Slashdot Mirror


"Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention

R3d M3rcury (871886) writes "How's this for a good idea? A gun that won't fire unless it's within 10 inches of a watch? That's the iP1 from Armatrix. Of course, don't try to sell it here in the United States." From the NY Times article linked: "[Armatrix employee] Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. 'Belinda?" the person wrote. "Is that you?" ... "I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote." The article paints a fairly rosy picture of the particular technology that Armatrix is pushing, but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state, which might not always be an attractive feature. And given that at least one state — New Jersey — has hinged a gun law on the commercial availability of these ID-linked guns, it's not surprising that some gun owners dislike a company that advertises this kind of system as "the future of the firearm."

4 of 1,374 comments (clear)

  1. Untrustworthy by BasilBrush · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    And again, gun nuts show they are the last people that should be trusted to be responsible with anything.

  2. Re:Gun nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    People who threaten to murder other people should be locked up and denied their precious access to guns.

    Gun nuts usually threaten to murder anyone that even questions them.

    Why are the people harassing this woman not on trial? Enjoy exercising your 2nd amendment rights when you have a felony on your record, assholes. Hahahaha!

  3. Re:Gun nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    It does not say anything about the arms being for a militia, do you not read English?

    You're an idiot and you need to go fuck yourself.

  4. Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? by Fringe · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Completely wrong. Fight it. With everything you've got. Because otherwise gun-hating pacifists will soon force only those "safe" (meaning non-functioning) guns to be legal.

    Grishnakh, are you generally anti-gun? Is there any reason a gun-owner or a supporter of the 2nd Amendment should consider you relevant?