Why the NRA hates smart guns • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#301

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:00 AM UTC

schismsubv wrote: post #300

ubernostrum wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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 solita…

How is allowing hunting/sports/collecting while imposing incredibly harsh penalties on other uses of guns "zero gun usage"? What important use -- other than killing your fellow human beings -- for your guns is not provided for under what I proposed?

(it really does seem like your objection is "I'd no longer be allowed to own a gun for the purpose of killing other people", and my objection, of course, is that this isn't already illegal)

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#302

Post by schismsubv » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:24 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #301

schismsubv wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 solita…

How is allowing hunting/sports/collecting while imposing incredibly harsh penalties on other uses of guns "zero gun usage"? What important use -- other than killing your fellow human beings -- for your guns is not provided for under what I proposed? (it really does seem like your objection is "I'd no longer be allowed to own a gun for the purpose of killing other people", and my objection, of course, is that this isn…

Do try to keep up. I said "When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do)...", not that you espouse zero gun usage. Whether you've explicitly stated so or not, it is quite apparent that your internal center on the matter of firearms is "zero", as in you feel you are being generous by allowing that _any_ use is acceptable. Hence, imposing incredibly harsh terms on legal use apparently feels rational to you.

Here's a thought exercise for you - return to your car analogy and apply all the same rules you insist on for firearms to freedom of movement. The Constitution doesn't even guarantee freedom of movement explicitly, so you can wipe away that mess without even repealing an amendment, just overturn some old cases. Stipulate the same taxation and registration (even for private land use), revocation of use upon even considering moving to another state, and so on. Our founding fathers could have never imagined the network of interstates we have today. Unless you're saying your car analogy doesn't work.

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

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#303

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, May 02, 2016, 9:30 AM UTC

schismsubv wrote: post #302

ubernostrum wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is allowing hunting/sports/collecting while imposing incredibly harsh penalties on other uses of guns "zero gun usage"? What important use -- other than killing your fellow human beings -- for your guns is not provided for under what I proposed? (it really does seem like your objection is "I'd no longer be allowed to own a gun for the purpose of killing other people", and my objection, of course, is that this isn…

Do try to keep up. I said "When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do)...", not that you espouse zero gun usage. Whether you've explicitly stated so or not, it is quite apparent that your internal center on the matter of firearms is "zero", as in you feel you are being generous by allowing that _any_ use is acceptable. Hence, imposing incredibly harsh terms on legal use apparently fe…

I've handled and fired guns. I'm not opposed to their existence. I am opposed to them being used to kill people.

So, again: why is allowing sports/hunting/collecting but harshly penalizing the violent-crime aspect not a useful compromise?

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#304

Post by LyndsySimon » Mon, May 02, 2016, 1:57 PM UTC

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?

I own and use guns for self-protection. Your "proposal" is that I not have access to guns. That's the very definition of "all or nothing".

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#305

Post by LyndsySimon » Mon, May 02, 2016, 1:59 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #303

schismsubv wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do try to keep up. I said "When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do)...", not that you espouse zero gun usage. Whether you've explicitly stated so or not, it is quite apparent that your internal center on the matter of firearms is "zero", as in you feel you are being generous by allowing that _any_ use is acceptable. Hence, imposing incredibly harsh terms on legal use apparently fe…

I've handled and fired guns. I'm not opposed to their existence. I am opposed to them being used to kill people. So, again: why is allowing sports/hunting/collecting but harshly penalizing the violent-crime aspect not a useful compromise?

You have in this thread defined "violent crime" as "self defense".

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#306

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

LyndsySimon wrote: post #304

ubernostrum wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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?

I own and use guns for self-protection. Your "proposal" is that I not have access to guns. That's the very definition of "all or nothing".

No, you own and use guns for the purpose of killing people. If that's what floats your boat, then I can't change your mind (and it'd probably be wise for me not to -- after all, you're the sort of person who shoots people!).

