Why the NRA hates smart guns • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#241

Post by mattdw » Sun, May 01, 2016, 5:32 AM UTC

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.

I would have expected the vast majority of the killing was of animals e.g. hunting. You don't seem to have left any room for that possibility.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#242

Post by ubernostrum » Sun, May 01, 2016, 5:43 AM UTC

schismsubv wrote: post #240

ubernostrum wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that the Second Amendment provides no guarantee whatsoever of an individual right to own firearms. And given what we have in terms of historical documents and commentaries about it, it's pretty clear that the intent was to create a collective right for purposes of protecting the well-established militia system of the time. So, given the lack of support for a guaranteed individual right, what exactly do you…

You presume I must agree with your selective interpretation of historical writings as viewed by you through your own personal filter, because for you, your interpretation is the only logical conclusion. Since that is so firmly settled in your mind I see no use in further arguing that point. The problem is that you keep talking about compromise and an all-or-nothing attitude, but ignore the fact that gun owners have b…

your interpretation is the only logical conclusion

My interpretation of the Second Amendment is the only logical conclusion one can reach following a review of commentaries on it, and on the general view toward and position of firearms in the United States at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Since that doesn't match the interpretation preferred by the NRA and its fans in the present day, the onus is on them to demonstrate how or why a genuinely new absolute individual right should be introduced and protected, and what we could gain from it.

Since most people I speak with that advocate gun control also advocate eventual complete disarmament as the end goal, why would I believe something different would happen?

Plenty of countries have strong regulation and much lower murder rates than we do, and haven't felt the need to move to complete disarmament. Nor have I advocated for it. You have, however, precisely as I predicted someone would, jumped immediately to that particular hyperbole in an attempt to cover up the fact that you can't refute the reality of successful gun control existing in the world. Same for the insipid "only outlaws will have guns" objection. Gun control works, has worked and continues to work in many free countries, and you're still trying to deny it by parroting tired old memes. All that's missing from what you presumably thought was a smashing knock-down reply is the Navy SEAL leading the class in the Pledge of Allegiance and the bald eagle swooping in to shed a tear as the liberal atheist professor runs from the classroom.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#243

Post by chillacy » Sun, May 01, 2016, 6:10 AM UTC

koolba wrote: post #23

Everybody[1] who's actually owned a gun (or plans to) hates smart guns. [1]: Okay maybe not everybody but based on my anecdata it's everybody.

That's the conclusion I came to when looking at the market for smart guns (I was interested in smart attachments for guns, think Fitbit for your gun). Smart guns drum up a bunch of press and buzz from people who will never buy them. It's a failure to understand the target market, who hates the concept for reasons mentioned elsewhere in this comment section.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#244

Post by chillacy » Sun, May 01, 2016, 6:22 AM UTC

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…

Another aspect I suspect is that gun owners already have the fundamental gun safety rules that are respected like gospel. All gun owners I've met are extremely serious about safety, and treat safety with great reverence.

I saw a reddit post of a guy who accidentally shot his foot: known as a Negligent Discharge. In the comments the general conclusion was not to blame the gun maker, but rather to blame the poster for failing to abide by the fundamental rules: 1. keep the gun pointed in a safe direction 2. keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot 3. keep the gun unloaded until ready to use 4. treat all guns as if they are loaded

I suspect that gun owners feel that smart guns also "cheapen" the safety ritual (which could be disastrous).

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#245

Post by SpaceX_Tech » Sun, May 01, 2016, 6:25 AM UTC

bobwaycott wrote: post #237

SpaceX_Tech wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

I rarely speak about my childhood or private life. & by rarely, I mean never, unless it's the nice stuff. I guess that ends today. I was born & raised in & around Los Angeles. My parents were pregnant before graduating high school with my older sister. 15 months later, I was born. The family was all-American, all-military. Air Force. Dad worked for his dad in a print shop. Mom worked in a nail & hair salon. They offe…

Thank you for taking the time to respond and for sharing your experience. Prior to this post I commented that I regretted my initial response to you as being overly dismissive of your point of view. I had the opportunity to edit/delete it at that time but I figured I may as well let it stand and afford you an opportunity to respond. I echo the same sentiment here, it was poorly worded in addition to being a colossal mistake on my part to try and draw conclusions about your personal experience based on a single comment.

