Has This Teen Created The World's Safest Gun?

[mikemyers]

.....the display case in my uncle's office containing a slide rule and an abacus with lettering on the front that said "In case of power failure break glass."

Absolutely - were someone to go sailing out into the ocean, a GPS and all the related electronics might be worthless should something go wrong - in which case a good old "sextant" (and knowing how to use it) might be far more useful.

I tried, but never did learn how to use an abacus. On the other hand, I had to know how to use a slide rule while growing up, along with all those tables for calculating trigonometric values.

.........and an $8,000 Nikon D4s camera outfit is useless if you can't charge the batteries.

............and when/if the world goes haywire, and there is no electricity available, people might wish they still had one of those old tube ham radio sets, and a supply of batteries.


Still, if I had a family, with kids, and I was concerned about safety, I would want to own a gun, and the Armatix seems like a step in the right direction, all things considered. (But it would likely be in addition to an old style gun that would be locked somewhere, somehow.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Absolutely - were someone to go sailing out into the ocean, a GPS and all the related electronics might be worthless should something go wrong - in which case a good old "sextant" (and knowing how to use it) might be far more useful.

I tried, but never did learn how to use an abacus. On the other hand, I had to know how to use a slide rule while growing up, along with all those tables for calculating trigonometric values.

.........and an $8,000 Nikon D4s camera outfit is useless if you can't charge the batteries.

............and when/if the world goes haywire, and there is no electricity available, people might wish they still had one of those old tube ham radio sets, and a supply of batteries.


Still, if I had a family, with kids, and I was concerned about safety, I would want to own a gun, and the Armatix seems like a step in the right direction, all things considered. (But it would likely be in addition to an old style gun that would be locked somewhere, somehow.

I do have children a ten year old and a six year old. (yes I started young, deal with it.) We also have guns in the house. My kids live on a livestock and grain farm which is full of dangerous objects. There is no way this place can be made safe for them. That's just a fact of life. Their all purpose safety device is a stay at home parent with a highly developed set of "Mommy ears." While many will say that's not enough, the majority of them aren't even parents much less in my situation. And quite frankly, it's my impression of the character of those people that they are more of a threat my kids well-being and future than the firearms in the house. A concern parent with an honest evaluation of her child's behaviors and reliability is a far better safety device than all the trigger locks and electronics ever dreamed up.

 

[mikemyers]

......that they are more of a threat my kids well-being and future than the firearms in the house........

This would be an infinitely better country in so many ways, if everything you wrote was typical of homes in the USA..... but unfortunately, the part that I quoted is probably true in far too many ways. Ideally we'd be teaching our kids about firearms, and how to behave, and so many other things, so they would be productive citizens of the USA. (I quit watching the TV show 'Cops' because what they show isn't the kind of country I want to live in...) Sorry for interrupting things here, but you deserve congratulations, and it would be wonderful if the rest of the country was more like you.

 

[Officers'Wife]

This would be an infinitely better country in so many ways, if everything you wrote was typical of homes in the USA..... but unfortunately, the part that I quoted is probably true in far too many ways. Ideally we'd be teaching our kids about firearms, and how to behave, and so many other things, so they would be productive citizens of the USA. (I quit watching the TV show 'Cops' because what they show isn't the kind of country I want to live in...) Sorry for interrupting things here, but you deserve congratulations, and it would be wonderful if the rest of the country was more like you.

If you will pardon me for getting on my soapbox, with our situation it's more cost effective for me to work on farm due to the paperwork involved in agribusiness requires someone full time for it. When the tax bite is such a large percentage of the working class income that both parents must work it's the children that suffer. When the safety net(s) make it more profitable for a woman to raise children sans father it's the children that suffer. Every dime taken out of a paycheck spent on social programs rather than the legitimate concerns of government it is payment for the misery of the next generation!

(My name is Selena and I am a ranter.)

 

[mikemyers]

Selena, the OP summarized the original video as follows: ""People aren't intentionally hurting children with firearms. It's almost entirely accidental." Poppycock, else required trigger locks and safes would have already solved the problem he is trying to solve (where they are required) using an extremely complicated and expensive approach."


Sometimes children get hurt by firearms intentionally used to cause harm.
Sometimes children get hurt as a by product of a gun being available.

If the second scenario is correct, that justifies what the OP said was incorrect - what the video seemed to be about. For THOSE incidents, a safe-gun certainly might be useful.

If the first scenario is correct, the authorities ought to enforce the existing laws more strongly. (Sending criminals to Devil's Island seems appropriate to me....)



