can unlock it, but it gives you tactical flexibility. RFID being the first obvious choice, but I think since that would be so low tech you could use a non-invasive "wearable implant" that lets you release the lock by thinking it. There's research into this right now, and some clunky successes, but for something as simple as a binary locked/unlocked system it should be perfectly feasible.

These things require active practice though, you can't just buy the lock and have it automatically work. Even with an intracranial implant there's still this period where your brain needs to figure out the new toys and vice versa.

As for actually locking the gun I've always been in favor of having a lock that will release in the event of a power failure. Under no circumstances should the lock itself be a point of failure simply because the battery ran out, instead the feature (the electronic lock) should shut down without compromising the whole system. (the firearm in question) Forget your batteries? Approaching it from the other end is stupid, doubly so in a weapon intended specifically for sudden and immediate self-defense.

>>31769466
>>31769487
I never liked the idea of having a weapon inside me, seems excessively dangerous. Especially the head.

That said if I ever get my arm(s) replaced I'll definitely be willing to experiment with something concealed there.

File: 1459201431310.gif (3MB, 280x200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 280x200px

>>31768354
what the actual fuck

Remember. The only proper response to a gun store even talking about selling "smart guns". Is to immediately get everyone on the internet angry at them. threaten organized boycotts if they dare stock.

>>31769754
the point is a de facto ban. plus is it makes markets for smart guns. which is why smart gun companies lobbied for the laws.

>>31768972
There's no shortage of idiots in this world.

Let me guess, you also have a refrigerator that Tweets, Googly Glasses, and a Netflix-capable oven.

>>31769631
>Unfortunately the holster still has issues, how do you quickly unlock it?
The issues for an electronic locking holster still end up being significantly fewer than an electronic locking gun. It also has the advantage of only being able to fail when retrieving the weapon instead of having that possibility continuing throughout any situation you could be using the weapon. For example an RFID implant in your right hand would work for unlocking the holster and drawing the gun and would continue to work if your right arm got disabled during the fight, and even if your right arm gets disabled before you can draw you could still draw by putting your right hand close enough to unlock the holster (which is probably the least of your concerns when drawing with your other hand with a level 2 or level 3 retention holster). A gun that depended on such a mechanism however would require RFID implants in both hands designed to not interfere when holding the gun with both hands if you wanted to be able to fire the gun with either hand alone or with both hands.

>>31768354
How the fuck is that sort of law legal? That's blatantly anti-second amendment.

At least force it on cops and soldiers before civilians.

>>31767698
>>31768354
>>31769776
Armatrix has absolutely zero responsibility over new jersey's gun laws. No law should be allowed to hold back research into new technology.

>>31769470
>Yes they will. Maybe not now, but eventually they will work 99.99% like the rest of guns
No. Just no. They can never be as reliable as a firearm without the bullshit. It is another point of failure. Are you fucking retarded?

>People said the same thing about automobiles instead of horses in the army at one point too. There are countless examples of things like this.
Countless false comparisons.

>>31769905
>those DVDs will never replace my VHS!

If you don't like it don't buy one, but "another point of failure" is introduced with every part in a gun, so why not just use a glock exclusively since they use the least amount of parts?

File: 1451454376608.jpg (2MB, 4800x2700px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4800x2700px

>>31769827
Not him, but suggesting that there are ways that guns could be improved with various electronics doesn't equal supporting IoT garbage. Examples include:
>that Trackingpoint gun/scope combo
>active stabilization being talked about currently in this thread: >>31767619
>the ability to remotely view through your rifle's scope (possible with the ENVG and weapon mounted FWS that the US Army recently adopted, see pic related)
>those wired rails that allow accessories to interface with each other, for example a rangefinder could interface with your scope which would allow the weight of those accessories to be distributed in a more comfortable way where you are less likely to accidentally block the rangefinder and would allow one optic to be issued whether or not a soldier was using it with the rangefinder

>>31769901
Armatrix lobbies states to adopt smart gun only laws.

also the ATF holds back small arms development more than anything else. by ruling things into NFA territory or not allowing import

if people want to buy them, let them. its a cool idea and i think in the future it may have some merit.

>>31769368
>Hurr
They made a 9mm smart gun that broke immediately when the trigger was pulled, then made it a direct blowback .22 that still broke, but could shoot a handful of ammo first.

Making a even fucking bigger than a hipoint "pistol" to have electronics hardy enough to not instantly explode doesn't solve the problem.

>>31770186
they should make the police use them first for a few decades.

File: 1476473764246.jpg (146KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 600x400px

>>31770231

So the concept and execution are both horribly flawed?

I have a feeling this will be an anti-gun talking point for the coming years. How long until they get the execution right?

>>31770239
Make the police use them by federal mandate to stop firearm thefts from police.

If they are carrying complete pieces of shit that make a hipoint look nice instead of Gucci Sigs and H&K people will stop stealing guns out of unattended patrol cars.

>>31769850
It's not known if it would survive a 2A challenge. It can't be challenged until it goes into effect. To have standing to sue, you must be able to prove harm.

>>31770231
>They made a 9mm smart gun that broke immediately when the trigger was pulled, then made it a direct blowback .22 that still broke, but could shoot a handful of ammo first.
Do you have any actual evidence of that claim?

File: 1476805948715.gif (2MB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x250px

>>31767633
>charging in excess of 1k when I could get a functionally similar gun and a gun lock for roughly 200.

Do they think gun owners actually want to waste money on this?

>lets give a gun a computer that controlls when it can shoot
inb4 defcon /k/ edition

>>31769827
Oh look, a fudd faggot who doesn't understand computers.

Let me guess, you shy away from fuel injection because new technology scares you. Also wood furniture on all your guns, even the 1911 because you cannot divorce the word "plastic" from flimsy Chinese-made consumer products and think all polymers are created equal. Yeah the gas prices suck and you're carrying around twenty pounds of ~all steel~ bullshit you found at a gunshow, but at least it's American-made bullshit!

