Quote of the Day: If It’s Good Enough for James Bond…

teret

“I don’t know what is keeping President Obama from (ordering smart guns for federal law enforcement officers). This would not have to go through Congress – it’s something that the White House could do, or, short of that, the Department of Justice. Eric Holder is still attorney general for a little longer and he is very knowledgeable about the personalized gun industry. He or the president could take action before they leave office.” – Bloomberg School of Public Health professor Stephen Teret in US must invest in ‘smart guns’ to reduce avoidable deaths, activists say [at theguardian.com]

comments

  1. avatar JWM says:

    Yes. Smart guns for the secret service and nsa and dhs, etc. Let them deal with the tragedies and foul ups. Leave us and our ignorant guns alone.

    1. avatar Don says:

      And while they’re at it, why don’t they find a supply of smart and honest politicians (and college professors).
      I guess that’s just fantasy too.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Some years ago a friend of mine cautioned me about using technology to solve people problems. This is just such an example. Technology will not stop violent people from harming other people.

      1. avatar B says:

        “To err is human, but to truly **** up you need a computer.” I have no clue where this quote came from.

      2. avatar Drew says:

        Meh, the technology of affordable reliable and usable repeating firearms solves many people issues every year.

    3. avatar CT Resident says:

      I thought the same thing, but it would be terrible to get officers killed with what we know to be inherently unsafe and unreliable technology, just to let the ideologues make further fools of themselves.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        No worries, it will never happen. The state isn’t about to effectively disarm its enforcers. The good part would be putting them on the spot to explain why “smart guns” are not good for them, but just the thing for you and me.

        1. avatar JWM says:

          Bingo.

        2. avatar MAC][ says:

          +1

    4. avatar Cliff H says:

      May be he’s on to something.

      Mandatory use of “Smart Guns” by the Secret Service, including the presidential protection detail, and by every member of the BATFE, including any and all firearms they carry off duty.

      Let’s see how that flies.

    5. avatar IdahoPete says:

      Oh yeah, let’s have the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, BATFE, and all of the other alphabet agencies show us peasants how much they trust the technology of “smart guns” by relying on them to protect themselves and do their jobs. You betcha – you folks go first!

  2. avatar Ahil925 says:

    So much fail to start the morning with.

    1. Just think of it as your Monday morning heart-starter.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      No, no, it’s brilliant! The Bloomies and Shannons of the world keep yammering about how wonderful “smart guns” are and how we have the technology ready to go and it won’t keep you from being able to defend yourself and it’s only the bloodthirsty troglodytes at NRA keeping them out. Then by gum, bypass the NRA, let Obama and Holder order the multitudes of gun-totin’ Feds to avail themselves of this hi-tech wonder and lead the rest of the country into safe-gun Utopia. While they are at it, let DeBlasio and the NYC solons replace those 12-lb triggers with “smart guns” for the NPYD (oh, and lets not forget the good LEOs of New Jersey). I think NRA, SAF, Ted Nugent and anybody else you can think of should run with this, and invite Shannon and the rest to join in. Be interesting to hear them explain why they wouldn’t be interested.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        As satire, the linked article is brilliant.

        Sadly, the guy is totally serious.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          OK, yes, I was being satirical when I said “brilliant”–But I still think we should be “in favor” of the idea. The statists are so in love with “smart guns”– they should be the ones forced to use them.

        2. avatar Omer Baker says:

          While reading the quote I thought it was satire. Until I saw the source. Then… sigh and facepalm.

      2. avatar MikeC says:

        Let people like Shannon Watts and Michael Bloomberg go first! Their bodyguards could set the example. Of course, they’d first need to acknowledge what we already know, that they themselves are protected by guns.

  3. avatar Arsh says:

    Just start punishing the corrupt cops and you won’t need a smart gun

  4. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “Bill Gentry, the president of Kodiak, enthusiastically described the gun to a fascinated Holder at a meeting in Washington DC last year – but then told the attorney general he would “burn down” the facility where he was developing the Intelligun if the government tried to mandate its use.”

    I think I like Mr. Gentry.

