Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the NRA hates smart guns

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#91

Post by [deleted] »

adrusi wrote: post #40
sanj wrote: 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.…

[deleted]

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#92

Post by hga »

woodman wrote: post #77
hga wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you're got a point, especially with modern retention holsters, but it's still a major issue, and those holsters also slow down the draw speed of officers (but one defeated the Boston bombers' after they murdered the MIT Campus Policeman, that murder was for naught).

I stopped having to carry daily around the time that serpa holsters got popular. All the combat vets accurately predicted that the release mechanism would lead to a lot of negligent discharges - many training courses wouldn't let you on the range with one. I'm surprised to see that they are still being sold, I'd have thought they went the way of the lawn dart.

The Serpa holster is by no means the only retention holster out there! Nor would have one stopped the Boston bombers from what I understand of them, it's hard to expresses just how bad an idea they are in every way.

For those who don't know, you have to press a button about over where the trigger is, inside the holster. If you keep pressing into your draw, you may as many have found out continue and press the trigger while it's pointed in a unfortunate direction.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#93

Post by hga »

atemerev wrote: post #81
cvwright wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Left-wingers ranting about the "gun lobby" are like right-wingers ranting about the "LGBT lobby". Everybody loves to pretend that the opposing political party is driven by some strange, inhuman machine, not by a bunch of normal people pretty much just like themselves.

LGBT lobby? And what this lobby political agenda would be? Promoting skinny jeans? (I consider myself to be a right-winger, as I am certainly pro-gun and pro-business, and straight as a rail, but I never heard about LGBT lobby concept, except in jokes about fashion. LGBT guys and gals are fun.)

Try https://www.google.com/#q=target+transgender for example.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#94

Post by woodman »

philh wrote: post #80
woodman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all too common tragedy Any murder is too much murder, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as common. Cops are nearly as likely to die of a car accident as they are of getting shot. A cop friend of mine was going on about how the recent media focus on them has made things so dangerous - officer murders were up by 15%! I asked him if that translated to an increase of 5 or 6 a year, and if that was actually above the…

> Cops are nearly as likely to die of a car accident as they are of getting shot. Unless cops die of car accidents significantly less than the base rate, that is not reassuring.

I'm not sure what you'd expect to be reassured of, that cops are less likely to die of car accidents and gunshots than the average person? My point isn't that they have no increased risk, my point is that the level of risk in reality isn't nearly as high as people seem to think - and warrants no special deference. Law enforcement isn't even in the top 10 dangerous professions, they fall well behind loggers, garbage men, truck drivers, roofers... have you thanked your garbage man for risking his life to collect your refuse today?

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#95

Post by yorwba »

atemerev wrote: post #79

I wouldn't say "hate", as it is too strong a word. But smart guns have the same problem as self-driving cars: they take control from you and transfer it to unknown actors (a random computer programmer? Clueless legislators? Various three-letter government agencies?) Conversely, anti-gun folks and self-driving car proponents consider guns and cars too dangerous to be left in hands of _those people_. Those a better lef…

> Conversely, anti-gun folks and self-driving car proponents consider guns and cars too dangerous to be left in hands of _those people_. Those a better left in hands of experts, they say.

That sums up my position nicely. I would not trust myself with either of these things.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#96

Post by bdowling »

grahamburger wrote: post #55
bdowling wrote: post #18

Smart guns are to self-defense and the gun industry what the Clipper chip was to encryption and the communications industry, except the Clipper chip actually worked.

Except that literally no one would die if clipper worked or didn't work. I lean toward the side of fewer restrictions on guns, although I don't own any - but I don't think that any comparison that removes the possibility of people dying will really hold up.

The reason that the government wanted the Clipper chip was to make it possible for police agencies to listen in on the encrypted communications of suspected criminals, often ones whose activities would certainly involve the possibility of people dying.

Both cases are examples of government attempting to interfere with a technology to further some legitimate public government interest (catching criminals, reducing accidents) while compromising the private interests of citizens (effective self-defense, privacy).

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#98

Post by objclxt »

hga wrote: post #63
objclxt wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> *dramatization of a novel by a totally PC woman black? author I fail to see how the gender or sex of the author has anything to do with anything, but it's good to know where your own biases lie.

It's relevant in the context of the people who dramatized her work. In theory , coming from someone like her, they should have shown it the respect it was due. But the Hollywood narrative that also erased the good uses of guns from Schindler's List had to be maintained at all costs.

The original book, Schindler's Ark, was written by a man (Thomas Keneally), as was the screenplay (Steven Zaillian).

Putting that aside, you seem to be under the impression that there's some kind of Hollywood conspiracy, when in fact when you're adapting a novel you usually leave out a bunch of stuff. You stick with what's important. Despite what you might think, Schindler's List is not meant to be read as a story where the gun is the hero. You would be rather missing the point of it to take that view.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#99

Post by hga »

SpaceX_Tech wrote: post #78
space_fountain wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument I have heard is that a universal background checks system would require the government to keep a registry of gun owners to be at all useful. You have to be able to go back and prove whether a seller performed the proper background check before selling a gun to a particular person. A possible alternative I thought and have always wondered why it doesn't get used would be some sort of private public key cr…

I've also heard the argument that having a national registry makes the possibility of future mass confiscation much more palatable. There are probably a good deal of people who wouldn't mind amending the Constitution to rid it of the Second Amendment but who still view the 4th Amendment favorably. It would be very difficult to enforce a policy of mass confiscation without the aid of a national registry that wouldn't…

All 20th Century gun confiscations I can think of, aside from the Chinese Communists' rifle tax system, were preceded by registration. Nazi Germany most infamously, and in occupied territories like the Netherlands failure to produce yours would result in your entire family being summarily shot in the village square. But also Cuba after Castro took power, or less dire (so far), the U.K. bit by bit. Or closer to home, California, after the AG decided that SKSes were banned after all.

Last time I checked, which was decades ago, the national ACLU, which has no respect for the 2nd Amendment at all, did have such a 4th Amendment objection.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#100

Post by 67726e »

Vexs wrote: post #88
crikli wrote: post #83

I'm an engineer, gun owner, and former NRA member[1]. I hate the idea of smart guns, but politics are a distant secondary concern. Firearms fail all the time, even the simple reliable ones. Bad primers, failure to eject, failure to cycle, stovepipes, etc. It takes education and then repeated training to know how to deal with failures. In a pressure situation you revert to your lowest level of training; muscle memory…

See, I actually like the idea of smart guns. The only thing it really does (or should do) is prevent you from getting shot with your own gun. If someone steals your gun out of your house, they could remove the smart part. If you're thinking about logging gun usage, you could probably edit the logs or corrupt them beyond usability. I think you could make the system work. It's not complicated, maybe just an RFID reader…

Where do I keep that RFID? An implant, a ring? What if it gets damaged in a scuffle and I'm SOL when I try to shoot?

Technology fails.

Post reply on HN