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

101–110 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#101

Post by schismsubv »

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…

If it's about politics, a lot of that extra stuff will be to make it non-bypassable. That said, just how many people are getting shot with their own gun as a component of overall firearm murders?

Don't forget the power supply, and don't undercalculate antenna design needs (it probably won't work incorporated into the handle of a pistol). The electrical draw will probably need to be pretty beefy in order to be as reliable as the rest of the gun's mechanisms, and what happens when the gun is being carried or stored in -20C temperatures? What about off-hand shooting when your normal shooting hand is unusable or it's dangerous to shoot from your normal side?

In order to be both universal and not introduce unreliability, the solenoid would likely have to be introduced as a secondary safety. How many firearm designs would even support a secondary safety?

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#103

Post by hga »

anonbanker wrote: post #102

DC v. Heller means nothing will come from any of this.

Not clear. Prior to Scalia's death, on the ground if you don't count Illinois, which was not appealed to the Supremes, and California and Hawaii, where it looks like the appeals court will overturn the current shall issue decision en banc, on the ground there's been no changes, because the Supremes have denied cert to every case appealed to them aside from the Massachusetts stun gun case just decided.

The bottom line is that Heller and McDonald mean we have a right to keep some types of arms, and bear them inside our homes, nothing more. And surely you've noticed how replacing Scalia is claimed by gun-grabbers as a necessary step towards reversing, de facto or de jure, both of those decisions, e.g. http://thehill.com/regulation/277248-chelsea-clinton-scotus-...

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#104

Post by pazimzadeh »

vaadu wrote: post #66

This article is an ignorant POS. The NRA hates smartguns for at least 3 reasons. First is the government is trying to force an unreliable and complex feature onto a product that needs to work every time. Second is the government has no plans to use it themselves, which speaks volumes about what their LEOs and the US military thinks of the reliability this technology. Last is the government is trying to solve a people…

Can you elaborate on why "Democrat's policies in gun-free cities" has led to "people problems?"

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#105

Post by hga »

yorwba wrote: post #95
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.

Are you willing to trust other people like myself with them?

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#106

Post by drmilsurp »

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…

They have a "do not promote" list that you must request to be added to which solves the spam/marketing mail problem. That you have to ask is problematic but there is a solution if this was the only problem.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#107

Post by mmastrac »

muglug wrote: post #84
jboggan wrote: post #11

Good article, glad to see some knowledgable firearms writing in the general press. This is how I've felt as a gun owner over the last two decades, translated into computing: Imagine that someone in California hacked into a power station and caused a blackout. Police responded and found the hacker and their equipment. Shortly thereafter an "anti-hacking" bill appeared in the state legislature to prevent a repeat of su…

Except that metaphor falls flat because Linux has many uses beyond hacking businesses and utilities (or rehearsing such activities).

Yes, exactly, and the primary purpose of a computer is not for causing damage to people and/or property. I find the argument that a gun is not primarily designed for causing harm to be disingenuous.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#108

Post by hga »

drmilsurp wrote: post #106
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…

They have a "do not promote" list that you must request to be added to which solves the spam/marketing mail problem. That you have to ask is problematic but there is a solution if this was the only problem.

Eh, that Ackerman McQueen allows even that is a major thing.

(For those who claim the "gun companies" run the NRA, no, more than anyone else, it's run for the benefit of its PR firm (and of course the current entrenched executive leadership, who have made sure another Cincinnati revolt is impossible).)

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#109

Post by woodman »

hga wrote: post #92
woodman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm going to have to disagree with you, I think thumb break retention holsters (that have been the standard forever) are just fine. The usability problem for holsters comes from the loss of fine motor control following an adrenaline dump, you go all thumbs. Of course nothing beats boring old training - where even very complex behavior can be ingrained. I blacked out my first fire fight, but I was later told that I effectively performed three magazine changes, manipulated the radio, called in a SALUTE and fired a signal flare. I'm confident that if I spent several years training to not shoot myself in the leg with a serpa holster, I could, but it would be a waste of time as better holsters long predate that silly design.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#110

Post by crikli »

drmilsurp wrote: post #106
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…

They have a "do not promote" list that you must request to be added to which solves the spam/marketing mail problem. That you have to ask is problematic but there is a solution if this was the only problem.

It wasn't just that. Ultimately I decided that there were more effective 2A organizations that I preferred to support.
Post reply on HN