SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
German firearms manufacturer Armatix LLC is planning to release its second smart gun in the U.S. next year after sales of its first model -- the .22 caliber iP1 -- were quashed by pressure from some gun owners and gun rights advocates who saw it as a threat to Second Amendment freedoms.
Unlike the iP1, which used RFID technology, the new iP9 9mm semi-automatic pistol will have a fingerprint reader. The iP9 will be available in mid-2017, according to Wolfgang Tweraser, CEO and president of Amratix LLC.
How long before the smart guns go all WOPR?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
German Arms Maker Armatix to Release Second Smart Gun in U.S.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 49 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves.
-- Eric Hoffer
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:44AM
Considering the reliability of every fingerprint reader I have ever used is spotty at best, oh F*CK yea, sign me up for a device that absolutely has to work first try in a high stress situation where every second is life or death.
The only morons who think this is a viable product are the evil bastards who want to outlaw private possession of weapons but realize they can't survive admitting it. So lets just make em so expensive that 'those people' can't afford em (which was the reasoning behind the original gun control efforts like the "Saturday Night Special' bans, etc.) and so useless they can't actually hurt anyone.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:12AM
Or the people that realize that if you're using a weapon in one of those situations, it's probably best if it didn't work.
It's astonishing to me how many folks have been brainwashed into thinking that a firearm isn't just necessary for every day life, but is a constitutional right. First, it's not necessary for living, most of us don't have one. Secondly, the 2nd amendment is quite clear about the fact that gun ownership isn't an individual right, it's a group right as in groups other than the federal government have a right to firearms. Groups such as the national guard, local law enforcement.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:49AM
The supreme court disagrees with you.
They specifically stated that it is an individual, constitutional right.
Have you read the judgement? I have. It was quite a piece of detailed and specific scholarship, tighly reasoned and lavishly referenced. (I also read the dissent, which was peculiarly less well supported.)
So, in the spirit of extraordinary claims calling for extraordinary proof, I just know you're going to offer a point-for-point analysis and rebuttal to the court.
I await with bated breath.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:20AM
Ok, you provided a nice calm rebuttal, probably the more effective one even. But I had more fun with mine. :)
Sometimes it is a heck of a lot of fun to just spark up the flamethrower and roast an idjit. Especially one that is a demonstrated menace to Truth, Justice and the American Way of Life like Francis.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:00AM
I was going to mod you down for being a scum-sucking yellow-bellied ammosexual, but then:
I await with bated breath.
Holy Shite! You used the right "baited"! Totally impressed, but how can someone who knows the difference between "baited" and "bated" be in favor of such soon to be rebated Supreme Court decisions?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:16AM
In the hopes that some will choose to self-educate, "the judgement" referred to is District of Columbia vs Heller [cornell.edu].
As an aside, I note that when the USSC "makes a decision", it has no bearing on the details of reality. Compare and contrast the above with National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [cornell.edu] aka the Obamacare case, where the majority in effect declared "water is not wet". Sorry, boys, trying to bury a finding that the Constitution says the fedgov can levy a direct tax in proportion to the census while trying to levy a direct tax without proportion to the census is what the common people term "a lie".
With a seemingly insane USSC (further evidence: Dred Scott vs Sandford aka "black-skinned people aren't human"; Wickard vs Filburn aka "up is down"), what's a peaceable person to do? They can start by recognizing the truism that: if I can't do a given thing to another person, neither can I delegate authority for that same thing to any government - if a government person does it anyway, it is literally a criminal act equal to a mugging, kidnapping, etc.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:06AM
It's astonishing to me how many folks have been brainwashed into thinking that a firearm isn't just necessary for every day life, but is a constitutional right.
Oh I dunno, maybe because IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ya f*cking illiterate fascist?
Secondly, the 2nd amendment is quite clear about the fact that gun ownership isn't an individual right...
Ya, it is so totally obvious that when they write "The People" every other place that they are referring to "THE PEOPLE" but only you super smart, elite people with your super secret decoder ring can see that in ONE place where they wrote "The People" they really meant "The Government".... even though that would be totally retarded since governments have always been allowed to have weapons. Kinda comes bundled in with that whole sovereignty and monopoly on the legitimate use of force thing that -defines- a government. And unlike you, the guys who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually knew all sorts of things about the theory of government so they knew exactly what they meant to say and why they meant it. Remember, these are the guys that spent a long hot summer (without air conditioning) in Plilly arguing the most minor details in a Constitution short enough to be the preface on a modern piece of legislation.
And you will be able to cite zero examples backing up your attempt to retcon the history of the 2nd Amendment. Not one person who helped draft the 2nd Amendment or who voted for OR against it in any of the State Legislatures is recorded as believing it to mean anything but the clear 18th Century English it is written in.