    1. avatar William says:

      He really said that!?!

      Cool!

    2. avatar KingSarc48625 says:

      If I had a picture of Holder’s face after Gentry dropped that bomb it would be framed and displayed in my living room. Proudly, and laughed at frequently.

    3. avatar PPGMD says:

      Dear Bill,

      We heard that you might burn down your facility after Congress passed the Smart Guns for All act.

      So we’ve helpfully saved yours files, and since you won’t be using them we will be providing them to your competition.

      Yours Truly,

      The NSA

      1. avatar John P says:

        Ultimately this doesn’t matter. He won’t be participating.

  5. avatar dh34 says:

    Bloomberg School of Public Health…ha! That’s like the Krispy Kreme School of Weight Loss.

    Perhaps the professor should do a study on the need for narcissistic billionaires to meddle in the lives of others.

  6. avatar RetLEO says:

    More crap spewing from yet another misinformed so-called ‘expert.’
    Here are some questions:
    How many LEOs on this board would want a ‘smart gun?’
    How many LEOs would be happy with the current offering…in the hard-hitting .22LR…
    What happens when the battery dies?
    What if a criminal figures out how to jam the signal?
    What if the bracelet or whatever breaks? Or the cops fingers are covered in mud, obscuring fingerprints?

    This is just another smoke/mirror proposal.

    And James Bond is fiction…

    1. avatar JohnF says:

      Some possible answers to your questions. One of the Mommies groups has significant prize money put up for any inventor who can develop a practical smart gun. They would need to get jurisdictions to accept it to actually get it on the street, so I’m assuming “practical’ means something other than .22 and that those issues you mentioned like dirt, jamming, etc. would have to be solved to some percentage of failure. I’m sure they don’t care what individual LEOs want.They would put political pressure on some departments to adopt them and those departments’ cops would be issued these guns and mandated to carry them.

      Here is what I find greatly ironic about the prize parameters, though, and it shows once again where the antis heads’ are at. There has to be two versions of the design, one for LEOs and one for private citizens. If the “smart” system fails for any reason, the LEO version would still fire, the citizen version would not.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        Yep; your last two sentences say it all.

    2. avatar Liberty2Alpha says:

      Covered in mud, hell… what if they are wearing… IDK, gloves?

  7. avatar William says:

    A classic example of “if you don’t know about something, don’t write about it”, also if Mr Professor” is so smart explain that comb over.

    1. avatar DickG says:

      Perhaps Public Health professor Stephen Teret should take up a course on the Constitution of the United States and its 1st 10 Amendments.
      .
      He is Sooooo… Smart!
      .

  8. avatar the ruester says:

    Between this and the Ed Schultz story yesterday, it seems our admonition that law enforcement should do it first has sunk in. Now the cops can be all “wait a minute, Starchild, why don’t you disarm the CRIMINALS first?” to which he will say “bro, that’s YOUR job!” If officer friendly has to face lugging this paperweight to a crime scene he might just start making all of our points for us.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      This, a hundred times over. The best way to have killed that NJ abomination would have been to eliminate any LEO exemption.

  9. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Well at the very least they could start with the ATF.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Start with a zero exception requirement for any and every no-knock raid.

  10. avatar dwb says:

    I don’t get it. Bloomberg gave $1.1 billion to Hopkins, $300 of which went to the Hopkins gun control policy center, why does Bloomberg need the government to do anything? If he wanted, Bloomberg could hand out safes and locks, and even subsidize actual gun safety courses for every gun owner. He could fund this technology.

    But I suspect this has nothing to do with “gun safety.”

  11. avatar brentondadams says:

    OMG this is a great idea…! they should totally do it.

    ha ha ha this guy is a ‘professor’ at a Bloomberg paid for school? I think mini mike should get his money back.

  12. avatar William Ashbless says:

    Garen Wintemute holds the position as Director of the ‘Susan P. Baker and Stephen P. Teret Chair in Violence Prevention’ at UC-Davis. Scratch the surface and you find a rabid gun grabber. Surprised?

