NRA is for banning the sale of guns

[FriendlyFire]

German gun designer’s quest for a smarter weapon infuriates U.S. gun rights advocates

UNTERFÖHRING, Germany — In nearly 30 years at Heckler & Koch, a legendary German gunmaker, Ernst Mauch designed some of the world’s most lethal weapons, including the one that reportedly killed Osama bin Laden. A state regulator once called him a “rock star” in the industry.

Now the gun world sees him a different way: as a traitor. The target of their fury is the smart gun Mauch designed at Armatix, a start-up near Munich. The very concept of the weapon has been attacked by U.S. gun rights advocates even as it has helped Mauch resolve a sense of guilt that has haunted him his entire career. He knows children have killed each other with his guns. Crimes have been committed with them.

“It hurts my heart,” the 58-year-old gun designer said. “It’s life. It’s the lives of people who never thought they’d get killed by a gun. You have a nice family at home, and then you get killed. It’s crazy.”

Mauch’s solution, the iP1, can be personalized so it only fires if the gun’s rightful owner is wearing a special watch connected wirelessly to the weapon. It has not been the hit he imagined for the multibillion-dollar U.S. market. Second Amendment advocates, fearing the technology will be mandated, launched angry protests this year against stores in Maryland and California that tried to sell it. The industry that once revered him now looks at him with suspicion.

“I love Ernst, and his contributions to firearms are incredible,” said Jim Schatz, a gun industry consultant who worked for Mauch at Heckler & Koch. “But he doesn’t understand that the anti-gunners will use this to infringe on a constitutional right. They don’t have a Second Amendment in Germany.”

“My best partner is our Lord,” he said. “More or less, I think He is supporting my life.” The proof: “I am still alive, and He has blessed me with a beautiful wife and family.”

Mauch came home to that family one day in the 1990s following four hours of questioning by authorities after a boy accidentally killed a friend with one of Heckler & Koch’s handguns. “Why did the boy not know the gun was loaded?” Mauch was asked. “Why did the boy not know there was a round in the chamber?”

He told his wife, “My dear, I will never forget these last four hours.”

The questions, Mauch said, were good ones. “It was a good gun,” he said. “A good gun, but a dumb gun.” The idea of making guns smarter took hold.

http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/im...litics/Images/20140711WIDMANN011405434185.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html?tid=pm_pop

i never thought i'd say this, but i feel as though my second amendment rights are being violated. i want access to this gun and that access is being thwarted by so called gun advocates. why won't they let me buy this gun?

Republicans must be twisting themselves into pretzels with this double think.
Suddenly they are against the free market and the sale of guns.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The first rule of gun nuttiness is you don't want the gun to be smarter than you are.

 

[Farm Boy]

Republicans must be twisting themselves into pretzels with this double think.
Suddenly they are against the free market and the sale of guns.

The knot is indeed humorous, but you seem to have missed the valid point. The fear of mandated regulation is pretty well founded on the principle.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The knot is indeed humorous, but you seem to have missed the valid point. The fear of mandated regulation is pretty well founded on the principle.

No way to put the genie back in the bottle; the technology exists no matter how hard people might wish it didn't. So if regulators insist on it all the boycotting of the first products isn't going to change anything.

Meanwhile, the gun lobby is going to have a hard time justifying opposition to what is basically just a safety feature. They're going to take another credibility leap backwards.

 

[Goodfella]

No way to put the genie back in the bottle; the technology exists no matter how hard people might wish it didn't. So if regulators insist on it all the boycotting of the first products isn't going to change anything.

Would it be that easy for them to mandate something that hardly exists yet in the US market?

 

[Akka]

The knot is indeed humorous, but you seem to have missed the valid point. The fear of mandated regulation is pretty well founded on the principle.

I don't really see how having a security feature for a weapon, simply ensuring that the actual owner is using the gun, is a valid cause of complaint.

If the protesters want to fight en encroaching of privacy, they should rather fight off DRM and spywares, which are MUCH worse than just a Wi-Fi security trigger.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I seem to recall hearing that there is at least one jurisdiction (I think it was in New Jersey?) where there was already a law in place that insisted that within a few years of guns with such safety mechanisms becoming available for sale there that guns without such mechanisms would become illegal.

It would make sense for gun nuts to try to block the sale of such guns there, but not so much elsewhere. It would make more sense just to try to overturn that one odd law.



While I like the idea of this weapon and would be more likely to want one of these than a more conventional firearm, it seems like it needs more work before it becomes truly viable. The "watch" that must be worn with it is really bulky and awkward, enough that few people would be likely to wear it regularly and finding it and the gun would just be a waste of tie in an emergency. If they could get the transmitter down in size and hide it in a waterproof ring that could be disguised as an ordinary wedding band, then this safety feature could really take off.

I wonder if it might not be easier to simply put a fingerprint scanner on the handle or trigger though, so authorized users would not need any separate device which could be stolen from them anyway.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I don't really see how having a security feature for a weapon, simply ensuring that the actual owner is using the gun, is a valid cause of complaint.

If the protesters want to fight en encroaching of privacy, they should rather fight off DRM and spywares, which are MUCH worse than just a Wi-Fi security trigger.

You can't fight off DRM and spywares without guns.

It's in the Constitution if ya wanna check it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Would it be that easy for them to mandate something that hardly exists yet in the US market?

Unfortunately, yes.

