Patent filed for smart gun remote kill

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the comments, a German reader named Klaus passes on that it is already known that the "smart" trigger block can be disabled by holding the gun against a running orbital sander. The motor vibration shakes the trigger block out of position. :what:

I'll see your high-tech RF jamming device and raise you a low-tech workaround.
 
Last edited:
The important thing to note here, though, is that by filing the trigger block, one is modifying the weapon.

The reason gun control opponents want to see a smart gun on the market is so they can outlaw 'dumb' guns. That outlawing provision would doubtless make modifying a smart gun a felony.

Yes, only outlaws would have dumb guns. Just like only outlaws have illegal guns now.

But if there is a viable 'smart' gun, there is a legal rationale to mandate it- 'gun safety.' And there becomes a legal rationale, from a safety standpoint, to outlaw 'dumb' guns.

We need to be extremely vigilant in making sure that never happens, because if the debate is one between 'who could possibly be against anything that makes a firearm safer?' and 'the potential for the state to disable all civilian owned weapons in a coup or police action is greatly increased by this technology,' it's not a very good one for our side. The safety people look reasonable, and the civil libertarians look like paranoid wing nuts.

This is very dangerous territory for us.
 
A gun that can be disabled at the flick of a switch, push of a button, or tap on a screen is no gun at all. Of course, if you follow this to the logical conclusion, you'll have the government in control of the switch. It'll start with the government shutting off your gun at will, and progress to you having to file a request asking to schedule a time when the government will turn your gun on.

Woody
 
Last edited:
Absolutely right, CC. The estimation of the real world value of a firearm related item is whether or not the police and military wish to incorporate the thing into their own resources. In this case, that answer is a resounding NO.
 
The Link is Not Working

It takes me to this --


"Error 502
The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request.
Reload the page in 10 seconds, and it should be resolved."
Click to expand...

and has for some time now.

On edit: I went to the company website and found nothing there about the remote E-kill switch; I did find this, however, in a discussion of the kinds of things the company produces:

[quote]"Intelligent mechatronic systems for securing short and long barreled weapons, individually and collectively. What these systems all have in common is the authentication of the authorized user via PIN code, biometric pattern or transponder. The future is here!"[/quote]
 
Last edited:
I don't know. If it weren't for the legislative possibilities these things would be interesting. I predict that they'd be a market flop, and end up clearanced for $100-150. I'm sure there will be a hack for disabling the "smart" gun part of it. :evil: I'd take a cheap one and apply the hack.
 
"The important thing to note here, though, is that by filing the trigger block, one is modifying the weapon."
I thought the angle grinder reference was to the fact those motors are high-amperage and normally not well shielded; extremely loud and impractical signals jammers :D. Of course, it could be used more...tangibly, though :evil:

"Error 502
The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request.
Reload the page in 10 seconds, and it should be resolved."
Click to expand...
Gosh, that's ironic as hell. At least the remote disabler would likely be as buggy as anything else the .gov's tried to implement on a large scale.

But I could certainly see municipalities installing them in traffic signal broadcasters (very convenient place for controlling this stuff), which as we all know, are commonly interfaced by police to run through lights and block traffic remotely.

The real question, is why wouldn't a municipality disable all guns within an officer's proximity or that of a call he's responding to, all the time? They'd use the idiotic argument that it's for the officer's defense, or even to try and disable the attacker (and victim as well; oops :eek:). Anything to get home safe, am I right, LEO's? ;)

TCB
 
Maybe that's the way to kill this thing; ask City Hall what happens when they try a mass-deactivation and the network doing so goes down :eek:. That's a heck of a lot of liability they just took on, politically, morally, ethically, etc.

TCB
 
Maybe that's the way to kill this thing; ask City Hall what happens when they try a mass-deactivation and the network doing so goes down . That's a heck of a lot of liability they just took on, politically, morally, ethically, etc.
Click to expand...

In politics the most egregious crimes are excused by "good intentions". I doubt anyone would ever be punished for a "smart gun" failure no matter how predictable or negligent.

The Obama admin just dumped thousands of known criminals onto the streets and it barely warrants a murmur.

"Smart guns" are probably one of the most imminent threats to real self defense firearms. My PC laptop has a "finger print reader" the thing is barely OK for getting into a computer but it would be certain death of one of those pieces of junk was your only way to access a self defense weapon. Look for that kind of crap to be mandated on tasers and maybe even Mace if they mandate it for guns.
 
Politicians typically only do stupid things when the cost of doing so isn't made clear enough on the front end; they really are much like insects or other lower life forms that can't see past the blade of grass in front of them :D

TCB
 
We are going to see the old faithful go from " I swear I was just cleaning it and it went off" to " I swear I thought it was remotely disabled and it went off"
 
barnbwt said:
Politicians typically only do stupid things when the cost of doing so isn't made clear enough on the front end; they really are much like insects or other lower life forms that can't see past the blade of grass in front of them :D

TCB
Click to expand...
But in the case of most politicians, it isn't a blade of grass obstructing their view, its a corporate check with a lot of zeroes.
 
In my opinion, it is naive to believe that the smart gun technology cannot be worked around or defeated, legal to do or not.

It will not stop shootings just like prohibition did not stop drinking.
 
In my opinion, it is naive to believe that the smart gun technology cannot be worked around or defeated, legal to do or not.

It will not stop shootings just like prohibition did not stop drinking.
Click to expand...

