Earlier quoted context omitted.
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Knives, baseball bats, bows, darts, and even arguably dogs were all originally made primarily for causing harm.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 m…
Why the NRA hates smart guns
221–230 of 315 posts
Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns
#222The article makes it sound theoretical, but New Jersey already has the Childproof Handgun Law that makes it illegal to sell a non-smart gun "three years after it is determined that personalized handguns are available for retail purposes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Childproof_Handgun_...
Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns
#223Earlier 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…
Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 don't want to make anything even resembling a moral argument, but I'll say that your explicit and unabashed condemnation of using lethal force in self defense to be shocking. The fact that your comment is so well-worded and apparently well-considered makes it even more horrifying.
Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns
#225Earlier 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…
Target shooting isn't just practice for killing things. That's as absurd as claiming "racing is just practice for running people over". Target shooting is a sport all on its own, and is probably the single most prevalent application of firearms in the US.
Sure, and locksport isn't just practice for burglary. The point is guns are a lot closer to specific forced-entry tools (lockpicks or Metasploit) than to computers in general.
Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Washington state went concealed carry in 1961. Its crime rate rose and fell in step with the other states over the years - concealed carry did not suppress that rate after it was introduced. If you want to argue that concealed carry directly reduces crime rate, Washington state is something you should remain quiet on. I've read a lot of stuff around concealed carry over the past decade for internet debates, and…
If you want to argue that concealed carry directly reduces crime rate You're fighting someone else, I make no such claims, I'm pretty sure simple demographics, particularly the wave of young men in the Baby Boom, is the biggest factor, and swamps all others to the point it's hard to discern any other cause. Although perhaps if we'd locked up those criminals at the rate we'd locked up previous generations it would hav…
And apparently "wild success" has now transmogrified to "mostly harmless"?
Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns
#227Earlier 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…
Look - if you like guns, just say you like guns. People are allowed to like guns.
But, throwing around an illogical argument as a logical one isn't going to help in persuading people - well, at least not people who follow logic.
Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
You are correct about the IDPA ban, my mistake. It makes me wonder though, I can't think of a similar case of a safety rule being so charged. Green tip 5.56 is the closest thing that comes to mind, but that is more to do with property damage than safety.
Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns
#229Earlier 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?
Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to make anything even resembling a moral argument, but I'll say that your explicit and unabashed condemnation of using lethal force in self defense to be shocking. The fact that your comment is so well-worded and apparently well-considered makes it even more horrifying.
I would sincerely love to understand why this is horrifying . Allow me to say I am not attempting to bait you into a pointless argument. I genuinely find myself rather surprised at the strong language in your reaction, though not by any amount of disagreement. I would love to understand your point of view, and specifically the horror, better.
Firstly however, I'd like to apologize for the tone of my response below. While I stand by my post's general idea I feel it was poorly worded and came out unnecessarily hostile and combative, along with overly dismissive of your point of view. I'm going to leave it up unedited if for no other reason than to serve as an example of how not to engage in these discussions. In particular, I really shouldn't have made any assumptions about your specific background and again, my apologies.
The exact reasons why I disagreed so strongly with your post are proving difficult for me to illustrate beyond what I've already written. In essence, by painting the act of self defense as being morally or ethically ambiguous, I feel that you are essentially dismissing the experiences that those like myself, who have had to endure violence first hand, have had. I fully accept that I may be misreading your intent here but it comes off as somehow equivocating a defensive response to violence with using violence to prey on others.
Its also upsetting to me because I run across similar sentiments in my daily life that I find troubling. While I consider myself fortunate to both work and socialize with people of many different classes and races I find certain attitudes held by most of those who had the luxury of middle-upper class upbringings regarding being poor to be problematic. I understand this may not be the case with you and I overreacted.
All too often however I come across people espousing views on what it's like to be poor or be surrounded by violence without ever having been poor or surrounded by violence. It comes off as dismissive of my experiences.
It also showcases the problem of racial and economic segregation that is becoming increasingly widespread in the US whereby the burden of being poor and living around violence is increasingly being cordoned off from the rest of society. To me this is expressed by views such as yours that hold self defense as morally ambiguous. It's telling that not a single person who I grew up around would ever consider their right to self defense, even if using deadly force, to be problematic. The only people who I've ever heard espouse these views have never encountered violence at all. I understand that this may not be you, and that there probably exist people who have been victims of violence and still view deadly force as unjust, I've just never met any myself and this surely distorts my perspective.
I'm unsure if this post makes a coherent argument that explains my views succinctly but I hope it helps.
Either way, sorry about the tone of my previous comment.