Is Armatix the Enemy?

Smart Gun Error

Bob Owens takes a look at WaPo op-ed by the managing director of Armatix, GmbH. I’m a bit more reluctant to label Armatix as the enemy. As long as they aren’t busy lobbying to mandate their technology, and are willing to compete in the marketplace with other firearms, nothing they are doing is inherently wrong. I would never recommend their firearm to someone for anything, because I think it’s a bad idea, but that’s part of competing and succeeding in a free market.

Unfortunately for Armatix, the political landscape in the US is the problem. Even if they are on the up-and-up, and want to compete in a free market, there are political forces out there that view the smart gun technology as a path to enact wide-sweeping gun bans, such as already been passed in the State of New Jersey. Even if New Jersey repeals their law, which it seems may happen, that’s not going to fix the problem, because the cards have already been put on the table. We know what the gun control movement plan to do. I don’t oppose the Armatix pistol coming to the United States because I don’t like it, or don’t like Armatix. In a world where gun control was not a serious political threat, I would be happy to see it come. I believe it will fail in the free market, but I’d be willing to give it a chance. I oppose the Armatix pistol coming to market because our opponents in the gun control movement plan to use the technology to deny us our freedom to choose. Unfortunately for Armatix, there’s nothing they can do to change that.

12 thoughts on “Is Armatix the Enemy?”

    1. You got that from TTAG didn’t you? It’s not a remote kill switch. I wouldn’t take engineering advise from a guy who is trained as a hypnotist :)

      1. Yes, I did. Granted I’m not a German patent attorney, and don’t speak German, but this is from the patent:

        “Vorzugsweise ist die erfindungsgemäße Vorrichtung fernsteuerbar, beispielsweise via Satellit bzw. kann Informationen an einen Satelliten senden.”

        Which Google translated to:
        “Preferably, the apparatus of the invention can be controlled remotely, for example via satellite and can send information to a satellite.”

        Sure seems like they’re protecting something kill switch-ish to me.

        1. I’m not familiar with German patent law either, but they aren’t describing a system capable of doing that, so I wouldn’t classify this as a patent for a satellite-based kill switch. But they are suggesting they’d like to do it that way. Still, that’s a far cry from suggesting they’ve patented a satellite-based kill switch for a gun. It is for a kill switch, but a gun with a kill switch is the basic definition of a smart gun.

    2. What that’s a patent for is their little watch. It’s integral to their smart gun tech. It’s not a remote kill switch like it’s being presented as. It works with the watch.

      1. Wait, are you saying the watch can be controlled via satellite then and not the gun? Doesn’t the watch also enable (and hence, disable) the gun? I wonder if controlling the watch via satellite (a pipe dream, but the satellite thing is part of the patent) would somehow be able to disable the gun. That there is rhetorical.

  1. They have a patent on a technology that – if required by law – would result in a windfall of cash, money, politicians and hookers (but I repeat myself) all coming to their gate.

    No way they are working for mandatory laws for their technology. /Sarcasm

    Do some digging and I bet we’ll find these guys working with politicians everywhere, and we’ll also find they are hiding the relationship so they ‘sneak one past those dumb rednecks.’

  2. Even if the patent IS for a “watch”… how long would it be until a jammer is developed by a rich liberal fascist silicon valley hacker? Doesnt seem to be too far fetched too me… These guns are an atrocious idea… period.

    1. You don’t need a jammer, all you need is static electricity. Or a bad day.

      We don’t need to fathom deep conspiracies, when the obvious challenge is staring us direct in the face.

  3. “Smart guns” are for places where gun ownership is a government managed privilege. Such technology fits with that mentality of acceptable use defined by the powers that be.

    It cannot thrive in the USA because rights should trump privilege. It is a political issue because anti-gun people see “regulation”, which “smart guns” are the physical embodiment of, being a means to force a right into a government managed privilege.

  4. I still can’t figure out how in the hell they’d make a smart gun that couldn’t be rendered completely operable in an hour or two by anyone with even a modicum of gunsmithing skills. About the only thing it would prevent against would be immediate use by unauthorized users and children, and that can be accomplished with a simple trigger lock.

Comments are closed.