Meet The $22,000, Self-Aiming, Wifi-Enabled Rifle

[natster43]

So if I start using an aimbot in games like Call of Duty can I use the excuse that it is realistic?

 

[Akytalusia]

hax. no thanks. cheats take all the fun out of it and dull your skills.

 

[elvor0]

Oh, good. So we have a commercially available assassination kit that requires no skill to use. Thanks, America. Glad to see that any life can now be easily wiped out by anybody with a grudge and $20,000.

...and yet marijuana remains illegal...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, nothing to stop you buying more ammunition, if you're sniping people it's not going to be much of a problem to reload, it's not like the Araoura shooter didn't buy tons of ammunition and all his guns from stores.

You're right, you don't need a gun to kill someone, but it makes it much easier when you have an assault rifle that you can spray and pray with and kill a lot of people with. And I don't think the bombing argument is really /that/ plausible, perhaps in America you would, but we don't have guns in Britain and we don't have bombings going off at the same rate you guys have shootings. Even then, aside from the 7 July Bombings, the 3 other attacks have killed /very/ few people.

And I'd like to counter the counter argument to this before it comes up, yeah we do have stabbings, but you can't go on a mass killing spree with a knife, you're just one man and a crowd can easily overpower you if all you have is a knife.

The real criminals can get guns, but we're talking "organized" criminals here, not your average joe who walks into a gun store, buys stuff and then goes on a rampage. He's not a gangster, he can't just get contacts and guns by virtue of him wanting to kill people, that argument annoys me no end, crimnals can't just magic guns out of thin air, if they couldn't buy them in shops it'd be fucking hard to get hold of them without knowing people who're capable of smuggling them quite well. Also, most organized criminals keep it between them and other gangs, they don't randomly attack civilians like the rampagers do. Certainly not at the same rate, or big enough to make head-lines.

Look, I /like/ guns, as a piece of technology and for entertainment value, they're great. Given the opportunity I would likely have a big collection myself, because I really enjoy playing with them. BUT! People can't be trusted, as we've seen. Getting a gun shouldn't be as easy as it is. You don't need automatic weapons, or sniper rifles, or small armouries like some people in America keep. The government isn't going to go all orwellian on you, and if they wanted do, they have tanks and predator drones. Your piddly little assault rifle won't do jack against that. It's the same reason I don't expect the government to legalize LSD or hardcore drugs even though I enjoy them, because people can't be fucking trusted and we'd have stupid people getting tripped off their face on acid and killing them or other people every other week.

Again, It'd be great if people could have guns and we could all be trusted not to kill each other, but people can't be fucking trusted. If you want guns for self defence fine, have a pistol. If you shove a gun in someones face, it doesn't matter how big it is, you pull the trigger and they're going to die, so they're quite likely to back off. I'm not against guns as a thing, just that they shouldn't be in the general public's hands at the saturation they are in America. It's too fucking dangerous.

The only people with guns in Britain are gangs capable of smuggling weapons and the armed police units. The proper organized gangs do /not/ take kindly to killing civilians, and the gangstas(ie the middle eastern and black ones) only shoot each other in very small amounts. You know how often we get rampages? Almost never.

Also, just in advance, none of that is intended to be aggressive towards you, just y'know, I'm a Brit and that's how we speak

-snip-


I understand the military applications, but no hunter with any self worth would want a rifle that basically shoots for him. That is the thrill when hunting, using your own skills to make that one moment happen. You miss, you go hungry [until you get back into town, then go to McDonalds], taking away that skill no longer makes hunting a means for food, it just becomes a "hey, lets go limit out on [insert animal here]." scenario. AKA Newbie hunters that haven't got a good appreciation for nature yet.


I cant see any civilian actually wanting a rifle. A: because for $22,000, you could get some pretty boss firearms to begin with, and B: it isn't designed for personal protection.

I understand the fear that some psycho out there could get their hands on it, but that possibility goes with any firearm, any knife, any vehicle, any commercially available chemicals.

I think it seems to be more of a "hey look at what we made!" device than something "serious", in the same way that a Bugatti Veyron is a car showcasing the pinnacle of technological consumer level cars, even though you'd never be able to actually utilize or need all the stuff they've stuck in it. It's obviously very good for a military situation, where that shot may be the difference between life and death, but for hunting, yeah... it's like giving yourself infinite ammo and god mode on a game, fun for five minutes, but takes all the fun out after that.

