It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CEO of Armatix Creates Safe Gun -- Get's Stalked and Harassed by Gun Enthusiasts

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: tothetenthpower

because; the NRA are basically used as a marketing department by the gun-manufacturers.

they use fearmongering about burglars; government; etc. to get people to buy their products...

Why else would they have those rediculous spokespeople who seem to lack even the slightest bit of empathy.


No, the NRA is made up of everyday Citizens like me who do not want the government to ever mess with the 2nd amendment. Without our memberships, the NRA doesn't exist.




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I see problems for this company in the home defense sector.



Smart System consists of a radio-controlled watch that is responsible for gun access and use. A Smart System gun will only shoot if it is within range of this watch. It is possible to release the safety mechanism via the radiocontrolled watch activated by means of a PIN code. As soon as the gun loses radio contact with the watch – e.g. if it is knocked out of the shooter’s hand or in case of loss, theft, etc. – it automatically deactivates itself.



www.armatix.de...

It is radio controlled????? Um thats just frequencies.

Also if it gets deactivated when dropped or "knocked" out of someones hands, then how long does it take to "re activate". After all you and your families life is at stake. Three seconds could mean the end to you and tour family.

I see this company going bankrupt with lawsuits, when people start dying from the "proper" use of their product.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
The battery point is such a silly argument.

If I understand it correctly, people are suggesting a scenario where a gun-owner (assumedly with a concealed permit) carries his gun with him for protection, but upon necessity of use, cannot fire his hand gun because the battery is dead.

I believe an analog scenario for this already exists in the form of BULLETS. I don't think I could be convinced that the person in that scenario isn't going to take a gander at the battery indicator before concealing it? I'm expected to believe that everyone can deal with charging a cell phone, camera, tablet, laptop, but when it comes to self-preservation, that aspect of every-day-life will simply slip the mind?

The amount of processing power necessary for a device like this would be so low that a standard cell phone battery would probably give it life for at least a month (probably longer). I suppose if you are out on a hunting trip without civilization for one month, you might consider going old-school.


Regardless, I don't think people are looking at this the right way. The idea is pointed strictly at criminal activity. Just because YOU are not a criminal and YOU can handle a gun correctly doesn't mean that requiring everyone to be safer (and that is not even an implication of this article) is futile.


Warning: I'm about to jump off the deep end here:

Imagine a world where every firearm had all of its activity uploaded by satellite in real-time. A murder is solved by simply querying a database. Sure, you may feel that your privacy is being violated, but to what end? Authorities know when and where you fired a gun? Why the hell would you care if you aren't a criminal? They already know where and when you called your friend, checked your bank account, became mayor of the water-cooler.

I'm honestly out of the loop when it comes to gun control where I live. There are multiple firearms (pistols, shotguns, rifles) in my house, all registered and legal, but I haven't seen any indications of that changing by legislature.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: lemmin

It is a radio frequency.

It has a pin number.

Tell me, how well does the pin number thing work when dealing with credit card fraud?

This just opens the door to more BS.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

liejunkie01
Tell me, how well does the pin number thing work when dealing with credit card fraud?


Admittedly, I didn't even read the article. I'm basing my scenario off of a product that works correctly. The technology exists FAR in advance to what is necessary to create a safely functioning identification system for firearms.

The radio frequency that was mentioned is almost certainly RFID, which can be spoofed, but not on the fly. A simple GPS in the watch would solve that problem.

Also, credit cards don't have PINs. Debit cards that are stolen can be run as credit which, again, doesn't require a PIN.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

You want real gun safety?

Disarm the COPS, the FBI, the CIA, the BLM, the NSA, the TSA, the DHS, the IRS,
FEMA, PUBLIC SAFETY and every other state and federal agency with-in the U.S.
where licensed trigger happy psychos gravitate to be housed.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: lemmin




Also, credit cards don't have PINs. Debit cards that are stolen can be run as credit which, again, doesn't require a PIN


I had a friend who had his whole bank account emptied because someone in Florida hacked his pin.

Also to get a cash with draw from credit cards, do you not need a pin? It may have changed but several years ago, I did.

A PIN can be hacked. If you can access the system, there is no telling what can be done, possibly disable the firearm of the person you want to victimize.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
The thread is about a woman being harassed by people because she created a gun with a feature people don't like.

