Slashdot Mirror
A Computer-based Smart Rifle With Incredible Accuracy, Now On Sale
WheezyJoe writes "A story on NPR reports that the TrackingPoint rifle went on sale today, and can enable a 'novice' to hit a target 500 yards away on the first try. The rifle's scope features a sophisticated color graphics display (video). The shooter locks a laser on the target by pushing a small button by the trigger... But here's where it's different: You pull the trigger but the gun decides when to shoot. It fires only when the weapon has been pointed in exactly the right place, taking into account dozens of variables, including wind, shake and distance to the target. The rifle has a built-in laser range finder, a ballistics computer and a Wi-Fi transmitter to stream live video and audio to a nearby iPad. Every shot is recorded so it can be replayed, or posted to YouTube or Facebook."
Aimbotter
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
On a gun that decides when it's time to fire, I hope there's a cancel button.
I also bet there's someone that gets this, pulls the trigger at a picture of someone they hate, and then leaves the gun lying around their house. It wouldn't work, not that it wouldn't be fun to try.
If you want aim assist, play a console FPS. Otherwise, what's the point? I enjoy shooting, but to me this is not shooting. To quote Ace from the movie adaptation of Starship Troopers: anyone can push a button. I have hunted, shot skeet, and done some target shooting: the fun, the adrenaline rush, comes from knowing you hit your target. My longest shot was about 175 yards with a .30-06, clean kill. While it might not be that far, I take pride in the fact that I took the shot. With technology like this, you aren't hitting the target, the computer is. To me it completely misses the point of shooting, whether target shooting or hunting (and for hunting it completely removes the sport aspect).
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
A gun with an internet-connected onboard computer. Malware for it could be deadly.
Snipers use cover and concealment to hide their position. That's not really going to happen with a glowing video display and a spotter with a glowing iPad. Sounds like little more than an expensive toy.
If you want aim assist, play a console FPS. Otherwise, what's the point? I enjoy shooting, but to me this is not shooting.
The point is to actually hit what you are shooting at. While I enjoy the challenge of target shooting as well, the actual primary purpose of a firearm is to kill/injure. There is a reason guns have targeting/tracking systems when used in anger. Perhaps you have forgotten that a gun is a weapon?
With technology like this, you aren't hitting the target, the computer is.
Sometimes the point it just to hit the target and it doesn't matter who gets credit for the aiming.
This with Google Glass?
This was mentioned in Linux Format 2 months ago if you are interested in having a look. there is a little more information about how the identified target provides some safety, because if something job s between you and the intended target it won't fire as well as when you haven't lined up the shot. also the scope adjusts to view lower then the target after sighting so you lift up to account for droppage.
Bah, that's nothing, I once killed a polar bear with a banana.
...will be very pleased with this. Now every "jerky" robot can be an efficient terminator.
How does it detect the wind at 100, 200, 300, and 400 yards? How does it detect the change in wind speed over that full distance? It is impossible. In fact, the best way to calibrate is to actually fire a bullet. But even then, you can't be assured that the wind didn't change for the next shot. I guess if you fire and adjust in rapid succession, you could hit a needle after multiple shots.
According to the previous article professional snipers (swat, hostage rescue, etc.) are interested, mainly because of the video record of exactly what the aim point was.
This weapon will never be used in anger by any entity authorized to use lethal force in anger:
You cannot possibly be that naive. That specific weapon may not be used in combat but the basic technology will without a doubt make its way to people who will use it to kill living beings, either human or animal. I'm not even making a moral judgement about that, it's just a clearly obvious fact.
snipers would never use this,
They might not use that particular system but I promise you snipers can and will use a targeting/tracking system should one be available that fits their mission parameters. I would be deeply shocked if such technology was not being very actively worked on by the military.
it is too expensive and is unnecessary for the average foot soldier, and too large and cumbersome to be used on anything other than a rifle that is stationary and supported, ie on a target range.
Technology can be miniaturized and will be. Furthermore if the technology is large and needs support, it isn't exactly hard to attach it to a vehicle. The military does it all the time.
This technology is clearly designed for target and hunting use only, which would completely negate the point of both activities.