 

[barbzilla]

Oh, good. So we have a commercially available assassination kit that requires no skill to use. Thanks, America. Glad to see that any life can now be easily wiped out by anybody with a grudge and $20,000.

...and yet marijuana remains illegal...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, nothing to stop you buying more ammunition, if you're sniping people it's not going to be much of a problem to reload, it's not like the Araoura shooter didn't buy tons of ammunition and all his guns from stores.

You're right, you don't need a gun to kill someone, but it makes it much easier when you have an assault rifle that you can spray and pray with and kill a lot of people with. And I don't think the bombing argument is really /that/ plausible, perhaps in America you would, but we don't have guns in Britain and we don't have bombings going off at the same rate you guys have shootings. Even then, aside from the 7 July Bombings, the 3 other attacks have killed /very/ few people.

And I'd like to counter the counter argument to this before it comes up, yeah we do have stabbings, but you can't go on a mass killing spree with a knife, you're just one man and a crowd can easily overpower you if all you have is a knife.

The real criminals can get guns, but we're talking "organized" criminals here, not your average joe who walks into a gun store, buys stuff and then goes on a rampage. He's not a gangster, he can't just get contacts and guns by virtue of him wanting to kill people, that argument annoys me no end, crimnals can't just magic guns out of thin air, if they couldn't buy them in shops it'd be fucking hard to get hold of them without knowing people who're capable of smuggling them quite well. Also, most organized criminals keep it between them and other gangs, they don't randomly attack civilians like the rampagers do. Certainly not at the same rate, or big enough to make head-lines.

Look, I /like/ guns, as a piece of technology and for entertainment value, they're great. Given the opportunity I would likely have a big collection myself, because I really enjoy playing with them. BUT! People can't be trusted, as we've seen. Getting a gun shouldn't be as easy as it is. You don't need automatic weapons, or sniper rifles, or small armouries like some people in America keep. The government isn't going to go all orwellian on you, and if they wanted do, they have tanks and predator drones. Your piddly little assault rifle won't do jack against that. It's the same reason I don't expect the government to legalize LSD or hardcore drugs even though I enjoy them, because people can't be fucking trusted and we'd have stupid people getting tripped off their face on acid and killing them or other people every other week.

Again, It'd be great if people could have guns and we could all be trusted not to kill each other, but people can't be fucking trusted. If you want guns for self defence fine, have a pistol. If you shove a gun in someones face, it doesn't matter how big it is, you pull the trigger and they're going to die, so they're quite likely to back off. I'm not against guns as a thing, just that they shouldn't be in the general public's hands at the saturation they are in America. It's too fucking dangerous.

The only people with guns in Britain are gangs capable of smuggling weapons and the armed police units. The proper organized gangs do /not/ take kindly to killing civilians, and the gangstas(ie the middle eastern and black ones) only shoot each other in very small amounts. You know how often we get rampages? Almost never.

Also, just in advance, none of that is intended to be aggressive towards you, just y'know, I'm a Brit and that's how we speak

First off, thank you for a well written rebuttal of my post. I appreciate it when intelligent discourse is had, as opposed to the usual arguing we see on this topic of discussion.

As to your first point, I was referring to the anti-gun advocates in the US with the ammunition limitation. How they proposed to limit the amount of violence able to be wrought was to limit the amount of ammunition a weapon could have in its magazine. That is the logic fallacy I was referring to in my original response to your post. I do agree with you, a limited magazine is not much of an issue with how easy they are to change out. You are talking an average of only 5-7 seconds for an amature to change out, 4-6 seconds with a bit of practice, and less than a second for an elite commando. The time spent reloading vs firing is negligible unless you are firing full auto.

As for your second point, if criminals in your country were truly unable to get ahold of firearms they would use bombs when necessary (in my opinion, I don't have hard facts to back that up). If you look at the number of firearm related crimes in your country, it is obvious that firearms are still obtainable. So using your statistics isn't a fair way to disprove the logical leap that criminals would utilize alternate methods to perform mass killings when truly unable to obtain guns. (also, don't worry I'm not one of those idiots that compares knives to guns when comparing the UK to the US).

As for your point about obtaining guns, it is very easy to obtain them (depending on where you live) outside of legal means. I can obtain a fully automatic uzi machine pistol for $8,000 legally right now, you just have to know where to look and how to stay within the laws. I can also obtain pretty much any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or revolver without involving a FFL dealer and without any form of registration right now, with no legal ramifications I might add. This is because it is legal to transfer ownership / sell your own gun to another local person, provided that it doesn't have to be transported or shipped across state lines. This is, of course, provided that the firearm is legal to begin with. For obvious reasons this doesn't apply to illegal firearms by any means.