Interestingly enough, while we clearly differ on this issue we both seem to share some similarities in our childhood experiences. I suppose the lesson for me from all this is the understanding that while it may be convenient to assume that those who hold differing opinions from myself must have had vastly different experiences, this isn't necessarily the case. While we probably won't find much common ground on the issue at hand I think it's rewarding to engage in these discussions, my overly dismissive language notwithstanding. It's enlightening to know that even those with somewhat similar experiences can have vastly different viewpoints and reactions as a result of those experiences, this certainly makes for an interesting world.

I too tend to dislike speaking about my private life and I regret that my post resulted in you feeling the need to talk about yours, although I appreciate you taking the time to prove how misguided my initial post was. I'm not particularly good at expressing my views, whether written or spoken, and thus don't engage in these kind of discussions often. While its wonderful to be able to engage with others online, it is too easy to be dismissive or hostile to others in a way I would never be in person. I will certainly try and keep that in mind the next time I post.

I find your strong stance against violence in all its forms to be admirable. It's not something I find myself capable of accepting but as you said that is more of a reflection on me than you. Perhaps you are a better man than I.

In any case, I apologize for the content of my initial response. I'm embarrassed by my rush to judgement and hope that you find my apology sincere.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#246

Post by schismsubv » Sun, May 01, 2016, 6:30 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #242

schismsubv wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You presume I must agree with your selective interpretation of historical writings as viewed by you through your own personal filter, because for you, your interpretation is the only logical conclusion. Since that is so firmly settled in your mind I see no use in further arguing that point. The problem is that you keep talking about compromise and an all-or-nothing attitude, but ignore the fact that gun owners have b…

your interpretation is the only logical conclusion My interpretation of the Second Amendment is the only logical conclusion one can reach following a review of commentaries on it, and on the general view toward and position of firearms in the United States at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Since that doesn't match the interpretation preferred by the NRA and its fans in the present day, the onus is on t…

I wish you'd be reasonable and discuss the matter rather than make sweeping, dismissive statements and veiled ad-hominem attacks. Consider me a poor, uneducated young soul and show me the error of my ways rather than presume I'm following some set of talking points. I'm being completely earnest here, and wish I had the same impression of you. Seriously - how would registration and universal background checks actually address criminal behavior, or is just adding more felonies to the law-abiding enough deterrence? I'm sorry if it's insipid to observe that criminals are, by definition, criminals, but give me something to work with here - compromise with me and tell me why that's irrelevant.

If you wish to discuss success of gun control elsewhere in the world, so be it. Please point us to appropriate research literature that identifies a causative link between gun control and proportionately reduced crime rates. I particularly enjoyed slatestarcodex' writing on the matter, but even he with good numbers and well-considered statistics is not as confident as you. Sweden and Norway, for example - rather strict gun control, reasonably low crime, but if you've spent time in-country you know there's a significant cultural factor there. Rather than gun control causing their relatively low crime rate, I'd assert that their culture has actually dictated both the crime rate and the gun control, but that's anecdata. Let's have some real discussion with real numbers and not hand-wavy statements about free countries.

Thus far, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the 2A, and likely my own as well. I expect they come to a far more reasoned and logical analysis of it than either of us can, but for most of US history they have been on the individual-freedom side of its interpretation.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#247

Post by bdowling » Sun, May 01, 2016, 6:33 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #236

schismsubv wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our answer is equally simple: some of what we have lost. We perceive it is you who has reinterpreted the Second Amendment. It appears you choose to categorically reject returns in the same space as losses; what do you wish, that we exchange something trite like steaks and sexual favors in return for all firearms? Do you believe firearm rights are somehow perfectly fungible? If so, it would appear you yourself are ins…

I believe that the Second Amendment provides no guarantee whatsoever of an individual right to own firearms. And given what we have in terms of historical documents and commentaries about it, it's pretty clear that the intent was to create a collective right for purposes of protecting the well-established militia system of the time. So, given the lack of support for a guaranteed individual right, what exactly do you…

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F. 3d 370 (U.S. 2008) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html, the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with militia service. In particular, the District of Columbia's law banning possession of usable handguns in the home for self-defense violated the Constitution.

