|
Magres posted:Cause getting disarmed in CQC is just impossible. Good point, maybe swat teams should run up in suspects' houses unarmed, then if the suspects are armed they can do a sweet wrist lock and use their own gun against them. Mormon Star Wars posted:Unless the device is electronic, in which case we have to make sure you can't buy them in the US, or else. Hey you can sell them, just don't expect me to like it. Allegations of death threats from random yokels remain unproven.
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey you can sell them, just don't expect me to like it. Allegations of death threats from random yokels remain unproven. Oh gently caress off.. Read the loving article, watch the loving video. This dude is about as pro-2A as you can get, don't pull the kind of poo poo that you claim anti-gun people loving do and say that it didn't loving happen. No one should be threatened with physical harm to themselves, their business, or their loving dog, because someone doesn't agree with a business decision. gently caress it then, allegations that the government is gonna take your guns remain unproven. You don't have to like that people are alleging this but you can let people who actually want to use guns responsibly put laws in place to keep themselves from looking like the, in your words, yokels that threatened a man's dog because he wanted to sell a gun in his store.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Robviously posted:Oh gently caress off..
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Good point, maybe swat teams should run up in suspects' houses unarmed, then if the suspects are armed they can do a sweet wrist lock and use their own gun against them. SWAT teams should be equipped with smart weapons. poo poo happens.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
SedanChair's magically mobile goalposts aside, is there a reasonable objection to smart guns that isn't grounded in paranoia?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
SodomyGoat101 posted:SedanChair's magically mobile goalposts aside, is there a reasonable objection to smart guns that isn't grounded in paranoia?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
quote:“You’re gonna get what’s coming to you (expletive).” What's coming to him is a drop in sales and transfer fees. That guy's obviously a little paranoid, understandable since he is betraying his customer base. Also he was clearly making up the stuff about threats to his girlfriend and dog in the video, he was speaking hypothetically because the real supposed threats weren't sexy enough. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 22:27 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Pretty much the only sane objection is the New Jersey thing. "The option to purchase smart guns will literally inevitably result in a legal change I consider unconstitutional" is considerably less flimsy than whining about how dare someone sell something morally equivalent to gun safes.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
SodomyGoat101 posted:SedanChair's magically mobile goalposts aside, is there a reasonable objection to smart guns that isn't grounded in paranoia? Do you mean legally mandating all weapons have them? If so this Supreme Court will say that violates the 2a. If you mean why someone wouldn't buy such a weapon if it was available it would probably come down to cost and not trusting the reliability of the electronics.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
SodomyGoat101 posted:SedanChair's magically mobile goalposts aside, is there a reasonable objection to smart guns that isn't grounded in paranoia? I'm still not sold on the technology, particularly in its ability to stand up to the long-term stress in handguns where there's less mass to mitigate recoil.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This is purely an attempt to make the technology available as a stalking horse for requiring it. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? How certain of you are this? Would you Toxx on it being required in one year? Five? Ten? Twenty?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What's coming to him is a drop in sales and transfer fees. That guy's obviously a little paranoid, understandable since he is betraying his customer base. Do you just like, not see this, or does this not count in this context?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What's coming to him is a drop in sales and transfer fees. That guy's obviously a little paranoid, understandable since he is betraying his customer base. Also he was clearly making up the stuff about threats to his girlfriend and dog in the video, he was speaking hypothetically because the real supposed threats weren't sexy enough. You forgot about the one right next to that quote, where some loving piece of goddamn slime threatened to burn his store down.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Pretty much the only sane objection is the New Jersey thing. "The option to purchase smart guns will literally inevitably result in a legal change I consider unconstitutional" is considerably less flimsy than whining about how dare someone sell something morally equivalent to gun safes. But you'd still be allowed, in New Jersey, to buy any of the million and a half or so (guesstimate based on the population of the state and rough amount of people who actually own guns) grandfathered guns in the state if you want to live in NJ and buy another gun, and you don't want a smart gun, at some point int he future.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? How certain of you are this? Would you Toxx on it being required in one year? Five? Ten? Twenty? Why would I bet on something happening that I'm actively working to prevent? Nessus posted:So on the one hand, you're saying that the guy calling him was just referring to his collapse in business, and on the other hand, you're saying he's a little paranoid, and in that same sentence you're saying he's "betraying" his customer base. We can't both be paranoid? But this guy is paranoid like your usual testosterone-poisoned prepper, not the healthy, civil libertarian paranoia I exhibit which is the lifeblood of political dissidence and makes me your savior, however much you spurn me.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:But you'd still be allowed, in New Jersey, to buy any of the million and a half or so (guesstimate based on the population of the state and rough amount of people who actually own guns) grandfathered guns in the state if you want to live in NJ and buy another gun, and you don't want a smart gun, at some point int he future. Seriously, good luck eradicating dumb guns without confiscating them which, as anyone who isn't a complete moron knows, will never, ever, ever happen.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:But you'd still be allowed, in New Jersey, to buy any of the million and a half or so (guesstimate based on the population of the state and rough amount of people who actually own guns) grandfathered guns in the state if you want to live in NJ and buy another gun, and you don't want a smart gun, at some point int he future. Guess I didn't read closely enough!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We can't both be paranoid? But this guy is paranoid like your usual testosterone-poisoned prepper, not the healthy, civil libertarian paranoia I exhibit which is the lifeblood of political dissidence and makes me your savior, however much you spurn me.  Pack it in folks, we broke him. Good trolling sedan, you did excellent work keeping it believable for a long while.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Guess I didn't read closely enough! Yeah the law's provisions are that all existing legally owned guns in the state would remain legal to own, sell, and trade indefinitely, and the requirement to only sell smart guns has to have a 3 year grace period, during which you could also buy all the regular guns you could otherwise buy. Any removal of the old guns from circulation would require a completely separate law.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We can't both be paranoid? But this guy is paranoid like your usual testosterone-poisoned prepper, not the healthy, civil libertarian paranoia I exhibit which is the lifeblood of political dissidence and makes me your savior, however much you spurn me. e: hahaha good joke on me if this was a piss-take all along; an excellent piece of performance