So the thread has turned into 1) The gun is stupid (then don't buy it) 2) if other people wrongly had their info posted on a website to be harassed by others, then she deserves to have hers post too (the ole two wrongs make a right argument) or 3) its not really gun enthusiasts, it's anti-gun people posting as them in order to tarnish them (translation: it's not possible a gun enthusiast could do such a thing).

If there ever was a thread that has gone so far off the original point of the thread this is it.

Let's say for the sake of argument that she is not lying and they ARE gun enthusiasts. How exactly does one go about down-playing the fact that she is being harassed or over-look it entirely? Why would it have anything to do with the way the gun works? Don't buy it if you don't' want to use it. It's not like this is some new regulation put on all guns.

So what would the true motive be for these people to harass and threaten someone in such a way?

From the OP Source regarding a comment made by someone on a gun rights activist website:


“I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans,” one comment said.


Wow! So someone tries to improve gun safety and that equates with attempting to disarm America? Again, if you have a problem with the technology the gun provides, why get so incredibly hot and bothered by it to the point of expressing interest in killing someone? Just don't buy the darn thing!
edit on 29-4-2014 by nunya13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: nunya13




. It's not like this is some new regulation put on all guns.


I guess you missed the Eric Holder comments about the DOJ looking into this tech to try to get rid of gun violence?

This thread has many angles which one can look at. Obviuosly it bothered you that some looked at it from a different angle.
I mean after all it was made by a super moderator. If the op thought the comments were off topic or creating thread drift the TTTP could have taken careof it. Everyone seemed to be commenting on his personal comments or the article.

It sounds like the Boss of the company should strap on a braclet and prepare to defend herself. I mean if her product is so awesome, why not promote it with personal use?

But she would rather call authorities and make an issue out of something that all of us deal with if you have social media. Seriously there are d bags everywhere. She is no different than you or I in dealing with idiots.

Sorry to sound like an arse, but she seems to be living in a "CEO lifestyle bubble", out of touch with how people can act, it is no different than sports stars getting real death threats on twitter, or the like.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: nunya13




. It's not like this is some new regulation put on all guns.


I guess you missed the Eric Holder comments about the DOJ looking into this tech to try to get rid of gun violence?


I guess I did. That still doesn't justify her being threatened and harassed. Having a viewpoint one way or the other about guns does not therefore make one deserving of such things.


I mean after all it was made by a super moderator. If the op thought the comments were off topic or creating thread drift the TTTP could have taken careof it. Everyone seemed to be commenting on his personal comments or the article.


I never suggested anything should be done about it. I was simply pointing out my observation that the only responses were ones that detracted from the meat of the issue or brushed it off entirely as a lie or conspiracy. I was also being hyperbolic in my assessment that this is the epitome of a thread that has gone off the tracks.

Your as your comment that she should be prepared to defend herself followed by chastising her for calling the authorities is nonsensical. It's as if you are implying people shouldn't call the cops if they feel they are being physically threatened.


But she would rather call authorities and make an issue out of something that all of us deal with if you have social media. Seriously there are d bags everywhere. She is no different than you or I in dealing with idiots.


I've never had to deal with such a thing. Have you? I encounter idiots on a daily basis. None of them have threatened me direct harm. You can bet that if complete strangers start leaving threatening messages on my phone, suggesting or insinuating that I be killed, and letting would-be murderers know my personal location, I would call the figgin' cops. That you think it is an absurd thing to do is strange to me.

Sorry to sound like an arse, but she seems to be living in a "CEO lifestyle bubble", out of touch with how people can act, it is no different than sports stars getting real death threats on twitter, or the like.

edit on 29-4-2014 by nunya13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: nunya13




I've never had to deal with such a thing. Have you? I encounter idiots on a daily basis. None of them have threatened me direct harm. You can bet that if complete strangers start leaving threatening messages on my phone, suggesting or insinuating that I be killed, and letting would-be murderers know my personal location, I would call the figgin' cops. That you think it is an absurd thing to do is strange to me.



I have seen some pretty threatening posts on FB. Happen to me, kind of, I friended some crazy Israeli dude that I thought was an alright "conspiracy theorist". He freaked me out so I blocked him completely. Different yes.

I see where you are coming from and I could have worded it dfferently, I agree.

Other than the arrow bit, I really didn't read anything "that threatening". Just my opinion. If she was completely fearing for her life then she has every right to call authorities.