In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 567 F. 3d 856 (U.S. 2010) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZO.html, the court held that the right of self-defense in the Second Amendment is a fundamental right and its guarantees are applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Legislation similar to that in Heller was struck down as unconstitutional.

I encourage you to read both opinions (and the dissents), even if they are laden with constitutional legalese and references to language from hundred-year-old opinions. You can argue all you want about your own opinions, but the opinions of the Supreme Court are the law of the land and are binding on every other court in the United States.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#248

Post by powera » Sun, May 01, 2016, 6:46 AM UTC

hga wrote: post #168

powera wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Are you saying you'd start shooting people over a gun registry, or "other gun owners" would?

Yes, I will personally "start shooting people". Except I won't do anything so anodyne. We gun owners know our 20th Century history. Note we're talking about a nation wide gun registry, you're a criminal if all your guns are not listed on it.

Maybe I was too subtle. If gun owners are threatening to shoot people over regulations, isn't that a sign that guns do kill people, and maybe we do need some type of regulations?

And we're talking about a registry, not a conspiracy to secretly make all gun-owners criminals. If you insist they're the same, that's your problem.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#249

Post by bobwaycott » Sun, May 01, 2016, 6:52 AM UTC

SpaceX_Tech wrote: post #245

bobwaycott wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rarely speak about my childhood or private life. & by rarely, I mean never, unless it's the nice stuff. I guess that ends today. I was born & raised in & around Los Angeles. My parents were pregnant before graduating high school with my older sister. 15 months later, I was born. The family was all-American, all-military. Air Force. Dad worked for his dad in a print shop. Mom worked in a nail & hair salon. They offe…

Thank you for taking the time to respond and for sharing your experience. Prior to this post I commented that I regretted my initial response to you as being overly dismissive of your point of view. I had the opportunity to edit/delete it at that time but I figured I may as well let it stand and afford you an opportunity to respond. I echo the same sentiment here, it was poorly worded in addition to being a colossal…

Please know, there's really no need for apologizing. I don't harbor the slightest bit of hard feelings. I'll admit I'm feeling pretty uneasy about divulging my past, and I'm really thinking hard about deleting my comment (I had considered emailing you to carry on a conversation offline, but you didn't have an email on your profile). I know it's so easy to assume that everyone we disagree with must be from a completely different universe.

However, allow me to assure you there's no chance I'm in any way better than you. We are different, that's all.

I spent a long while replying, and then editing that reply down because I learned there's a comment length limit on HN. After finishing that, I saw your other reply. I appreciate your kindness. I wanted to reply further (and still do), but it was getting late on the East Coast, and I needed to step away and somewhat just deal with speaking so frankly about my past.

For what it's worth, I'd be happy to keep talking offline if you'd want to. My email is in my profile. I'll return to reply to some other comments and issues raised here.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#250

Post by ubernostrum » Sun, May 01, 2016, 7:10 AM UTC

bdowling wrote: post #247

ubernostrum wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that the Second Amendment provides no guarantee whatsoever of an individual right to own firearms. And given what we have in terms of historical documents and commentaries about it, it's pretty clear that the intent was to create a collective right for purposes of protecting the well-established militia system of the time. So, given the lack of support for a guaranteed individual right, what exactly do you…

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. In District of Columbia v. Heller , 478 F. 3d 370 (U.S. 2008) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html , the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with militia service. In particular, the District of Columbia's law banning possession of usable handguns in the home for self-defens…

I'm aware the Supreme Court disagrees. The Heller opinion was written by Justice Scalia, who could have opened a Waffle House with the number of flip-flops of historical revisionism he went through in order to justify decisions which just coincidentally agreed with his personal political views. And while it is enforceable, it is neither right nor historically correct to find an individual right in the Second Amendment, and I hope that within my lifetime a better-composed Court will agree.