Smart guns in MD

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...14d-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html?hpid=z1

A dealer wanted to sell the same gun that caused the uproar in CA. He had to back down. Interestingly, he stated that folks should be able to buy any gun they want. However, he danced on the RKBA issue that it might trigger the NJ mandate about smart guns and be used to mandate them elsewhere. He argued the gun would be attractive to urban, yuppie hipsters who didn't know anything about guns.

This argument was made way back as some gun companies thought they could capture a new market.

This leads (as stated in the article) for the VPC to oppose such guns as it would encourage folks to buy guns - and they don't like safe ones.

On another take - Beretta has a module : http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/22/beretta-px4i-storm-i-protect-system/

In the street your life depends on your comrades and communication is essential. However, in a split second attack, call communication is not always possible: don’t worry, from now on your PX4; will do it for you. The status of your gun corresponds to a specific level of threat. PX4; continuously tracks and records your pistol status, sharing this information in real time with the Operation Center and other patrols. The result is an enhanced situational awareness that provides a dramatic reduction of the time to decision in crisis response.

Rather than being a system designed to monitor and second-guess officers in the field. Beretta has designed i-Protect to be a potentially life saving system. I look forward to seeing how it develops.
- See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-storm-i-protect-system/#sthash.kJX1EAdO.dpuf
Click to expand...

It monitors biometrics, calls for help and maybe hooks you up to e-harmony?
 
when will a major police agency issue "smart guns" to their patrol officers? I mean since its such a great idea and all....:p
 
My PX4 doesn't do all that!

eta: and as far as I can tell it's just a monitor, it doesn't control the firing system. If the electronics get fried the gun still works as usual.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
This leads (as stated in the article) for the VPC to oppose such guns as it would encourage folks to buy guns - and they don't like safe ones.
Click to expand...
I think this can be interpreted as an ironic de facto acknowledgement that they've realized it will be impossible to implement a nationwide "smart gun" mandate. :rolleyes:
 
It all reminds me of something I saw on a poster.
"Build a system that even an idiot can use and only an idiot will."
 
From the linked article:
A Rockville gun store owner who said he would sell the nation’s first smart gun — even after a California gun store removed the weapon from its shelves to placate angry gun-rights activists — backed down late Thursday night after enduring a day of protests and death threats.
Click to expand...


That part is pretty embarrassing. According to some "gun rights advocates" you can buy any gun you want, except that one. And if you try to sell it to someone who wants it, we'll kill you. Yeah, that's the approach we need.
 
Every time you shoot it, your phone will automatically dial 911.
Click to expand...
That should make a day at the range pretty interesting! :rolleyes:

A Rockville gun store owner who said he would sell the nation’s first smart gun (...) backed down late Thursday night after enduring a day of protests and death threats.
Click to expand...
This guy's in Maryland. I've spoken with gun dealers and instructors in places like Maryland and New York. Let's just say they don't all share our view on the RKBA.

Why do I bring this up? Because the "I get death threats from people who disagree with me" claptrap is becoming a common anti accusation against us.
 
WyMark said:
From the linked article:
Quote:
A Rockville gun store owner who said he would sell the nation’s first smart gun — even after a California gun store removed the weapon from its shelves to placate angry gun-rights activists — backed down late Thursday night after enduring a day of protests and death threats.

That part is pretty embarrassing. According to some "gun rights advocates" you can buy any gun you want, except that one. And if you try to sell it to someone who wants it, we'll kill you. Yeah, that's the approach we need.
Click to expand...

There is no proof that these threats came from legitimate gun owners or "gun rights activists". It would not surprise me if they came from others outside the gun community in an effort to paint a very poor picture of "Gun Rights Activist".

Seems to be working, too.
 
There is no proof that these threats came from legitimate gun owners or "gun rights activists". It would not surprise me if they came from others outside the gun community in an effort to paint a very poor picture of "Gun Rights Activist".
Click to expand...
This is merely wishful thinking.

As I wrote in a previous post, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And in general, the simplest explanation for something is the correct one. (See "Occam's Razor.")
 
This is merely wishful thinking.

As I wrote in a previous post, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And in general, the simplest explanation for something is the correct one. (See "Occam's Razor.")
Click to expand...