I do agree with you about another facet of the discussion though. I agree that the issue is, who obtains firearms. I think there needs to be more stringent rules regarding who can obtain a gun. There needs to be a full background check, registration of the firearm, a mandatory gun safety class, and a mental evaluation. Some of these things should be done at a regular basis and the person be issued a card that identifies this person as a legal gun owner/buyer. That would allow a tracking system to be in place to keep tighter control over who guns are being transferred between. There should also be stricter regulation on gun safety. If a person isn't storing a firearm safely (I.E. where only they are able to obtain the firearm), then there should be penalties.

Comparing our two countries, or any two countries for that matter, is a ridiculous proposal. The fact that the cultures are so vastly different enforces the point. Your criminals care about the citizens in your country (well maybe not in so many words, but they care that they are not needlessly harmed). In my country, many criminals and organized gangs care little for the citizens. To make a point, one of the gangs local to where I am has a ritual that a new member must enact to gain full membership. This ritual requires them to brutally murder a random person on a certain street. No rhyme or reason to who gets picked, just mindless brutality. These are the type of thugs who would certainly resort to bombs or other means if they were unable to obtain firearms.

However firearms will never be unobtainable in my country. Even if firearms were to be outright banned and collected, we have so many avenues to import them that there will always be a way to get a hold of one. The other thing is that my country has a list of human rights, and among those rights is the right to bear arms. It would take a rather extreme constitutional change to omit that right for the citizens of this country. To put this in perspective, we have a class of citizen who is not allowed to own firearms period, and they are often randomly checked for firearms (I'm talking about felons here if you aren't already aware). Yet they tend to be able to get one at the drop of a hat, even when they are expressly forbid access to them. Even so far as to live in the same house as a gun is forbidden. Yet they have them.

The final point I wish to make is this, no one person should be treated as though they have committed a crime that they are not responsible for committing. This applies to many facets of life, and is one of the methodologies our criminal justice system is built upon. Innocent until proven guilty. Taking away legally obtained firearms from our citizens is akin to accusing them of being guilty of thought crime. I know that seems extreme, but if you really think about it, this is what disarming the country would be. Accusing the entire country of not being able to keep it in their pants (so to speak) and committing criminal acts of murder.

I understand that a disarmed country can and does work, but I also understand that an armed country can and does work as well. I feel 99% confident that I will never have to use any of my guns to defend myself or attack another human being. Hell I don't even hunt. However, I practice with my weapons and I know them inside and out for the eventuality that I do end up needing them. I don't drive with my license, registration, and insurance in my car because I think I will need it today, but I also wouldn't drive without it in case I get into an accident. Same reason people carry condoms. It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

[elvor0]

-snip for great space saving-

First off, thank you for a well written rebuttal of my post. I appreciate it when intelligent discourse is had, as opposed to the usual arguing we see on this topic of discussion.

As to your first point, I was referring to the anti-gun advocates in the US with the ammunition limitation. How they proposed to limit the amount of violence able to be wrought was to limit the amount of ammunition a weapon could have in its magazine. That is the logic fallacy I was referring to in my original response to your post. I do agree with you, a limited magazine is not much of an issue with how easy they are to change out. You are talking an average of only 5-7 seconds for an amature to change out, 4-6 seconds with a bit of practice, and less than a second for an elite commando. The time spent reloading vs firing is negligible unless you are firing full auto.

As for your second point, if criminals in your country were truly unable to get ahold of firearms they would use bombs when necessary (in my opinion, I don't have hard facts to back that up). If you look at the number of firearm related crimes in your country, it is obvious that firearms are still obtainable. So using your statistics isn't a fair way to disprove the logical leap that criminals would utilize alternate methods to perform mass killings when truly unable to obtain guns. (also, don't worry I'm not one of those idiots that compares knives to guns when comparing the UK to the US).

As for your point about obtaining guns, it is very easy to obtain them (depending on where you live) outside of legal means. I can obtain a fully automatic uzi machine pistol for $8,000 legally right now, you just have to know where to look and how to stay within the laws. I can also obtain pretty much any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or revolver without involving a FFL dealer and without any form of registration right now, with no legal ramifications I might add. This is because it is legal to transfer ownership / sell your own gun to another local person, provided that it doesn't have to be transported or shipped across state lines. This is, of course, provided that the firearm is legal to begin with. For obvious reasons this doesn't apply to illegal firearms by any means.

