Live data from Hacker News

Why the NRA hates smart guns

techcrunch.com

31–40 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#31
post #6
post #4

If the better approach is to focus on the "who", why does the NRA oppose background checks?

I think we all know why. In fact. This author implies it: the NRA actually represents the business interests of people who manufacture and sell firearms. They may mask these interests as a public service, defending your rights and hobbies and whatnot but it is always the case that they oppose anything that would reduce firearm sales and support anything that makes it easier for you to get a gun.

Banning private sales means that I have go to into a gun shop to transfer a gun to a friend. That implies:

- Buying new now no longer has additional hassle compared to buying used, since the difficulty of the latter has been increased.

- Two people are now forced to go into a gun shop where they wouldn't have before. They might browse for accessories or maybe a new piece.

This is rather similar to the software industry's attacks on the ability to resell. If the NRA was just a lobby for gun businesses, why would they not support private sales bans? They should want this kind of captive audience.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#32

The irony being is that the gun community acts just as irrational and certainly impractical. Even as a non-gun owner, I know what gun I'd rather have for self defence than these guys. :) Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle? The inventor goes on towards the end of this video to suggest it's useful for personal self-defence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3usocws0E&t=0m42s Here's an example of a guy who has…

Those youtubers are just jerking off. A .50 caliber rifle is just a big expensive dangerous toy. No one is going to commit a shooting spree with one. It's not practical. Regulating them only impacts people who like loud bangs and will never hurt anyone.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#33
post #16
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we all know why. In fact. This author implies it: the NRA actually represents the business interests of people who manufacture and sell firearms. They may mask these interests as a public service, defending your rights and hobbies and whatnot but it is always the case that they oppose anything that would reduce firearm sales and support anything that makes it easier for you to get a gun.

I disagree. The NRA has 4 million American members which I think makes it the largest lobby by membership. I doubt they're all pawns of the gun industry. If the NRA wanted to solely juice sales and sell more guns they would give heavily to elect more Democratic candidates. The current presidency has been great for sales [0]. 0 - https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_...

Saying that 2nd amendment supporters want politicians who threaten their rights is like saying heavy eaters are in favor of natural disasters because they justify buying a lot of extra food.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#34
post #24

The vertical forward handgrip claim is a bit much. While not too useful for aimed fire, as the author points out, it makes un-aimed "spray and pray" shooting easier. So does a barrel shroud. Neither feature is needed on a hunting rifle.

You don't know what you're talking about and I'm guessing you may have never actually shot a semi automatic rifle before.

This is a rifle with no scary barrel shroud, pistol grip, or vertical foregrip. If you google "bump fire" you might notice it is pretty easy to rapid fire just about anything as long as it's semi automatic and you don't much care if you hit anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hlzuAzvuJQ

In fact I find pistol grips and vertical foregrips plenty ergonomic for aimed fire, especially because I have a bit of carpal tunnel going on and cocking my wrist is somewhat painful. That's why every olympic target rifle (eg the Anschutz) uses some version of a vertical grip.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#35

The irony being is that the gun community acts just as irrational and certainly impractical. Even as a non-gun owner, I know what gun I'd rather have for self defence than these guys. :) Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle? The inventor goes on towards the end of this video to suggest it's useful for personal self-defence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3usocws0E&t=0m42s Here's an example of a guy who has…

"Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle?"

People who have a chance to fly over fly-over country might look down and ask themselves what the possible utility there is to rifles that can shoot that far. It also hits very hard, it's an anti-material round, and that has its own utility, for, you know, non-sporting purposes (no Cape Buffalo in the US, fortunately).

As for sport, long distance shooting including serious competitions is a thing. Your basic medium-big game hunting round is capable of, say, 800-1000 yard use, .338 Lapua Magnum gets you at least half again that distance, beyond that you need something like .50 BMG.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#36
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we all know why. In fact. This author implies it: the NRA actually represents the business interests of people who manufacture and sell firearms. They may mask these interests as a public service, defending your rights and hobbies and whatnot but it is always the case that they oppose anything that would reduce firearm sales and support anything that makes it easier for you to get a gun.