I just feel that maybe being in the position she is in, she should take a little bit more identity security.
I am in no way sticking up for the nuts that were calling her, I re read my post and I definitely could have conveyed my message alot better.

People are nuts, she should be prepared for anything.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Just as I figured, she is being less than honest. I easily found the gun forum in question and they posted her business address and business phone number which is required to be listed by all firearms dealers and is public information. Doing a simple search for "armatix" and "address" I was able to find the same info myself.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Thank you for that info.

I was going to post above that the article has limited details and this is probably from just a few people.

The article makes it seem that people hacked into the NSA database and found her number.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I can see the battery issues as being a problem.

But why would gun owners not throw themselves in front of gun safety? Why hasn't the NRA pushed for further safe type of guns.

Not limiting the ownership, but looking at creating alternatives that further protect those who are at risk of coming under gun violence.

Being Canadian, I won't ever understand the enthusiasm behind gun ownership. I understand the historical implications of 200+ years ago, but in contemporary society, I just don't see it.

~Tenth


I think the main reason is because there are already a lot of safety checks in place. Manufacturers have consistently come up with numerous safety devices on guns to keep them from being used by others or from accidentally discharging.

If there ever is a situation that arises that a gun is needed, it is similar to any other mechanical device, the fewer moving parts there are the less likely it is to fail. If there are numerous safeties on a weapon, for instance, in an adrenalin pumping situation, you lose feeling in your fingertips and your dexterity is a bit off so having to fumble with numerous safeties or put a watch on or what have you, would likely end in the criminal having the upper hand.

I carry not because I want to intimidate or am looking for a fight, I carry because I am protective of my family and those around me. I am not a military guy, but I have learned through training and various situations that I am one of those who jumps in to help. I am not a flight person, I am a fight person. Anyone who has been in a situation where that instinct kicks in knows what I am talking about. It is innate in people, fight or flight that is. Neither one is incorrect either, I have just learned through my years that I think very clearly in scary or tight situations, almost like it hones my senses.

Carrying a pistol for me is because I like to be prepared for anything and not be caught off guard by someone getting the upper hand in a situation. I can't say I carry everywhere either, it is a situation and location based thing for me. I do ALWAYS carry a 4"+ fixed blade knife on me. Funny thing is, if you met me you would have no idea. I am not a camo wearing, rough and tumble looking gunslinger. I am usually in business casual dress with cuff links and Cole Haans on.

I think the safety needs to come from stronger background checks and more frequent license updates with checks required at each...just like I think about drivers licenses.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I dont have anything against a company that wants to try this. More power to them.

The problem is that with so many anti-gun legislators who are absolutely certain of their ignorance they will see this gun that is essentially a beta test of an unproven concept as reason enough to start promoting idiotic mandatory "smart" gun legislation.

If we lived in country where the legislators actually respected individual liberties I'd be happy to see one of these on the shelf. But we don't. We live in a country where idiots who don't know anything about a thing run wild on emotional hysteria so it's best not to give them any ideas.

These politicians don't think we should guns because we can't be trusted. Well, I think these politicians shouldnt have this "safe" gun because they cant be trusted.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
So, here's the problem with gun owners sometimes.

Idiots in your community, make it hard for you to be taken seriously, when they rail against proper gun safety. I can't see any particular reason this product would be a bad thing. Especially considering that criminals don't buy legal guns and if more of these were available than perhaps there would be less actual gun crime?

I'm no expert, but here it is:

Source


Belinda Padilla, president and CEO of the U.S. division of firearm manufacturer Armatix, says she was stalked and threatened by “gun enthusiasts” after she tried to bring a safer handgun to market.

Armatix, a German company, has developed so-called “smart guns” that can only be fired by the owner. The company uses a watch that ties the owner to the weapon, called the iP1. Armatix is already selling the personalized weapons in Europe and Asia.

In an interview published by The New York Times on Monday, Padilla explained what happened when a forum of online “gun enthusiasts” published her cellphone number.

She said it began with a “few fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers” that got her to stop answering her phone.

And then photos of her home were posted online.

“In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. ‘Belinda?’ the person wrote. ‘Is that you?’” according to the Times.


What say you ATS gun owners?

~Tenth


You don't need a wristband to have gun safety. You mistake gun control for gun safety.

The fear is that such a thing would be mandated, will all of the problems inherent with it. Here is a question: if a corporation invented a device that made it easier for the government to spy on you and monitor you in your home would you hail this as a great achievement for safety or would you have a problem with said corporation?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: nunya13
The thread is about a woman being harassed by people because she created a gun with a feature people don't like.

