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

291–300 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#291

Post by hga »

dang wrote: post #290
hga wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I insist, based on 20th Century history, that pretty much all confiscations in developed, and in most undeveloped countries, have been preceded by registries, and this includes multiple states in the US (where, I grant, you can move the weapon out of state). And since they serve no good purpose, and are promoted by people who are not shy about signaling their ill will towards us, we're allowed to take the imposit…

I can only believe you're making a rhetorical point, but even in the abstract, threatening mass murder is beyond the pale here. Please respect the site rules and the community and don't post like this here.

Sure, if you're willing to have the participants of the site be ignorant of the consequences of the actions some of them support, sure.

But if you think our contingent threat is rhetorical, you're a fool. If you live in a fragile Blue city like San Francisco, you're doubly a fool (did they get around to closing the last power plant in SF, or was it on the peninsula? I remember Willie Brown commenting, after a major localized blackout, that maybe that wasn't such a good idea...).

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#292

Post by hga »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #288
ubernostrum wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

zero gun ownership rights Well, I think that's true. But you jumped straight from that to universal disarming, which doesn't follow. Not having a right to a thing does not automatically ban the thing; it simply means the thing becomes a privilege to be granted or withheld/revoked. A driver's license works the same way: you don't have an automatic inherent right to a driver's license, but that doesn't in any way imply…

> First: giving up on the idea of militias rising against the federal government. If it ever became necessary, and if the military stayed on the government side, well, we're getting really good at taking out resistance from the safety and comfort of a control room hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the action. Some dudes with camo and rifles aren't gonna cut it. And if the military doesn't stay on the gove…

> well, we're getting really good at taking out resistance from the safety and comfort of a control room hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the action.

He seems to be unaware that those people have to go home to sleep when they're off their shift.

The US has never fought a war without a secure rear (well, eventually the Confederates found themselves in that situation, and they of course lost). It won't go well if this comes to past, and [censored by dang], but I really don't see the military any time soon, even in the middle of their Fundamental Transformation, lining up on the side of those who hate them with a burning passion. Especially the front line trigger pullers, which, of course, does not exactly include the drone operators.

If that transformation continues and succeeds, they'll be so much less a threat they'll probably only play a minor role, whatever side they take.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#293

Post by incongruity »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #190
incongruity wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So why doesn't the industry have lobbyists of their own, pushing the proper narrative then? If politicians on either side want to get it right, then why aren't industry leaders going to Washington, testifying in front of committees and telling these people how this should be handled? I haven't seen ANY politician coming out and saying they support encryption. As soon as the Apple and FBI case came out, you saw both r…

Why do you presume that they are not lobbying? This recent articles would suggest that tech firms are spending a lot of money on lobbyists:

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/google-facebook-amazon-lobbying...

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech-...

And this database would suggest some tech companies fall into the 5th highest spending industry: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&inde...

So, a better question is, why, despite these efforts are we still seeing this? A few reasons, I'd guess...

1) Lobbying efforts by other industries and groups (law enforcement has a vested interest here, for example)

2) A tendency to wanting to look tough on crime and terrorism, especially going into an election year. Moderation and wise restraint are always a tough sell in politics

3) The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit - politics edition. http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-...

4) A propensity on the part of many in government to want to hold more power (closely related to point 2, but more self-serving).

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#294

Post by dang »

hga wrote: post #291
dang wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only believe you're making a rhetorical point, but even in the abstract, threatening mass murder is beyond the pale here. Please respect the site rules and the community and don't post like this here.

Sure, if you're willing to have the participants of the site be ignorant of the consequences of the actions some of them support, sure. But if you think our contingent threat is rhetorical, you're a fool. If you live in a fragile Blue city like San Francisco, you're doubly a fool (did they get around to closing the last power plant in SF, or was it on the peninsula? I remember Willie Brown commenting, after a major l…

Please just stop. You're a fine contributor otherwise.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#295

Post by ubernostrum »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #288
ubernostrum wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

zero gun ownership rights Well, I think that's true. But you jumped straight from that to universal disarming, which doesn't follow. Not having a right to a thing does not automatically ban the thing; it simply means the thing becomes a privilege to be granted or withheld/revoked. A driver's license works the same way: you don't have an automatic inherent right to a driver's license, but that doesn't in any way imply…

> First: giving up on the idea of militias rising against the federal government. If it ever became necessary, and if the military stayed on the government side, well, we're getting really good at taking out resistance from the safety and comfort of a control room hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the action. Some dudes with camo and rifles aren't gonna cut it. And if the military doesn't stay on the gove…

... and you have the unmitigated gall to claim that those of us on the other side of this issue are "all or nothing".

