IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

15 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> RL gun copying Shadowrun: individualized safety., Or "$10,000 gun won't shoot when unless near an ugly watc
Critias
post Jan 29 2010, 09:45 PM
Post #1


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



THE LINK SAYS:

QUOTE
The watch this guy's wearing was made by Armatix, the same company who designed his high-tech gun. Poor fellow can't ditch the ugly accessory though, because the $10,000 weapon won't fire without it.

Basically the gun is disarmed and a red LED lights up unless the corresponding watch is close enough to send a wireless signal. While I really don't see a high demand for it, Armatix's .22cal weapon will be shipping next month for 7,000 euro, which is just under 10k in Washingtons. The watch is probably included.


We're getting another step closer to personalized safeties, guns only firing when the Ares security guy (with the chip in his head) is using it, etc, etc. Piss-poor ugly stuff in the photos on the link, of course, but the concept is kind of cool.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Summerstorm
post Jan 29 2010, 10:07 PM
Post #2


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,000
Joined: 30-May 09
From: Germany
Member No.: 17,225



Bwahahaha... 10.000? For ten grand it better shoots either lasers or pure stable awesome. But really. That thing is worthless. And how much range would it have? Could you shoot it with left, if the watch is on the right arm? Could a mugger or such disarm you and just shoot you, while being just close to you?

But really 10.000 Bucks? Maybe i should built something like this... profit margin of what, 9.500 if i buy the the watch and the gun and cram them into a bit more plastic and have a cheap bluetoothsignal and some 4 cent- LED?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Method
post Jan 30 2010, 12:11 AM
Post #3


Street Doc
*******

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,508
Joined: 2-March 04
From: Neverwhere
Member No.: 6,114



And chambered in .22? Could they make it any less worth $10k?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stry
post Jan 30 2010, 12:26 AM
Post #4


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 5-January 10
Member No.: 18,013



Old news SW was working on this 10 years ago. I first heard about on the History channel TV show Tales of the Gun.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daylen
post Jan 30 2010, 02:53 AM
Post #5


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,424
Joined: 7-December 09
From: Freedonia
Member No.: 17,952



sorry I like my firearms reliable and not with electronics or sensative chips in them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Jan 30 2010, 03:13 AM
Post #6


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,543
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



For real? $9,600 to install an RFID chip reader in a gun?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daylen
post Jan 30 2010, 03:22 AM
Post #7


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,424
Joined: 7-December 09
From: Freedonia
Member No.: 17,952



dont forget the parts to interface the reader with the fireing mechanism. and a lobotomy for wanting something so stupid in the first place.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stry
post Jan 30 2010, 04:05 AM
Post #8


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 5-January 10
Member No.: 18,013



Its not a bad idea for police.

It varies from year to year, but in a given year the number of police officers fatally wounded by their own guns makes up a sizable number of all officers killed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rystefn
post Jan 30 2010, 04:15 AM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 427
Joined: 22-January 10
From: Seattle
Member No.: 18,067



QUOTE (Stry @ Jan 30 2010, 04:05 AM) *
Its not a bad idea for police.

It varies from year to year, but in a given year the number of police officers fatally wounded by their own guns makes up a sizable number of all officers killed.


Mostly shot from very close range, though... What's the range on that RFID thing? It might work to keep your kids from shooting each other while you're at work, but only if you bring the watch with you, which I highly doubt... and only then if your kids don't know how to bypass computer gizmos, which they're likely better at than you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jan 30 2010, 05:13 AM
Post #10


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



QUOTE (Stry @ Jan 29 2010, 11:05 PM) *
Its not a bad idea for police.

It varies from year to year, but in a given year the number of police officers fatally wounded by their own guns makes up a sizable number of all officers killed.

Until you factor in (a) the range at which most of those officers are killed, as was already mentioned, and (b)...until you ask an experienced cop just how many times he's lost a watch in a scuffle. The last thing an officer needs is for his fancy gizmo (ugly) watch to go flying, and then be standing there with a worthless paperweight in a gunfight.

I just think it was a pretty interesting article, with some pretty butt-ugly pieces of hardware in it. It's also interesting that it's a watch, which most people wear on their off-hand wrist, which also brings up range issues on the RFID thing. Can you have the watch on your left wrist and shoot right handed? What about getting used to having the watch on the "correct" wrist, and then getting hurt and needing to shoot off-hand?