I do agree with you about another facet of the discussion though. I agree that the issue is, who obtains firearms. I think there needs to be more stringent rules regarding who can obtain a gun. There needs to be a full background check, registration of the firearm, a mandatory gun safety class, and a mental evaluation. Some of these things should be done at a regular basis and the person be issued a card that identifies this person as a legal gun owner/buyer. That would allow a tracking system to be in place to keep tighter control over who guns are being transferred between. There should also be stricter regulation on gun safety. If a person isn't storing a firearm safely (I.E. where only they are able to obtain the firearm), then there should be penalties.

Comparing our two countries, or any two countries for that matter, is a ridiculous proposal. The fact that the cultures are so vastly different enforces the point. Your criminals care about the citizens in your country (well maybe not in so many words, but they care that they are not needlessly harmed). In my country, many criminals and organized gangs care little for the citizens. To make a point, one of the gangs local to where I am has a ritual that a new member must enact to gain full membership. This ritual requires them to brutally murder a random person on a certain street. No rhyme or reason to who gets picked, just mindless brutality. These are the type of thugs who would certainly resort to bombs or other means if they were unable to obtain firearms.

However firearms will never be unobtainable in my country. Even if firearms were to be outright banned and collected, we have so many avenues to import them that there will always be a way to get a hold of one. The other thing is that my country has a list of human rights, and among those rights is the right to bear arms. It would take a rather extreme constitutional change to omit that right for the citizens of this country. To put this in perspective, we have a class of citizen who is not allowed to own firearms period, and they are often randomly checked for firearms (I'm talking about felons here if you aren't already aware). Yet they tend to be able to get one at the drop of a hat, even when they are expressly forbid access to them. Even so far as to live in the same house as a gun is forbidden. Yet they have them.

The final point I wish to make is this, no one person should be treated as though they have committed a crime that they are not responsible for committing. This applies to many facets of life, and is one of the methodologies our criminal justice system is built upon. Innocent until proven guilty. Taking away legally obtained firearms from our citizens is akin to accusing them of being guilty of thought crime. I know that seems extreme, but if you really think about it, this is what disarming the country would be. Accusing the entire country of not being able to keep it in their pants (so to speak) and committing criminal acts of murder.

I understand that a disarmed country can and does work, but I also understand that an armed country can and does work as well. I feel 99% confident that I will never have to use any of my guns to defend myself or attack another human being. Hell I don't even hunt. However, I practice with my weapons and I know them inside and out for the eventuality that I do end up needing them. I don't drive with my license, registration, and insurance in my car because I think I will need it today, but I also wouldn't drive without it in case I get into an accident. Same reason people carry condoms. It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

First point- Ah, fair enough then, I didn't realise that was what you meant, I don't keep entirely that well up with the bills, had I known that, it would've been pretty obvious that's what you meant, derp on my part.

mm, they certainly can obtain them, they're just less prolific, for obvious reasons, we do have quite a bit of gun crimes going on every now and then, they're just a bit less brutal or tend to only involve targeted killings outside of the odd shoot out which doesn't happen to often. Obviously there's the running joke of our coppers having nothing to defend themselves with apart from a stick, which is true, but because it's not really /that/ necessary for them to carry guns.

Not to say it never happens, in fact Luton, where I live at the moment has a pretty bad gang problem (or at least relative to us), but it's mainly contained within the gangs, but as a result certain areas currently have armed police patrolling due to there being a /lot/ of shootings happening there(again, relative). Obviously neither of us can truly say whether DIY weapons would increase if guns were taken out of the equation until it happens, and I'd be naive to say that there wouldn't be an increase of some sort. Just I personally don't think it would increase /that/ much, or at least as much as some people feel they would. But then, that would also lead to more deaths at a time, bombs are hardly the most focused form of fire power.

Guns are as I've said a lot easier to use and kill someone with than a dodgy nail bomb you've cooked up at home.But I have a tendency to half address the person I'm quoting and half address anyone that might read my post and quote me. I'm covering myself in advance if you will. Hence the bit about knifings.

