Meet The $22,000, Self-Aiming, Wifi-Enabled Rifle
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
Did anyone else think of Mass Effect when they read this? Its almost exactly what the codex describes for the masss accelerator guns they use
Yeah that's the one thing that really worries me about this. I mean personally I think it's an awesome (and I mean that in the true sense of the word) piece of technology, and were I a rich man, I'd have one now, but that's not the point, people /cannot/ be fucking trusted, we've already had had mass shootings, and the one "upside" about that is the nutter kills himself or gets arrested and thrown in the slammer or given a lethal injection, now they can pick people off with lethal precision at 900 meters.el_kabong said:
This is on a whole new level, imagine how much worse the CLeveland School Shootings would've been if Brenda Anne Spencer had one of these! If you're willing to go on a rampage, $20,000 means nothing to you, this is the sort of stuff that should only be sold to armies, in no way should this be allowed in civilian hands.
The problem isn't school shootings or rampages or anything of that caliber, the problem is assassinations. With that thing for everyone to buy on the market no politician, no celebrity and noone who ever pissed off someone with 20.000$ to spare and the lack of inhibition required is ever going to be save again.
The difference between this and a 100$ gun is not the effectiveness. Both kill. The difference is the likelihood to get away with it.
The difference between this and a 100$ gun is not the effectiveness. Both kill. The difference is the likelihood to get away with it.
That was basically my first thought too, all that technology is nothing more than a massive vunerability that WILL get exploited, especially with the useless wifi to open the door....MonkeyPunch said:
I wonder how many people realize that the good old M1 Grand from WW2 or even WW1 rifles still work very effectively since very little has changed in how these weapons work. The more technology they cram into the guns the worse the owners get at using them, not better.
Well that is horrifying. At least with a human doing the aiming I have the illusion that I might have a chance of not being blasted into oblivion. This world is becoming so scary, not that it wasn't already but at least it felt like if it all went to hell in a hand basket the average person would have a chance. Now the military tech is becomeing so advanced it feels like the gulf between what a person can do and what a soldier has at their disposal is immense.
Going by anti-gun advocates the fact that it has a much smaller ammo capacity means that it would be less effective. Honestly I would take anti-gun advocates much more seriously if they at least provided a united front. The anti-gun peeps seem to think all forms of strange things that mean nothing. If you wanted to kill someone you don't need a firearm. A gun just makes it easier to kill from a range. Take all the guns in the world away and you would see more bombings. Take all the bombs in the world away and you would see mass poisonings. The one thing that will hold constant no matter how much you ban things is that if a person wants to kill people bad enough, they will kill people.elvor0 said:
I do think we need to be more restrictive about who can easily buy a gun, but that won't stop real criminals from owning guns as the other side of the argument seems to think.
OT: I think it is a neat concept, but the price is way too prohibitive for anything but a military sniper, and the only reason it would be cost effective for them is that it eliminates the need for a spotter.
Very true, in fact most WW2 rifles remain more effective than their newer counterparts (well maybe effective isn't the word, reliable seems more fitting). People just see the more aggressive look that rifles have now and think "ohh scary" and want them banned. Wow this rifle can hold 30 rounds, lets ban that, while saying that shotguns are fine. Completely ignoring the fact that a shotgun is much more lethal in the arms of an untrained person than any rifle can hope to be.RicoADF said:
Your life can already be easily wiped out by anyone with working limbs and eyesight.el_kabong said:
Hell, for murder purposes, there is little reason to not buy a $1000 rifle and $10,000 worth of rounds for training to just become a better shot. Or a hundred bucks worth of explosives. Or some gasoline and a match.
This really changes nothing about the face of murder, since rifles make up an extremely small amount of murders, firearm or otherwise, to begin with. They just aren't very efficient for it in nearly every scenario.
...your life can EASILY be wiped out by anyone who wants your SHOES and has a $100 gun.el_kabong said:
See, this is the kind of over-reaction typical of the anti-gun side. They know nothing about guns, they know nothing about gun crime, all they see is a big black scary piece of machinery and think "OH NOES I'M GONNA DIE!".
SERIOUSLY people... if you want to be taken seriously about the anti-gun crap you spew, PLEASE educate yourselves first.[/quote]
So, first off, being pro gun control doesn't mean I'm anti-gun any more than wanting FDA regulations make me anti-medicine or pro-sick-people. Second, I actually know quite a bit about guns. Coming from rural North Dakota, I've been surrounded by guns and gun owners my entire life and have been through the necessary firearms classes to ensure that I know how to handle them and, although it's not my main pastime, have fired my fair share of them.
So, knowing firearms, I know how difficult it can be for a shooter to actually hit anything with any sort of reliability, particularly if a target is moving and/or nerves are entering into it. In your hold-up scenario, if someone has a gun, they don't automatically win. There's a variety of combat techniques that make having a gun more of a liability in close quarters for you than the other person, if only because it gives the untrained a false sense that they have the upper hand. Although, if someone points a gun at me and wants my shoes, I would just give them the shoes. Not really worth a death-match. However, this gun eliminates any of the expertise needed to make the gun an efficient killing tool. Power and prowess gained without practice is the most likely to be abused.
So, maybe if you want these "anti-gun" people to think about our opinion before we overstep our knowledge, maybe you should do the same.
Wow, a real life aim-bot.. Never thought I'd see the day... I can imagine what the dude on the side that's being fired at will say.. "YOU HACKING SHIT!!! STOP WITH THE AIMBOT AND AIM FOR REAL YOU PUSSY!!!"
Very valid points, too bad my M1 Garand is now illegal under new regulations (because it has a bayonet mount). Honestly the whole thing is rather silly, a gun is a gun is a gun and nothing can ever be done to change that until it isn't a gun. If it uses rapid combustion to fire a projectile from a mobile, handheld platform, it is a gun.RicoADF said:
What's potentially disconcerting about this assisted aiming system is that the obvious next step would be to miniaturize it and put in a pair of glasses or a helmet that could then sync with any firearm not just rifles. So in the future there could be people using even handguns shooting from max effective range with the accuracy of a sniper without any of the training.chadachada123 said:
Now that would be an actual cause for concern if it was ever made available to civilians.