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Yes, I am a bit surprised; grabbers never want to impose their draconian/Utopian prescriptions on the cops. This guy is saying START with the cops. He is definitely off the gun-grabber reservation in that sense.

  13. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Like my women and guns dumb.

  14. avatar James69 says:

    Well if the FBI starts using it, all the rest will jump in line, per the usual.

  15. avatar brentondadams says:

    Sorry cops, your lives will be on the line to score a political point. Im sure you’ll be okay.

    I still say this is a great idea, the deafening roar and tumult that would rise from the police in general would be deafening. Might kill ‘smart guns’ forever (again).

  16. avatar HEGEMON says:

    A true liberal fascist worshipping at the altar of the Holy Hussein.

  17. avatar John L. says:

    Oh, this is too rich.

    One of the common memes from the pro-gun side of things re smart guns has been “well if they’re so wonderful … You first. Have the police and Federal government agencies adopt them.”

    I am shocked – shocked! – that this has not in fact happened.

    Now here we have someone in the anti-gun ranks proposing the same thing.

    I don’t know whether this person is actually a pro-gunner in mufti, or a less-useful-than-they-thought fool, or what. But it is a beautiful put-up-or-shut-up moment coming from their own side.

    What a wonderful way to start the week!

  18. avatar Nedd Ludd says:

    What good is creating a “smart gun”, when a criminal can convert an ordinary
    Airsoft gun into a machine gun with minimal work?

    An ATF ‘Special’ Agent explains here:
    http://www.military.com/video/guns/rifles/atf-agent-seizes-30-toy-guns/2129868103001/

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      “Special” as in “Special Needs”?

  19. avatar Texsylvanian says:

    Ummm, maybe for the same reason NO ONE wants that technology. Does this jackass really think the president wants some Secret Service Agent’s sig to go “click” instead of “bang” when some crazy tries to take him out? I don’t think so.

    Stop pushing nonsensical back-door gun control. As usual with statist liberals, no one wants to buy what you’re selling.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I’ll say it again–ENCOURAGE this nonsense. Then listen to the cops roar! Then let Shannon, Ladd, and Bloomie explain why, even tho the cops won’t touch it with a 10-foot pole, it’s a great idea for you and me. Hell, someone should ask why Shannon, Bloomie, etc don’t require their own bodyguards to use “smart guns”.

      1. avatar rosignol says:

        “Hell, someone should ask why Shannon, Bloomie, etc don’t require their own bodyguards to use “smart guns”.

        This is an excellent idea. Anyone know when and where the next press conference is?

    2. avatar Roscoe says:

      This “jackass'” forward projection of movie make believe is another example of entertainment industry fantasy propaganda leading people to believe their programing represents real world authenticity when in fact its all about dramatic magic shows populated with pretty petty actors.

  20. avatar J. Zoss says:

    He is obviously clueless about the realities of the tech but his confusion over what is keeping Obama from doing this is equally disturbing although not shocking. Hmm what else could it be? Perhaps these new guns would not be free? There is little doubt this guy would also like a blank check for the process of destroying all of the old guns that they would replace.

    No regard for how this will be paid for just prop up the illusion of safety and start printing more money. Yep, I am one of those mean people that wants a plan in place to explain what will be lost to pay for the latest suggested brilliant change. Even for a suggestion that should go nowhere I want to hear where the money is coming from to pay for it up front.

  21. avatar MattG says:

    Did you catch the really important bit where he says, “it wouldn’t have to go through Congress”? How he’s petitioning the President to do this unilaterally? That line truly reveals the fascist behind the mask.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      It wouldn’t have to go thru Congress, nothing exceptionally fascist about it. The agencies surely have the prerogative to choose what type of weapons they carry without going through an act of Congress and a Presidential signature. As long as Congress gives them the funding.

  22. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    I’m all for this. Let Obama arm the Secret Service with so-called “smart” guns readily available on the market today. They can field-test them. Good luck finding .22LR ammunition for them, though.

    1. avatar JeffR says:

      Maybe this will spur companies like CCI to expand their .22lr manufacturing capabilities. I’m really beginning to like this idea.

