Showing posts sorted by relevance for query shutoff switch. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query shutoff switch. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Monday, May 24, 2010
Can IBM Car Technology Pose Threat to Gun Rights?
Sound nuts? Hey, I'm not the one applying for a patent to take over control of your car. But, yeah, the overarching compulsion to control every aspect of your fellow man's life is, no doubt, indicative of a deeply disturbed mind. [More]Today's Gun Rights Examiner column looks at some technogeeks fiddling with a remote control Bill of Rights shutoff switch.
Share the link?
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
We're the Only Ones Baiting Enough
A stolen theft decoy car being monitored by police crashed into another car as officers tried to disable it, killing the elderly driver of the second car, police said.Say...that give me another great idea for "The Only Ones" to use to fight crime:
Bait guns! Just leave'em laying around in high crime neighborhoods...
And once we get that remote shutoff switch thingie ironed out, we can require them on all guns.
Hey, if you're not doing anything wrong, why would you object...?
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
It's All About Control
What should be controversial in the proposed revisions to Title 24 is the requirement for what is called a "programmable communicating thermostat" or PCT. Every new home and every change to existing homes' central heating and air conditioning systems will required to be fitted with a PCT beginning next year following the issuance of the revision. Each PCT will be fitted with a "non-removable " FM receiver that will allow the power authorities to increase your air conditioning temperature setpoint or decrease your heater temperature setpoint to any value they chose.I like the way Joseph Somsel begins this piece, parodying the intro to "The Outer Limits": We will control the horizontal...
Y'see, it's not about "gun control" per se, it's about control, and more specifically, who gets to do the controlling.
I've been warning for years that the next step after personalized guns are mandated will be to require a remote radio-controlled shutoff switch for the authorities. After all, who could possibly be against such a life-saving device--except someone up to no good?
How tough of a sell do you think that would be to our savvy and informed electorate?
[Via Les K]
Saturday, February 02, 2013
Things to Come?
"There is absolutely no deterrent in technology except against those who would abide by the law, and for them I see harassment, denials, and increased costs," said David Codrea, author of The War on Guns. Another concern would be that someone with nefarious motives could hack the system via some sort of "master key," said Codrea. Such fears, along with costs, could certainly limit adoption. [More]Actually, it's not so much someone hacking in as the cops having a remote shutoff switch that I was referring to.
Still, I appreciate the mention in a tech venue that has a different readership from the one I usually can reach out to.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
One Question
Anybody ever point a remote at a TV or garage door and had nothing happen...? [More]
The true goal, of course, as some of us predicted back when this "idea" was still new, has been to give "Authoritah" a shutoff switch.
The thing is, in "progressive" states, this is starting to pose a real-world danger, at least to anyone of principle still living there. In the absence of being able to hold legislators accountable, other chairs need to be picked up and used in this particular bar fight.
As such, gun makers need to adopt the Ronnie Barrett solution, and that expectation needs to be communicated to them from gun customers.
And we can't keep allowing this group to skate, either. Let someone else certify the stormtrooper trainers in states where they deploy them after gun owners to enforce bans.
The true goal, of course, as some of us predicted back when this "idea" was still new, has been to give "Authoritah" a shutoff switch.
The thing is, in "progressive" states, this is starting to pose a real-world danger, at least to anyone of principle still living there. In the absence of being able to hold legislators accountable, other chairs need to be picked up and used in this particular bar fight.
As such, gun makers need to adopt the Ronnie Barrett solution, and that expectation needs to be communicated to them from gun customers.
And we can't keep allowing this group to skate, either. Let someone else certify the stormtrooper trainers in states where they deploy them after gun owners to enforce bans.
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
Safety First!
Police Pursuit Eliminator Could Disable Vehicles, Save Lives On Road [More]
And who but a white supremacist Nazi insurrectionist terror threat would object to a shutoff switch on guns?
[Via Steve T]
Thursday, May 29, 2014
See, We Should Require These for EVERYONE
If you're not thinking anything wrong, what have you got to fear? [More]
And of course we'll need a remote shutoff switch.
Just think how safe and secure we'll be!
[Via Florida Guy]
And of course we'll need a remote shutoff switch.
Just think how safe and secure we'll be!
[Via Florida Guy]
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
A Smarter Way
I nominate Ronald Brownstein over at The Los Angeles Times for the Nobel Peace Prize. He's single-handedly come up with "A Smarter Way to Control Outbreaks of School Gun Violence."
If only the fed-gov would force us to use "smart guns," the Red Lake Massacre wouldn't have happened.
Well, the technology isn't actually ready yet, Brownstein admits, but if it was, this would sure be a smarter way to control outbreaks of school violence.
Of course he doesn't address what we'll need to do with the estimated 250 million or so "dumb" guns already in circulation. Nor that the Red Lake killer would have still been able to steal guns from his LEO grandfather, since the police will exempt themselves from using them (even though the justification for the original research was to create a smarter way to control incidents where perps shoot cops with their own guns.)
He doesn't say anything about how the new technology will likely raise the cost of basic defense pistols out of the reach of many low-income people, the ones who live in the most crime-prone neighborhoods and presumably in the most routine danger. Nor does he consider how criminals, like the police, will also be exempted from any mandates.