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#307

Post by schismsubv » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:50 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #303

schismsubv wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do try to keep up. I said "When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do)...", not that you espouse zero gun usage. Whether you've explicitly stated so or not, it is quite apparent that your internal center on the matter of firearms is "zero", as in you feel you are being generous by allowing that _any_ use is acceptable. Hence, imposing incredibly harsh terms on legal use apparently fe…

I've handled and fired guns. I'm not opposed to their existence. I am opposed to them being used to kill people. So, again: why is allowing sports/hunting/collecting but harshly penalizing the violent-crime aspect not a useful compromise?

At this point (indeed, long ago) your behavior has simply become illustrative of how to poorly carry out an argument, much less a constructive conversation. In an amusing irony, your behavior is an extreme parody of the exact inflexibility you claim to be so incensed about. You are lost in a childish authoritarian fantasy, and I regret that for you.

I expect this is casting pearls before swine, but your proposal is not simply harsh on violent crime as you so boldly attempt to claim. What you allege is a compromise does not allow non-criminal uses of firearms without imposing harsh penalties on those uses. Your proposal is as radical as someone on the other end of the firearm use spectrum insisting that individuals found guilty of not having shot a criminal in the past 30 days are guilty of "being soft on crime", which carries a penalty of lifetime (or at least 50 years') imprisonment.

Your proposal remains a wild, masturbatory fantasy with cherry-picked examples from pop culture knowledge of other countries' gun control laws without even understanding them and their actual implementations. Further to that point, you also still have yet to even explain why your proposal is anything but an amusingly dismal attempt at parroting a tired, predictable talking point about how gun control in "other countries" works. Disappointingly, that was abandoned the moment I showed actual working knowledge in that space.

Go ahead, let's see what random single phrase you decide to object to out of this large set. We've already abandoned a large part of the conversation behind us, you're just amusing at this point.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#308

Post by khedoros » Mon, May 02, 2016, 8:34 PM UTC

Frompo wrote: post #285

khedoros wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not all of them as a category, or shootings in general? They all fit the concept of "negatives that legislation would attempt to prevent" in the analogy. That's the great thing about analogies: They compare concepts, but the scale of the concepts doesn't necessarily have to match. But I'm sure that you understand that already.

The point of an analogy is to illuminate some point of an issue by drawing parallels with an aspect of a more easily understood, unrelated issue. For an analogy to be helpful it crucial that the two aspects being related share characteristics, and school shootings don't share many aspects with blackouts. A school shooting is highly localised, even if the location my vary; blackouts need to happen over a very wide are…

So, selling weapons to Iraq: What is your list of ridiculous, incidental things to restrict? The premise of the original analogy has two parts. First, something that they want to prevent. Second, cherry-picking things that don't necessarily matter to restrict, and create some nice "tough on crime" theater.

Analogies are limited by nature. Every analogy has holes. The important comparison here is "crime/tragedy occurs" -> "legal system responds with near-random actions that may or may not prevent a recurrence of the same in the future, that subject-matter specialists claim will be ineffective".

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#309

Post by LyndsySimon » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:57 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #306

LyndsySimon wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own and use guns for self-protection. Your "proposal" is that I not have access to guns. That's the very definition of "all or nothing".

No, you own and use guns for the purpose of killing people. If that's what floats your boat, then I can't change your mind (and it'd probably be wise for me not to -- after all, you're the sort of person who shoots people!).

I see we've fallen to the level of personal attacks. Pity.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#310

Post by dang » Tue, May 03, 2016, 7:22 PM UTC

schismsubv wrote: post #307

ubernostrum wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've handled and fired guns. I'm not opposed to their existence. I am opposed to them being used to kill people. So, again: why is allowing sports/hunting/collecting but harshly penalizing the violent-crime aspect not a useful compromise?

At this point (indeed, long ago) your behavior has simply become illustrative of how to poorly carry out an argument, much less a constructive conversation. In an amusing irony, your behavior is an extreme parody of the exact inflexibility you claim to be so incensed about. You are lost in a childish authoritarian fantasy, and I regret that for you. I expect this is casting pearls before swine, but your proposal is n…

Your comments in this argument became increasingly uncivil. I know that's the nature of flamewars, but please don't let it happen here. HN is aiming for a civil, substantive discourse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html