  23. avatar Robert W. says:

    “If as lucrative and prestigious a client as the federal government became a “launch customer” by placing a substantial order for personalized guns, even if the designs were still being perfected, it would be similar to what airlines do when aircraft manufacturers are working on new jets, he said.”

    You mean do billions of dollars in research, engineering, and testing, and still come out with a product that has an “acceptable failure rate”?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Good sideline, there. Why not propose that commercial aircraft have a system installed which will shut them down completely, at any stage of flight, if the sensor does not detect an authorized pilot at the controls! What a plan! Would have prevented (maybe) 9/11! And every time the electronics failed, a few hundred more dead.

  24. avatar JQPub says:

    These people live in a fantasy land of delusion, where every problem can be resolved by a new App, or focus group, or a new Law or a new Ban or a new big Government program (or a unicorn riding over a rainbow singing Kumbaya). Reality isn’t their forte’. Details are of no consequence. Only their sweeping ‘visions’ of how things should be – in their fictional fantasy world of sunshine and rainbows – are of importance to them.

    I think we all know the fallacies of a ‘Smart Gun” so I don’t need to re-hash them, but maybe people like this, who want to prose such wonderful fairytale solutions, should actually do some research before their open their mouths. They always end up sounding like Dolts.

  25. avatar Roscoe says:

    Ha, this is great. Now let’s see how fast Federal Agencies jump on board Teret’s band wagon.

    I see this as a win for the gun community. No field officer or agent is going to want a limitation placed on his weapons that could and likely will prevent him her from relying on it in time of instant need.

    Teret’s claims will be the ‘put up or shut up’ to the anti’s utopian idea of foisting so called “smart guns” upon the citizenry, knowing full well that such limiting engineering will likely to render a gun simply unusable in time of need unless all the stars line up just right; something unlikely to happen when the shit is hitting the fan. Law enforcement won’t want it. If it’s not good enough for the Feds, then the only reason it could be pushed for non-LEO citizens is to hinder their use and reliance on their personal firearms.

    I wonder if Teret owns any stock or investment interests in this so called ‘smart gun’ technology, or maybe he’s just trying to butter up his boss for a raise.
    NOBODY in their right mind would purchase a firearm with this technology incorporated into its design.

    Would you buy a personal fire extinguisher that incorporated such limiting technology?
    Certainly not me.

  26. avatar Tom from Pennsyltucky says:

    I love how all of the gun control initiatives impact law abiding gun owners…never the criminals. It gets my blood boiling.

  27. avatar PeterK says:

    Ha! Yes. ‘Cause all we need is a LESS effectual secret service. Great idea.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      But if it prevents one drunken car crash…! For the children! (Or childish.)

  28. avatar BDub says:

    A good gun in hands of a sane person is already as smart as a weapon can get.

  29. avatar ThomasR says:

    “Government will save us. Government will protect us. Government will keep us safe from ourselves”.

    The more I see and read the thoughts of these worshipers of their god called government; the more I am convinced that they are a cult worse than Jim Jones, and that they have willingly “drunk the coolaid” that will in the end, destroy all that we hold dear.

  30. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    The guy is at the BLOOMBERG School of Public Health so we can count on him having great integrity. There’s not even the slightest whiff of politicization in his comments. I mean his job is in public health so that means he’s gotta be acting in our best interests. Best practices and all that. (/sarc/)

    1. avatar Yngvar says:

      “Professor at Bloomberg School of Public Health” kind of says it all. *sigh*
      But hey! Socialism might work some place some day! /s

  31. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Yes, yes, YES!!! Absolutely! And supply a dozen for every LEO office throughout the country, test those bad boys out, and be sure to record every nickel of the cost! Then every year on a specific date, publicize (again) the cost to the penny, followed by exactly what had been accomplished, and any failures, and what those failures had cost.

    My forecast, after 5 years, costs of several billions of dollars, possibly tens of billions, multiple failures resulting in dead or injured LEOs, and absolutely ZERO accomplishment. Absolutely zero.

