search
top

Judge Tries His Hand at Engineering

According to one retired judge in Alaska, developing a perfectly functioning “smart” gun is just as easy as adding simple seat belts to a car in the very early days of car safety developments.

Clearly, there’s not any unexpected circumstance where a non-functioning gun could actually end in innocent lives lost. Nope, not a single downside ever. Nope, never ever any unintended consequences, ever according to the judge.

18 Responses to “Judge Tries His Hand at Engineering”

  1. Flight-ER-Doc says:

    Well, Shee-it. I wasted all those nights in engineering school studying, instead of partying. If I’d only known how easy it was.

  2. Tam says:

    The biggest difference is that a device like that would need to be designed to ” fail dangerous” as opposed to “fail safe”, which kind of defeats the purpose.

    • The_Jack says:

      ^^ This ^^

      There are valid engineering situations where a fail-deadly path is desirable, but such a design would be mutually exclusive to a fail-safe requirement.

  3. Aces says:

    Somehow, because he worked as a “Magistrate”, he has some sort of wisdom above the average citizen? Nope. As magistrate, he’d see a lot of requests for search warrants & such, hearing about some of the very people we want to be safe from. Has that skewed his opinion on the ability of lawful gun owners to keep their guns out of the hands of criminals? I also note that he started his life in New Jersey, a state where guns are kind of foreign.

  4. Crotalus says:

    And remember, boys and girls, every one of those smart guns will be designed to shut down with a signal from the government

    • NotClauswitz says:

      ^^ THIS ^^
      The Gov. preferred requirement is fail-fail because Governmentium is an inert substance composed only of dense yet fibrous matter.

  5. Merle says:

    Wonder why he is an “ex” judge? Maybe the locals got tired of him & voted him out?

    Merle

  6. TS says:

    At least he’s advocating police use, instead of exempting them.

  7. CarlosT says:

    As someone who spent half of the Labor Day holiday working because of a technology failure, I’m highly skeptical of introducing more technology into a device I may have to rely upon to save my life. I have a strong feeling I’m not alone.

  8. Scott Connors says:

    If judges can pontificate on questions of firearms engineering, then I can write legal decisions legalizing the possession of fully automatic firearms and rocket propelled grenades by the unorganized militia (ie, us). That’s fair, isn’t it?

    • Burnt Toast says:

      I’d rather the Judge issue and edict that gasoline has twice the energy content it does now, that G =4.5 m/s^2, or much mo betta – perpetual motion is possible.

  9. BHirsh says:

    Not that the government would want to, but there is no technology that enables the government to remotely unfasten seatbelts.

    There IS technology that would enable government to render “smart gun” equipped weapons inert.

    And that is a facial violation of the Second Amendment.

  10. Motor-T says:

    I particularly enjoy his analogy to cars. Every car I’ve seen recently has keyed door and ignition locks. And many of these cars require the use of sophisticated RFID chip implanted keys to allow the cars to run. These locks and high tech keys have been instrumental in ending auto burglary and theft.

    What’s that you say? The US has about a million cars stolen every year. Well, I’m sure magic gun pixie dust technology will be more effective than the sophisticated anti-theft devices on modern cars.

    I know, I can hear you now. Car thefts are at a 20 year low. You know what else is at a 20 year low? That’s right kids, criminal homicide.

    • Merle says:

      If RF technology is so reliable – then why do doors STILL have keys? Also, do you know how much it costs if you loose your magic key? That makes for a very expensive day. Not all manufacturers have released the kjey codes for use by locksmiths. That means a trip to the dealer on a flatbed & gets real expensive from there.

  11. Dan says:

    And airbags will save lives. Except for short people, and kids, and people who drive with their seats low and forward.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Quote of the day—Scott Connors | The View From North Central Idaho - […] ConnorsSeptember 4, 2014Comment to Judge Tries His Hand at Engineering[Yes. It is […]
top