And yeah, not being from America also puts me at a slight disadvantage when trying to talk about it, like you say, we're culturally different in some areas. I can only speak properly about my own environment, and while the only info I can get is through the news and talking to people, it's never going to match someone who knows about the nuances of living there, or stuff that's common knowledge to you, but I may never even hear about in my life. I mean your country has the second amendment, which is obviously the root cause of your countries attitude towards guns, and I can see where it's coming from, I may not necessarily agree with it, but I can see that it makes sense. I personally think the UK could do a bit more regarding rights to self defence, it's only just become okay to kick a burglers head in over here, as long as you don't go overboard.

Again you're right, due to the saturation of guns over there, any attempt to ban them, if it came to it would be entirely futile at best, and some seriously bad shit would go down at worst, people who've done nothing wrong would have every right to kick up a fuss at having their things taken away. But sometimes I feel the government needs to step in take control, and I suppose stricter rules on obtaining them and the reduced clip size is a good start. It's never going to be entirely "fixed"(fixed being entirely relative to your point of view), so I personally would feel better about the world if they at least start to make things a bit stricter on that front. But then you've got the issue that Americans tend to prefer a more hands off government, which is fine, different strokes for different people, and anyone who disagrees with me is totally in the right to do so.

err...I'm sort of starting to go off on a bit of a soapbox tangent here, and veered off from what you've actually said ><). I can totally see where you're coming from with the quoted post, I may not necessarily /agree/ with all of them, but I don't think they're points that are any way in the wrong or points that I can whole heartedly refute without reverting to ridiculous straw-manning, logical fallacies or some form of slippery slope. They purely stem from our different cultures and experiences, which at the end of the day is what makes us human. What matters here is we're having the discussion and can both(hopefully) see where each other are coming from and respect that opinion for what it is Plus we could be here all day otherwise.

Plus it's also damn nice to have a proper discussion about this, I tip my hat to you sir. No, I think the real issue in regards to discussing this topic are the extremists on both end of the spectrum, they help no one, ain't never gonna reach a happy medium when most of the folks are just bickering and calling each other right wing gun nuts or liberal hippies because they happen to disagree with them.

 

[barbzilla]

Snipped for consummate verbosity

Right on with, pretty much, the entire post. Generally speaking a solid ground can be found in the middle of two well thought out opposing views. If more people can learn to sit back, listen to /read from the conflicting side, and then reflect on it, we might have a rather nice place to live. Unfortunately, people such as you and I tend to be in the minority. That is to say people who have a strong opinion, but don't resort to yelling and flinging feces around.

As for the subject of cultures, I think the main difference in our two countries are their origins. While it could be argued that both countries have similar backgrounds (seeing as how we were a part of you at one point), the main difference comes from the differences between sovereign and diplomatic nations. While you were a sovereign nation when the weapon bans came about (which makes sense if you have a centralized government like that), we were a nation founded on rebellion and righteous indignation. Don't get me wrong, I think my forefathers had a strong moral compass, I just understand that we were only able to succeed from you because we were given so much slack in the first place. Because we are a nation founded on the culture where if our government ever violates a general moral guideline, we not only have a right to, but a duty to rebel and overthrow said government, we will need our weapons. I think this is an outdated system, but until we have a new governing system in place, this is what we have to deal with.

That being said, I wish you well on your paper and a fine day to you.

 

[Strazdas]

Sounds a lot like console aiming. cant aim for ship, but we got autoaim and ping=aiming now.
i see military application in this, a gun for a soldier that make sure he wont miss (cosndeiring majority of shots are mises) is a HUGE advantage.

Your life can already be easily wiped out by anyone with working limbs and eyesight.

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.

Herse a thing: people are lazy.
A person would rather pay 20.000 for a autoaiming rifle than spend half as much and train himself. thats why most gun owners cant aim for shit, they never bother to train.
the difference between explosion and gasoline here is that it is a sniper rifle, meaning you can shoot somone kilometers away and get away easily before they even begin searching for you. can you do that with gasoline and a match? of with a "explosives you buy" (also wtf, where can you buy explosives?)

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.

There can be no united front when opinion of everyone is invovled because humasn are not homogenous.
thats the thing, they dont want to kill them bad enough, they want to kill thme on a whim, a gun enables that, other means dont. you WILL see drop in killings. it is no secret that most killings are passion killings (not premeditated).\

...your life can EASILY be wiped out by anyone who wants your SHOES and has a $100 gun.

Can somone who owns a 100 dollar gun shoot you from 2 km away with no witnesses and walk away like nothing happened?
yeah, thats what i though.
Even worse, you can run it from a diferencet city via Wifi.