Banning private sales means that I have go to into a gun shop to transfer a gun to a friend. That implies: - Buying new now no longer has additional hassle compared to buying used, since the difficulty of the latter has been increased. - Two people are now forced to go into a gun shop where they wouldn't have before. They might browse for accessories or maybe a new piece. This is rather similar to the software indust…

And the government can shut down all sales nation wide by shutting down the NICS. Which they do upon occasion because it's a computer system, and it's not always able to handle the load.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#37

The irony being is that the gun community acts just as irrational and certainly impractical. Even as a non-gun owner, I know what gun I'd rather have for self defence than these guys. :) Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle? The inventor goes on towards the end of this video to suggest it's useful for personal self-defence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3usocws0E&t=0m42s Here's an example of a guy who has…

Have you ever shot the rifle in the latter video (Kel-Tec Sub 2000)? It's actually very lightweight, ergonomic, and favored in my experience by women and those of smaller stature as opposed to say, a handgun. Everyone I've ever trained to shoot that rifle have had a very easy time hitting what they are aiming at and more importantly not hitting what they are not aiming at. Why do you think it is completely impractical?

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#38
post #32

The irony being is that the gun community acts just as irrational and certainly impractical. Even as a non-gun owner, I know what gun I'd rather have for self defence than these guys. :) Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle? The inventor goes on towards the end of this video to suggest it's useful for personal self-defence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3usocws0E&t=0m42s Here's an example of a guy who has…

Those youtubers are just jerking off. A .50 caliber rifle is just a big expensive dangerous toy. No one is going to commit a shooting spree with one. It's not practical. Regulating them only impacts people who like loud bangs and will never hurt anyone.

That's the point, that same impractical rational gets applied everywhere. Even in cases where people get hurt.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#39
post #37

The irony being is that the gun community acts just as irrational and certainly impractical. Even as a non-gun owner, I know what gun I'd rather have for self defence than these guys. :) Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle? The inventor goes on towards the end of this video to suggest it's useful for personal self-defence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3usocws0E&t=0m42s Here's an example of a guy who has…

Have you ever shot the rifle in the latter video (Kel-Tec Sub 2000)? It's actually very lightweight, ergonomic, and favored in my experience by women and those of smaller stature as opposed to say, a handgun. Everyone I've ever trained to shoot that rifle have had a very easy time hitting what they are aiming at and more importantly not hitting what they are not aiming at. Why do you think it is completely impractica…

Because a rifle isn't practical for close targets. A handgun is much better suited for that.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#40
post #4

If the better approach is to focus on the "who", why does the NRA oppose background checks?

If you commit a felony and are as a result never again allowed to purchase a firearm, your rights are being perpetually limited, and I and a lot of other people object to that, and it's arguably a violation of the 8th ammendment.

If background checks were more limited in the kind of background they checked for, say only restricting people who had injured someone using a firearm, then there might be fewer objections.

And felons who want to buy a gun for nefarious purposes are either smart enough to pay up and get an unregistered one on the black market (so you're not targeting them with background checks) or dumb enough to get one at a local gun store. But the dumb ones are still felons, which means they likely have criminal connections, and if they need a gun they probably can find another way to get one. So by stopping them from buying a firearm legally, they're more likely to end up with unregistered weapon, which makes the DoJ's job harder. I concede that a fair number of them might be inconvenienced enough to just not buy a gun, but then many of them will just go on to stab people instead of shooting them. The number of actual lives saved by background checks is probably much lower than people think.

Further, background checks are notoriously unreliable, turning up plenty of hard-to-resolve false-positives and dangerous false-negatives.

And then there's restrictions on mental health conditions. The problem with these is that people like guns, and if someone who likes guns thinks they might have a mental health disorder like bipolar or schizophrenia that would perclude them from owning one, they won't see a doctor. The result is that they won't get treatment and are more likely to hurt themselves, and indeed, others. Shootings and violent crime have been declining for decades, but the lives of the mentally ill have not been improving. I find the mental health problem much more important than the gun control issues to the proper functioning of our society, it's just that gun violence is more visible. This is a hard problem, and there will have to be compromises but it has to be part of the debate.

I don't know why the NRA opposes background checks, but there are good reasons to.

Post reply on HN