No, I don't have some gimmicky, over-priced ~internet of things~ in my house. Some things are networked because fuck walking around with fifty USB drives all day, but it's airgapped from the internet because I do actually understand these newfangled computer thingamajigs.

Moron.

>>31769848
Uh, what? None of that answers the sentence you quoted, RFID read time is not fast at all. That's why I suggested a neural-based approach so the holster is unlocked well before you even need the firearm.

I have several RFID implants and they're not fast at all, I draw faster than any reader, and that's with a UHF tag. (not an implant, UHF doesn't do skin very well) Assuming you've got a wristband/ring that has a passive tag running somewhere in the UHF range (860-960MHz) with the reader on the holster/gun/whatever you're going to have to have a pretty short authentication key for it to be read with any reasonable amount of speed. You're not going to have a fast reader that's simultaneously small enough to fit inside a gun/holster and controlling a (presumably) magnetic locking mechanism.

That's the issue with electronic locks using biometrics or RFID, in theory the technology should be able to unlock it faster than you can move but in practice the delay is dangerously slow.

>>31769905
>They can never be as reliable as a firearm without the bullshit.
Objectively false, and I point out why here: >>31769631

>>31770439
Welcome to /k/ now get the fuck out

These Teutonic faggots made the first garbage "smart gun" after sandy habbening when they thought the US would get cucked. It was supposed to be a 9 but it would break near instantly so they made it the words largest mouse gun capacity .22

File: 1473772686214.gif (489KB, 497x373px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 497x373px

>>31770584
They were and are banking on legislation mandating their shitty product.

If busybody soccer moms elect hilldog they might get their payday

File: 1450209262533.jpg (97KB, 555x555px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 555x555px

>>31772717
I've heard claims about the electronics breaking since the first gun was announced but still have yet to see any evidence of those claims being true. I have however seen plenty of evidence of more advanced electronics having no issue when mounted on guns. I see no reason to believe the claims of the electronics in this gun breaking easily without actual evidence.

>>31772754
>Proofs!
How about you read a book nigger

Armatix making a succession of technical and economic failures is common fucking knowledge.

All they're doing is making a bootleg version of the systems colt, s&w, and Ruger dicked with in the early 90's for law enforcement use and found to be unilaterally unreliable. And their systems actually worked on centerfire guns for several hundred shots without catastrophically malfunctioning.

>More complex electronics
At the end of the day a holographic red dot is a laser pointer with trimmings. A complex RFID system operating a manual disconnect with a servo is several orders of magnitude more complex

>>31769827

>and a Netflix-capable oven.

In defense of this, having an oven where you can watch Netflix means you'll be both warm and when you're cooking you won't have to worry about dashing to the kitchen so nothing gets burnt.

File: 1458500185209.jpg (47KB, 405x270px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 405x270px

>>31772789
>Armatix making a succession of technical and economic failures is common fucking knowledge.
Based only on repeating a lie enough that people believe it to be true. I tried to find actual evidence of the electronics failing years ago but never could. Post evidence or fuck off.

>At the end of the day a holographic red dot is a laser pointer with trimmings. A complex RFID system operating a manual disconnect with a servo is several orders of magnitude more complex
The more complex electronics I'm talking about are the TrackingPoint rifle and scope and the Barrett BORS ballistic calculator pictured on one of their 50 BMG rifles here: >>31769368

>>31772829
Those systems are larger than a whole handgun m8. Making a system that doesn't eat it from recoil force isn't the hard part, minimizing it is.

>>31769470
>won't concern the rest of us

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

------

That is all to say, shit like that creeps on us - the boiling frog syndrome. The least you can do is be aware of it.

>>31772872
You made a claim, now back it up with actual evidence you faggot.

>>31771589
>electronic locks
One EPM burst - and your guns are dead. No go.

>>31768354
I imagine there will be workarounds very quickly. Like "transfer parts" that are only on the firearm for buying/selling and then immediately removed. Buy a 1911 with "smart grips" that block the sear, unlock it at the shop, swap grips for wood. AR-15 with "smart trigger guard" that's some hokey contraption around the trigger, unlock and toss in the trash

>>31772910
You don't have to "back up" common knowledge Mr. Fallacy fallacy. There isn't a positive word or review of armatix in existence.

>>31772926
>EPM burst

electro pulse magnetic burst

>>31772935
>You don't have to "back up" common knowledge

There is no market for this bullshit. It's all gimmick, because a god damn 2 dollar cable lock and a touch of personal responsibility can achieve the same result. We all know that these companies are banking on smart guns being the "Future of gun control." so they can gain a market and make bank.

It's disgusting.

>>31772926
... One, it's "EMP" and two, fucking learn to read: >>31769631

That's not even addressing the big elephant in the room: how. How the hell will an "EMP burst" just suddenly show up in the first place? Furthermore it does in fact happen and the gun is "dead" as you say, where is the anti-screwdriver wave that will make that condition permanent?

You're arguing from a position of blatant ignorance and passing it off as established fact, I'm not impressed.

>>31772956
Tpyo, brae wthi em

>>31769164
Mad science means never stopping to consider the consequences.

>>31767633
It'll have 10 purchases. 9 review guns and 1 from a guy who collects weird guns

>>31773010
>How the hell will an "EMP burst" just suddenly show up in the first place?
Hmm... let me guess. I know that the law abiding occupants of the area I'm targeting are required by law to have "smart guns". Furthermore, I know what kind of RF interference makes them inoperable. It would be lack of due diligence on my part not to use this to disable the weapons in the area I'm targeting.

Note that this doesn't take make a difference in who "I" am - a LEO, military, or just a thug that happens to possess the right kind of equipment to produce the EMP burst.

Also, let's not forget that this "smart gun" technology will not be open sourced or open spec'd, and you won't even know if it has a backdoor (and if my experience with hardware and gubmints is worth anything, there is usually one), so not even a disruptive EMP is required but a simple "escrow key" </sarcasm> packet.

