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

201–210 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#201

Post by woodman »

hga wrote: post #183
woodman wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, we are talking about different use cases. I'd never advocate anything that would make an IWB draw any slower than it already is :) For the more block inclined, MIC trigger guards are nice for winter jackets.

I worship at the alter of John Moses Browning, so no MIC holsters for me any time soon.... But I have many many others to choose from, they've been insanely, amazingly even for me popular with civilians for a long time. And, yeah, slow is a good word to use there ^_^. (#1 one overriding reason is that since I was a teen the M1911 fits my hand like a glove, and I can shoot it very well. And 8 round magazines weren't a…

For a long time I felt the exact same way (also big mitted), but I got challenged to leave the Springfield at home and use a borrowed G17 for a week long course. I still prefer the M1911 for sport, and satisfying my need to constantly tinker (yes my feedramp is polished and ejection port flared). But if I were pressed - I'd begrudgingly go with the utilitarian choice offered by Glock. But everybody has their reasons for developing preferences in their tools: I will give up my modal text editor when they peel my cold dead fingers from around it.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#202

Post by hga »

woodman wrote: post #201
hga wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worship at the alter of John Moses Browning, so no MIC holsters for me any time soon.... But I have many many others to choose from, they've been insanely, amazingly even for me popular with civilians for a long time. And, yeah, slow is a good word to use there ^_^. (#1 one overriding reason is that since I was a teen the M1911 fits my hand like a glove, and I can shoot it very well. And 8 round magazines weren't a…

For a long time I felt the exact same way (also big mitted), but I got challenged to leave the Springfield at home and use a borrowed G17 for a week long course. I still prefer the M1911 for sport, and satisfying my need to constantly tinker (yes my feedramp is polished and ejection port flared). But if I were pressed - I'd begrudgingly go with the utilitarian choice offered by Glock. But everybody has their reasons…

And I'll give up my non-modal EMACS when....

Although the grip angle of Glocks is just plain wrong for me, I've read that I ought to try the Springfield XD if I wanted to go in that direction. Which I don't, for concealed carry I believe an external hammer is essential for holstering safety (put your thumb on it and either stop the drop if SA or feel it rising if SA/DA or DAO).

And, yeah, given that I can shoot most guns well/very well (a couple of years of JROTC rifle team with Winchester 52s, after informal starting in 1st grade or so, made a big difference, but don't ask me to wingshoot), yeah, I should give something different a serious try just to see. I'll put it on my list.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#203

Post by Turing_Machine »

superuser2 wrote: post #130
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 on…

"Computers have uses beyond hacking. Guns are for killing."

There are somewhere around 300 million guns in the United States. There were around 30,000 deaths by firearm (including homicide, suicide, and accidents) in 2013. So... approximately 1 out of every 10,000 guns was used for "killing" in that year.

If their only use is "killing", one is forced to conclude that they really aren't very good at it.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#204

Post by Turing_Machine »

467568985476 wrote: post #122
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 righ…

Marxists have enslaved far more people that were ever enslaved by the "capitalist, slave-owning class" in the early United States.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#205

Post by zardgiv »

ams6110 wrote: post #119
zardgiv wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please elaborate on what these "people problems" are. I'm interested in what you think is common amongst the cities you've cited.

They are run by Democrats and have been for a long time.

Well, they claimed that the "people problems" were caused by Democrats' policies, so it'd be useful to have some clarification as to what that is before we identify root causes.

Unless your implication is that Democrats are the "people problems?"

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#206

Post by Tiksi »

Frompo wrote: post #149
cortesoft wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes sense... People who are into something for fun are more likely to out effor into getting good at that thing. Only some of the law enforcement community are also into guns for fun, whereas all of the people who are shooting at a gun range who AREN'T law enforcement are there for fun.

Indeed, another example of this is how NBA basketball players are worse than all the amateurs on the streets! And lets not forget how the cousin of your boss that enthusiastically read some tutorials on the net is a much better programmer than you. Or maybe the argument magically only applies in the realm of gun use?

Playing basketball is an NBA player's entire job, shooting guns is a small part of a police officer's job.

Enthusiasticly reading some tutorials on the Internet isn't really what I'd consider "into" something, but there are absolutely amateur programmers that are far better at programming than a 9-5 enterprise "code monkey" level programmer with no interest in the job apart from the paycheck.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#207

Post by ap22213 »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #203
superuser2 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 on…

"Computers have uses beyond hacking. Guns are for killing." There are somewhere around 300 million guns in the United States. There were around 30,000 deaths by firearm (including homicide, suicide, and accidents) in 2013. So... approximately 1 out of every 10,000 guns was used for "killing" in that year. If their only use is "killing", one is forced to conclude that they really aren't very good at it.

That's quite bizarre logic for someone with that handle. Are you really implying that the great majority of guns were not designed for killing?

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#208

Post by popmystack »

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…

This reminds me of the "cars can use kill people too!" disingenuous line of thought.

Cars can kill people, but they are primarily used for transportation.

Guns have no other purpose but to kill. You may use it for other stuff (sport, in general). But it was created to kill something. Any analogy where you take some other object that has the potential to be purposefully misused is pretty much invalid when you're talking about the other object's primary purpose.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#210

Post by bobwaycott »

hga wrote: post #112
mmastrac wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because somehow, some way, the 12 billion (yes, thousand million) plus rounds manufactured in the US every year, plus more imported, somehow manage to cause harm as they're shot??? No, unless you consider punching holes in a piece of paper or a "tin can", or busting a clay bird to be "destruction", most are "not primarily designed for causing harm", and when it comes to self-defense, the resulting harm is praiseworth…

The parent said guns were made primarily for causing harm. This is beyond any doubt historically and presently. The parent said nothing about ammunition. Although, ammunition is most certainly made to facilitate the purpose of guns. So, yeah, they're definitely manufactured to enable causing harm [with a gun]. Targets shot, be they human, animal, or inanimate, most certainly are harmed/destroyed in a very real and undebatable physical way.

> when it comes to self-defense, the resulting harm is praiseworthy and not to overall be deplored.

Bullshit. There is nothing at all praiseworthy about shooting a person, self-defense or otherwise. This is one of the most pernicious ideas advocated by those who defend guns, and makes it very difficult to discuss the related issues rationally. There is nothing praiseworthy about blowing a hole in another human. It should always be deplored, and we can do better than this. At best, shooting someone is a failure of finding a non-lethal avenue of resolving a problem. At worst, defending it as praiseworthy in certain circumstances reveals a moral and ethical failure to value life, and a potential bloodlust for taking life in circumscribed scenarios that absolve people of the need to recognize that what they've done is wrong.

Again, we can do better.

Post reply on HN