But you're missing the point-

Smart guns have the potential to end legal ownership of firearms that can't be shut off at the flick of the switch by some hypothetical (near) future police/nanny state. This has serious potential to make criminals of all of us.

It's the ethical consideration that is important, not the practical one.
 
It will not stop shootings just like prohibition did not stop drinking.
Click to expand...

They don't want it to stop shootings. They wouldn't have anything to howl about if the shootings stopped. They wouldn't be able to take more and more of our rights if there were no threats to the peace. They want to take our rights and they are doing it one tidbit at a time. They want people to stop thinking they can own guns legally or at least guns that are actually useful. They want criminals to continue doing what they're doing. It drives the next round of "it's just one little thing and who could complain about that".

The government wants to make slaves of us all just like in the good old Soviet Union. The thing is it didn't work even when they took all the weapons, sent people to gulags for complaining and killed people just to create paranoia. It worked a long time but eventually the people who ran the show there had to pay in a big way (or least some of them did). We just need to stop things before they get to that point.

Keep in mind that all of this stuff will change when a different administration comes into office. The scary part is it could get worse. But likely as not this will hurt a certain party much like the AWB did.

It's the media that really drives all this anyway. The government can't do anything until the local tv edition of Pravda convinces people it's "for their own good." Any demonstrations on our part would be better directed at the media IMO. Politicians are just one piece of the puzzle.

Smart guns have the potential to end legal ownership of firearms that can't be shut off at the flick of the switch by some hypothetical (near) future police/nanny state.
Click to expand...

Let's hope the courts have the sense to realize that the government being able to disable all guns is the same as ending gun ownership. Again this case should be made in the media as much as possible. Demonstrations shouldn't happen at small restaurants in Texas. They should happen in the lobby of a local NBC affiliate.
 
The two important issues that will have a serious effect: 1) the introduction of a smart gun is supposed to trigger a provision in NJ law that immediately makes the sale of "dumb" guns illegal.

No doubt there will be a huge lawsuit over restraint of trade, etc., much less the 2A rights issues. And that some Commander will find out there's a tiny shop somewhere with one for sale, which will precipitate a SWAT team showcase arrest of a major LGS within hours.

The second issue is that the company is already reported to have developed a transmitter that can and does lock out guns within a certain radius. That means every cop carrying a device to keep all other compliant guns from working. That would also go to schools and government buildings. The follow on is that all LEO/Mil weapons will be exempt.

If the NJHP or a municipality then places a solicitation for a "dumb" firearm, the companies who respond will be seen as deliberately circumventing our rights. There will be an economic backlash.

Speculative, yes, but based on previous controversies that have already happened in the last ten years. The conditions and policies already exist.

So it is written, so shall it be done. I don't see how NJ can keep from following this debacle down the rabbit hole. It would take some extraordinary leadership, which isn't inclined to back off further restrictions on owner's rights anyway.

The political leadership in NJ has set themselves up for failure.
 
LemmyCaution said:
But you're missing the point-

Smart guns have the potential to end legal ownership of firearms that can't be shut off at the flick of the switch by some hypothetical (near) future police/nanny state. This has serious potential to make criminals of all of us.

It's the ethical consideration that is important, not the practical one.
Click to expand...

Right, just like prohibition that spawned a boot leg trade in alcohol and saw the rise of organize crime, when the government takes control of the operation of firearms, there will be an instant black market for functioning firearms and the gangs and thugs will become very strong and organized crime and law enforcement will wonder what hit them.

Also look at the failure of the war on drugs.

My point is controlling firearms will not come anywhere near meeting the objectives of the anti-cunners in terms of making a safer America.
 
My point is controlling firearms will not come anywhere near meeting the objectives of the anti-cunners in terms of making a safer America.
Click to expand...

And my point is that making America safer is not what they have in mind. The goal is to endow the state with a monopoly on force. To them, all good things flow from and are subservient to that ideal.

Anti-gunners know that gun control will not disarm criminals. They just don't want any competition to 'protect' the masses from them. And to justify that monopoly, they need armed criminals to continue to exist.

One is either a wolf, a sheep, or a sheepdog, in their eyes, and the state is the only legitimate sheepdog. There is no legitimate self-defense, as far as they are concerned.

So creating a 'smart' gun that is effectively useless, and outlawing 'dumb' guns suits this rationale completely. One either becomes a sheep, by complying, or a wolf, by modifying the 'smart' gun.

Either way, you're operating under their paradigm.
 
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-a-personalized-gun-for-safety/2180482


Thought I would share here a column published by the smart gun inventor. I learned a few things.

1. There is a dumb model of the smart gun as well

2. Invented by former hk designer.

3. He conveniently avoids discussing the political issue we are all anxious about.

If what he says is truthful, it sounds like armatix doesn't want NJ like laws. And if the gun happens to encourage new gun owners, that is at least a benefit if letting regular market forces dictate the sale of it, though previous attempts all failed miserably so maybe he is a bit optimistic at this point
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Cump
  • Locked
Plans to sell smart gun backfire
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Pointshoot
P
N
  • Locked
Smart Guns FYI
Replies
17
Views
1K
Sentryau2
S
SharpDog
  • Locked
Smart Guns or Smart Politicians
Replies
18
Views
1K
rskent
rskent
DeepSouth
  • Locked
The tragic boating accident
Replies
15
Views
3K
Cee Zee
C
H.m.B
  • Locked
Smart pistol offered for sale in California
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
FAS1
FAS1
Back
Top