Actually absence of evidence is exactly that, NO evidence and I have seen no evidence that he has actually received said death threats let alone threats from Gun Owners. His words and the words from the MSM is no evidence at all, more likely BS conjured up by this Gun Shop Owner.
 
There is no proof that these threats came from legitimate gun owners or "gun rights activists". It would not surprise me if they came from others outside the gun community in an effort to paint a very poor picture of "Gun Rights Activist".

Seems to be working, too.
Click to expand...

There's no proof either way, but I'm willing to give the gun dealer the benefit of the doubt at least until I find out otherwise. You've pretty much decided that the claim is either false or coming from the other side, and I don't think proof either way is going to sway that.
 
Until he files a police report I'm calling BS. Phone calls are trivially easy to trace these days, phone records are logged.

Why has he not reported these death threats to the police? Why just whine to the media about them?
 
There was an interesting episode of the Chris Hayes show on MSNBC last night. I wandered across it and then recorded it.

So here's the story:

http://www.msnbc.com/all/democrat-we-will-reverse-smart-gun-law

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/weinberg-offers-nra-a-truce-on-smart-guns-247525443925

There was an intensive set of interviews with the MD gun store owner that first started with him arguing that he has the right to sell the gun and the gun world should support the product as a safety measure. He was relatively clueless on the implied mandate (NJ type laws) that would be detrimental to gun rights. That is a subtle point. He then received such negative feedback and whether he got death threats is an empirical question. It's possible.

He then posted a drunken rant on the issue, backing off the gun but waving an AR and swearing. Not a posture child for responsible gun owners.

Hayes (whom I disagree with all the time) but is no dummy - tested the gun. It's a stupid weapon - only a 22 and he had a terrible teacup grip - but so what. One interesting tactical nuance - if you have the watch on one arm and the gun in another - you could hold the watch far enough away from the gun to deactivate it. That could be easy to occur in a fight.

He interviewed some guy who was high in the DOD and Blackwater who said that the military and police are salivating over the technology to prevent stolen guns from being used and this would have saved some folks in Syria (huh). I doubt that.

Hayes admit that the gun rights crowd had a point with the NJ law mandating their usage and that would be an infringement. He then interviewed the NJ author of the law (see the story) who said that if the NRA stopped opposing the law, then she would move to repeal it.

Would that be a good deal? We do support the free market and the opposition to the guns were the mandates? Or would it still be a bad idea and the heck with the free market?

Discussion? Please be literate and personal attacks on the players are not useful.
 
Odd. I thought Glaze had stepped down from his post under Bloomberg. I guess he still needs publicity.

In any case, he claims "good people who just want to keep guns out of the wrong hands" should be supporting this. In other words, anyone who opposes this gun, or the legislation mandating it, is a bad person who wants to put guns in the wrong hands. Got it.
 
It is absurd not to allow this on the market. If someone wants it then let them buy it. The proof of concept is already there. Blocking it from a shop shelf isn't going to stop pushes for regulation.
 
Actually, I think if the NJ law was activated it would interesting - not for NJ good gun folks but it would be an example that would work in strange ways.

It would horrify the rest of the gun rights supporting country and perhaps force NJ to let folks carry these things? How about that, SCOTUS?
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Hayes (whom I disagree with all the time) but is no dummy - tested the gun. It's a stupid weapon - only a 22 and he had a terrible teacup grip - but so what. One interesting tactical nuance - if you have the watch on one arm and the gun in another - you could hold the watch far enough away from the gun to deactivate it. That could be easy to occur in a fight.
Click to expand...
Too easy. Just about every right hander I know wears his or her wristwatch (if they wear one at all) on the left wrist. If I'm understanding this correctly, that would completely preclude firing the gun strong hand only.

Glenn E. Meyer said:
Hayes admit that the gun rights crowd had a point with the NJ law mandating their usage and that would be an infringement. He then interviewed the NJ author of the law (see the story) who said that if the NRA stopped opposing the law, then she would move to repeal it.

Would that be a good deal? We do support the free market and the opposition to the guns were the mandates? Or would it still be a bad idea and the heck with the free market?
Click to expand...
That makes no sense at all. She wrote (and presumably sponsored) the law. If she thinks the law is a good law, why would she move to repeal it for any reason? Conversely, if she has come to see the error of her ways, why would her support of repeal be based on a prerequisite that the NRA stop opposing the bill [that she now realizes is bad law]?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top