And let me totally blow your ignorant fascist mind by dropping some knowledge on yer ass that will do at least 3d6 damage to your feelz. When they wrote the 2nd Amendment we didn't HAVE a National Guard and we didn't even have much in the way of formal 'local law enforcement.' The militia was every able bodied man capable of responding to a general muster and they were generally expected to appear with their own weapon because we were broke dick mofos who didn't have a vast Department of Defense and large stocks of arms and ammo sitting in depots. And you were expected to already know how to use it too because when we mustered folks up for a fight we generally didn't have six weeks for Basic Training and another six for AIT, they were ready to get marching and shooting, get it over and get back to the fields before everybody starved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:05AM
jmorris, you idiot, not home-schooled, but possibly an autodidact who went to the wrong websites right off the bat, and never recovered, the Constitution is made up! It is a human-created document! It could be wrong! And worse, right-wing nut-job lawyers from the Federalist Society could actually interpret it incorrectly. There is no inherent human right to arms. There is a human right to not be unjustly attacked with weapons. Look up "The Law of the Splintered Paddle". Might be educational, though I know that education is opposed to your general mindset. Looney.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:24AM
Just how do you expect such a right to be enforced if most humans are fragile, squishy creatures? Don't bother me with a "call the cops" retort: their job is only to draw chalk outlines around your lifeless corpse and, if they get around to it, throw someone in a cage which may or may not have been your killer.
To have peace, prepare for war.
(Score: 1) by Chrontius on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:18AM
Or the people that realize that if you're using a weapon in one of those situations, it's probably best if it didn't work.
You do realize you're literally wishing death on people trying to defend their lives, right? It's not difficult for you to imagine how - taken like this - what you said could come off as extremely hostile, right?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @04:56AM
Yes, and they deserve to die, since they are already murderers, if the are willing and prepared to kill in a situation where they only "fear" that their pathetic lives are at risk. Now get the fuck out of here, George Zimmerman, you fucking child killer! You disgust me, as you disgust any decent human being, as you disgust God, and you even disgust Buddha, Joshua, and my cat. Cowardly excuse for a real human being. Pathetic cowardly mass of jelly carrying concealed! I hope your end is quick and merciful, NOT!
(Score: 2, Informative) by tftp on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:26AM
Considering the reliability of every fingerprint reader I have ever used is spotty at best
It's perfectly reliable -- as long as you are not wearing gloves, and your hands are clean, and the fingerprint reader is clean, and the battery is charged, and your fingers have no cuts, abrasions or other defects that cause a misread, and it's not raining, and...
Might be OK for plinking, though. But why to buy a defective tool if you can get the real one for less? I wonder how many sales these guys will register. Their customers must be a rare combination of (a) people who are afraid of guns, and (b) people who want a gun. How many such people exist?
Personally, I do not expect to ever use a gun for self-defense. However nobody expects the unexpected - like Katrina, like riots in Ferguson, like those future events that we know nothing about yet. I don't think at that time you'd want to worry about fresh batteries or about connecting a laptop via USB to rescan your injured hands. When Sandy hit, people were sitting without power for many days while looters and other criminals [huffingtonpost.com] roamed free.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:58AM
Indeed. It's like seatbelts and airbags.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by ewk on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:57AM
Nope... those are mandatory by law.
Guns aren't.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:33AM
That's the connundrum with so-called "smart guns": a cascade of laws will activate when such a device is ready for sale, as outlined in a tech crunch article [techcrunch.com].
The only sort of "smart gun" anyone in their right mind should even consider for purchase is one adopted voluntarily by police and military forces. Cops in particular have been very vocal about NOT wanting to carry or use such "smart guns", which is quite telling.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday October 20 2016, @10:04PM
You never walk out the door expecting to need your seatbelt, airbag, motorcycle helmet, or carry gun that day. On the hopefully very rare instance that you find you need it, you'd better have it. Oh, and helmets are optional here, but I still use one.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:16PM
> It's perfectly reliable -- as long as you are not wearing gloves, and your hands are clean, and the fingerprint reader is clean, and the battery is charged, and your fingers have no cuts, abrasions or other defects that cause a misread, and it's not raining, and...
... and your hands are sweating, like when you feel somehow in danger.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:18PM
That is what I personally find hilarious, that all those on the left that cheer handgun laws have no fucking clue that they were written by hardcore racists that didn't want blacks to be able to defend themselves.
For those that have not seen it I highly recommend seeing "fear of an armed negro" because the guys that originally pushed for gun bans? Yeah they didn't have any problem with talking about why, it was basically a "poll tax" to make sure poor people, specifically poor blacks, couldn't fight back if someone with a bat came around because "we don't cotton your type around here".
And the entire idea makes absolutely NO fucking sense. I mean according to Amnesty International there are tens of thousands of SLAVES imported into the USA every fucking year across our completely broken border...yet you think a gun ban will work? What do you think is harder to get across a border, a couple of dozen sex slaves or 50 pistols with ammo? You see your little gun bans wouldn't work if you don't "build that wall" because just like dope and slaves its easy enough to just import it across the border if they can't get it locally. And as we have seen with Chicago you can pass all the gun bans you want, criminals have no care for your stupid laws, hence why they are called criminals, so all your gun laws do is just like in "fear of an armed negro" keep those that actually do follow your laws from defending themselves against those that do not...that has worked so well in Detroit, Chicago, DC, Baltimore, the list goes on and on and on.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.