No. What it does, is something that anyone with proper training can do with their own brain - it tells you where you need to hold on your target in order for the bullet to connect.

Meaning, if you aim directly at the target, it might tell you to raise up 5 clicks and to the left 3 so that the bullet drop and wind-age will be negated and the bullet will his the target.

You don't have to even be a military sniper to learn this skill, you just need to, you know, practice. This gun simply eliminates the need for that skill - it's nothing more than a short cut. You still have to look through the scope and you still have to aim it - the only difference is that this scope tells you right where to put the cross hair if you want to hit a specific target.

Elimination of military practice is the worst thing that can happen to weapon ownership.

Let's also understand that this gun requires you to lock onto a target, fire, then lock onto another target. That's incredibly impractical if your intention is to shoot a large number of targets quickly.

and you need that when you are trying to assassinate 1 person from a distance because?

You know what else is legal to own for any citizen of the United States?

A minigun. Sure, they're like $400,000 and firing one for a full minute will use around $4,000 worth of ammo, but it's legal. If money is no object to a psychopath like someone in this thread suggested, where is the outcry about the minigun being legal?

You can also buy a tank. Sure, they're expensive, but you can buy one. Some countries don't even require the weaponry to be disabled - even if it is disabled, anyone with a bit of fabrication know-how could PROBABLY make it functional again.

Where is the outcry?

It is illegal to own either here and for a very good reason - it shouldnt be. The fact that you are allowed to own one is ridiculous and only shows how utterly retarded american gun laws are.

My point is that the anti-gun panic before they think. Sit down for a few minutes, do some of your own research, actually study how this particular rifle even functions and you'll realize that there's nothing to worry about. It's a toy for lazy people who won't take the time to train themselves how to shoot a rifle. I personally know several avid hunters who can do in their brain the math that this fancy gun does for you.

yes, sit down, do resaerch, actually read what we are saying and then youll realize that there is plenty to worry about.

OT: As a gun owner, and second amendment supporter, I have to ask "Why?"


I understand the military applications, but no hunter with any self worth would want a rifle that basically shoots for him. That is the thrill when hunting, using your own skills to make that one moment happen. You miss, you go hungry [until you get back into town, then go to McDonalds], taking away that skill no longer makes hunting a means for food, it just becomes a "hey, lets go limit out on [insert animal here]." scenario. AKA Newbie hunters that haven't got a good appreciation for nature yet.

You have to ask why? as a second amendment supporter you should know that guns have one purpose - to kill. and to kill easier is always thep refered way for majority.
hunting is not a means for food for decades, its a "sport" because people like killing stuff and sadly killing other people is illegal still.
hunting for food is a very very rare exception nowadays, and should not be an excuse to allow acess to firearms.

Comparing our two countries, or any two countries for that matter, is a ridiculous proposal. The fact that the cultures are so vastly different enforces the point. Your criminals care about the citizens in your country (well maybe not in so many words, but they care that they are not needlessly harmed). In my country, many criminals and organized gangs care little for the citizens. To make a point, one of the gangs local to where I am has a ritual that a new member must enact to gain full membership. This ritual requires them to brutally murder a random person on a certain street. No rhyme or reason to who gets picked, just mindless brutality. These are the type of thugs who would certainly resort to bombs or other means if they were unable to obtain firearms.

So you are using a crazy strawman and applying to to everyone?

However firearms will never be unobtainable in my country. Even if firearms were to be outright banned and collected, we have so many avenues to import them that there will always be a way to get a hold of one. The other thing is that my country has a list of human rights, and among those rights is the right to bear arms. It would take a rather extreme constitutional change to omit that right for the citizens of this country. To put this in perspective, we have a class of citizen who is not allowed to own firearms period, and they are often randomly checked for firearms (I'm talking about felons here if you aren't already aware). Yet they tend to be able to get one at the drop of a hat, even when they are expressly forbid access to them. Even so far as to live in the same house as a gun is forbidden. Yet they have them.

because it is so hard for, say, a robber to grab a gun while robbing the house as well since everyone has them to begin with. if other civilians didnt have guns felons would haqve nowhere to get them from. guns dont materialize from thin air.
you have a constitutional rights, not "human rights". There is only one Human Rights declaration and it does not say anything about ability to own weapons. and even that was created by humans. both are failable, debatable and outdated.

