Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Tech isn't there yet (Score 1) 765

I'm not Arker, and his analysis hides all kinds of issues, especially considering not every gun out there is a .22lr pistol.

Bottom line, Armatix doesn't want you carrying their firearms for self defense for a reason. Somehow I don't think cops would take kindly to you telling them they have to replace all of their carry weapons with .22lr

Comment Re:Tech isn't there yet (Score 1) 765

What about people killed with their own firearms, or stolen firearms? Sure there are a few hundred. Should their lives simply be disregarded?

Yes. If they are outliers, and the numbers of lives saved dwarfs the statistical relevance of your outliers.

"If we can save just one life" is not a good basis for sound public policy making when it disregards broader consequences.

Comment Re:heh (Score 2) 765

"Disabling shots" are not used intentionally, and for a reason. Stating that they are "used frequently" is an outright fabrication.

You watch too many movies and/or play too many video games.

Comment Re: Flawed reasoning (Score 1) 765

I'm not sure I follow. I am saying I dislike all legislation that makes firearms less reliable, including mag disconnects and poorly designed drop safeties.

I don't think most LCIs (unless very poorly designed) affect reliability, aside from the fact that they add more (pointless, IMO) complexity to the slide.

In any case, the problem with roster legislation is that while their stated purpose is "safety", they are invariably expanded to include any tech that can be added, such that it is becomes harder and harder to import new models into the state. A perfect example is CA's roster laws: even firearms that are identical (except cosmetically) to rostered models have to be re-submitted for testing *and* are required to adhear to all new rostering requirements, even though other identical models (albiet older) are already on the roster.

At no point are any new features ever subject to any scrutiny with regards to safety.... for example, microstamping. Is a firearm that does not have microstamping less safe than one that does?

Now you could argue that to you, it doesn't matter. All you care about is that there are less firearms being sold in CA. That is fine. That is your opinion. But you cannot claim the roster is about the "safety" of individual firearms, only that it is having the desired effect of slowing importation of firearms into the state.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you can count your money, you don't have a billion dollars. -- J. Paul Getty