    Hell, they cannot tell us now what it is supposed to accomplish, other than reducing crime and accidents. Never mind HOW, it’s just simple magic. Or maybe “common magic”.

  32. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    That’s what we need, more frivolous federal spending with no oversight or concern for anything other than politics…

    National debt, it’s for the children, don’t yah know.

  33. avatar Hannibal says:

    Why didn’t he pause at “I don’t know” and go find out?

  34. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Is it easier to operate a “smart gun” drunk or with hookers in South America you don’t pay-or both?

  35. avatar DrVino says:

    James bond never had to activate a biometric reader with dirty or bloodied hands.
    But then again, James Bond is a F A N T A S Y !

  36. avatar New Chris says:

    Yes let’s do this. Maybe when the technology fails and a bunch of cops die we can finally get over this bad idea.

    Note: while I don’t generally like cops, I do not want them to die.

  37. avatar gemalo says:

    The “Who” School of Public Health ???????? Bloomberg, you say ? ‘Nuff said. STFU Stevie ‘Wonder’ Teret. Or can we call you Tommy? Ya know, like that ‘deaf, dumb and blind kid’ that sure plays a mean pinball. (apologies to the Who for associating some of their lyrics to this A-hole.)

  38. avatar Ozzallos says:

    No, no, no, people. You’re setting your sights too low with the police. If smartgun tech is that good, i want to see the secret service who guard the persident, his wife and his children all adopt it before it filters down anywhere else.

    Tired of the good enough for me but not for thee crap that continues to be trickled down upon us.

  39. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I think all branches of government should have SMART guns, including the military.

  40. avatar Excedrine says:

    “Eric Holder is still attorney general for a little longer and he is very knowledgeable about the personalized gun industry.”

    Him? HIM!? Knowledgeable? AhahahAHAHAHAHAAAA!

    No. Just… no.

    There isn’t a single politician or political appointee alive or that shall ever live that actually knows their own ass from a fucking hole in the ground for crying out loud.

  41. avatar foodog says:

    Second verse, same as the first. The level of sleaze and deliberate misdirection on the Left is beyond outrageous, now, to just plain mendacious and incompetent, if they believe anyone takes this transparent flackery seriously.

    This is the last gasp of gun grabbing by Executive Action that Progtards how to give The Empty Suit in Chief a chance to leave a legacy on completely made up narrative, faux outrage and manufactured fear as justification.

    Some may recall that Joel Mosbacher was the rabbi who went to Germany to collude with Armatix, making a big hullaballo about how the group was about religious cooperation, for the children. Metro was then another faux astro-turf MAIG like loose collection of various race con-men Sharpton wannabes, with the usual odd mix of left fellow travelers, unions, radicals, and any other special interest groups piggybacking looking for some spare change for federal grants given for fake PR, on th progtard meme du jour- gun control phase one post Newtown.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/robert-farago/rabbi-joel-mosbacher-putz/

    Interestingly enough, shortly after the European trip, including I believe the federal scientists at the Armory in NJ ?, we see “coincidentally” a move, apparently ‘under the radar’, all the way over on the west coast, where we have CA AG Harris quietly approving the Armatix smart gun with wristwatch as legal for sale, on the permitted Roster, sliding in just before the deadling without microstamping for, while denying approval to manufacturers with minor details on same models, color or minor size changes, as New Guns, and banned, for lack of microstamping. .

    That made it the first Smart Gun for sale in the US, and within about a week, gun folks went nuts and so thoroughly mocked the gun range that they reversed course and pretended they never had plans to sell them.

    Leaving New Jersey legislators to have a bad hair day, having their own law triggered that only guns approved would be smart guns offered in the US for sale.

    Armatix has quite the shady past, I understand… google for it, if interested, as its slightly OT to this conversation, so I wont thread jack eyeballs away with a link.

  42. avatar anonymoose says:

    If you watch the movie he throws his smartgun away and grabs a Glawk 17. Strangely, a lot of British service members I’ve talked to are annoyed that the Glawk 17 was adopted over the P226/P229 or another gun, and blame the US for it for some reason.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email