The final point I wish to make is this, no one person should be treated as though they have committed a crime that they are not responsible for committing. This applies to many facets of life, and is one of the methodologies our criminal justice system is built upon. Innocent until proven guilty. Taking away legally obtained firearms from our citizens is akin to accusing them of being guilty of thought crime. I know that seems extreme, but if you really think about it, this is what disarming the country would be. Accusing the entire country of not being able to keep it in their pants (so to speak) and committing criminal acts of murder.

so paedophilia is also banned because everyone is accused to being a paedofile in your country? i fail to see logic in this.

 

[Zeraki]

So in 2013 we created a gun that aims for you, and yet the Kaminoans managed to produce an army incapable of a: coming up with this, and 2: aiming.

Actually, the Clone Troopers were pretty awesome when it came to shooting things. The Storm Troopers on the other hand... not so much. The clones eventually got phased out for the most part and were replaced by average military recruits.

OT: This is pretty neat, but kind of pointless at the same time.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

So much invested into crap like this, would be nice if we just made more things to help eachother instead of kill eachother.
What? No? OK then.

OT: Aaaaanyways, isn't it a little bit of a flawed idea? I mean it's no like the Americans need anymore tools for killing desert people with AKs and the only they'd even get a chance to use it would be a third world war, and nukes seems like they'd do more damage.

 

[VoidWanderer]

It makes you wonder... if Americans didn't blow billions of dollars in weapon R&D, how greatly could they improve their country?

This reminds me of the Sci-Fi Story where a super-powerful killing machine is defending a long since dead Empire and refuses to believe that the place it protected is now dead...

Just saying...

 

[FancyNick]

I think this is a cool invention and I am actually more surprised to see that we didn't already have this. However, I have to say I am not a fan of this being sold commercially. If you need the gun to do the work for you than you probably shouldn't be using a gun in the first place.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Seems kind of lame. Isn't half the point of gun ownership the martial challenge of learning how to aim, fire and otherwise maintain the weapon? And $22,000? Armslist.com has a Barret M82A1 for sale for $9,000, and while you're looking at $600 per 100 rounds (or thereabouts) that's something like 6,000 rounds with your remaining $13,000! Even total nutters tend to think about bang for buck, and a shitty wifi aiming system doesn't quite compare to a massive rifle that fires .50 BMG rounds surely?

That being said, could this be the first steps towards automated area-denial or base deployed point defense systems? Or even the sci-fi staple of the sentry gun?

 

[barbzilla]

Snipping anything not related to me

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.

There can be no united front when opinion of everyone is invovled because humasn are not homogenous.
thats the thing, they dont want to kill them bad enough, they want to kill thme on a whim, a gun enables that, other means dont. you WILL see drop in killings. it is no secret that most killings are passion killings (not premeditated).\

I won't argue with you that if we didn't have rifles, we would have fewer killings. However, we will never be free of firearms in the US, and that is a fact, not a guess. Even if we banned all firearms, asked for a national turn in, and then went door to door collecting all remaining leftovers, we would still have stowed firearms, imported firearms, and illegal firearms. What you are talking about is fact, if we had no guns, there would be less gun related death. I can't dispute that, but it is an unrealistic expectation. What I am talking about is applicable fact. This is the applied extrapolation based off of our situation. I can see that you don't live in the US, and that is fine, but what I am talking about applies to the US only. I don't know what the situation is in Lithuania, but it isn't the situation here.

Comparing our two countries, or any two countries for that matter, is a ridiculous proposal. The fact that the cultures are so vastly different enforces the point. Your criminals care about the citizens in your country (well maybe not in so many words, but they care that they are not needlessly harmed). In my country, many criminals and organized gangs care little for the citizens. To make a point, one of the gangs local to where I am has a ritual that a new member must enact to gain full membership. This ritual requires them to brutally murder a random person on a certain street. No rhyme or reason to who gets picked, just mindless brutality. These are the type of thugs who would certainly resort to bombs or other means if they were unable to obtain firearms.

So you are using a crazy strawman and applying to to everyone?

How is this a strawman at all? In fact I go so far as to elaborate on the differences between the countries being discussed. I will address this further if you elaborate on what made this paragraph a strawman. As far as any two countries being compared for the purposes of law enforcement, it does apply to everyone. Admittedly to varying degrees, but the point still holds. No two countries have the same culture or social standards, so why should they be compared for the purposes of laws?