Ever heard of an 'anti siphon valve'? Under a truly bizarre set of circumstances it is technically possible for stagnant water from a puddle in your yard to be siphoned back into the water distribution system and subsequently come out of the tap in your house. Because it is technically possible my state saw fit to mandate that all new construction have anti siphon devices built in, and all garden hose connections on existing buildings be fitted with a threaded on device between the spigot and the hose.

When this regulation was enacted the existing production capacity for anti siphon devices would have taken several hundred years to produce the necessary number for everyone to comply. For the first couple years it was standard practice to spot weld the little threaded things onto the spigot because theft of them was rampant due to the size of the fine if the water meter reader reported you for not having them.

How about air bags in cars? When the US government informed the auto makers that air bags were going to be a required item rather than a luxury option the largest manufacturer of one of the critical components employed less than twenty people in a 'factory' that was smaller than the showroom of the car dealership I worked at at the time. They were expected to go from producing about five thousand units a year to over a million, while maintaining product quality on a component that is actually an explosive device.

When governments pass safety regulations they seldom show any concern for whether what they are demanding can actually be done.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The knot is indeed humorous, but you seem to have missed the valid point. The fear of mandated regulation is pretty well founded on the principle.

Pretty sure "Mandates" were a Republican think tank idea.
Its like Republicans fear of NSA spying, which they themselves voted it into law and implemented it.
Or executive orders which Republican President invented, and used and Republicans were fine with it.

 

[bhsup]

Pretty sure "Mandates" were a Republican think tank idea.
Its like Republicans fear of NSA spying, which they themselves voted it into law and implemented it.
Or executive orders which Republican President invented, and used and Republicans were fine with it.

Neither of which have anything to do with this issue, but okay. Also, today I learned only Republicans are gun owners.... freaky weird.

I get both sides of this, btw. I understand the fear that hysterical anti-gun whackjob people would grasp onto this and go "omg yes, every gun in America should be required to have this." That's a very real possibility, so I understand that concern. That said, I also see nothing wrong with selling this gun. It shouldn't be banned or fought against, we just need to remain vigilant against the hysterical anti-gun nutso people and their agenda.

Oh, regarding the executive order thing... Yeah, there is a difference between an executive order that circumvents (read that as totally bypass and disregard) a law passed by congress, and one that doesn't try to do that. Guess which one Obama seems to love... Just thought I'd set that little record straight since you shouldn't get to get away with blatant distortions like that.

 

[classical_hero]

Is this thread meant to be discussing the issue at hand, or is it just a bad attempt to troll gun advocates and just call them republicans? I just don't fully understand the OPP, because it seems to be more of the later rather then an honest attempt to discuss any issues raised.

 

[Snorrius]

Republicans must be twisting themselves into pretzels with this double think. Suddenly they are against the free market and the sale of guns.

You better kill it when it is small.

Second Amendment advocates, fearing the technology will be mandated,

They act rationally.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Even if it this technology becomes mandatory, 30 years from now the resistance against it will probably be seen in the same light as the auto industry's fight against seat belts in every car.

 

[Snorrius]

Even if it this technology becomes mandatory, 30 years from now the resistance against it will probably be seen in the same light as the auto industry's fight against seat belts in every car.

If there no resistance in the first place, 30 years from now on almost anything could be made to be seen in almost any way desired.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

If there no resistance in the first place, 30 years from now on almost anything could be made to be seen in almost any way desired.

Ah, a vague slippery straw slope.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Well, as far "smart guns" are concerned, me and other poster explained why this technology is impractical vaporware bullcrap in a thread not too long ago.

H&K seems to have a knack for researching and marketing things that nobody really wants or needs (HK416 for example) and then charging outrageous mucho$$$$dollars on the civilian market to make up the difference when .gov contracts fall through.

They took up the "smart gun" gimmick a while ago. Almost certainly they just want to appear more gun-control-friendly the face of possible future US laws. (ie they're hoping that their old cash cow brand name firearms will not be put on a possible "banned" list) while knowing the iP1 (lulz) will never be sold in significant numbers anywhere. Maybe there's a very faint hope that this technology will be mandated on all guns by a law somewhere but that's a prettyyyy....long shot.

 

[warpus]

Well, as far "smart guns" are concerned, me and other poster explained why this technology is impractical vaporware bullcrap in a thread not too long ago.

H&K seems to have a knack for researching and marketing things that nobody really wants or needs (HK416 for example) and then charging outrageous mucho$$$$dollars on the civilian market to make up the difference when .gov contracts fall through.

They took up the "smart gun" gimmick a while ago. Almost certainly they just want to appear more gun-control-friendly the face of possible future US laws. (ie they're hoping that their old cash cow brand name firearms will not be put on a possible "banned" list) while knowing the iP1 (lulz) will never be sold in significant numbers anywhere. Maybe there's a very faint hope that this technology will be mandated on all guns by a law somewhere but that's a prettyyyy....long shot.

With all that in mind, assuming that it's true, makes the "concerns" of gun extremists in the U.S. to this gun even more hilarious.

Man, those people are insane.

 

[Bugfatty300]

With all that in mind, assuming that it's true, makes the "concerns" of gun extremists in the U.S. to this gun even more hilarious.

Man, those people are insane.

The NRA (and the GOA) is infamous for fear-mongering and spamming mail boxes for donations and new members. They other side provides plenty of ammo though.

 

[Farm Boy]

With all that in mind, assuming that it's true, makes the "concerns" of gun extremists in the U.S. to this gun even more hilarious.

Man, those people are insane.

I'm with B here. Should I be sorry for my mental illness?