>You're arguing from a position of blatant ignorance and passing it off as established fact, I'm not impressed.
Empty phrase

>>31773088
>muh portable EMP
Have fun with your RF burns if you want it to be effective at any distance.

>>31773106
Haven't heard about focusing RF radiation, have you? <facepalm>

>>31773106
Don't seem to have a response to the backdoor part

File: heres your reply.gif (415KB, 480x238px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 480x238px

>>31773088
>Hmm... let me guess.
Oh I bet you will. See, I just knew the post was going to be a wild ride with this stupid opening.

>I know that the law abiding occupants of the area I'm targeting are required by law to have "smart guns".
What?
>Furthermore, I know what kind of RF interference makes them inoperable.
Any moron can make a spark gap generator, if you're jamming UHF RFID you're jamming a fuckload of other devices.

This is known as "reaching" and it truly underlines the fact that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

>Note that this doesn't take make a difference in who "I" am - a LEO, military, or just a thug that happens to possess the right kind of equipment to produce the EMP burst.
Oh, okay. So we're back to using an electromagnetic attack then.
>Also, let's not forget that this "smart gun" technology will not be open sourced or open spec'd
"The internet is not a big truck" levels of "I have no idea what I'm saying right now" style bullshit. My first post, the post you originally replied to, disproves you completely.
>Note that this doesn't take make a difference in who "I" am - a LEO, military, or just a thug that happens to possess the right kind of equipment to produce the EMP burst.
>and you won't even know if it has a backdoor
I'm 100% convinced you have no idea what a "backdoor" even means, you're just saying technical jargon and hoping it sticks.
>Note that this doesn't take make a difference in who "I" am - a LEO, military, or just a thug that happens to possess the right kind of equipment to produce the EMP burst.
>(and if my experience with hardware and gubmints is worth anything, there is usually one)
It isn't.
>so not even a disruptive EMP is required but a simple "escrow key" </sarcasm> packet.
As I said, just throwing out technical jargon. You're not even waiting to see if it sticks. >>>/x/ is that way you goddamn loon.

>>31773149
Jesus F Christ, what an asshole. Get a life, faggot.

>there is no possible way they can take my gun away in a fight
lol

>>31773170
>Jesus "F" Christ
>waaah what an asshole!!
>get a life!!
Haha, of course that's all you have left. You're the dumb son of a bitch who started this, you could have kept scrolling but you didn't. I responded to you, and then you had to buckle down and go hard on making sure I knew you were the dumbest motherfucker in the thread and now you're mad that I pointed that out.

I'm not the one with a problem here.

Don't get mad at me for your shortcomings, I'm not the one who made you this way.

>>31773128
Look who failed physics 101

>>31768099
>roll the dice with their life

Dice-activated guns when?
>yfw face a threat to shoot and you have to roll a skill check

>>31770286
it'll require big money from bloomberg to fund it because good fucking luck convincing investors that a smart gun has a solid chance of making back the money they put into it. no gun owner is going to buy it. anti gunners aren't going to buy it because it's a gun. it's a gigantic money black hole.

>>31773223
you roll a 1
your gun explodes

you roll a 20
THREATEN CRITICAL
critical successful
you aimbot the guy through one of his eyeballs

File: Radar-hatzerim-1-1.jpg (2MB, 1620x1761px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1620x1761px

>>31773215
I think we're dealing with abusive idiot here, anon

>>31769368

this isn't some meme, the last smart gun armatix shat out was rimfire and broke its own electronic components within a few hundred rounds

File: 1454234468571.jpg (8KB, 305x305px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 305x305px

>>31767633
>All the comments in the article shitting on the idea.

>>31773355
Good.

>>31769470
>implying a machine isn't more reliable than an animal

>implying a "smart" gun affords you several tonnes of armour like a motorized vehicle does over the alternative

>implying you can hold back to tide of progress forever

>>31768354
>new jersey
so the memes I see on TV are real
new jersey is the shitholiest of shitholes

>>31770072
how long did it take ECU's to become not shit in cars?
adding electronics to a purely mechanical system never really improves things

>>31772934
>new bill pops up
>"It is unlawful to remove or alter any "smart" portion of a firearm that is designed as a safety mechanism"
>gun owners fucked again

>>31769901
Get fucked. As long as that law is in place, the entire body of gun owners in America isn't going to let smart technology be sold in any gun shop for fear of similar laws being enacted. You want that tech to be developed, tell the politicians to not be antigun faggots.

>>31770332
>It's not known if it would survive a 2A challenge.

It wouldn't. Even if the SC goes liberal, they would have to overturn the McDonald v. Chicago decision to let it stand, since it violates banning weapons that are in "common use."

>>31767633

To all the tremendous faggotsncalling people Luddites, did you read the fucking article? It's not a smart gun like it is intelligent or helps you aim or some shit, it has a finger print reader to prevent other people from using it.

So if it's cold and you have gloves on, your gun won't work. If it's raining in guarantee this reader will fuck up. If your spouse needs to use it, well, hope you like burglary.

Any impediment to the use of a firearm is unacceptable, people will bitch about the slide mounted safety of a Beretta or the "Hillary Hole" on some revolvers. This thing is a stupid fucking idea and will get people killed. But it doesn't matter, because people are TERRIFIED of bombastic facts like "it's more likely that your weapon will be used against you" but no one ever mentions suicide as making up the vast overwhelming majority of that sort of case.

File: Ingram.jpg (9KB, 320x190px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 320x190px

The only smartgun I'm interested in makes it a free action to switch firing modes and reload when properly linked to the associated cyberware..

>>31774685
Can't those fingerprint readers be defeated by gummy bears too?

>>31773308
Then why can no one post evidence to support that claim?

>>31774709
Actual good fingerprint readers are expensive, and generally pretty bulky.

I can guaruntee you that this fingerprint reader will be something like slightly better than those shitty ones you get on laptops.