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Magres posted:
I was gonna say, thank you TobleroneT. You had a good run. Pong Daddy fucked around with this message at 22:46 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Any removal of the old guns from circulation would require a completely separate law. Hence the steady march of "police buy-backs" which encourage theft.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'm still not sold on the technology, particularly in its ability to stand up to the long-term stress in handguns where there's less mass to mitigate recoil. If it's RFID, I know that there's been testing done with RFID chips on M1 Abrams tanks to monitor cannon end-of-life maintenance. I wouldn't be too worried about the recoil of a handgun like the Armrtrix.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The firm hand of my mockery and dissidence from your one true dissidence is necessary to keep you in line. Ultimately, it's doing you a favor. Yeah I was completely taken in, but he flew too close to the sun. I can only imagine how hard he laughed when we had the giant derail about bush being a super genius
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why would I bet on something happening that I'm actively working to prevent? So no, you don't have any evidence to back up your assertion, and you don't feel confident betting that's the case?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hence the steady march of "police buy-backs" which encourage theft. Oh no the poor broken hunting rifles from 1932. Whatever shall we do without access to them?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Robviously posted:If it's RFID, I know that there's been testing done with RFID chips on M1 Abrams tanks to monitor cannon end-of-life maintenance. I wouldn't be too worried about the recoil of a handgun like the Armrtrix. Because military and consumer grade equipment is always the same.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
SodomyGoat101 posted:SedanChair's magically mobile goalposts aside, is there a reasonable objection to smart guns that isn't grounded in paranoia? They reduce reliability and accessibility in life-threatening situations (imminent bodily harm is the only time your gun is supposed to be out). More things have to happen between the time you realize you're about to get stabbed and the time you can defend yourself. The more complex the things that need to happen, the greater the impact. In something like a Magna-Trigger, you need to have your ring finger in the proper place to unblock the trigger. Electronic-based systems need electricity (on both the arming device and the pistol, which normally is a simple mechanical device and doesn't need electricity) and connectivity to the arming device (there's concern strong RF noise could jam the signals). Depending on the implementation they may need different types of ammunition (electronically-primed versus mechanically primed) that may be less reliable and are definitely more expensive. In fact all of this is rather expensive and reduces the ability of the poor to access the only legally-guaranteed method of self-defense in the US* (besides a knife I guess). Reducing poor people's access to firearms be a desirable outcome, depending on your position of course (eg anti-Saturday Night Special legislation). They've tried introducing smart guns to the law enforcement community in the past and they're just not reliable enough. In a vacuum cops would love a gun that couldn't be wrestled away from them, but in the real world there's a reason that a lot of cops shot revolvers, they're guaranteed to go "bang" when you pull the trigger and that's what matters when your life is on the line. * In the US there is no legal requirement for the police to protect you from even well-supported threats against your life, or even to respond to an incident in progress, and that is one of the key things that needs to change in order to effectively combat gun culture. There's got to be a sheriff in the town before the US can stop being the wild west. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:16 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:So no, you don't have any evidence to back up your assertion, and you don't feel confident betting that's the case? The evidence is that police have requested the technology, and police organizations work hand in hand with Bloomberg and others. It's not conclusive evidence and it doesn't need to be. It's good enough evidence to fight it tooth and nail. Robviously posted:If it's RFID, I know that there's been testing done with RFID chips on M1 Abrams tanks to monitor cannon end-of-life maintenance. I wouldn't be too worried about the recoil of a handgun like the Armrtrix. Is the cannon disabled if the RFID reader stops working?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
What about smart posting technology that restricts the bad posts, can we discuss this possibility? Without death threats?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Because military and consumer grade equipment is always the same. When it comes to guns they pretty much are.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Is this even true? Reading personal experiences from New York on 9/12/2001, they're more often expectably crushed but accept that this was chickens coming home to roost re: our big stick foreign policy, rather that angry and out for revenge. The contingent who wanted to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity aren't from New York. They're from places a terrorist wouldn't visit in a thousand years.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Oh no the poor broken hunting rifles from 1932. Whatever shall we do without access to them? Fall under the bootheel of tyranny.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The evidence is that police have requested the technology, and police organizations work hand in hand with Bloomberg and others. It's not conclusive evidence and it doesn't need to be. It's good enough evidence to fight it tooth and nail. So when you said this is purely a stalking horse what you meant to say is you are suspicious it's a stalking horse but you don't have evidence to demonstrate it beyond guilt by association which is good enough for you. Thank you for the clarification.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
We should be banning these guns because someone night get hurt.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:So when you said this is purely a stalking horse what you meant to say is you are suspicious it's a stalking horse but you don't have evidence to demonstrate it beyond guilt by association which is good enough for you. Thank you for the clarification. I hope you get some solace from this, because you're sure not going to get it from changes to gun laws.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:What about smart posting technology that restricts the bad posts, can we discuss this possibility? Without death threats?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I hope you get some solace from this, because you're sure not going to get it from changes to gun laws. Yeah because gun nuts refuse to allow good gun laws to happen. Thank god at least some states are able to tell the gun lobby to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Oh, they start with phasing out the shitposts, people are ok with that. But what happens when they come after the white noise posts? What then?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:Yeah because gun nuts refuse to allow good gun laws to happen. Thank god at least some states are able to tell the gun lobby to gently caress off. What's a good gun law fishmech.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:08
|
|