He also doesn't consider the near universal experience of pointing a remote control at a TV or garage door and having absolutely nothing happen. But maybe increasing the likelihood of a firearm failing to perform as intended will turn out to be a smarter way to revive gun industry lawsuits.
And he's dead silent on the certain demands for the police to have a "shutoff switch" like the engine disablers being developed as a smarter way to stop car chases. After all, what excuse could a "law-abiding" citizen have for not supporting this? Like someone who asserts his Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop, what have you got to hide?
The sad thing is, I'll bet over 90% of The Times' readers will never hear such arguments, and of the ones who do, the majority will find the outcomes desirable.
Ronald Brownstein is counting on that. After all, we've established that he's a pretty smart fellow.
If only the fed-gov would force us to use "smart guns," the Red Lake Massacre wouldn't have happened.
Well, the technology isn't actually ready yet, Brownstein admits, but if it was, this would sure be a smarter way to control outbreaks of school violence.
Of course he doesn't address what we'll need to do with the estimated 250 million or so "dumb" guns already in circulation. Nor that the Red Lake killer would have still been able to steal guns from his LEO grandfather, since the police will exempt themselves from using them (even though the justification for the original research was to create a smarter way to control incidents where perps shoot cops with their own guns.)
He doesn't say anything about how the new technology will likely raise the cost of basic defense pistols out of the reach of many low-income people, the ones who live in the most crime-prone neighborhoods and presumably in the most routine danger. Nor does he consider how criminals, like the police, will also be exempted from any mandates.
He also doesn't consider the near universal experience of pointing a remote control at a TV or garage door and having absolutely nothing happen. But maybe increasing the likelihood of a firearm failing to perform as intended will turn out to be a smarter way to revive gun industry lawsuits.
And he's dead silent on the certain demands for the police to have a "shutoff switch" like the engine disablers being developed as a smarter way to stop car chases. After all, what excuse could a "law-abiding" citizen have for not supporting this? Like someone who asserts his Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop, what have you got to hide?
The sad thing is, I'll bet over 90% of The Times' readers will never hear such arguments, and of the ones who do, the majority will find the outcomes desirable.
Ronald Brownstein is counting on that. After all, we've established that he's a pretty smart fellow.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Smart Guns Don't Always Make the Grade
There’s an understatement. “Smart guns” never make the grade.
The original National Institute of Justice grant to Sandia Labs to develop them was specifically justified by “takeaway” incidents where cops were killed with their own gun. But the cops don’t want to have anything to do with them—no surprise there.
"If a weapon is taken from an officer, I personally believe it is primarily a training issue. Most folks seem to try and solve most tactical problems through some sort of hardware improvement without looking at the core system. The human operator should be the primary system to be improved upon. Many departments are dangerously low in their delivery of ongoing advanced officer training. If an officer cannot be trusted to deploy and keep his or her weapon, please don't give them one in the first place!”
That was told to me by former Navy SEAL Ken Good, at the time, director of the SureFire Institute. He is an expert’s expert, providing weapons and tactics training to elite military fighting personnel, civilian law enforcement tactical specialists, and security professionals.
Training certainly seems to be the core issue in this “news report”—one cop killed with his own gun, the other closes his eyes and prays. And if the gun did “backfire,” the training deficiencies quite possibly extend to proper maintenance of issued firearms.
The creepiest line in this story: “Grants also have gone to private gun makers looking into…a gun that reads a rice grain-sized computer chip injected into the owner's hand.”
Who but a pathological government-worshipping Nazi dreams up stuff like this? And who are the industry whores turning tricks for them?
Two other questions to consider:
Has anyone not had the experience of pointing a remote control unit at a TV or garage door and having nothing happen?
And does anyone really think that once “smart guns” are mandated, an edict giving “authoritah” a shutoff switch will be far behind?
The original National Institute of Justice grant to Sandia Labs to develop them was specifically justified by “takeaway” incidents where cops were killed with their own gun. But the cops don’t want to have anything to do with them—no surprise there.
"If a weapon is taken from an officer, I personally believe it is primarily a training issue. Most folks seem to try and solve most tactical problems through some sort of hardware improvement without looking at the core system. The human operator should be the primary system to be improved upon. Many departments are dangerously low in their delivery of ongoing advanced officer training. If an officer cannot be trusted to deploy and keep his or her weapon, please don't give them one in the first place!”
That was told to me by former Navy SEAL Ken Good, at the time, director of the SureFire Institute. He is an expert’s expert, providing weapons and tactics training to elite military fighting personnel, civilian law enforcement tactical specialists, and security professionals.
Training certainly seems to be the core issue in this “news report”—one cop killed with his own gun, the other closes his eyes and prays. And if the gun did “backfire,” the training deficiencies quite possibly extend to proper maintenance of issued firearms.
The creepiest line in this story: “Grants also have gone to private gun makers looking into…a gun that reads a rice grain-sized computer chip injected into the owner's hand.”
Who but a pathological government-worshipping Nazi dreams up stuff like this? And who are the industry whores turning tricks for them?
Two other questions to consider:
Has anyone not had the experience of pointing a remote control unit at a TV or garage door and having nothing happen?
And does anyone really think that once “smart guns” are mandated, an edict giving “authoritah” a shutoff switch will be far behind?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)