I think it's just an idea that'll have to get refined through miniaturization...and cybernetic implantation, eventually. And, for Pete's sake, it'll have to be more than a .22. Seriously.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryu
post Jan 30 2010, 11:37 AM
Post #11


Awakened Asset
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,464
Joined: 9-April 05
From: AGS, North German League
Member No.: 7,309



Armatix Homepage

Might be more useful for the European markets, where the police officer is usually the only one to carry a gun in the first place. Also, the concept would work for any type of weapon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sengir
post Jan 30 2010, 01:06 PM
Post #12


Dragon
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,986
Joined: 3-October 09
From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier
Member No.: 17,709



Might be interesting for Tasers, which already have an electronic firing mechanism....but electronic safetys on normal pistols?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karoline
post Jan 30 2010, 02:27 PM
Post #13


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,679
Joined: 19-September 09
Member No.: 17,652



QUOTE (Stry @ Jan 29 2010, 07:26 PM) *
Old news SW was working on this 10 years ago. I first heard about on the History channel TV show Tales of the Gun.


That's what I was thinking as I read this "Didn't I see a history channel special on something like this a few years ago?"

The thing is: yes, this thing sucks big time, but it is a step towards great things.

Price will go down as it becomes more common, but what you really want is to have RFID chips implanted in your hand(s), and have the gun only operate if it is within about 5 inches of a chip. That way the only way someone could steal it from you and use it on you is if your hand is still on the gun, and that way you can't lose it in a scuffle unless they cut a big chunk out of the palm of your hand.

Imagine if -all- guns had a system like this, and that the RFID chip could be shut down from some central government place. Dude goes crazy and starts trying to shoot up his office? Shut down the chip and all he has is a paperweight. Someone steals your guns? Well, they're basically worthless without the chip.

Now, I know it would be possible to bypass a system like this, but it could be made difficult. Might be a little 'big brother'y but it could save alot of lives from: people shot by their own guns when being robbed, disgruntled employees trying to take out their office mates, children finding the gun and playing with it, and might also go a long way in reducing illegal gun ownership due to the difficulty of having to strip out the extra parts for the RFID scanner.

Doubt this will happen though, as it would cost a fortune, and there are still millions of guns out there that wouldn't have this system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Jan 30 2010, 03:15 PM
Post #14


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,543
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



QUOTE (Karoline @ Jan 30 2010, 09:27 AM) *
Imagine if -all- guns had a system like this, and that the RFID chip could be shut down from some central government place. Dude goes crazy and starts trying to shoot up his office? Shut down the chip and all he has is a paperweight. Someone steals your guns? Well, they're basically worthless without the chip.


1) RFID doesn't work like this.
2) You're suggesting that, in the case of an attack, the police circle in, identify the perp, look up his firearm records, get the necessary paperwork and shut down the firearms, all within half an hour? (And if it takes more than half an hour, it's not likely to be much use.)
3) Of course, this also sort of violates the intention of the second amendment. Not a concern if you aren't in an enlightened nation that recognizes the right of self-defense against an oppressive government, but for the rest of us...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karoline
post Jan 30 2010, 03:29 PM
Post #15


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,679
Joined: 19-September 09
Member No.: 17,652



QUOTE (nezumi @ Jan 30 2010, 10:15 AM) *
1) RFID doesn't work like this.
2) You're suggesting that, in the case of an attack, the police circle in, identify the perp, look up his firearm records, get the necessary paperwork and shut down the firearms, all within half an hour? (And if it takes more than half an hour, it's not likely to be much use.)
3) Of course, this also sort of violates the intention of the second amendment. Not a concern if you aren't in an enlightened nation that recognizes the right of self-defense against an oppressive government, but for the rest of us...


1) Okay, maybe it isn't the RFID that gets shut down, but I'm sure you could shut the gun down somehow.
2) Thirty minutes? "Oh god, joe from accounting has gone crazy" "Yeah, we need Joe's gun shut down" "Okay, done." Sure, it won't always be this easy, but I'm guessing there isn't going to be a single sheet of paperwork needed to get the gun shut down. Afterwards there may need to be a pile of it, but not before. Kind of like a cop doesn't have to file any paperwork to fire his gun, but he'll have to do a stack of it when he gets back to the office.
3) Not really. It doesn't violate the second amendment any more than gun control laws do. I'm sure NRA members everywhere will disagree, but the fact is that it isn't any different than denying sale of a gun to particular people, or the fact that you have to wait X number of days before purchasing a gun.
Edit: P.S. I like how you equate a lack of gun control to an enlightened nation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daylen
post Jan 30 2010, 04:12 PM
Post #16


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,424
Joined: 7-December 09
From: Freedonia
Member No.: 17,952



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

definitions during the relavent time period:

Militia - every ablebodied man, its defined in detail in the militia act of 1792. but it basically means every free man.

notice it says free State, before independance it was not a free State and england was big on gun control in the colonies. also the founders were kinda big on the govt and state being of the people and by the people.

