Sorry... just had to bring this topic up...
I know it's not a viable self defense caliber, LE would not even consider it for duty use. In fact, if someone grabbed it, and you were wrestling over it (2 people, 4 hands), it could still be fired by either person.
Even in a good caliber, I see it as a bad idea.
Does anyone dare comment?
I see the Armatix (and other "smart" pistols) as a way to placate gun grabbers/libtards who wish to control what firearms we can own/use. I will say, IN THEORY, having a gun that can only be shot by its "owner" seems like a no-brainer, especially to those outside gun culture. However, there are so many potential scenarios which the Armatix can fail in (like the one you mention above), that rule it out for any real-world use. I just see too many negatives with anything electronic of this nature in a firearm. It could short out at any time. The electronics could fail from recoil. What happens if the gun gets wet? What happens if you need to slide the gun to your wife or other to use in an emergency? What happens if you don't sleep with the bracelet on and wake up and need to use the gun NOW? I could go on and on.
I think technology like this will inevitably make a useful addition to self defense armaments, buuuuuut.
As gun owners, we face an antagonistic regulatory environment where potential safety features are ramrodded up our collective backsides with unkind frequency, where our right to self defense is constantly questioned on the grounds of safety, so our incentive structure is very clearly to deny any possible risk, and fight tooth and nail against any safety feature.
The metastatic effect of this poisonous environment is the cult of glock.
They can make electronics that can literally survive being shot out of a howitzer, I doubt the pistol operating environment provides any serious challenge, especially not in the long run.
When it's survived five years or so in the field as a standard issue .mil/LE sidearm, I'll think about it.
Not even if it survives in five years or so in Vogel's, Sevigny's, Leatham's, Stoeger's, Miculek's holster, if the watch is a good watch, if the gun is an otherwise good gun, if it doesn't matter if I have a perfect grip, or wear my watch on my left and shoot with my right or vice versa covered in mud snow blood or kitten.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
FIFYOriginally Posted by MSparks909
This.
FWIW: Locally, a guy who owns a high-end automotive audio shop was (may still be) offering to replace the door locks and ignition with RFID technology, the RFID chip embedded in your hand. For all I know he only made the mod on the one car, his personal Audi (a TT, IIRC.)
(One of the stalwarts of the ARFCOM WA Hometown Forum worked there.)
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
I don't like my cars with electronic throttles or steering.
I think the JSF and Raptor are going to be dismal failures in any kind of conflict with an opponent with a minimal amount of electronic capabilities (jamming) and believe the F-15E was the best we've ever made.
What makes anyone think I'd want electronics in my defensive arms that could, for all we know, go kittens up when you walk too close to a magnet?
"I'll pass" isn't a strong enough reply.
Another "oh hellz no" here.
I don't care if it works, and it works well. I want a gun that anyone can pick up and fire. Including my wife, kids, neighbors, whoever. I want want to be able to buy, sell, and trade guns freely, without needing some sort of re-programming. I don't want an RFID chip in, on, or around me that does anything more intrusive than rat me out for stealing a CD at best buy.
This is a good example of gun control being about the control while masquerading about being about the gun. The more layers of bullspit you can build into the freedom, the less of a freedom it is. Layers of technology become layers of bureaucracy pretty quickly once they're commonplace.
--Josh
“Formerly we suffered from crimes; now we suffer from laws.” - Tacitus.
The rhetoric about safety is a misdirection from the real purpose of the gun. Here is footage of an Armatix representative speaking in front of the UN of all places. About midway through, she discusses the use of the technology to enforce no-gun zones in sensitive places like hospitals.
If the gun can be disabled by a wristwatch close by, then it can be disabled by a more powerful version of that gadget from farther away. I guarantee there are Armatix presentations sitting on the desks at the NYPD and other government entities right now setting up demand for remote kill switch equipment.
No thanks.
And here's a scenario from that awful parallel universe: Thirty seconds after that technology became common, there would be hacked files on the internet to disable the "kill switch" feature on guns. And Johnny Trenchcoat would bust up into an RFID Victim Disarmament Zone and start busting caps into people, including Joe Goodguy, who decided to carry into a non-permissive environment only to find out his gun didn't work when he needed it most.
Reply With Quote