However firearms will never be unobtainable in my country. Even if firearms were to be outright banned and collected, we have so many avenues to import them that there will always be a way to get a hold of one. The other thing is that my country has a list of human rights, and among those rights is the right to bear arms. It would take a rather extreme constitutional change to omit that right for the citizens of this country. To put this in perspective, we have a class of citizen who is not allowed to own firearms period, and they are often randomly checked for firearms (I'm talking about felons here if you aren't already aware). Yet they tend to be able to get one at the drop of a hat, even when they are expressly forbid access to them. Even so far as to live in the same house as a gun is forbidden. Yet they have them.

because it is so hard for, say, a robber to grab a gun while robbing the house as well since everyone has them to begin with. if other civilians didnt have guns felons would haqve nowhere to get them from. guns dont materialize from thin air.
you have a constitutional rights, not "human rights". There is only one Human Rights declaration and it does not say anything about ability to own weapons. and even that was created by humans. both are failable, debatable and outdated.

I say in my post that the constitution is outdated, do I not? I openly admit that, but until we are governed under a different document that is a right in America. As for robbers obtaining guns in robberies, this goes back to punishing law abiding citizens for a crime that haven't/won't commit. I can see you completely missed the point of my post, the point of this paragraph is that even if we banned guns, there would still be guns available in the US. Mostly because guns are here already. We don't need to ban guns, we need proper gun management laws. For example, gun safety dictates that your gun be stored in a safe with a lock that only you can open. If that is the case, we don't have to worry about someone breaking into the house and stealing the gun. If someone was to break in (unarmed obviously if they are looking for a gun) while the owner was there to use said gun, then it wouldn't be much of an issue, in most states in the US we have the castle law. If a criminal breaks into our home and we feel threatened we are allowed to use deadly force to protect ourselves. This might not be your law, but it is ours. Once again, cultural differences rear their ugly head.

The final point I wish to make is this, no one person should be treated as though they have committed a crime that they are not responsible for committing. This applies to many facets of life, and is one of the methodologies our criminal justice system is built upon. Innocent until proven guilty. Taking away legally obtained firearms from our citizens is akin to accusing them of being guilty of thought crime. I know that seems extreme, but if you really think about it, this is what disarming the country would be. Accusing the entire country of not being able to keep it in their pants (so to speak) and committing criminal acts of murder.

so paedophilia is also banned because everyone is accused to being a paedofile in your country? i fail to see logic in this.

How does this apply to my point at all? I halfway feel that you are being argumentative for the sake of arguing. We don't have any constitutional right to child pornography or child sex, so making it illegal is not removing anyones rights. We do have a right to own firearms, so taking them away removes our right. In the US you can only have rights removed from you if you are a criminal, a felon to be more precise. So by taking away our rights, without provocation, you are treating us as criminals. Once again, different countries, different laws. We are a democratic nation, and without a change in our governing documents, this is how things work here. If you don't agree with it, or like it, that is perfectly fine. I actually agree with you that we need a new form of governing body here (don't misread that as me saying we need to rebel, I think this can actually be done from inside the government), but until such a time as a new constitution is written, removing my right to own firearms is treating me like a criminal, and is an action I will not abide.

 

[barbzilla]

So much invested into crap like this, would be nice if we just made more things to help eachother instead of kill eachother.
What? No? OK then.

OT: Aaaaanyways, isn't it a little bit of a flawed idea? I mean it's no like the Americans need anymore tools for killing desert people with AKs and the only they'd even get a chance to use it would be a third world war, and nukes seems like they'd do more damage.

Most of our peaceful technology and healthcare related discoveries are first used in military applications. This will eventually be ported and used in some way to help mankind, I'm fairly confident. Imagine the same technology in microscopic laser surgery, or how about used in the latest video cameras to allow the camera man/woman to keep perfect focus. There are plenty of peaceful applications for this technology, they just aren't being used as of yet.

 

[Lex Darko]

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.

Now that would be an actual cause for concern if it was ever made available to civilians.

Do you people really not understand how this thing works?

Actually I do, and what I'm talking about is augmented reality technology. In the future there is nothing stopping the creation of smaller specialized cameras that could be placed on smaller firearms with a more robust version of the software allowing multiple objects to be targeted at once.

Couple that with the fact that processing power of smaller devices increases every year and it's not hard to imagine a future with an augmented reality targeting system using this kind technology placed in a smaller form factor like glasses or a helmet.

That being said it doesn't bother me if military has access to it but letting any Tom, Dick or Harry buy it commercially doesn't seem like a smart thing to do.