Its in the bill of rights which is the limits on what the federal govt can do. How else can shall not be infringed be interpreted? gun control by the feds is going to infringe in some way on that right.

Why is it bad to infringe on that right? after the civil war the south tried to stop blacks from arming themselfs so they would be helpless. The National Socialist parties (Nazi parties) in europe sure liked to limit who could have firearms and what kind and all that progressive stuff, then they started genocide. Same in Russia. Perhaps if you doubt the importance of an individual right to firearms uninfringed you should try reading more history and getting direct accounts that have not been watered down to take away how things really got so bad.

If colonial gun control would have been successful there would be no United States of America, just repressed people around the globe. Also remember the american revolution inspired the french to revolt against thier oppressive regime, which scared the crap out of royals throughout europe and could be argued to have lead to less oppression.

On the gun in question, would police officers want to buy it out of thier own pocket? I know I dont want to pay more taxes for that kinda stuff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daylen
post Jan 30 2010, 04:22 PM
Post #17


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,424
Joined: 7-December 09
From: Freedonia
Member No.: 17,952



And when America was founded it was the most enlightened nation of the time and maybe ever. That whole democracy thing.

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. " Stalin
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."
Stalin

Perhaps you think Stalin's Russia which murdered more jews than Hitler's Germany is enlightened?

individual freedom is enlightened. Oppression and control by a govt go hand in hand and is the norm of human history.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karoline
post Jan 30 2010, 04:44 PM
Post #18


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,679
Joined: 19-September 09
Member No.: 17,652



You're quite obviously ignoring the fact that gun control exists in the US as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Jan 30 2010, 05:23 PM
Post #19


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!



Okay, on topic, I think that in practice a safety scheme like this even in the scheme of a European nation would probably just interfere with officer readiness. I read in a Vietnam War memoir how at one time there was an accident with a grenade where one person's loose grenade killed a truckload of soldiers (or was it Marines?) so the military admin in a particular area put safeties on grenades that made them unable to explode. But one day the North Vietnamese did a surprise attack on the camp where the author was and he couldn't throw any grenades because he couldn't get the safety device off. I think he managed to scare a couple enemies by throwing non-detonating grenades at them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jan 30 2010, 05:26 PM
Post #20


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



This early in development, WR's right -- it's just one more thing that can go wrong and disarm someone when they need their weapon most.

And, really? Yes, having some central government figure that can turn off any gun it doesn't like does infringe on the Second. It's hard to bear arms if Uncle Sam can turn them off when he wants to. "Shall not be infringed."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sengir
post Jan 30 2010, 06:03 PM
Post #21


Dragon
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,986
Joined: 3-October 09
From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier
Member No.: 17,709



QUOTE (Daylen @ Jan 30 2010, 05:12 PM) *
The National Socialist parties (Nazi parties) in europe sure liked to limit who could have firearms and what kind and all that progressive stuff, then they started genocide.

The Nazis instituted the most liberal gun laws Germany ever had since 1871. Longarms and ammo were avaiable over the counter for everybody over 18, handguns just required a trip to the city hall. Still nobody shot Hitler, neither did huge insurgent armies push back the Allies.


But still, the idea of a remote killswitch for anything sounds extremely impractical to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karoline
post Jan 30 2010, 06:04 PM
Post #22


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,679
Joined: 19-September 09
Member No.: 17,652



QUOTE (Critias @ Jan 30 2010, 12:26 PM) *
"Shall not be infringed."


QUOTE
* Federal Gun Control

The first major gun control initiative was enacted by Congress in 1934 which regulated the sale of fully automatic firearms like machine guns. This legislation was followed in 1938 by a new federal law which required gun sellers to be licensed and which prohibited persons convicted of violent felonies from purchasing guns. No further legislation was passed by Congress until 1968. The Gun Control Act of 1968 regulated imported guns, expanded gun-dealer licensing requirements, and expanded the list of persons not eligible to purchase guns to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, minors, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs. In 1986, federal legislation established mandatory penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a federal crime. Also prohibited were "cop killer" bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing. In 1990, legislation was passed which banned the manufacturing and importation of semi-automatic assault weapons.