The technology is designed to cause a bullet to hit a target more reliably. The nature of the target is irrelevant. Plus you are contradicting yourself. If it can be used for hunting then it is portable. It if is designed for hunting there is little difference between hunting animals and hunting humans beyond the fact that humans can (and will) shoot back.
While the computer will do a better job with regard to bullet drop and deflection due to wind (assuming the computer is given correct information about wind, that is), there's still the question of shake when it comes to "pulling the trigger" on the laser. To some degree, this is nothing more than a wee bit more automation than you get from using a computer to calculate what your sight adjustment should be. A wee bit.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
...outside of static target shooting, it doesn't appear to be of much use; and, for static target shooting it is only of value as an evaluation tool.
Loading...
The target audience (pun intended) is extreme gun geeks, psychopathic hunters and assassins. So who will be the first human victim?
Why is Snark Required?
Yeah, because its going to be so easy to use something like that in a shooting rampage...
In a situation where there are other armed people, you want something that can just keep shooting, you'd just "spray and pray" something that this gun can't do. In something where you've got no chance of return fire (like in designated "gun free zones" like in Sandy Hook) it doesn't much matter because you can just walk up to someone and shoot them point blank if you want because they have no way to (effectively) defend themselves.
When it comes to kids, its important that kids learn at an early age to shoot responsibly. The problem is, too many kids get their first experience about firearms from Hollywood, from GTA and from rap music, rather than responsibly target shooting/hunting. The key is to teach them responsibility and facts, not that shooting a gun is a toy, nor that guns should be feared.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
How is this not an ad?
We already had an article about this, and all that has changed is that the rifle is on sale.
You use a spear? Try not clipping your fingernails for a month and hunting like a real man.
That said, it's a very curious definition of 'fair' when a game's historical stats are as lopsided as hunting. Call me back when team wildlife kills and butchers the hunters at a rate with, say, three orders of magnitude, of the rate at which team hunters kills and butchers the wildlife...
Call me back when team wildlife kills and butchers the hunters at a rate with, say, three orders of magnitude, of the rate at which team hunters kills and butchers the wildlife.
I'll settle for even odds. Anything less challenging and you might as well use a slaughterhouse.
The FCS on a tank works mostly the same way.
The sight is mounted on a mirror that can pivot in two axis on good tanks, an one axis on an Abrams. The ballistic computer knows what ammunition is in the breach (a user input - by the loader on good tanks, by the gunner on an Abrams) and so knows the ballistic profile of the round being fired. A slew of other sensors measure crosswinds, barrel droop, and the like. The laser rangefinder provides range, and an angle encoder in the turret slip ring provides rate of turret rotation, which provides a measure of target relative motion.
Gunner tracks target and then lases to get range. The FCS then jumps the gun barrel in both elevation and rotation while the sight mirror jumps back in the other direction(s) to keep the sight picture unchanged. The gunner fires, and the round impacts where the ballistic solution says it should.
From the gunner's perspective, you lay on target, track for a second, then fire the laser and fire the gun in close succession ("lase and blaze") and the round "magically" flies out and hits the target - no matter if you are moving, the target is moving, or both. You can be driving along at 60 km/h and hit a target moving 60 km/h 2500m away on the first shot.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
... close to a school zone and we may have something.
I saw this in a movie and they used to frame some up in assassination
I'm not sure if tragicomic alcohol-related accidents help compensate; but slaughterhouses(by virtue of the absolutely punishing pace and general powerless expendability of the peons on the line) actually chew people up pretty hard. They process livestock a great deal faster, of course; but the rates of occupational morbidity and mortality aren't pretty.
"This weapon will never be used in anger"
I bet every hot head, whose gone on a gun rampage has said that, and every dad whose kid gets hold of it.
Gun rampages are typically entered into with cool calculation and a bit of psychopathy/sociopathy; they are done by mentally ill persons or political zealots. The one exception I can think of is the Texas Tower Sniper, and it turned out he had a brain tumor.
Isn't it interesting that of all things NPR could report on they would choose this?
How quickly the Tsarnaev brothers and their pressure cooker amputation IED have come to be ignored.
Pull quote from the NPR piece is from Democrat Chris Frandsen, "Where we have mental health issues, where we have children that are disassociated from society early on, when we have terrorists who have political cards to play, we have to restrict weapons that make them more efficient in terrorizing the population"
Really?
Seriously, NPR needs to stop being subsidized by the taxpayer if they are going to spend this much time and effort carrying water for the gun control lobby.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
So DARPA had a system like this in 2010.
How hard would it be to cobble something up from iPhone bits? They already have iPhone scope adapters with ballistic computations in them.
In before the ban!
Rick B.
"With a replay button, it's even easier. one shot, and replay sends every other shot to the same location." Watch
I just read the thread about the drones over the New Jersey Turnpike, and then I saw this.
I'm going to head over to Mashable to see if there is a thread about a car with a sunroof.
Where this technology will really make a difference is remotely-fired platforms - drones and robotic gun mounts. The operator paints the target with the laser, hits a selector when the beam hits a good point, and commands the platform to fire. The computer figures out the rest. Fragile meat people aren't exposed to take the shot.
It's expensive now, but this is the introductory enthusiast version. The open source v3 equivalent will be have plans online using easily acquired inexpensive components and a 3d printer.
(As scary as this can be, part of me thinks this is awesome - but then I always play riggers in Shadowrun. ;) )
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
No need for a professional anymore.
I can't imaging a countryside where a lot of the people have these being invaded very easily.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
That's what this is - a robot gun that follows your instructions to "shoot there, and don't miss."
Run.
What?
I said... Run.
The Jackal was a rather enjoyable movie, and this gun reminds me of it somewhat. Similarities: remote targeted gun. Differences: Everything else.
This gun is a terrorist's dream! The problems here are so obvious that hopefully this will be banned quickly.
Long guns are almost never used to kill people (domestically, anyway). Your odds of being beaten to death with fists are five times greater. For the rampage killer pistols make more sense for a whole host of reasons.
Here are a couple easy to add features (make your own combo!):
Google glass support: shoot accurately from the hip, up your sleeve, or other quick/concealed locations.
Reaction wheels: some mechanical pointing assistance, so you only have to point it pretty close to the target, and it will do the rest
Automatic target acquisition: use face reconfiguration or detection to shoot everyone you don't like (good for general massacres, avoiding friendly fire, or computer assisted genocide)
Remote control: servos+tripod = easy remote kill system
Multiple targets: let the gun acquire several targets at once, and plan an efficient order to kill them
Doppler radar: send out a radar pulse immediately before firing, then correct based on accurate weather information. Great for long range.
Awesome use:
Gun that automatically shoots weapons out of attackers hands if possible, and otherwise goes for effective stopping but not killing shots. Use reaction wheels for fast accurate aiming assist.
Horrible use:
Thats easy, I'll let you come up with one.
Don't you know Linux is secure by default?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Uh ... never mind.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Take a look at the demo video. The deer apparently got away, as when the sight gets back on it after the shot is taken, it is running away, looking uninjured.
22k USD ensures only spoiled rich Goth kids'll use them. That may not be a good thing. But online videos are about to get even more creepy.
-- Jimtown Kelly
When self-aiming, auto-firing, always on target computer rifles are outlawed, only outlaws will have self-aiming, auto-firing, always on target computer rifles.
For the rampage killer pistols make more sense for a whole host of reasons.
Such as?
Anything a pistol can do, a short carbine can do better. Easier and faster to aim, more accurate, better recoil control for follow-up shots, larger magazines, more potent rounds... there is literally no disadvantage other than that a handgun is easier to conceal - but it is usually not a factor in a rampage.
I disagree. Concealment is a pretty big plus for these kinds of people - if you lug a rifle around populated areas people start calling the cops. Beyond that, pistols are lighter, pistol ammunition is lighter and deadly enough at close range, pistols are faster to reload, it's easier to shift targets with a pistol, and it's harder to grapple someone with a pistol. Beyond that these guys are mostly penniless losers, and pistols are cheaper.
There are lots of countries where it is common for hunters to sell their game meat to (specialty) stores and restaurants. Just because wherever you live you can't buy game meat in a store, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
That was not his response at all, and you know it.
The only way to do that is to give a gun to a bad man.
It is easy to shoot accurately, if you know how. Don't try to hold the rifle still. It is impossible. If you try to hold it still on a target, then it will move in a little circle around the point you are aiming at and you will never hit the bulls-eye. The more you try to hold it still, the worse the movement will get. The trick is to find the target direction and point slightly above it, then move the rifle down, down, down, sloooowly and when you move over the target, squeeze the trigger. I hope this tip will save some newb from embarassment at the rifle range...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
For some people hunting is not sport but a way of acquiring food. For you it is a challenge. For others it is food on the table.
I disagree. Concealment is a pretty big plus for these kinds of people - if you lug a rifle around populated areas people start calling the cops.
In most of those cases, the crazies go by car until the very spot where they start shooting, so they can easily transport pretty much any gun they want.
Beyond that, pistols are lighter
Doesn't really matter - it's only a factor when you have to lug it around for a considerable amount of time to notice the difference. When actually shooting, a heavier rifle is still easier to handle because most of its weight is supported by your shoulder.
pistol ammunition is lighter
It's not, actually. The case is shorter and has less powder, but the bullets themselves are heavier. For example, a Federal HST 147 gr 9x19mm round (which is about the best as you can get in this caliber in terms of stopping power and overall efficiency on unarmored targets) weights the same as a Hornady TAP 62 gr .223 round, while the latter is considerably more efficient and deadly.
Not that it's really relevant - a person can easily carry 6 30-round mags of 5.56mm concealed (under a jacket or vest, say), which is more than was ever actually used in such circumstances.
And, of course, there are many rifles chambered in pistol cartridges - Hi-Point carbines, Kel-Tec Sub-2000, Beretta CX4, Marlin Camp 9 and 45, Ruger PC9 and PC4, and semi-auto replicas of various submachine guns - Thompson, PPSh, PPS, Uzi etc. Not to mention pistol-caliber AR uppers.
pistols are faster to reload
Only insofar as "hand meets hand" arrangement of the mag well, which is not exclusive to pistols, either. From the list above alone, four carbines are designed in the same way.
it's easier to shift targets with a pistol
Not so. Shifting targets with a pistol requires a wide movement of both arms, which at the same time bear the full weight of the firearm. With a rifle, you only have to swing one arm - the one supporting the front - and even then a good half of the gun's weight is not moved much and is supported by the shoulder. This is especially true of straight blowback pistol-caliber carbines, which tend to be less front-heavy due to bolt's position and weight (Sub-2000 in particular has a very heavy bolt that is completely behind the pistol grip - it rides in the stock tube).
and it's harder to grapple someone with a pistol.
I doubt it comes to that often (but if you seriously think it is a consideration, a knife bayonet on the rifle would largely rectify this problem).
Beyond that these guys are mostly penniless losers, and pistols are cheaper.
Not really. A Hi-Point carbine can be easily had for $300, and even less if you look around - that's 50% less than a Glock 17. Going into "real rifle" territory, a WASR AK-47 can be had for around $400 (still less than a Glock); a Chinese SKS that takes AK mags, for $500. A used Mini-14 in 5.56mm can be found for under $600; a Kel-Tec SU-16 in the same caliber, for as little as $400.
For a handgun, the cheapest I can think of that isn't woefully inadequate (i.e. fires a reasonably potent round and can be quickly reloaded) would be Tokarev or a clone - e.g. Zastava M57, which would go no lower than $200; or one of Hi-Point pistols for about $150. But both of those are kinda crappy and not particularly reliable, and that's not that big of a difference in price compared to a much more reliable and powerful AK.
Besides all that, don't you think that your points don't quite match the observed facts? I mean, in most rampages so far, we have seen the perpetrators use long guns. One can argue whether that is the most suitable weapon for it or not, but that's what actually get used.
Besides all that, don't you think that your points don't quite match the observed facts? I mean, in most rampages so far, we have seen the perpetrators use long guns.
No, in fact I don't think that's true at all. The guy who shot Rep Giffords used pistols, as did the VA Tech shooter.
By the way, it runs Linux. Very, very, VERY old news though.
For the rampage killer pistols make more sense for a whole host of reasons.
Such as?
Anything a pistol can do, a short carbine can do better. Easier and faster to aim, more accurate, better recoil control for follow-up shots, larger magazines, more potent rounds... there is literally no disadvantage other than that a handgun is easier to conceal - but it is usually not a factor in a rampage.
What are we talking about, movie theaters and classrooms, targets 15' away and moving?
A rifle with more moving parts will be more likely to misfire or jam, easier for someone to grab onto, more difficult to control. Why on Earth would you use a clunky rifle to shoot something that close... closer than you'd even zero the thing at? If you figure you'd reload either weapon at least once, you're looking at what, 60 rounds for the rifle, 40 for the handgun? How many reloads do you think are realistic in this situation?
If you're talking about a hypothetical rampage at 100-200 yards, I'd understand your logic, but then that's an entirely different scenario.
If concealment is not a factor.... then damn, why are we even limiting this to which firearm makes less sense?
Took long enough, I'd bet on this 2 years ago. Next step is heads up displays with high res video, letting soldiers mark their targets from cover in playback and firing around cover through such systems. Spray and pray is near over, hopefully thereafter collateral damage will be history as well.
What about the Charles Whitman "rampage"? He shot at range, and not every shot was a kill. Something like this could have helped him kill more efficiently. Or just slowed him down.
Learn to love Alaska
The NRA (gun manufacturer logbbyists who don't give a fsck about an ammendment) will see this as a way of removing the need for the US military 'spray and pray' shooting technique, i.e. dramatically reduce the need for ammo and the incredible profits arising from those sales.
The ZF-1.
Call me when you can 3D print this...
If the code for this thing is written in C, you can now really shoot yourself in the foot (very accurately) :-) http://m5p.com/~pravn/foot.html
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Stop using her in your demo pics.
I had enough trauma when I was a kid
What are we talking about, movie theaters and classrooms, targets 15' away and moving?
Yes, exactly.
A rifle with more moving parts will be more likely to misfire or jam
A rifle doesn't have to have more moving parts. In fact, a 9mm pistol would have a more complicated internal mechanism than a 9mm carbine (because the carbine can use straight blowback thanks to the ability to stick a heavier bolt into it, while the pistol would have to be locked breech or some form of delayed blowback).
easier for someone to grab onto
I very much doubt that is a practical consideration.
more difficult to control.
A rifle is far easier to control than a handgun. Inexperienced handgun shooters, until they're taught the Weaver stance and learn to do it right from practicing it, have pretty crappy accuracy (yes, even at 15 feet). Seen it plenty of times firsthand. Not so with a rifle, it's a much more "intuitive" interface, so long as you shoulder it (even if it's not done quite right).
Why on Earth would you use a clunky rifle
Because it's faster to aim (so it's not really "clunky")?
Note that we're talking AR, AK and similar carbines here, as short as a civilian-legal firearm can get (without ATF stamps and other hurdles). Not a full-sized medium- or high-power rifle, like a .308 or .30-06. The point here is having a stock, not having a longer barrel. Weight-wise, you can trim an AR down to around 5.5 lbs (with a plastic lower and carbon fiber forend and stock). Or you can take Kel-Tec SU-16, which is 4.7 lbs, and takes the same standard AR mags.
And if you look at pistol-caliber carbines, they can be surprisingly light. Sub-2000 is under 4 lbs unloaded, and most of that weight is in the heavy bolt that is in the stock tube - so the shoulder bears most of it. Aiming it is lightning quick, much more so than with a full-size pistol.
If you figure you'd reload either weapon at least once, you're looking at what, 60 rounds for the rifle, 40 for the handgun?
Reliable 40-round mags for ARs do exist, so it would be 80 rounds for a rifle. For pistols, you can get 30-rounders, though they're somewhat unwieldy.
How many reloads do you think are realistic in this situation?
Adam Lanza reloaded six times (tactical reloads - fresh magazine before each room; he didn't actually spend all 30 rounds in every mag).
You could also use this system in a reverse situation. You light a target, and subsequently try to hit it by sending shoot orders via the trigger. When you get all parameters right (winds, elevation,... ), you score a point, no round is ever fired. Maybe this already exist for training, I am not literate in that matter. You could also shoot blank rounds, should you need to take recoil into account.
When it comes to kids, it is important that they do not come in contact with guns, ever. This also applies to adults btw.
Stick that one on a 360deg swivel-platform and add a heat seeking sensor and add auto-targeting and you have something that you hope won't be placed on a roof overlooking a crowded market square. I guess the military already have similar constructs(?)
Does it come with face recognition software as well?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jVsQToSfag
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
How is this going to help when shooting at non-stationary targets?
Finally! That's what was missing from shooting sprees: Tweeting the kills.
As a English man who cannot really understand the arguments in favour of the 2nd Amendment can I ask a few questions to my gun loving cousins?
Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't a firearm?
Does the 2nd Amendment allow (in your mind at least) a citizen to have a rocket launcher or a laser gun?
What are you going to do when the technology of simple side arms develops to the point where you an take out a room full of people by pressing a trigger and letting you gun do all the aiming etc..?
Would genuinely like to hear from a pro gun NRA type.
The key is to teach them responsibility and facts, not that shooting a gun is a toy, nor that guns should be feared.
What utter nonsense. The people who go on shooting rampages and their victims don't think guns are toys. They were not playing with them, they were murdering or being murdered. I don't think any of these shooters had difficulty understanding the difference between shooting someone in a video game and murdering them in real life, they knew exactly what they were doing.
Guns should be feared. If someone points a gun at you then you should be afraid, even if you have your own gun.
You sig says a lot. Personally I think we are better off not living in the wild west, where our only protection is a revolver and our posse.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
... with hearts and flowers so two-year-old girls can prevent themselves from being shot by their five-year-old brothers. After all, if that two-year-old who was killed recently had had a gun for self-defense, the story would have turned out much "happier".
I'd wager that a true professional will use any available technology to maximize their efficiency. The only thing standing in the way is machismo. There was a time when professional chefs eschewed the use of food processors for preparing ingredients - they were fast enough without them. There was a time when pilots would never give up mechanically linked controls or allow a machine to fly their planes.
To be so short sighted that the data-human interface will never evolve beyond an ipad (a very inexpensive way to develop a technology interface), or that a custom scope wouldn't be fabricated at a cost 100x the current unit cost for specialty operations, is to ignore the past entirely.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
you don't even need to go to a school now. you can safely be .6 miles away
This is a horrible idea, so now instead of having students shooting up schools by coming through the front door, they can just sit on a hill and take out the teachers?
I'm going to hold out for the Aperture Science Sentry Turret version of these. What could possibly go wrong?
"This next test involves turrets. You remember them, right? They're the pale, spherical things that are full of bullets. Oh wait, that's you in five seconds. Good luck."
-GLaDOS
The NPR story was mainly concerned with individuals interested in restricting this weapon use to "military only" as in "non-civilian". Wonder why nobody finds this to be an issue?
As a English man who cannot really understand the arguments in favour of the 2nd Amendment can I ask a few questions to my gun loving cousins?
As someone raised in a commonwealth nation under British rule of law and now a U.S. citizen, I find it very sad that so many British people really don't understand the rudimentary basics of freedom. That you willingly accept your government restricting your rights to own or use various tools; that you accept constant monitoring; that you accept being restricted from saying WHATEVER comes into your head and feel that laws that could fine or imprison you for simply flapping your lips are acceptable; that you accept being penalized for simply going into an area of your city; it is all really quite incredible to me.
Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't a firearm?
Basically anything propelled by gun powder or made to look/function like a gun qualifies as a firearm in my book. But, the classification is utterly unimportant to me. I've never even given the matter a thought, prior to your question. It's like saying; where do you draw the line on what is and isn't an automobile? But, my lack of interest does not mean that the law doesn't very clearly define what does and does not constitute a firearm. Furthermore, the law does restrict private ownership and use of certain types/classes of firearms.
Does the 2nd Amendment allow (in your mind at least) a citizen to have a rocket launcher or a laser gun?
Sadly, no. I'm fairly certain that there are restrictions that prevent private citizens from owning, selling or using rocket launchers willy nilly. I do not agree with this law and I feel that it puts the citizenry at an unfair disadvantage. But it is the law of the land at this time. "Laser guns" don't largely exist in the sense that you are thinking, though there are development efforts underway. Very high powered lasers are perfectly legal, however there are restrictions on their sale/use. You can't buy a laser pointer beyond a certain milliwattage, you could take an eye out. But, you can buy a multiwatt(megawatt?) laser capable of slicing several inch thick steel like a hot knife through melted butter. They are used by numerous industries every day.
What are you going to do when the technology of simple side arms develops to the point where you an take out a room full of people by pressing a trigger and letting you gun do all the aiming etc..?
I'm going to marvel at the technology. I'm going to contemplate whether I really want one for myself and whether I feel the need for one, just in case. I'll probably not purchase one, but I will strongly favor the right for any free individual to own one. The technology already exists to cheaply and easily take out an entire room full of people just that easily. Furthermore, despite existing laws against the use of such weapons, the laws cannot prevent their "manufacture" or use as has been demonstrated in the past. A demented or determined individual can and will do that and there is no law or amount of restrictions that can prevent it. Look at 7/7/2005 or the IRA for your own examples of death and destruction that was already outlawed.
Contrary to what people seem to think or hope, laws cannot possibly provide physical security. It is NOT possible. Even if the manufacture of guns were globally outlawed and none existed, it would still be the case where guns were used to kill people.
To quote a line from the movie Unforgiven: "I don't want to get killed from lack of being able to shoot back"
Its like paying 2k for a race car simulator and only look at the on screen demo while waving the controller around. I'd rather shoot a flintlock than a computer-gun.
The proper object of fear here is the person pointing the gun. If someone seriously threatens to kill me, you bet your ass I'll be afraid, whether they have a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, or their own hands and feet. (More people are murdered via hands and feet than via either rifles or via blunt objects.)
It is a fact of human existence that the only direct protection a person has against someone intent on violence is their own ability to use defensive force ("a revolver"), or the ability and willingness of others to use force on their behalf ("our posse"). That's true whether you live in ancient Rome, the Wild West (which was probably not as "Wild" as our mythology makes it out to be), a gang-controlled part of a city, or a low-crime gated community.
Indirect forms of protection, where we have socioeconomic, educational, criminal justice, and mental health care systems that don't lead to people developing along violent lines or make serious efforts at reform if they do, may have more overall impact. But when a crazed stalker breaks into your home, it's past the time where those can come into play.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I may have to get one of those.....
I can easily see them being disallowed for hunting though....
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
No. Not only have plenty of rampage shooters used handguns, some have used revolvers.
Campo Elias Delgado killed between 26 and 30 people (accounts differ and some may have been killed by police in the crossfire) and wounded 15 with a knife and a single revolver..
Wellington Menezes de Oliveira killed 12 (not including himself) and wounded 12, using two revolvers and firing over 60 shots.
Charles Andrew Williams killed 2 people and wounded 13 with a single revolver.
Thomas Hamilton, the Dunblane shooter, killed 17 people (not including himself) and wounded 15 more. He had four handguns: two six-round revolvers and two 9mm pistols.
George Hennard, the Luby's shooter, killed 23 (not including himself) and wounded 20 with two semi-automatic handguns.
Jiverly Antares Wong, the Binghamton shooter, killed 13 people (not including himself) and wounded four more with two handguns.
Nidal Malik Hasan, the Foot Hood shooter, fired 214 rounds from a single handgun, killing 13 people and wounding 13.
Patrick Henry Sherrill, the Edmond post office shooter, killed 14 people and wounded six. He had three handguns and fired approximately 50 rounds.
Howard Unruh killed 13 people and wounded 3 with a Luger (a handgun).
The demonization of rifles is completely irrational, not just in terms of their overall use in homicides but in terms of their use in spree shootings.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
A stand and a few servo motors. Why even have a human shooter with all their breathing and giggly muscles. Already broadcasts to your phone, just laser mark the target and let the gun do it's thing (that's essentially what's happening anyway.)
I've been wondering when something like this would become available. All the tech pieces to put it together have been around for quite some time. The scariest part about such a weapon is that there are only a couple of simple pieces to add to it to make it remotely controlled. Imagine how handy such a thing would be for an assassin. Set up the shot ahead of time, then make the kill at the appropriate time, in safety, perhaps even with an alibi.
This weapon is a security professional's nightmare.
Proverbs 21:19
Speaking as an outdoorsman that has come across far too many dead/wounded deer in the woods... If a hunter using this setup is much more likely to score a single fatal shot on game, killing it with as little suffering as possible, I hope this makes it to market as quick as possible.
Around here half the deer hunters don't bother going to the shooting range, and they're god-awful shots because of it. So they end up wounding whatever deer they shoot at, and the poor thing takes off and suffers for hours until it either bleeds to death or a coyote brings it down.
It should be noted that whatsisbutthead who shot up Sandy Hook fired nearly 150 times to get his 26 kills.
At close range. Against helpless targets.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
High end custom .308 with 6-24x scope & AAC suppressor: $5000
Magpul Dynamics Precision Rifle Class: $750
Travel, hotel, food, etc. for class: $500
500 rounds of match ammo: $350 (I handload)
Kestrel wind/temperature/pressure meter: $200
Total: $6800
And I can stack shots at 100y (my three-shot groups are under 0.5"), and hit a 10" steel plate at 1km all day long. And unlike the $17k rifle, I can observe the wind at a distance, and account for it. Oh, and the class is a load of fun!
The second amendment (since thats what the thread is labeled) is to protect us from the government.
The US government stomps out well-armed enemies all the time with near total impunity. Even the best possibly armed citizen is simply no match for the US Government, when nations of millions of people with trained militaries and every modern weapon are effectively defenseless.
Your best defense against The Big Evil Government is the fact that The Big Evil Government is you and a few hundred millions others like you, and has neither the means nor the will to wage war against its own self.
As long as you quit screeching about every inconvenience of modern society being tantamount to slavery, you'll be fine.
Guns are just property, and property will enslave you a lot more effectively than government tyranny. Property, and fear.
Charles was ex-military with actual training. He used no more than one shot per target, kill or not. Sandy Hook was shot up by a guy with no formal training.
Learn to love Alaska
This has nothing to do with hunting. This makes everyone a sniper.
The demonization of rifles is completely irrational, not just in terms of their overall use in homicides but in terms of their use in spree shootings.
That's part of the strategy. See, gun control groups realized that they were essentially getting nowhere with attempts to ban handguns. But they haven't given up on that goal, just put it on the back burner. They've figured out that long guns, especially scary-looking long guns, will be a much easier ban to get into effect. They've started with the "assault weapons" because that's where it's the easiest to chip away at gun ownership. That won't stop mass shootings. So, they'll progressively push for broader bans on long guns, slowly moving forward to the real goal of complete elimination of citizen gun ownership.
But we'll still have our handguns, right? Once draconian long gun bans are in place, all they need is a couple of VA Tech or Giffords mass shootings with handguns to whip out the same list you've just provided, along with the obvious legislation still simmering on that back burner. See, we've already banned all those terrible long guns, and these handguns are obviously much more dangerous...
Yes, it's a slippery slope argument. To quote Spock from that ST:TOS episode where he returns to Vulcan to mate, "It is not logical, but it is very often true."
- T
Some make the case that they prefer natural shooting, and I would too. But this is a good way to train a shooter. Considering wind speed, direction and a lot of variables. You can easily mod this to be used as "training wheels" for shooters. The army and police trainers could really benefit from this. I had to use the paper and bare sights training route... Wouldn't mind getting a better understanding of trajectories through this. Someone make a hacked firmware already... ;)
IMHO guns are tools. This is a tool that gets a job done quicker easier and more safely. Some people do like the recreational use of guns, and this isn't for that.
Greed is the root of all evil.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/09/tiny-drone-ethe
Casteism
Odd. Guns should be feared is one of the first things my father taught me about guns. As in "Do not fear your gun".
Guns should be respected, but when you fear something, you make mistakes.
Hmm. I guess I should fear my car as well.
Aha, the better to kill you with my deal.
(Old childs poem, slightly modified)
Seems like a highly unstable device that will shoot only when it's aligned correctly. I wonder how well the borderline cases like not found after so many seconds have been tested. I mean, if a novice cant get it to shoot, he will usually reverse the rifle and try to look down the barrel. OK
It sounds like a marketing speech. I seriously doubt that they know what is really involved in hitting a distant target.
The most likely result, of the system described, is to prevent the rifle from ever firing!