As to the reference about "trigger locks and safes", those are what I would call "passive" systems - if the person with the gun doesn't USE them properly, incidents can occur. On the other hand, a "safe-gun" as these people are trying to develop, is what I would call an "active system", as it's always "on". No fingerprint, or no watch, or no _____ and the gun won't fire.


Texas seems to be about to legalize "open carry". That could be a very good thing, provided that they lock up the offenders as often as possible, for as long as possible. If all Texans went around armed, probably kids would be taught gun safety in school, but even so, parents would probably be required to have an effective way to lock up their guns.


So, my question to you is, should any of this be a "concern" to the government?

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

Another thing about "smart guns" with electronics that can, um, malfunction or not function due to various issues that accompany all things electronic/digital with micro chips/software/etc. is that it's probably very possible to electronically shut the pistol down.

That is, a jamming software of some kind can be introduced and then used against anyone with a smart gun. So (for example, sometime in the not-too-distant future), if big brother comes knocking at your door in the middle of the night, in order to escort you to the nearest re-education camp, and big brother knows you have a "smart gun" and that you may use it to defend yourself, then big brother may throw up a jamming signal that scrambles the brains on your nice little smart gun, rendering it useless.

 

[digsigs226]

That is, a jamming software of some kind can be introduced and then used against anyone with a smart gun. So (for example, sometime in the not-too-distant future), if big brother comes knocking at your door in the middle of the night, in order to escort you to the nearest re-education camp, and big brother knows you have a "smart gun" and that you may use it to defend yourself, then big brother may throw up a jamming signal that scrambles the brains on your nice little smart gun, rendering it useless.

This. Like I mentioned in my previous post, this is a particular concern of mine for designs that use a radio signal between the watch and the gun (like the armatix).

 

[SwaneeSR]

No, this young man has not created the worlds safest gun.

Besides, criminal elements and those disturbed individuals will find a method around this "safety barrier" while the law-abiding citizen pays an extra $200 for a semi-automatic handgun.

I suppose all the firearms that can not be retrofitted need to be collected and destroyed to make the general public safe?

 

[Thermactor]

"Has this teen created the world's safest gun?"
No, that jackass is one of many who is out to destroy our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Officers'Wife]

So, my question to you is, should any of this be a "concern" to the government?

I only allow myself one rant a month so I won't give this the full treatment it deserves.

What is a "concern" to the gov does not translate to the gov having the power to correct. That is the essence of a limited government we are supposed to be supporting.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

"That's a problem that I set out to solve." "What if I could do something about the problem of mass shootings?"

Good luck with that. This technology would have done ZERO good against all the mass shootings that have happened. Therefore this is a faulty premise and an equally faulty solution.

If the gun is stolen and it doesn't work, then the bad guy ain't gonna use it in a mass shooting. If the gun is his, or his family's, it ain't gonna stop him because he's already got his prints programmed. Plenty of shooters use shooting gloves, so this would have to be able to be disabled if he expects such shooters to buy these guns. If it can be programmed, it can be hacked to disable or reprogram.


Also, let's see him on the line where his life depends on this technology and see how well it holds up under real life stresses. I don't mean in choreographed demonstration shootings, I mean in realistic shooting scenarios where people who've actually trained for, and perhaps been in, realistic shootings. Be interesting to know, for example, what the delay time is between finger-on-the-sensor to pattern-recognition to releasing-the-gun-for-use. Seconds, even split seconds, matter and a delay time between gripping the gun and being able to shoot it is critical.

Accidental deaths? I'm very dubious on this.

 

[mikemyers]

"That's a problem that I set out to solve." "What if I could do something about the problem of mass shootings?".........Therefore this is a faulty premise and an equally faulty solution.........

First of all, why the negative thoughts about the fellow, because of the video someone else created? Second of all, perhaps he did start with that premise, but if the video is reasonably accurate, changed his objective towards accidental shooting of kids?


Most things in life are not perfect, not even the electronics that fly the plane you're on, while the pilot sits back and watches. Anything can fail, including mechanical parts on existing guns. Seems to me that these companies should go ahead and offer their guns for sale to those people who would find them useful, in addition (not instead of) the non electronic weapons.

That New Jersey has a stupid law is a different topic - fix the law, not ban the guns. Death threats against the people who wanted to provide electronic guns???? Totally stupid. Because one person may be paranoid about the future, that doesn't deprive other people who feel differently, from being able to buy what they want.