In 1994, Congress passed what has been regarded as the most comprehensive effort at national gun control. The "Brady Bill" named for the press aide who was seriously injured in the assassination attempt on President Reagan imposed a five day waiting period for purchasers of handguns and required local law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks of all purchasers. The Supreme Court held that the background check provision was unconstitutional because it infringed on state's rights. Presently, the law has been revised so that the background check is instantly accomplished by gun dealers through a national computer system and there is no longer a waiting period. Also in 1994, Congress passed a ban on certain types of assault weapons. This ban expired in 2004. By a narrow margin , the Senate voted to extend the ban but the House did not take action and the ban was allowed to expire. Efforts to revive the ban have been unsuccessful.

* State and local gun control

Guns are additionally regulated by state and local legislation and there is little uniformity among the states. (Click to see map) The major regulatory issues are:
o Child Access Prevention laws

Many states have passed legislation making it a crime to leave a loaded weapon within easy access of a minor.

o Concealed weapon laws

About seven states prohibit concealed weapons. Many others require an individual to show a need prior to obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. In over half the states, all non-felons are able to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons. Only one state, Vermont, has no licensing or permit requirement.

o Regulation of private sales to minors

Under federal law, minors under 18 are prohibited from possessing guns and minor under 21 are prohibited from purchasing guns from dealers. However, unless regulated by state law, minors 18 and over are able to freely purchase weapons through private sales. Currently 21 states either prohibit or substantially regulate this secondary market for minors.

o Regulating all secondary market sales

Over twenty states regulate all secondary sales through registration or licensing requirements. In the states that have no such regulation, the secondary market allows minors and criminals to easily obtain weapons. This is the so-called "gun show" loophole.

o Ban on "assault" weapons

In 1989, California was the first state to ban certain types of automatic weapons. More extensive bans have been enacted in New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut and Maryland.

o "One handgun a month" laws

Many purchasers (felons and minors) have circumvented federal law by purchasing firearms from individuals who have legally made bulk purchases of handguns. Four states (South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and California) have laws that limit legal purchases of handguns to one a month per buyer.

o Ban on "Saturday Night Specials" and other "junk guns"

These are small, easily concealed lightweight guns which are unreliable but have appeal to criminals because of their portability. A minority of states have laws which regulate the purchase and use of these weapons. Additionally, local laws in a number of cities outlaw the possession of these weapons.

o Preemption

The majority of states have laws which prohibit local authorities from passing local gun control ordinances. These "preemption" laws have been supported by the opponents of gun control. Officials in cities which are able to pass such ordinances, such as New York, credit their existence to a dramatic reduction in violent crime.

o Waiting periods

Although background checks are no longer necessary under federal law, about half the states still use state data in addition to federal data to conduct background checks prior to issuing a handgun permit. Eleven of these states impose waiting periods as well.


Wow, that's quite a few laws that infringe on a person's ability to own a gun.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daylen
post Jan 30 2010, 06:22 PM
Post #23


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,424
Joined: 7-December 09
From: Freedonia
Member No.: 17,952



In germany Jews were not allowed to have firearms. Thats a big infringement.

I agree Karoline. In the last century progressives took over the law schools that produced judges and lawyers. They got into govt positions and started making catastrphies so they could limit individual freedoms on the premis that they knew better. The single worst attack on the constitution was probably when they stopped teaching in law schools that the constitution should be interpreted as the founders did. Instead they started this nonsense of precedence, which allowed gradual misinterpretations to become huge over time. There is supposed to be one way to change the constitution, Ammendments, not a change of how its interpreted or through federal code changes. Trick is it takes 2/3 or 3/4 majority to do so, I forget which one. Course thats alot harder to do than just getting 51% of the vote now and then to appoint a new judge.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daylen
post Jan 30 2010, 06:29 PM
Post #24


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,424
Joined: 7-December 09
From: Freedonia
Member No.: 17,952



oh and there is no "gun show loophole". That implies that at gun shows you can buy something without a nics (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) check. This is not true without breaking the law. If there was a gunshow loophole I would be happier though and not want it closed anyway. Unfortunetly every time I buy at a gun show they do a nics check as they are legally required to do:(
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Jan 30 2010, 06:42 PM
Post #25


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,543
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



QUOTE (Karoline @ Jan 30 2010, 01:04 PM) *
Wow, that's quite a few laws that infringe on a person's ability to own a gun.


Yes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

15 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th December 2019 - 02:14 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.