HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Mark Glaze compares Arma...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu May 22, 2014, 01:14 PM

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"

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10612

In 2006 Armatix filed a patent for a "kill switch". German-English translation by Google Translate.
https://www.google.com/patents/EP1936572A1?cl=en&dq=ininventor:%22Diet

9 replies, 626 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mark Glaze compares Armatix pistol with Diebold voting machines (Original post)
gejohnston May 2014 OP
friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #1
Jenoch May 2014 #2
blueridge3210 May 2014 #3
Jenoch May 2014 #4
blueridge3210 May 2014 #5
Jenoch May 2014 #6
Eleanors38 May 2014 #7
benEzra May 2014 #8
friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #9


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu May 22, 2014, 02:15 PM

2. I do not believe the proponents of 'smart gun' technology should

use electronic voting as an example of 'fool proof' technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #2)

Thu May 22, 2014, 02:17 PM

3. 'smart bun' technology : Cinnamon or Honey? lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #3)

Thu May 22, 2014, 02:22 PM

4. Ha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #4)

Thu May 22, 2014, 03:44 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #5)

Thu May 22, 2014, 03:51 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu May 22, 2014, 08:01 PM

7. That Does Not Compute. That Doez Not Compute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri May 23, 2014, 09:15 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #8)

Fri May 23, 2014, 12:57 PM

9. Well said- and BTW, good to hear from you again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread