Yawn. Dozens of Newsweeek readers are learning today that Silicon Valley is Targeting Smart Guns. We’ve been reading this same article in various forms for, what, three…four years now? Ron Conway and his Smart Tech Challenge accomplish a whole lot of nothing but you have to give them props for getting him into just about every MSM article written on the subject. Wonder who does his PR. In other news of blatant bloviation and questionable “facts” . . .
Vermont gun rights advocates call Clinton gun comment ‘out-and-out lie’ – “She’s desperate to try to get to the left of Mr. Sanders, and she perceives he’s weak on guns when in fact he’s pretty consistent.” They seems to have a pretty clear view of the Hildebeast from the Green Mountain State.
Smith & Wesson’s giving away a Performance Center M&P 15-22 Sport rifle with Trijicon MRO and a case. For free. Click the image above if you’re interested.
Julianne Moore Reveals How Sandy Hook Changed Her Views On Guns – “’At that moment, it felt ridiculous to me, and irresponsible as a parent and as a citizen, that I was not doing something to prevent gun violence,’ Moore wrote. ‘Simply keeping the news away from my child was putting my head in the sand. I wasn’t helping her, or anyone else, by doing that.’” Her publicist is undoubtedly thrilled she got off the couch for some spirited virtue signaling.
New data reveals the high number of guns per person in Australia’s richest suburbs – Imagine living in a country where 0.044 guns per resident is cause for concern.
Smith and Wesson link not working for me. Google is my friend.
Link fixed. Sorry.
Thanks, I had found it on the Facebook page as soon as I tried and failed the link above. I am a S&W guy, unfortunately Ruger has started taking over the safe.
clicking the image for the link to the rifle giveaway isn’t working.
It’s pretty sad when our measly (and roughly) 1.18:1 gun:person ratio is nearly TWENTY-SEVEN TIMES the rate of that previously great nation. A. We need to keep buying more, that extra .18 guns per person just isn’t enough (2 is 1, 1 is none). B. the Aussies need to either reduce population or find some more friggin guns. They are just too close to major Islamic and Communist countries.
It should really be at least 3:1, because everyone should really have at least a pistol, a rifle, and a shotgun. But maybe around 2:1 is acceptable because some of those things can be shared across a household.
doin my part, 25:1 here!
I am envious of the many of you who dwarf that number.
always hard decisions to make when you gotta stretch the dollars, more guns? more gun food? more gun stuff? how to divert the wife aggro from your latest purchase?
, rifle, pistol, shotgun. , at least, and at least 100 rnds for each
I hope you meant to say 1,000 rounds for each.
Gawd that article makes Austrslia sound like a big bunch of whimpering pusses.
Make all the smart guns you want and require Cops to use them. That should be fun.
Don’t forget the secret service. And the ATF. And the……
Obama and the hilldabeast’s security details first.
That would make sense since secret service agents are always losing their firearms in public restrooms and ATF agents are always losing firearms headed for Mexico.
How is boxing and shipping guns to mexico losing them?
I don’t know, that’s what they told congress.
“Make all the smart guns you want and require Cops to use them. That should be fun.”
I have a news flash for you.
There was a provision in ObamaCare that required House and Senate staff and employees to sign up for ObamaCare.
And guess what happend?
The staffers don’t exactly make a lot of money, when they discovered what it would cost and how high the deductibles would be, they predictably, (at least by us), pitched a screaming fit as to how unaffordable the ‘Affordable Care Act’ was.
The Representatives and Senators cooked up something to fit one of Obama’s magical ACA exemptions.
Unaffordable insurance with crippling high deductibles for us, the ‘little people’, it’s the classic ‘guns for me but not for thee’ applied to mandatory health insurance.
The point being, expect them to pull that same exemption trick on the requirement for ‘smart guns’ for the police, FBI, Secret Service, ect.
Oh, and the same thing happened for the faculty and staff of Harvard…
Pelosi famously said ‘We have to pass the bill so we can see what’s inside it.’
Our so-called Progressive ‘betters’ read the bill and found out what’s inside it.
Now even they want nothing to do with it.
While we have to choke on it…
*grrrr*
I dont have health care, I never get sick. This year obamacare hit my taxes. The only thing affordable about it was the tax was cheaper then obomahcare. Still it should be ilegal to force someone to be health insured. All it did was help the insurance companies
When you look at who is lobbying our politicians, you’ll see why we are in this mess. The 2 biggest contributors, by far, are the big pharm companies AND the insurance industry- Pfizer corp, makers of Zoloft and Viagra, donated almost twice as much as the NRA did last year.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i&showYear=2015
“I dont have health care, I never get sick.”
Never say never. You mean you haven’t got sick yet.
Sorry to say but this is coming for you, it’s just a matter of when and how bad. The human body is an incredibly complex electro-mechanical structure that is *guaranteed* to break down. Guaran-dam-teed.
So your ‘never’ needs to be replaced with ‘not yet’.
And if you have kids it just gets worse. Maybe you don’t have any of those, but if you do, they need healthcare also and in a big way, sometimes really big.
So if you think you are getting away with something health-insurance wise, I am sorry to say, you aren’t. I’m glad to hear you are healthy, that’s great. Enjoy it while it lasts!
Havent been sick yet? roger that. Kids are grown and gone, both r covered by employers
“But if you’re looking for a posher version of LA’s Compton, look no further than Mosman. Hidden away behind the exclusive boutiques and expensive eateries are a massive 1127 guns.”
Wow. Just wow. Is Mosman as dangerous as Compton?
There are probably more guns per capita in areas like Grosse Pointe or Novi than Flint, but probably not a lot of arguments about which is the most dangerous (even leaving the tap water out of it). You’re also talking about a population that would look down their noses at something as “pedestrian” as a Browning at the skeet range vs., well, have you ever seen Lock,Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels?
Ms. Moore asked us to join hands and renounce gun violence. Well who in Hollywood is going to say no to gun violent films when they make money?
She should stick to entertainment and leave the politics alone. Giving her views like that in an interview dilutes her ability to entertain.
I have no idea how they came up with that statistic about Australian gun ownership.
Officially it is about 1 firearm per 8 people and unofficially it is estimated at 1 per 3 or 4 people
Plus you get owners with more than a few, myself included
Julianne Moore is a competent actress who has punched above her weight in a few truly great movies (if Mr. Zimmerman’s avatar is any indication, he has some familiarity with one of her better roles). I don’t understand how, “I have more money than you and a soapbox,” makes her opinion any more valid than any other.
I’ve said it before, as have many others, decrying “gun violence” is a tacit endorsement of violence by other means. And it frequently becomes active endorsement. Much of the internet response to the Treyvon Martin shooting revolved around, “He [G.Z.] deserved it if he couldn’t take a beating,” or, “He should have been able to hit back harder.” One of the most common sentiments after the Boston Marathon bombing was, “At least it wasn’t a shooting.”
All of the sudden julianne moore is concerned about children. What a hypocrit. Google her name and go to images. Bet you will find a picture of her with a bunch of other hags wearing a t shirt proudly stating yes we plan to kill our unborn kids.
I like my S&W guns! But I will not do anything on facebook & that Idiot who runs It!!!!!!
Amen brother
Serious, and genuinely curious question here. What WOULD be an acceptable “smart” firearm? I know we all know what the anti-gun crowd wants, but what about the people of the gun? Maybe (BIG maybe) we could turn this into a win for our side, and be the ones that push the technology in a different direction?
Serious answer here: Any of the various smart gun schemes that have been proposed would be be fine with me.
However (and this is a b-i-g however) … I am not fine with legislation making nothing else being available for purchase, non-smart guns being made illegal, etc.
I’m all for entrepreneurs and inventors bringing out new things. I just draw the line at being forced to buy them with no alternative.
Even though I have little chance of ever actually needing my EDC in a defensive situation, I do not care to be a beta tester for some bureaucrat’s idea of a “smart gun”.
This is America! Let the free market decide. If you can invent and market a smart gun that is reliable enough that the people who actually want reliable guns will buy it and trust their lives to it, go for it. If you need the government to step in and force people to buy it, you’re a loser. Like Obamacare.
On the other hand, using the obamacare model, Congress could right a law mandating that every head of household MUST purchase a smart gun. SCOTUS would consider it a tax and everyone would have guns and the antis would have to STFU ’cause it was their idea to mandate through legislation purchasing something you don’t really want or need.
I’ll say this: vast swathes of my professional life have been taken up with the failures of computers and software. The last thing I want to do is add that as a factor in a self-defense situation.
The level of technology I want in a gun is levers, springs, ratchets, that kind of thing. I’m very happy to have my guns be as dumb as rocks, thank you very much.
1000 times this.
“Smart” tech is a misnomer designed to imply “smarter than a human.”
There’s nothing “smart” about technology. It is still electro-mechanical systems built by (fallible) humans. There has been nothing made yet, “smart” or otherwise, with a zero percent failure rate.