Reminder to not let your child give the police their fingerprints!

>>31769827
>babyboomer faggot angry at kids these days with their newfangled things

>>31770439
I don't know if Armatix did this, but I know Colt once made a smartgun proof of concept in .40S&W which in their own words could not sustain it's own firing.

This was some time ago, but the fact that the Armatix is only in .22LR (and is kind of a really bad design in general) suggests this kind of technology really isn't that sustainable.

Sig made one for police which was a large block that attaches in front of the trigger and which blocks the sear when locked, the problem being that literally anyone can lock the gun by just entering the wrong code a few times, thus just about anyone could sabotage your weapon in advance (such as maybe a corrupt colleague) and have you defenseless, without you knowing.

File: GD300 with Rifleman Radio.jpg (63KB, 400x333px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 400x333px

>>31775125
>Colt tried and failed 20 years ago
>therefore such a design is impossible
Uh, have you seen how much electronics have advanced in that time, in particular the size and capabilities of devices the military issues? General Dynamics' GD300 (pic related) is already 6 years old and the features of a "smartgun" could be handled by a simple microcontroller instead of the separate SoC and support components that a smartphone uses.

http://ruggedpcreview.com/3_handhelds_gd_gd300.html

more features = more things that can break and fail

>>31775915
So why doesn't Armatix make a 9mm pistol?

>>31772934
What is

E U L A
U
L
A

>>31776209
oh that thing that nobody reads?

File: 1458346144145.jpg (36KB, 675x380px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 675x380px

>>31776217
Ignorantia juris non excusat.

>>31774876
Be cause no one bought one. Because if broke faster than the previous record holder for "shittiest .22" the zipgun22 that needed a rebuild kit ever 1000 rounds for all it's internals. And costs 900 dollarydoos plus the watch.

I don't think it even made it into the country before armatix almost went under.

File: 1476740193254.jpg (271KB, 1008x720px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1008x720px

>>31776297
>no one bought it because they broke all the time, therefore no evidence of them breaking all the time exists
So where did those people get their information about these guns breaking all the time from then?

>>31776424
From armatix themselves.
Besides stating that their .22 shoots itself apart, the design was for a 9mm they down calibered to make work.
>But y would they say that
Because their business model isn't about the gun being good, it's about the gun being mandated

>>31776479
>From armatix themselves.
>Besides stating that their .22 shoots itself apart, the design was for a 9mm they down calibered to make work.
Link to them saying that then?

>>31768354
You need to assemble 100,000 armed patriots and slaughter every politician and their entire families in NJ. We are overdue. Then we repeat the process across the country

>>31772829
>>31769368

The armatix is a piece of shit, the company is already technically bankrupt, and yes the smart gun systems in the 90s all relied on shitty clunky electronics and solenoids that could break under recoil.

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2014/8/8/whats-so-smart-about-this-gun/
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/11/12/exclusive-we-test-the-armatix-ip1-the-not-so-smart-gun/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/05/daniel-zimmerman/smart-gun-maker-armatix-crashes-and-burns/
http://www.breachbangclear.com/wtw-sigs-smart-gun/

The Barrett BORS and other such systems work because they can be shock-proofed effectively. They aren't actually part of the gun, and if it fails the gun won;t fail. If you actually have an electro-mechanical system built into a gun that can prevent that gun from firing, there must be some part of it that mechanically contacts the firearm's firing or trigger mechanism and cannot be effectively shielded from recoil. This was the problem with the aforementioned solenoid based systems of the 90s.

All of this paired with the fact that "smart guns" have basically always been a plot by antigunners to add more financial and practical obstacles to gun ownership is reason enough to hope the things never come to market, at least until we have tech advanced enough to compensate for these issues.

>>31768972
>The fact that I'm building a "smart" gun myself out-right disproves your hunch. I'm not alone either.

Proofs.

>>31771589
>Let me guess, you shy away from fuel injection because new technology scares

This is a really shitty comparison if you're trying to make an analogy to smart guns. Fuel injection and a whole slew of other things like it are only used in modern cars because they have to meet CAFE and safety standards. Both of these things have been shown to in some way negatively effect the performance or safety of the cars they are used in (see: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/04/death_by_cafe_standards.html).

Much the same will happen with smart guns. Remember the prime tactic of the anti gunners is death by a thousand cuts.

>>31777232
I'll be putting up a thread of the full build either here or on /diy/ when I'm done, with parts list. It's a piece of shit currently, literally PCBs taped to a PSA AR lower. There's other stuff, but I'm not going to discuss that here ever.

As I said above the lock mechanism is retarded, I'm approaching the issue from the opposite direction, the lock's function is dependent on positive power and lack of that automatically releases. Despite that I'm running into the same bottleneck of speed and reliability. I tried using a fingerprint scanner ( https://www.sparkfun.com/products/11792 honestly a great scanner for the price but still not enough) but honestly I don't see that route as viable at all unless the price of electronics drops sharply.

Above I mentioned RFID, and while that works great for most applications the key needs to be short for any reasonable read time and the scanner/chip combo sometimes has issues. Implants are annoying as shit if you don't do it perfectly right and the passive ones easily implanted simply don't work fast enough.

>>31777405
You do have a point, but you clearly understood what I meant when you went into the mandatory safety standards. I don't necessarily have an issue with the technology being mandatory on new firearms, we already have laws like that anyway. What I do have an issue with (along with everyone who isn't an idiot) is the nature of the lock itself. Is it a point of failure? If yes, it's a bad design for something that you might need to save your life. There's no defense for it, and I've seen a lot of arguments about somebody stealing a gun and then yadda yadda, but these are made by people either being ignorant or disingenuous. Anyone familiar with how locks work understands that if you take the locked device to your batcave it's all over with for that lock. Idiots assume that locked = forever safe, we of course know otherwise.

Plus the issue of remote locking, that's just garbage and asking for trouble.

>>31777556
>There's other stuff, but I'm not going to discuss that here ever.

Why not?

>As I said above the lock mechanism is retarded, I'm approaching the issue from the opposite direction, the lock's function is dependent on positive power and lack of that automatically releases. Despite that I'm running into the same bottleneck of speed and reliability. I tried using a fingerprint scanner ( https://www.sparkfun.com/products/11792 honestly a great scanner for the price but still not enough) but honestly I don't see that route as viable at all unless the price of electronics drops sharply.

>Above I mentioned RFID, and while that works great for most applications the key needs to be short for any reasonable read time and the scanner/chip combo sometimes has issues. Implants are annoying as shit if you don't do it perfectly right and the passive ones easily implanted simply don't work fast enough.

Then why even do this? It seems like you have a solution in search of a problem and you're just doing this because it's cool. I don't chastise you for doing an electronics project, I enjoy doing stuff with arduino myself even though I'm not very good at it, but why do it other than to show it can be done? And you said yourself, the technology is nowhere near where it needs to be, how would it convey any real benefit to the end user of the gun? The whole "getting shot with your own gun" thing is a myth, so that really defeats the only purpose this could have.

Also, as someone who lives in New Jersey If you ever put what you make up for sale on the open market, I'm fucked. There could be very real legal repercussions to any technology like this and it seems like you're ignoring that fact.

File: IMG_0136.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>31771589
Hol up


You have several rfid implants? Wtf? Why?

>>31777556

>I don't necessarily have an issue with the technology being mandatory on new firearms, we already have laws like that anyway

What? We have no laws requiring safety standards for firearms. And making anything like that mandatory would be a huge violation of the second amendment. This feels like one of those "I support gun rights but..." statements we hear just before the politician goes on to call for a new AWB or universal background checks.

>What I do have an issue with (along with everyone who isn't an idiot) is the nature of the lock itself. Is it a point of failure? If yes, it's a bad design for something that you might need to save your life. There's no defense for it, and I've seen a lot of arguments about somebody stealing a gun and then yadda yadda, but these are made by people either being ignorant or disingenuous. Anyone familiar with how locks work understands that if you take the locked device to your batcave it's all over with for that lock. Idiots assume that locked = forever safe, we of course know otherwise.

Like I said in >>31777678 , then why even have a lock at all? It'll just hinder the end user. If the lock is useless if the gun is stolen, and if the kind of situation where your gun is taken from you and used against you is basically a myth, then why have these kinds of locks built in to the gun at all?

Like I also said in >>31777678 , this kind of experimenting could have real negative consequences. I live in New Jersey. We're all waiting with baited breath to see if the state will try to force mandatory smart guns down our throats. And like the example I gave with auto standards, people were actually killed because of fuel economy standards who wouldn't have been killed if those standards hadn't taken effect. What about the same happening with smart guns? How many people would have to die because their gun failed before any standard requiring smart guns is gotten rid of?

>>31777678
>Why not?
Reasons. Think about the subject of electronic firearms and the people who would like to tinker with them you might come up with a few.

>Then why even do this?
You answered it immediately after asking, I'm just seeing how far this will go. As for the other aspects, such as a temperature probe, accelerometer, trying to jerry-rig a camera to an eye-mounted feed, that's all the real project.

To be quite frank the idea of a smart lock on a firearm doesn't seem to be viable, I've attacked this problem several ways and I agree with above posters that it's just there to serve an agenda. Good idea, possibly practical, but in practice it's quickly becoming evident that it's just soft gun control. (papercuts, as >>31777405 said)

>Also, as someone who lives in New Jersey If you ever put what you make up for sale on the open market, I'm fucked.
However if I ever do go into the business of making this as an actual product I will be doing so with people like you in mind, I'm not doing this in a vacuum, I know there's people trying to steal our rights. That's why I'm looking at it from the opposite end, the lock being an optional feature that will cease it's function if it fails without compromising the system. I'd want people in New Jersey and other states to have access to this as an affordable alternative to the ridiculous shit peddled by Armatix and others.

>>31777701
>You have several rfid implants? Wtf? Why?
Several reasons, but the most immediate one is as a security tag. I have key-based locks of course but I prefer electronic because they're more convenient. I use more than one based on the device, hand/arm are best for certain applications but the one in my leg is quite specific to a certain lock.

I've had to replace one because it was damaged, believe me getting them out is harder than getting them in. (especially if you're doing it one-handed)

>>31777794
>Reasons. Think about the subject of electronic firearms and the people who would like to tinker with them you might come up with a few.

I'm honestly drawing a blank here. I think most /k/ommandos would be super hyped if you could come up with something like the Aliens "smart gun" or a better version of the tracking point system. Could you please elaborate on what you mean?

>However if I ever do go into the business of making this as an actual product I will be doing so with people like you in mind, I'm not doing this in a vacuum, I know there's people trying to steal our rights. That's why I'm looking at it from the opposite end, the lock being an optional feature that will cease it's function if it fails without compromising the system. I'd want people in New Jersey and other states to have access to this as an affordable alternative to the ridiculous shit peddled by Armatix and others.

This is somewhat reassuring, but honestly seeing the situation I'm in I'd rather this technology just didn't exist in the first place. Like I said above, anything like Tracking Point or any other "smart gun" concept that involves actually aiding the user I think is cool, but I just automatically shut out the idea of any sort of "safety" device on a smart gun.

>>31768972
>The fact that I'm building a "smart" gun myself
>>31769631
>"wearable implant" that lets you release the lock by thinking
>>31769631
>Even with an intracranial implant
>>31777794
>I've had to replace one because it was damaged, believe me getting them out is harder than getting them in. (especially if you're doing it one-handed)


Good to know that you're either actually insane or are a transhumanist fetishist

>>31777194
Not only do none of those articles mentions any problems with the electronics failing on Armatix's pistol, that review is probably the most poorly written gun review I've ever seen and I wonder how they can write a review of an uncommon gun without any pictures other than a single stock photo of the gun (not even reviews from the early 2000s did that). An unusual safety mounted on the trigger that can't be deactivated with your right hand? How can you write about that but not explain how it works to the readers or give your readers a picture of what you're talking about? Not to mention their complaint about not being able to manually thumb the hammer forward being unsafe when the act of manually thumbing the hammer forward is unsafe. Jesus, I was just about to post this when I looked over and realized the NRA wrote that review, how could the NRA of all groups do such a poor job of writing a review?

