If you've ever seen an inexperienced "sportsman" try to shoot a sitting bird ... and miss .. then you will appreciate the
TrackingPoint, a company manufacturing precision-guided firearms—or firearms designed to turn even mediocre shooters into the best of crack shots with the help of embedded digital technology—is apparently ushering in a “new era in augmented marksman ability,” according to their concept video. In the video, a bearded man wearing Google Glass combines the nerdy with the deadly by shooting with a massive firearm at orange targets, while making it a point not to look at them.
Um ... okay.
Originally, I started a lengthy rejoinder based on what I though was the point of the original article.
And I realized .. the article had no point. None at all!
The Author (one "Jamelle Dumalaon" ... which was not attributed on the article, but in a sidebar which will probably have been deleted when you read this) managed to write a 500+ word article which had no point, but only a theme: anything having to do with guns is "bad".
How can we tell? Let me quote, briefly:
Unsurprisingly, gun control advocates are not amused—and it’s not just because deliberately not looking while shooting is in itself a very uncomfortable concept, and not just because it might be too soon to introduce ideas on how to make guns cooler. Rather, some say gun manufacturers apply a double standard when it comes to applying technology to guns.("... uncomfortable concept; make guns cooler"... wait, it gets better!)
then .. no segue at all, the next paragraph reads:
“Gun companies have no problem with 21st-century technology if it’s used to enhance the lethality of their products,” says Ladd Everitt, communications director at the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “But if you try compel them to use technology to improve gun safety, they turn around and sue you.”WTF?
We have no idea what point the author is trying to make, but she does (somehow) work in the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.whom she manages to depict as being more concerned about being sued, than Stopping Gun Violence!
[You Go, Girl!]
The two next paragraphs cite the NSSF (bad!) lawsuit against Microstamping laws in California, and then that "... smart handguns ... have been criticized as well".
You'll have to work it out for yourselves, because I couldn't manage to determine which issues the author determined were GOOD or Bad:
- Microstamping (whatever that is)
- Smart Handguns
- Criticing Smart Handguns
I have never heard of this writer before (and why do I think I'll never hear of her again?) ... but please, Daily Beast ... do keep her on staff.
I need a reason to continue reading your stuff, and she is the most refreshing writer I've ever seen there.
1 comment:
Sometimes these authors heads are so full of complex ideas, that it is hard for them to simplify and translate their thinking into the written word.
Post a Comment