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

121–130 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#121

Post by hga »

woodman wrote: post #109
hga wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ef…

I'm actually not sure we're disagreeing, but I'll defer to you, seeing as how I've avoided firefights up to now, and probably will in the future, and carry concealed with a Summer Special, friction the only retention besides, of course, having it covered.

Ah, also a Safepacker in winter weather, which is not even clearly a hostler: http://www.thewilderness.com/safepacker-concealment-holster/

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#122

Post by 467568985476 »

fhrjfjc wrote: post #51

I don't want backdoors in my guns just like I don't want backdoors in my encryption. It's really that simple. Also reminder that Marx was an advocate of widespread gun ownership by the working class, much for the same reasons that the founding fathers of the USA were. Solving the underlying economic issues causing suicide and violence would make far more sense than covering up the symptoms. At the end of the day it's…

I think that Marx comparison is pretty wrong. Marx expected a global workers' revolution that would result in a classless society. He was an advocate of armed revolution against the bourgeoisie. As far as I can tell, anything he wrote about gun ownership was in the context of this armed revolution.

The second amendment reads, in full, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The notion of protecting a state lead by a capitalist, slave owning class (think about what "people" means in this context) is completely contradictory to Marx.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#124

Post by ubernostrum »

jonstokes wrote: post #19
fiatmoney wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's absolutely false. The NRA's membership drives their policy, not the other way around - manufacturers have historically been perfectly content to give into things like the assault weapons ban or magazine capacity limits (they make roughly the same amount of money if they sell their guns with a scary flash hider or a sanctified muzzle brake). In fact there are numerous groups, like the Gun Owners of America, who…

OP article author here: You are correct and the parent comment is incorrect. The NRA actually used to support background checks, but after decades of "compromises" where they basically gave up ground and got nothing in return, they went hard-line at the membership's insistence. This cartoon does a great job of explaining the average NRA members view of what it means to meet the gun control lobby "halfway" on an issue…

where they basically gave up ground and got nothing in return

What would they get in return? The absolutist/fundamentalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not admit of compromise, and sets up a world view in which compromises and "reasonable middles" cannot exist; from that stance one either wins completely or loses completely, which is not coincidentally the rhetoric often used to work supporters up into a frenzy.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#125

Post by hga »

bobochan wrote: post #120
hga wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really telling me you couldn't restock a Ruger 10/22 and get started??? E.g. https://www.google.com/#q=ruger+10%2F22+biathlon

Wow, thanks! My kids had been researching biathlon rifles and the only ones that they found were from either Germany or Russia, and the Russian ones were no longer being imported. We talked with biathletes training at Craftsbury this season (they were National Guard members), and they were all using imported rifles, but I'm glad to see there are other options.

You're very welcome.

The Ruger 10/22, which lists at $260 to $400 from what I just found on Google from Ruger, has an awesome ecosystem and is relatively easily worked on.

Heck, everything can be bought from someone else (all patents expired by now), and I'm sure there are many alternatives that could get you started.

Also see http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=biathlon e.g. there's a Russian rifle which often goes for less than a thousand there. As well as an Anschutz with "Walnut German Stock" for the usual $$$$$$.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#126

Post by sgnelson »

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…

You forgot one of the key reasons that specific computer is banned. It's Black and looks evil, just like the computers that hackers in the movies use.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#127

Post by msandford »

hga wrote: post #68
msandford wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that mental health information should be a part of background checks is a pretty tough row to hoe. With crimes at least there's an ostensibly fair trial that determines the guilt or innocence of the person; with mental health there may or may not be any kind of trial but the resulting embargo on your gun rights will be just as real. Further that would incentivize people who might be struggling with mental il…

The idea that mental health information should be a part of background checks is a pretty tough row to hoe. So tough that many states still absolutely refuse to supply their relevant mental health records to the NICS "instant" background check system. And then there's the screwups, the Virginia Tech shooter should have been stopped by the gun store (and who knows what would have happened after that), but Virginia has…

I'm sure it's a "hard-line" stance to take, but if you want to make gun violence a public health issue I'd be far, far more supportive of the idea that we have a mental health problem here in the US than an access-to-guns problem here in the US.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#128

Post by incongruity »

Vexs wrote: post #82
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…

What's kinda funny is that's very similar to what's actually going in computing, especially with encryption most recently.

Absolutely - because the fundamentals are all the same - highly technical specifics being mandated by people who have no clue about the technology nor the impact of their proposed mandates. As systems get more complex and integrated, we're going to see more of this, not less, I fear. Also, note - this happens in the courts as well.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#129

Post by larrywright »

exabrial wrote: post #27

Smart guns aren't going to hinder anyone but responsible people. We need a few things: 1) Funding alternatives to incarceration. People that go to jail tend to have a frequent flyer card. 2) Law enforcement sharing of critical data on offenders. 3) Funding treatment and therapy programs for drug abusers (ABUSERS, key word. I know this isn't a popular opinion on HN, but ABUSE and USE are two different things) 4) Final…

I've always thought that the arguments from the anti-gun crowd defied all logic. If access to guns was the root of the problem, then gun violence should be going down, rather than up. Far fewer people own guns now than did, say 150 or 200 years ago (when it was probably close to 100%). Solving the problem by focusing on guns is trying to treat the symptom rather than the disease.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#130

Post by superuser2 »

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…

Computers have uses beyond hacking. Guns are for killing. Killing in self-defense, honing your killing skills as a sport/recreation activity, deterring bad behavior by threat of killing, killing things that are socially acceptable to kill (i.e. game animals), sure, but the theme is killing.

Lockpicks might be a better example. Many similar arguments apply: their use is to open doors without the correct keys, which only a few specialized professions should have a legitimate need to do. Yet on the other hand we ought to be able to tinker with our private property, evaluate its security (bad guys will get lockpicks anyway), let ourselves in if we get locked out, publish security research on "unpickable" locks and participate in locksport.

Or for a more direct computing analogy, Metasploit. It is unambiguously a hacking tool, but it remains legal because bad guys will always get hacking tools, and the good guys need to be able to evaluate their defenses.

Post reply on HN