Thu May 22, 2014, 01:14 PM
gejohnston (15,302 posts)
Mark Glaze compares Armatix pistol with Diebold voting machines
On Monday night's All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, New Jersey State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg joined Hayes to discuss "smart gun" legislation she helped pass in her state. But it was the curious assertion by a supporter of the technology, claiming that electronic voting machines are now "fool-proof", which kinda just blew my mind.
Mark Glaze, spokesman for Everytown for Gun Safety, a group which, according to its website "brings together survivors of gun violence to share their stories and advocate for laws that will prevent future tragedies," said twice during the conversation, that e-voting systems are now "fool-proof."
While there were once concerns about e-voting systems, he said (see his full remarks below), those worries have now been assuaged thanks to "public and private partnerships at both the federal and state level that guaranteed that these machines were fool-proof"
In 2006 Armatix filed a patent for a "kill switch". German-English translation by Google Translate.
9 replies, 626 views
Mark Glaze compares Armatix pistol with Diebold voting machines (Original post)
Response to Jenoch (Reply #4)
Thu May 22, 2014, 03:44 PM
blueridge3210 (873 posts)
5. In all seriousness,
anyone who had had their smart phone/tablet/laptop freeze up should be able to see the potential issues with "Smart Gun" technology. One needs a weapon to work every time the moment it is needed; not a "few seconds" later. It's my personal opinion that the more "safety" features added the less people are inclined to pursue safe practices and rely on the machine instead. Sometimes paranoia regarding "Murphy's Law" is an asset.
Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #5)
Thu May 22, 2014, 03:51 PM
Jenoch (6,705 posts)
6. I don't have a CCW, but if I needed a gun to protect my family in our home,
I would not wish to have to wait for the gun to 'reboot' before I could fire it.
Response to gejohnston (Original post)
Fri May 23, 2014, 09:15 AM
benEzra (11,465 posts)
8. I notice that all "smart gun" proposals exempt LE, VIP protective details, and corporate security.
If they wanted "smart guns" to be accepted, then there should be no mandates at all...and any mandates anywhere should mandate them for law enforcement (the mostly likely of any group to be shot with their own guns), VIP details, and corporate security too---no exceptions.
Of course, the reason they aren't is that biometrics are dangerously unreliable, and RFID is trivially easy to remotely jam. Of course, those traits are features, not bugs, in the minds of those pushing them. Built-in mechanical locks give the same safety advantages for anyone who wants them and are already on the market, without the disadvantages, but...
In any case, a quick-access safe is better than any of the above, IMO.