On the other hand, failure rates ARE correlated with complexity. It’s true in mechanics, electronics and software. The more complex systems added and asked to work together, the harder it is to get things to function properly. This is often hidden in so-called ‘smart’ tech with redundancy and additional complex compensation systems. (See “user input failure checking” in software, for a good example of how the failure proofing can exceed the core functionality).
Instead of “smart” guns, we should be saying “simple” guns vs “complex” guns. I’ll take mine as “simple” as can be to render reasonably safe. Additional complexity over that is losing on the cost-benefit analysis (unless one is a Proggie anti-gunner fudging the benefit side of the equation).
The ideal smart guns for liberals would have an iPaddress they can call up and control remotely. Then they can deactivate during hurricanes, civil unrest after a police shooting, if there is a TSR, or just because they don’t want Them to be armed.
Of course LE would have a back door hack, after all its no different from your phone at that point.
Big plus for an activity log they can review as well as exorbitant cost to buy, we need to ensure poor criminals don’t get rich with one,
Finally we need special ammo like judge dredd used which identifies us should a bullet be found.
I’m frankly tired of Silicon Valley trying to “solve” problems that in many cases don’t need to be solved. No, not every single thing in our lives need to have a computer in it connected to the network. Simple is better in most cases and electronics make things vastly more complicated. Modern cars are a perfect example. Unnecessarily complicated due to government mandates.
Back in the 1990s the shooting sports clubs did the actual paperwork for the registration. I was the club secretary at the time of a club and did a fair bit of registration work.
It is easy to build up a collection, especially with service rifles and their myriad variants. In Mausers, you have several basic models and then the national variants. It would be possible to have dozens in Mausers alone without trying. The same with Mosin-Nagants. And Lee-Enfields (early models, No1, No4, No5, .22 trainers, sniper variants, etc). And then the others: Arisaka, Schmidt-Reuben, Mannlicher, Carcano, P14/M17 Enfields, Ross, Lebel, Berthier, and Springfield.
Collections of 20, and even more than 50, were not uncommon. Also, many people registered bare receivers as full firearms. It is not uncommon to have guns used where scores count, and others for less important matches. And often a spare or two main rifle in case something fails.
Is it just me, or is S&W trolling Zuckerberg by giving away a gun to some who likes and shares their post across facebook? Something tells me their page will mysteriously go offline shortly…
Smart guns? It loads, cleans and oils itself. Well that kinda takes some of the fun out of it.
I’d enter the contest if that case the rifle came with was a case of .22LR. And if that case of .22LR was actually a pallet of .22LR. I could really use that Trijicon on the other hand…
LMAO
Wanted to enter to win the m&p-15-22 but you have to be 21 to win 🙁
I’m 18
That’s one tight a$$ shirt.
God damn, son, get a polo that fits.
Sweet and cuddly dog 🙂
Wallpaper please from him ^^
People do not like high-tech when it comes to their lives. During the Apollo program, there was for example a suggestion by one of the astronauts that NASA just forgo all the electronics for operating the rocket engine of the spacecraft and rather just have a mechanical valve that they could twist to turn the rocket engine on and off. Far more simple and reliable, and while perhaps not as convenient as electronics, far more secure for if you’re in the middle of space. This suggestion was not adopted however as it was seen as something that would hurt NASA’s image, as spacecraft were supposed to be the pinnacle of American technology. The public would never believe it if they found out that the spacecraft worked with something that sounded like you could buy it down at the local hardware store.
Another example are battle tanks. Western battle tanks like the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard, all have a loader (person who loads the ammunition into the main gun), as opposed to the old Soviet designs (and some modern such designs) that have an automated loading system. An automated system reduces the crew needed, but also greatly increases the mechanical complexity, and thus means more parts that could fail on you (they also are slower). Also an extra crewman is handy for changing tracks and doing maintenance and repairs. While tanks like the Abrams are equipped with the most modern electronics, computers, software, sensors, engines (well the Abrams could have a more modern engine if they chose to put one into it), the actual way for the big main gun to get loaded with rounds is that a human being inside the tank physically picks up the big round and loads it into the gun.
Automotive steering is another one. Some new designs do not have a mechanical linkage between the steering wheel and the steering wheels. While this could reduce weight and perhaps mechanical complexity, it also means entrusting the steering (and hence possibly one’s life) to electronics. Over at an automotive forum where they were discussing this (was some years back), a lot of people were saying they would never drive a car that did not have a mechanical connection between the steering wheel and the steering wheels.
Advanced technology is great, but when it comes to things where your life depends on it, people often prefer the old-fashioned, manual system for simplicity and reliability.