I shoot IPSC, PPC, IDPA, sporting clays, long range rifle, and just about
every shooting discipline ... every one is a legitimate TARGET shooting
discipline. Hunting and varmint control are also useful activities
conducted with firearms. My firearms are TOOLS and not weapons. They are
useful because I enjoy shooting them, and they instill discipline and good
safety habits. But that's just me.
Firearms have never been a problem. Irresponsible use of them has always
been a problem. Solve the human element, and the problem disappears.
My firearms are a mixture of weapons and sporting pieces. I make no apology
for having them, you should not feel obliged to explain why you have yours.
I've always though a strain gauge would make an excellent trigger mechanism
but as I don't collect post-1870 it's not something I will be trying.
Robin G Hewitt
You could combine the stain gauge trigger, with a fingerprint ID panel
-- like the kind on some mice -- so only you could fire the gun.
"This is the .44 Magnum, the most intelligent handgun in the world...
Did it fire six shots, or only five? Well, punk, let's ask it..." Okay,
so it's not quite as dramatic!
(BTW, contrary to popular belief, Clint Eastwood favors modest gun
control. He also doesn't smoke, abstains from junk food, and doesn't
even drink carbonated beverages. And while we're at it, Arnold is not
made of titanium. Sigh. What the movies make us believe...)
Author: Constructing Robot Bases,
Robot Builder's Sourcebook, Robot Builder's Bonanza
So, if your "family members and friends" had a firearm to defend
themselves successfully against those who would harm them, would those
firearms be "bad" firearms, or would your "family members and friends" be
bad people, or would your "family members and friends" simply still be
Any weapon in your own hands has the potential to be a "good" weapon or a
bad "weapon". Firearms can be either -- but it all depends upon the hand
that holds it.
I think weapons are bad, doesn't really matter in whom hands they are. You
have to see it with your own eyes to say something, and in war there is no
good side both are bad.
Did you ever see a child with a hole in it's stomatch made by a granade? Or
a kid who played with an unexploded granade? I have seen it for 4 years
everyday and nobody can tell me weapons are good. I'm sorry if you disagree
with my opinion but weapons didn't bring luck to anybody, at least not at
Be nice Gordon, Basic stamps aren't that big.
It reminds me of someone I know whose fruit trees are threatened by rats.
Thought of implementing a simple break-beam controlling a pellet gun. With
such technology against them, how do these rats survive. I countered with a
20,000 uF Cap, with salty cheese on the electrodes.
In many states here in the USA, such a device is illegal anyway.
They have several different statutes that can be used against you should you
fabricate such a device.
The Fed's could apply the anti-terrorism laws to this too.
Telling someone how to do it could get the "teller" in trouble too, not
counting lawsuits and such.
Oh, heck. You could say the same things about multi-layer Jello
desserts. In the US, there's a constant risk in thinking and in
sharing knowledge. I'd like to think there are people who will
continue pursuing knowledge despite the risks.
As a possible tool for more open sharing, I suggest GNUnet.
BTW, there *are* (small arms) cartridges that are fired
electrically (and don't require ejection!). I don't have any
first-hand knowledge of them.
I wouldn't even trust my *dog* with a gun, let alone a robot.
OK, that was a bit facicious, but I won't have an ex-K9
dog, because they can be accidentally "set off". A robot
with just a bit of misprogramming could put holes in all
sorts of things that I don't want holes in. :)
It *could* be done, and I'm sure the military has connected
guns to controllers, but I don't understand why I would want
to do this.
D. Jay Newman
This is probably the best known example:
I wonder what was used back in the early/mid 70s when this was being
developed? An AN/UYK-7, at a guess, but how did that generation of UYKs
compare to today's microcontrollers? (Leaving out I/O capability, since
the UYKs had separate I/O processors.)
Read this page and see if you want your robot (no matter how advanced) to
fire a gun...
"October 11, 1989 80 miles southeast of Norfolk, Va.
USS EL PASO (LKA-177) accidentally hits the USS IWO JIMA with rounds from
its Phalanx CIWS during gunnery practice. One sailor aboard IWO JIMA is
killed and another is injured. Damage is slight."
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Reminds me of that scene in robocop where, during a demo, an ed209 orders an
assistant to drop his gun, the assitant complies and the ed209 shoots him
anyway. The person giving the demo simply says (in a very casual mater of
fact manor) "it's just a glitch".
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 12:37:45AM -0000, Sergio Masci wrote:
What a great scene - I remember that. The presenter had one of the
attendees pick up a weapon to demonstrate the robot's ability to
identify and deal with the threat - saying that once the threat was
disarmed, the robot would no longer be agressive. If I remember
correctly, the robot told the person holding the gun to "drop your
weapon" and began counting backward from 10. The person very quickly
dropped the gun, but the robot kept counting down, failing to note
that the weapon had been dropped. It was one of those scenes that the
director managed to make gruesome and slightly humorous at the same
time as everyone else near the person that was holding the gun
scattered out of the way, while the poor person darted around looking
for something to hide behind as the robot continued to count down,
eventually reaching zero and opening fire. After the robot fired
about a zillion rounds it then promptly retracted its guns and claimed
the threat had been eliminated (or something like that). And then, as
you mentioned, the capper was when the presenter claimed it was just a
programming glitch that would be fixed in the next release :-)
Actually, you can see a couple of frames of the scene on this page:
Scroll about halfway down or search for "ed-209". Apparently there
was a movie "blooper" in this scene because the actor's "blood packs"
- those things that explode and splatter out fake blood making it look
like you've been shot when move bullets hit you - were visible in a
few frames of this scene.
Of course, real guns shoot real bullets - I can't believe someone
would even consider hooking a gun to a controller. They should go and
rent Robocop instead - or maybe that's where they got the idea :-/
I remember folks in another forum talking about the dangers of even
using a laser pointer with a robot - how it could be very dangerous to
unwary on-lookers (retinal damage). But a gun! Geez!
Brian Dean, email@example.com
BDMICRO - Maker of the MAVRIC ATmega128 Dev Board
HeHe - RoboCop was a classic in that it consistently managed not to take
itself too seriously, yet the movie-makers appeared to have a good
understanding into what is presently possible with robot technology (apart
from "robocop" himself of course) and in corporate settings - "eager young
employee volunters for doomed looser project" stretched aaalll the way ;-)
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.