Or, simply put, if one person should be able to buy an "assault weapon", another person should have the same right to buy a "safe weapon".

 

[JustinJ]

But his flawed logic is, all the millions of guns already out there are just not going to magically go away overnight if his invention does become reality.

And your flawed logic is that if something is not 100% effective out of the gate it has no merit. That's like saying that we should never have bothered with incorporating airbags into cars because upon introduction millions of cars will still be on the road without them. Obviously this device would almost certainly never be present in all guns present in public's hands. So what? If something is not totally effective then its of no use? Thats an "all or nothing" fallacy.

Gun owners who want the added safety of an internal electronic interlock should not be prevented from having it by a bunch of paranoid gun owners who shout down every new potential safety technology before it has the chance to even be developed. Enough with the technophobia. The arguments here are the exact same ones that were levied against semi-auto handguns, in addition to countless other technological advances in the gun industry such as red dot optics.

Electronics with extremely high rates of reliability have been successfully incorporated into environments far more hostile than a gun handle. If electronics can guide missiles and control jet engines i'm sure technology has made it far enough to put a solenoid in a gun safety.

 

[Officers'Wife]

And your flawed logic is that if something is not 100% effective out of the gate it has no merit. That's like saying that we should never have bothered with incorporating airbags into cars because upon introduction millions of cars will still be on the road without them. Obviously this device would almost certainly never be present in all guns present in public's hands. So what? If something is not totally effective then its of no use? Thats an "all or nothing" fallacy.

Gun owners who want the added safety of an internal electronic interlock should not be prevented from having it by a bunch of paranoid gun owners who shout down every new potential safety technology before it has the chance to even be developed. Enough with the technophobia. The arguments here are the exact same ones that were levied against semi-auto handguns, in addition to countless other technological advances in the gun industry such as red dot optics.

Electronics with extremely high rates of reliability have been successfully incorporated into environments far more hostile than a gun handle. If electronics can guide missiles and control jet engines i'm sure technology has made it far enough to put a solenoid in a gun safety.

In that case, develop it, find backers and put it on the market. If it is truly an innovation it will succeed. If it is not it will fall by the wayside of a couple million other good ideas that just didn't fill a societal need. Creating an artificial market by government fiat? Look at alcohol, wind energy and electric cars, products so far in the deep end of red ink they have to be kept afloat by by government funds collected at the point of a gun. There's a technical term for that situation, and it's not progress.

 

[JustinJ]

In that case, develop it, find backers and put it on the market. If it is truly an innovation it will succeed. If it is not it will fall by the wayside of a couple million other good ideas that just didn't fill a societal need. Creating an artificial market by government fiat? Look at alcohol, wind energy and electric cars, products so far in the deep end of red ink they have to be kept afloat by by government funds collected at the point of a gun. There's a technical term for that situation, and it's not progress.

Maybe you missed the part in which i said Gun owners who want the added safety of an internal electronic interlock should not be prevented from having it by a bunch of paranoid gun owners who shout down every new potential safety technology before it has the chance to even be developed. How that relates to your right wing economic rant i don't know.

 

[JustinJ]

Allow me to clarify the point. The gun community, led largely by the NRA, has undercut these types of new gun safety technologies by whipping up paranoia about federal mandates to require such in firearms and unreliability, before the products are ever even adequately tested. There is a market backlash based on misinformation, like in this thread, before these technologies ever have the chance to be refined. If the innovations fail because they are unwanted or ineffective, great, but they should have the chance to do so on their own merits, or the lack thereof.

 

[mikemyers]

That's what I tried to say, but not as well as JustinJ's explanation. Leave it up to "the market" to decide what people want, and are prepared to spend. This should have very little to do with "the government". Separate issues.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Maybe you missed the part in which i said Gun owners who want the added safety of an internal electronic interlock should not be prevented from having it by a bunch of paranoid gun owners who shout down every new potential safety technology before it has the chance to even be developed. How that relates to your right wing economic rant i don't know.

Right wing? Hardly, I believe in the market. If there are ppl out there that want the tech, jump right in. Find the capital and develop the product. History is full of examples of products that received negative publicity before they were marketed, Fulton's steamboat and Westinghouse's AC current jump to mind. Prove it dependable and innovative and the people will buy it. Just don't ask me to pay for it before it's proven. If I want to gamble I'll buy more cattle.

 

[Sav .250]

"poppycock" ................