So the thread has turned into 1) The gun is stupid (then don't buy it) 2) if other people wrongly had their info posted on a website to be harassed by others, then she deserves to have hers post too (the ole two wrongs make a right argument) or 3) its not really gun enthusiasts, it's anti-gun people posting as them in order to tarnish them (translation: it's not possible a gun enthusiast could do such a thing).

If there ever was a thread that has gone so far off the original point of the thread this is it.

Let's say for the sake of argument that she is not lying and they ARE gun enthusiasts. How exactly does one go about down-playing the fact that she is being harassed or over-look it entirely? Why would it have anything to do with the way the gun works? Don't buy it if you don't' want to use it. It's not like this is some new regulation put on all guns.

So what would the true motive be for these people to harass and threaten someone in such a way?

From the OP Source regarding a comment made by someone on a gun rights activist website:


“I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans,” one comment said.


Wow! So someone tries to improve gun safety and that equates with attempting to disarm America? Again, if you have a problem with the technology the gun provides, why get so incredibly hot and bothered by it to the point of expressing interest in killing someone? Just don't buy the darn thing!


But is not about gun safety. Firearms are some of the safest consumer products out there with stringent testing and QA standards and strict regulation.


Oh, by "safety" you mean "control."

Sorry, I know that leftists confuse the two (intentionally usually), but gun safety is easy and guns are very safe and accidents are prevented by flowing simple common sense safety rules.

This device is not a safety device, it is a device that is designed to limit access and use. I'm certain you can see an inherent mistrust and disagreement with a corporation that developed (with support and sponsorship of government and non-government anti-gun rights entities) that has created a device that controls said civil right.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: lemmin
The battery point is such a silly argument.

If I understand it correctly, people are suggesting a scenario where a gun-owner (assumedly with a concealed permit) carries his gun with him for protection, but upon necessity of use, cannot fire his hand gun because the battery is dead.

I believe an analog scenario for this already exists in the form of BULLETS. I don't think I could be convinced that the person in that scenario isn't going to take a gander at the battery indicator before concealing it? I'm expected to believe that everyone can deal with charging a cell phone, camera, tablet, laptop, but when it comes to self-preservation, that aspect of every-day-life will simply slip the mind?

The amount of processing power necessary for a device like this would be so low that a standard cell phone battery would probably give it life for at least a month (probably longer). I suppose if you are out on a hunting trip without civilization for one month, you might consider going old-school.


Regardless, I don't think people are looking at this the right way. The idea is pointed strictly at criminal activity. Just because YOU are not a criminal and YOU can handle a gun correctly doesn't mean that requiring everyone to be safer (and that is not even an implication of this article) is futile.


Warning: I'm about to jump off the deep end here:

Imagine a world where every firearm had all of its activity uploaded by satellite in real-time. A murder is solved by simply querying a database. Sure, you may feel that your privacy is being violated, but to what end? Authorities know when and where you fired a gun? Why the hell would you care if you aren't a criminal? They already know where and when you called your friend, checked your bank account, became mayor of the water-cooler.

I'm honestly out of the loop when it comes to gun control where I live. There are multiple firearms (pistols, shotguns, rifles) in my house, all registered and legal, but I haven't seen any indications of that changing by legislature.


Sounds like you'd agree with George Orwell to me.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
>watch batteries go out.

good maybe they'll learn how to be responsible; or perhaps the watch is one of those that charges itself through wrist movement.


Watch batteries go out? So do bullets. If changing a battery is an issue than gun ownership should not be for you. Gun ownership should come with a serious intelligence test and psychological evaluation.

Problem is that humans are not stable, one day you might be a responsible gun owner until you get fire and your wife leaves you then you snap after a few beers. Guns are ok but people are stupid.
edit on 30-4-2014 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: tothetenthpower

because; the NRA are basically used as a marketing department by the gun-manufacturers.

they use fearmongering about burglars; government; etc. to get people to buy their products...

Why else would they have those rediculous spokespeople who seem to lack even the slightest bit of empathy.


Bull#. The NRA is composed of millions of regular, average citizens who want to protect their rights. If millions of citizens were not members, the NRA would not exist at all.

Unlike one man, billionaire funded control freaks like Bloomberg and Soros, the NRA is a true grass roots organization.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join