Live data from Hacker News

Why the NRA hates smart guns

techcrunch.com

211–220 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#211
post #194
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…

If you keep pressing into your draw, WITH YOUR FINGERTIP. That's not how the release button is intended to be used. When someone NDs with a non-Serpa nobody blames the holster -- they blame the idiot user for doing it wrong. The Serpa has a secondary retention feature -- the button is blocked when there's upward pressure on the gun. It is not easy to snatch a gun out of a Serpa.

> That's not how the release button is intended to be used.

Stress does funny things, also "Just avoid holding it that way" isn't good advice for things like guns.

> ...with a non-Serpa nobody blames the holster...

That is the point. Normally the user would be blamed, but the design is bad enough that the equipment is being blamed, IDPA even banned it.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

I'm not "implying" it, I'm explicitly stating it.

If guns are "designed for killing", why is only one out of 10,000 used for that purpose in a typical year?

Can you think of another example of a consumer product that's "designed" for a particular purpose that has that low a rate of actual utilization for that purpose?

Most successful defensive gun use incidents don't involve anyone even getting shot, much less killed, and that's leaving out all the ones that are simply used for poking holes in pieces of paper.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#213
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 un…

Nothing at all praiseworthy about e.g. this recent DGU as reported here: http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/04/29/80-year-old-woman-s...

What's you "better" for when a thug is using lethal force on an innocent?

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.

Yep, as long as you have such disdain for legitimate uses of guns you're certainly not going to be able to discuss the issue "rationally", you've already made up your mind.

And if you think I view all human life as equal, you're sorely confused, which is further supported by you suspicion of bloodlust being a part of this.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#214
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 un…

Knives, baseball bats, bows, darts, and even arguably dogs were all originally made primarily for causing harm. With the exception of dogs they're almost invariably manufactured to enable causing harm. Some have had other uses developed after the fact, but they cause harm and destruction in very real and undebatable physical ways, often in their day-to-day use.

Does that mean we vilify their ownership and gradually make the many responsible owners felons for the actions of the miscreant few? I'm not going to argue that these devices are somehow as destructive as guns, but an object's design origin shouldn't nullify its value for current use.

We can do better on violence and valuing life as a race and society, but insisting it start with eliminating a set of hobbies whose participants are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding, and civic-minded is itself a pernicious idea.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#215
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you keep pressing into your draw, WITH YOUR FINGERTIP. That's not how the release button is intended to be used. When someone NDs with a non-Serpa nobody blames the holster -- they blame the idiot user for doing it wrong. The Serpa has a secondary retention feature -- the button is blocked when there's upward pressure on the gun. It is not easy to snatch a gun out of a Serpa.

> That's not how the release button is intended to be used. Stress does funny things, also "Just avoid holding it that way" isn't good advice for things like guns. > ...with a non-Serpa nobody blames the holster... That is the point. Normally the user would be blamed, but the design is bad enough that the equipment is being blamed, IDPA even banned it.

But "Avoid jamming your finger in the trigger area" is very solid advice for guns. That has got to be the leading cause of NDs while drawing a firearm but someone does it with a Serpa and everyone is blaming the holster. Had my Serpa for years and it never even occurred to me to jab my fingertip at the button until Grebner's video.

IDPA never banned the Serpa. Some ranges / organizers have.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#216
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…

Exactly! If the fingerprint scanner on the gun works like the one on my phone, many people will unnecessarily die. What do their families do then? Sue Congress?

Seriously, the idea of smart guns is really stupid. Can you build a system that's 100% reliable? No. Then people will die unnecessarily because of this legislation and, of course, no gun owner will want this optional piece of equipment with a nonzero failure rate. I'm glad no gun company wants to make this idiotic and dangerous technology.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#217
post #177
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...trying to force an unreliable and complex feature onto a product that needs to work every time." This. This is my biggest problem with smart-gun tech. We still haven't managed to figure out how to write software for hundred-million-dollar space projects that doesn't crash (the Japanese Hitomi satellite[2] being the latest of many); how on Earth are we going to implement smart gun technology correctly? (actually,…

The plan is not to ban non-smart guns next week. Obama is calling for a push to improve the technology until it becomes reliable. Despite the Hitomi failure, we have sent a few hundred things into space pretty successfully. Half the systems in your car are under computer control. Opposing technology that could save thousands of lives a year because it doesn't work perfectly yet is bullshit.

Tell that to the families of the people who will die because of unreliable technology. I'm sure they will be consoled by the fact that their loved one died so others in the future, when we figure out how to create a 100% reliable smart gun mechanisms, some strangers might not die. I'm sure that will bring smiles at their loved one's funeral.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#218
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 un…

I'm going to flatly state that while I currently live in a relatively high crime area I do not carry any weapons, firearms or otherwise, on me at any time. I do not harbor any kind of action hero revenge fantasies and my first choice when ever I have been faced with the prospect of physical violence has been to try and deescalate the situation followed by attempting to flee.

I will also add that I spent a good part of my youth living in an area of Oakland, and before that Houston, that was brutalized by a bizarre concoction of gang violence and police corruption mixed with a healthy dose of community apathy.

With all that being said I find your comment extraordinarily naive, paternalistic and offensive. To suggest that citizens, especially those of communities that have been systematically disenfranchised both socially and economically, should feel shame in defending themselves from criminal elements that seek to prey on their condition is absurd.

I certainly don't celebrate the death of another human being and hope that we as a society can find non violent ways of addressing grievances, but to conflate self defense, even when it results in unfortunate death, as bloodlust is insulting.

I usually tend to refrain from drawing conclusions about a poster's personal background on the basis of comments since it's rife for misunderstanding but in this instance I find it hard to bite my tongue. You sound like the product of an extraordinarily privileged life. Perhaps not Gates or Zuckerberg levels of privilege, but privilege nonetheless. The type of privilege were you viewed the police as friends of the community, the type were you didn't have to fear being shot, or stabbed, or bludgeoned, or run over multiple times (something that actually happened to a childhood friend) by the gangs that controlled your neighborhood. The type of privilege were as a child you could be outside after sunset, the type were you didn't have to run from the bus stop straight home every afternoon to avoid being jumped.

The funny thing about privilege is that those who are its biggest beneficiaries are often the least aware if its existence. To suggest that those of us who didn't grow up with the privilege of safety from having physical violence visited upon us or our families and friends as a regular occurrence should view the idea of self defense, even when resulting in death, as being ethically or morally ambiguous represents an almost sociopathic level of delusion.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't. You also don't kill things when you target shoot. You can run over things with a car, or you can race one. You can kill things with a gun, or you can shoot paper targets with one. Get it?

The analogy is really stretched. The racing sport equivalent to target shooting would be running over paper targets.

Not really. Most automobile racing involves driving your car as quickly as possible along a clearly-marked track. The skill set to do that is pretty much exactly the same skill set required to run over people.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not "implying" it, I'm explicitly stating it. If guns are "designed for killing", why is only one out of 10,000 used for that purpose in a typical year? Can you think of another example of a consumer product that's "designed" for a particular purpose that has that low a rate of actual utilization for that purpose? Most successful defensive gun use incidents don't involve anyone even getting shot, much less killed…

> Can you think of another example of a consumer product that's "designed" for a particular purpose that has that low a rate of actual utilization for that purpose?

I haven't look up the actual usage rates, but I suspect things like smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, air bags, and (emergency) parachutes, are very seldomly used for their intended purpose.

Post reply on HN