 

[M-Cameron]

Maybe you missed the part in which i said Gun owners who want the added safety of an internal electronic interlock should not be prevented from having it by a bunch of paranoid gun owners who shout down every new potential safety technology before it has the chance to even be developed. How that relates to your right wing economic rant i don't know.

do you ever think of why we go out of our way to shut down bad ideas like this?

its because once it becomes a "thing"...some dingbat politician thinks its going to solve all our problems, and lobbies to have it passed into law.....thats how we ended up with things like LCIs, mag disconnects, 10lb trigger pulls, internal lock safties, microstamping, ect.

its not paranoia, its covering your ass from the morons we elect to office.

 

[mikemyers]

M-Cameron..... so, you're wanting to prevent other people from doing what they want, so that you won't be prevented from doing what you want?

It's a valid concern, so maybe it's better for people to improve the politics, as well as the products.

In the meantime, were I to want one, why is it OK to prevent me from buying a "safe-weapon", while it's not OK to prevent others from buying an "assault weapon"?

(Use whatever terms you prefer, rather than "safe" and "assault".)

 

[JustinJ]

Right wing? Hardly, I believe in the market. If there are ppl out there that want the tech, jump right in. Find the capital and develop the product. History is full of examples of products that received negative publicity before they were marketed, Fulton's steamboat and Westinghouse's AC current jump to mind. Prove it dependable and innovative and the people will buy it. Just don't ask me to pay for it before it's proven. If I want to gamble I'll buy more cattle.

Countless highly successful and now common place products and technologies were developed through government/private collaboration and investment although, again, this has nothing to do with what i'm saying. The AC vs DC fight was about installing an infrastructure where nothing at the time existing. Hardly the same thing.

Internal electronic safety devices may some day be readily available, i hope so. In the meantime, new ideas and innovations are getting shouted down before they even have the chance to present themselves. That, again, is what i am speaking out against.

its because once it becomes a "thing"...some dingbat politician thinks its going to solve all our problems, and lobbies to have it passed into law.....thats how we ended up with things like LCIs, mag disconnects, 10lb trigger pulls, internal lock safties, microstamping, ect.

So what you're saying is that you oppose the technology not on the merits of the idea but on fear that a law might in the future get passed which requires said technology?

 

[M-Cameron]

So what you're saying is that you oppose the technology not on the merits of the idea but on fear that a law might in the future get passed which requires said technology?

that....and the fact that it is genuinely a bad idea and a liability and a danger to those who use it.

there is little to no benefit in a technology such as this, it does not aid in the function and safety of the firearm, and only serves to further hamstring gun owners with useless "safety features".

this isnt a situation of someone griping that a typewriter is better than a computer......

 

[Officers'Wife]

Countless highly successful and now common place products and technologies were developed through government/private collaboration and investment although, again, this has nothing to do with what i'm saying. The AC vs DC fight was about installing an infrastructure where nothing at the time existing. Hardly the same thing.

Internal electronic safety devices may some day be readily available, i hope so. In the meantime, new ideas and innovations are getting shouted down before they even have the chance to present themselves. That, again, is what i am speaking out against.



So what you're saying is that you oppose the technology not on the merits of the idea but on fear that a law might in the future get passed which requires said technology?

And I'm saying that complaining an idea isn't gaining traction because of mythical resistance from a lobbing group is the sign of a loser. Every idea has those that resist it. At one time doctors lobbied against the railroads because traveling at speeds in excess of 30 miles an hour would cause nosebleeds and brain tumors. If you are so sure of the technology, stop acting like a tanga and put your money down.

As for gov/industry shangri la, I am in agribusiness, one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. The gov is a distraction and expense to industry, an expense that more than half the time is unnecessary and in most cases detrimental. I was also a foster child in the city of Chicago for two years, don't try to tell me the gov has the citizens' best interests at heart. I can only assume if you are that sira ang bait on one subject you cannot be a dependable advocate on another.

There are legitimate questions on this technology and a number of claims. The main is that this tech renders a weapon child safe. I have a 6 year old that managed to slip away from his father and get a D4 Cat bulldozer started. If you aren't familiar to start that machine one first starts a pony motor then use the gearing to start the engine. I have seen grown men frustrated by that machine. It took LR about 5 minutes. I won't even mention the standing joke of the parents that need their child to open child proof medicine packages. How does this tech get past the "ooops" factor? How easy is the tech to by-pass?

Why not answer questions face to face rather than to attempt to talk down to people? It's rather hard to judge on merit when the only merits are those the design is willing to give.

 

[Garrobo]

Like the computerized

automobile engine, it's just something that will inevitably mess up but could cost you your life. I'll stick with the 1890 versions.