What I propose still allows people to own and use guns for the things they enjoy owning/using guns for, while going after the problem usages. It's not a complete ban, and in spirit it's similar to how gun control actually works in some countries. What's "all or nothing" about that?

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#296

Post by Karunamon »

ap22213 wrote: post #231
Karunamon wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "designed for" argument always struck me as odd. Who gives a half toss what it's "designed for", when what it's used for in the real world is what actually matters?

Just to be clear, I don't have an argument. I am just a curious observer who's trying to follow and make sense of what's being discussed here. However, since you brought it up, do you have issue with 'smart guns' given that apparently most guns are purchased only to ever be used at ranges?

Not particularly - I view that the same way I view people who buy a $12,000 fully specced out Mac Pro and then browse Facebook all day with it.

Sometimes you just want something to show off. Shrug

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#297

Post by lousyanalogy »

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…

The NRA works to ensure that smart guns are not sold by anybody, anywhere. They address slippery slope concerns by vigorously fighting against the very existence of alternate technology.

If we wanted to use your analogy, the NRA would be something akin to Richard Stallman, if RMS had the financial backing of every major technology company and a bevy of lobbyists and marketers.

In your analogy, the NRA is fighting against any platform, anywhere developing, for example, code signing. Or secure forms of networking. Or any other improvement to computers.

Not just fighting against the technology being mandated; fighting against it's existence.

I will not accuse you of being dishonest, as most pro-gun folks don't realize that the NRA takes stances that are far from what most gun owners actually want. That is likely the case here, that you are making assumptions about what the NRA does, and your ignorant guesses are wrong.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#298

Post by bobwaycott »

hga wrote: post #277
bobwaycott wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, holding those seemingly at-odds positions is, in my opinion, both rational and morally/ethically defensible. I define the limits of my actions by what I believe to be morally and ethically defensible, not by what I think will be legally defensible. The law is no arbiter of what is right or good . Yes, I consider all human life to be equal, whether it is the life of a loved one, a stranger, an asshole, or what-ha…

I assume your ethics also don't allow you to kill by proxy, e.g. you'd call the police in the aftermath of a burglary, but not for a real time life and death situation? (Although if you want to maintain the lowest risk anyone will be killed, you'd never call the police in the US, full stop.)

I have never been in a real-time life-or-death situation in which I had the option to call the police as an adult, so it is difficult to state what I'd do in such a situation with certainty. I do not generally have the greatest amount of trust that police prioritize de-escalation and preserving life, which would likely give me significant pause. Especially in my neighborhood.

I believe strongly that LEO should be barred from carrying lethal weapons, and most certainly should be barred from possessing and utilizing former military hardware.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#299

Post by Fuzzwah »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #271
baddox wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Smoke detectors, at least, are designed to go off when they detect smoke. Mine goes off several times per year. Does yours not do that? Emergency parachutes aren't consumer products. Air bags aren't either -- they're required by law. It's not a matter of consumer choice. Fire extinguishers, perhaps.

Emergency parachutes, aka reserve parachutes really are consumer products...

http://www.chutingstar.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?dir=d...

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#300

Post by schismsubv »

ubernostrum wrote: post #295
LyndsySimon wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First: giving up on the idea of militias rising against the federal government. If it ever became necessary, and if the military stayed on the government side, well, we're getting really good at taking out resistance from the safety and comfort of a control room hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the action. Some dudes with camo and rifles aren't gonna cut it. And if the military doesn't stay on the gove…

... and you have the unmitigated gall to claim that those of us on the other side of this issue are "all or nothing". What I propose still allows people to own and use guns for the things they enjoy owning/using guns for, while going after the problem usages. It's not a complete ban, and in spirit it's similar to how gun control actually works in some countries. What's "all or nothing" about that?

When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do), the magnanimity of your offer must appear blinding. Imagine, gun users would not only be allowed to use guns freely within Your Sovereign Will, they would even be able to use them without active supervision! Granted, "active supervision" doesn't mean there won't be range officers enforcing the law stipulating an automatic 3 years in solitary for shooting more than one round every 18.3 seconds, but we're compromising here. I mean, hell - prisoners get free air and are still alive right? What more could they want, we have to compromise!

Your proposal is a wild fantasy with as much grounding in reality as "Dear Hustler" stories. I'll even be so bold as to assert you likely haven't even read the relevant regulations from the countries you allege you're borrowing your "spirit" from; I have. I must admit you have certainly turned quite an epic troll here.

Still looking forward to reading your exploration of the causative link between gun control and reduced crime rates in free countries.

Post reply on HN