>If you actually have an electro-mechanical system built into a gun that can prevent that gun from firing, there must be some part of it that mechanically contacts the firearm's firing or trigger mechanism and cannot be effectively shielded from recoil
Where are the reports of the TrackingPoint rifles failing for that reason then? As the TrackingPoint blocking you from being able to pull the trigger until the crosshairs are inside the mark that you previously set is its main selling point.

File: California-Handgun-Roster-Time-Line.jpg (65KB, 1000x630px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1000x630px

>>31777776
Don't let them implement 'technology' requirements.

t. California.

>>31777776
>What? We have no laws requiring safety standards for firearms. And making anything like that mandatory would be a huge violation of the second amendment. This feels like one of those "I support gun rights but..." statements we hear just before the politician goes on to call for a new AWB or universal background checks.
There's laws specifically requiring approved safety mechanisms on firearms so yes there's precedent for it. Tell me, has requiring manufacturers to pass a drop test infringed on our 2nd Amendment rights? I don't think so, if anything that's given us even better arms and makes manufacturers who do fuck up (Remington, looking at you) quite nervous.

>>31777869
>Could you please elaborate on what you mean?
Not any of that, if I came up with something like an M56 Smartgun I'd let you know. Maybe someday. I'm not even sure how one would approach that, considering the M56 orients itself to target. I've thought about that and the CMP150 from Perfect Dark and I like the idea but I just don't know how it would work.

>This is somewhat reassuring, but honestly seeing the situation I'm in I'd rather this technology just didn't exist in the first place.
Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle, we can't stuff it back inside. Throughout history there have been technologies that seemed like an amazing idea at the time but turned out to be horrific, but I don't think this going to be up there with the atomic bomb and nerve gas. I'm not some mighty crusader who's going to steer the technology to it's original, "good" roots and I hope I don't come off as that. If I can push it in that direction and give us yet another option to customize the user's ability to control their own device, sure, but so far I'm not coming up with a big game changer here. Unfortunately I'm just the one guy and I don't have a research lab working on this, chances are you will take a hit before I or others can come up with something in your favor but I won't give up.

>>31777923
>Not only do none of those articles mentions any problems with the electronics failing on Armatix's pistol

Yes, but the gun itself had multiple FTFs and the magazines are crap. Also, when working just fine the electronics still seem to be awful. There was a video out there for a while of someone actually using one that put all of these problems on display but I can't seem to find it.

>>If you actually have an electro-mechanical system built into a gun that can prevent that gun from firing, there must be some part of it that mechanically contacts the firearm's firing or trigger mechanism and cannot be effectively shielded from recoil
Where are the reports of the TrackingPoint rifles failing for that reason then? As the TrackingPoint blocking you from being able to pull the trigger until the crosshairs are inside the mark that you previously set is its main selling point.

First off, there are probably so few tracking points in circulation that I'd be surprised if we didn't hear about any such problems. And I didn't know that you couldn't actually not fire until it let you, and looking into it a little further it appears as if the gun won't even work if one part of the system goes down ( https://ballisticxlr.com/2015/11/10/a-rant-about-the-failure-of-tracking-point/ , http://weaponsman.com/?p=6443 ). So I guess I didn't know enough about the tracking point, but knowing what I do now I wouldn't trust it. I do remember them making a scope that was just a targeting computer that was sold as a package with a Rem700 though, and something like that I would be all over.

>>31777981
>There's laws specifically requiring approved safety mechanisms on firearms so yes there's precedent for it.

Where? I think that is just in California.

>Tell me, has requiring manufacturers to pass a drop test infringed on our 2nd Amendment rights?

Actually, yes. See >>31777930

>I don't think so, if anything that's given us even better arms and makes manufacturers who do fuck up (Remington, looking at you) quite nervous.

And yet the near totally drop safe glock came about in the absence of any such regulations. How many modern guns aren't drop safe just by way of their design? What the fuck does that have to do with Remington? The market exists to punish people who make shitty products, not the government.

>>This is somewhat reassuring, but honestly seeing the situation I'm in I'd rather this technology just didn't exist in the first place.
>Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle, we can't stuff it back inside.

In regards to NJ's smart gun law, yes the genie is out of the bottle. In regards to someone actually making something they would mandate the genie is very much still in the bottle.

> chances are you will take a hit before I or others can come up with something in your favor but I won't give up.

Like I said, what would be most in my favor is this technology not existing in the first place.

>>31778025
>Yes, but
I asked for evidence of the claims about the electronics breaking that people keep repeating but I personally have never been able to find evidence to back up, I don't give a shit if the gun fails in every other way.

>>31778133
>I asked for evidence of the claims about the electronics breaking that people keep repeating but I personally have never been able to find evidence to back up, I don't give a shit if the gun fails in every other way.

I never personally made those claims, and I don't know about them, but once again, if the system is so awful no one wants it when it works right the system breaking becomes irrelevant. And the electronics being awful are probably the cause of the gun's constant failures. Like I said in >>31778025 there was a video going around of the gun having multiple FTFs where the causes of them were explained, and several were caused by the gun losing connection with the watch.

Smart guns are retarded.
Smart scopes are where it's at.

All you'd need is access to climate data, information on the gun and caliber being used a rangefinder and a small computer to do the math. Idk about the optics but the hardware would probably cost less than 500$.

In the future, smart guns will detect the innocence of the person it is pointing at and will not fire if it is a person of color. This will be considered the only 100% effective way to spare all innocent people.

>>31778268
>Smart scopes are where it's at.

That would actually be insanely cool and likely insanely expensive.

>>31777981
You don't sound like a bad person honestly, but any sort of tech you come up with that is within the realm of tripping NJ's smart gun law will likely never sell in a US gunshop unless those owners want to be run out of business. I'd suggest trying to stand with NJ gun owners and getting the assholes in Trenton to repeal that law if you want any chance of selling it to US civilians, because if there's a chance of it activating that law, people will attempt to block its sale for fear of other states enacting similar laws.

>>31779888
>You don't sound like a bad person honestly, but any sort of tech you come up with that is within the realm of tripping NJ's smart gun law will likely never sell in a US gunshop unless those owners want to be run out of business. I'd suggest trying to stand with NJ gun owners and getting the assholes in Trenton to repeal that law if you want any chance of selling it to US civilians, because if there's a chance of it activating that law, people will attempt to block its sale for fear of other states enacting similar laws.

This already happened though. The armatix guns got vendors, an even if none were sold some people are saying that was enough to fulfill the wording of the law.

>>31778268
>>31779842
https://inteliscopes.com/

>>31778092
>The market exists to punish people who make shitty products, not the government.
You're going to have to deal with the fact that we don't have a totally free market, and the government does have laws that protect consumers. You'll need a time machine to go back to the early 19th century to change that.

>In regards to someone actually making something they would mandate the genie is very much still in the bottle.
No, not at all, it's quite available and >>31780197 points this out.

>>31779888
Checked, and I don't think I'm a bad person at all. I'd prefer if gun grabbers and other ban-it types didn't exist but I know they won't go away. You're not going to get them to repeal laws they put in to feel safe without making them feel safe, which the vast majority of the population wants. Sure, security and even "safety" are either a complete illusion or are temporary states of being but telling them that and reminding them that they need X, Y, and Z to defend themselves won't work. It has never worked. They have a certain threshold before the shut down and want somebody else to fix it, the majority of people simply don't want to entertain the idea that they're vulnerable.

Even so if a new technology comes out that I can play with I will, even if that makes people angry. I'm not going to stop tinkering with this and other projects, because I know I can't rely on the unreliable process of legislation protecting people like you. It seems like you're stopping short of suggesting I abandon these projects because it might have negative consequences for you, but you're completely mistaken. Even if I throw all of this in the trash right now it's not going to make Armatix, Safe Gun, iGun Technology, TriggerSmart, or the other companies halt operations.

You might as well consider the bottle broken at this point.

>>31778268
Several companies are working toward this, unfortunately precision optics are beyond my technical skill and capability at the moment.

>>31780500
>>The market exists to punish people who make shitty products, not the government.
>You're going to have to deal with the fact that we don't have a totally free market, and the government does have laws that protect consumers. You'll need a time machine to go back to the early 19th century to change that.

There is a difference between a crappy product (eg. most of remington's recent products) and a product that is potentially dangerous or defective by way of a flaw in its design. Consumer protection laws protect us from the second one, not the first. As I also pointed out in >>31778092 and as was pointed out in >>31777930 , all the "consumer protection" measures of California's approved handgun roster really were was a backdoor to gun control.

>>In regards to someone actually making something they would mandate the genie is very much still in the bottle.
>No, not at all, it's quite available and >>31780197 (You) points this out.

I am >>31780197 and as I pointed out, there is still some indecisiveness as to whether it actually caused the law to go into effect.

>>31776209
Parts designed for skirting the law would not have an EULA that prevents them from skirting the law

File: 1475637740488.jpg (350KB, 1849x1332px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1849x1332px

>>31767633
This is stupid. So are the idiots who support it.

>>31780874
>all the "consumer protection" measures of California's approved handgun roster really were was a backdoor to gun control.
Point out a single firearm manufactured within this century in the United States that doesn't conform to some industry standard testing or has at least one mechanical safety feature. That's what I'm talking about, and yes, that does count as consumer protection laws.

That's why I referenced Remington, if you don't know about the trigger recall (and the associated controversy) I suggest you look that up.

>there is still some indecisiveness as to whether it actually caused the law to go into effect.
Even so the mere fact that these companies exist with actual products means that we've crossed the threshold and we can't go back regardless of the legal situation. You can't unmake the entire "smart" umbrella, which you would have to do to get rid of the "smart gun" concept. You might be able to challenge the law when you can demonstrate it's harmed your ability to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, but even then the idea isn't going to vanish because of a legal victory in New Jersey. I'd hope it wouldn't, even if the idea seems like a gimmick and a dead-end to me currently, gun owners have come to expect a deep level of customization from the industry. I don't think it's morally right to limit a potentially useful or desired technology that could enhance arms bared by citizens, especially if somebody somewhere is trying to pervert that to limit a right. Yes, it's unfortunate that New Jersey has bad laws but I feel like I have a right to this.

>>31769850
You have to remember 2 things. NJ doesn't think the constitution applies to them. Also back then people actually believed that only the militia had the right to a gun.

>>31781240
>Point out a single firearm manufactured within this century in the United States that doesn't conform to some industry standard testing or has at least one mechanical safety feature. That's what I'm talking about, and yes, that does count as consumer protection laws.

Industry standards =/= consumer protection laws. How can you even conflate the two? The fact most of these standards came into existence without needing to be forced on by consumer protection laws I think states all you need to know about how the government selectively enforces "consumer protection" in certain industries. Going back to cars again, VW shared the three point seatbelt design with everyone because they knew it would protect the auto industry at large. SAE has had safety and crash standards since before any such things were mandated by law. Almost all of the CAFE, safety, etc regulations forced on by the government have only been bad for consumers and sometimes outright dangerous. I don't want to live in a world where guns have these same kinds of stupid regulations applied to them.

>That's why I referenced Remington, if you don't know about the trigger recall (and the associated controversy) I suggest you look that up.

Once again, that is a product that was actually defective and therefore fell within the realm of legitimate consumer protection. It wasn't just a shitty gun. Remember that without the PLCA gun companies were going to get sued by the brady bunch just because their guns were used by criminals and now Hilldog is saying that PLCA should be repealed. And once again, look at all the shit that was done in the name of "consumer protection" in regards to the handgun roster in california. Specific "consumer protection" legislation for firearms is a dangerous can of worms that we don't want to open at the federal level.

>>31782019
I'm tired of discussing this point over and over, the can's opened already and if you want a specific federal law the 1968 GCA requires imported firearms to pass a drop test. So yes, there is in fact legal precedence for this just like I said.

State laws are something else entirely, but those exist too.

>>31782460
>I'm tired of discussing this point over and over, the can's opened already and if you want a specific federal law the 1968 GCA requires imported firearms to pass a drop test. So yes, there is in fact legal precedence for this just like I said.
>State laws are something else entirely, but those exist too.

Yes, but instead of submitting to the unjust framework, why not fight it?

>>31767633
Lol, these guys already failed terribly once in two of the most cucked states in the Union. They're going to try it again, when racial tensions are the highest they've been in years, more people own a firearm then ever before, and the trust of government is at an absolute all-time low?

'Kay.

>>31777907
not him but chips in the webbing of the hand are easy. He mentioned head implants but didn't say he had one.

>>31782506
I don't consider making sure a foreign-made firearm has a very useful safety feature is unjust, there is no point in fighting something that gives us better arms to bear. Unless you were referring to state laws, and in that case I don't know how I could fight it since I don't live in those states. Isn't my approach the better choice? I don't think the New Jersey "Childproof Handgun Law" is going to go away, you don't have enough voters to defeat it and that's not really the topic here.

Instead the law's probably going to remain because the idea of a smart gun is extremely attractive, so having been given lemons I think we should make lemonade. Some vehemently anti-gun people would look at my approach and cry, "but if you cut the battery, the lock turns off!" and I don't think they'll ever listen to reason. Instead for everyone else I think pointing to the name of the law would be the ideal response; if the child is taking some cutters to the gun then there's a bigger problem. I have to ask who the hell this "child" is, because normal kids fooling around with dad's gun don't think to demolish it.

Do you really think somebody who would be in favor of the law for the stated purpose would disagree with my position? I don't, I think I make a compelling argument. If the law is truly about protecting children then having my approach to a lock (that doesn't compromise the firearm's primary job) would be perfectly fine. If not, I question their personal motives because if the lock isn't good enough then whatever they come up with will surely run afoul of the 2nd Amendment.

Plus I don't believe in networked guns, correct me if I'm wrong but I recall that Armatix wants something that can be remotely disabled. Fuck that. If they hit the US market with that then I'll bust my ass to come out with a competing product.

>>31782542
I don't, that would be crazy. Getting one requires a doctor and a way better prototyping process than trial-and-error in my garage.

>>31782506
Just to be clear because I ran out of space in >>31782863 I would never put this on the market knowing that law exists, tinkering is fine and putting up open-source plans is probably fine too, but I wouldn't ruin your day just to make a few bucks.

I don't see this years-long delay in the technology coming here as sustainable, we'll get it one way or another because they'll force it on us. What I'm advocating for isn't fear of it, but embracing it on our terms before Armatix and the NJIT rams it down our throats.

>>31782922
The idea is to not have it rammed down our throats under any circumstances.
I know you acknowledged the possibility before, but these safety features are almost certainly going to make the gun less reliable (it doesn't go bang when you want it to). More complicated, more expensive. Mandating those features on all legal handguns will ban older models unless grandfathered in. It will shrink the new handgun selection down to a paltry few. If this is actually the case, what should we do, given your argument that it's going to be forced down our throats? Are we just going to be left "questioning their personal motives" as they ram the legislation down our gullet?

And that is another thing, too. Why aren't you already questioning their personal motives? If this really were about the children, why aren't we going after swimming pools? Or household chemicals? Those accidentally kill a lot more children than accidental firearms deaths per year. I haven't been hearing a peep about the "muh chillen" crowd about those. Probably because the "mah baybeh" crowd uses those things and isn't willing to part with them. But firearms are ok by them; they don't use those. Their motives are already highly suspect.

>>31783093
>The idea is to not have it rammed down our throats under any circumstances.
It's going to happen, and if it's a watershed for armed civil disobedience or rebellion then so be it but it's going to happen. If I had a hat, I'd say I'd eat it.

>I know you acknowledged the possibility before, but these safety features are almost certainly going to make the gun less reliable (it doesn't go bang when you want it to).
Only through signal delay.

>Are we just going to be left "questioning their personal motives" as they ram the legislation down our gullet?
>Why aren't you already questioning their personal motives?
Why? Well because I'm not an argumentative asshole for one, you catch more flies with honey and approaching the subject calmly and respectfully gets results. For those that refuse to play nice it's simple, point it out. Every single time I get engaged in a conversation about gun control, any gun control, the ones who resort to name-calling and irrational outbursts are easily used as an example of "what gun rights activists have to deal with." (I'm sure we're not the only ones who suffer through these encounters)

Most people aren't like that though because most people don't care either way about guns, or gun rights, or even the dangers of guns outside of talking points put up by our opposition. If the argument is "this will ensure that children won't accidentally kill themselves or others" you and I need to demonstrate without a doubt that it doesn't. I can't do that. By design a clunky, slow piece of shit electronic lock device would actually prevent a child from doing that just like it would prevent anyone else from doing the same. Simply put, the system works as intended. For our purposes (since we do understand how firearms work) we're arguing more advanced concepts, but this discussion won't ever materialize in the court of public opinion.

You can point to swimming pools and bleach but I'm sorry to say it won't win you any points or votes.

>>31774917
We had a biometric security door on base. We used to use gum stretched over our fingers with each others finger prints anytime someone thought it was actually useful.

It generally just didn't work at all and we just used our CACs or buzzed the guard room.