An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009) • Hacker News Board

Re: An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

#11

Post by jboggan » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 6:33 PM UTC

nordsieck wrote: post #8

chillingeffect wrote: post #3

> propels the shell out of a gun barrel What? > his own weapon: a fully automatic shotgun called the AA-12. "Auto Assault-12 (AA-12), originally designed and known as the Atchisson Assault Shotgun, is a shotgun developed in 1972 by Maxwell Atchisson." [0] What? Can someone please explain to me what's going on here? Is this just my own ignorance or are these factual errors? [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_A…

"In 1987, Max Atchisson sold the rights of the AA-12 to Jerry Baber of Military Police Systems, Inc., Piney Flats, Tennessee.[3] MPS in turn developed the successor simply known as Auto Assault-12, which was redesigned over a period of 18 years with 188 changes and improvements to the original blueprint, modifications included changing the AA-12 from blowback- to gas-operated with a locked breech." [0] Looks like the…

I imagine the recoil would have been ungovernable in the original blowback configuration and the reciprocating mass would have been relatively huge.

Re: An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

#12

Post by mkr-hn » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 6:35 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #6

See, this is the sort of thing that I hate reading about. Like, yes, we have drones, and yes, we have firearms, and yes, we can add one to the other--but is it really a good idea? The potential for abuse of such systems is absurd; I cannot believe that any engineer with a shred of morality would voluntarily work on such things without at least a solid explanation of why doing so is permissible. Mark my words: these t…

The mantra I usually hear around here in regards to tech's harms--like putting people out of work--is to make the advances and let society adapt. It seems very shortsighted.

Re: An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

#13

Post by mschuster91 » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 6:36 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #6

See, this is the sort of thing that I hate reading about. Like, yes, we have drones, and yes, we have firearms, and yes, we can add one to the other--but is it really a good idea? The potential for abuse of such systems is absurd; I cannot believe that any engineer with a shred of morality would voluntarily work on such things without at least a solid explanation of why doing so is permissible. Mark my words: these t…

> Mark my words: these things will mostly be used against civilians and dissidents--not standing armies.

Which is why I (German) really hate our weapons law. War will come back to Europe, we are on the fringe of a fucking Cold War turning into a Hot War with the Russians in Ukraine. Not to mention the rising inequality in Europe - if it blows up one day, it will hit hard.

I'd like to be equipped and trained properly instead of being restricted to gas revolvers, stones and arrows. Or knives, which are useless as I'm a terrible close-range fighter.

Re: An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

#14

Post by Afforess » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 6:50 PM UTC

lotsofmangos wrote: post #7

Baber decided that the gun was too powerful to sell outside the military. He donated one to his local county sheriff, but turned everyone else away. “I don’t want that on my conscience—something I created going out and killing people all over the damn place,” he said. “I’m not worried about what it does over in Iraq or Afghanistan. That’s fine.” This doesn't sound as though he has really thought this through. Either…

I hate to be the one to inform you 99% of Americans don't actually care about the middle east.

Re: An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

#15

Post by aaronem » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 6:51 PM UTC

lotsofmangos wrote: post #7

Baber decided that the gun was too powerful to sell outside the military. He donated one to his local county sheriff, but turned everyone else away. “I don’t want that on my conscience—something I created going out and killing people all over the damn place,” he said. “I’m not worried about what it does over in Iraq or Afghanistan. That’s fine.” This doesn't sound as though he has really thought this through. Either…

The reading you've given that quote is rather uncharitable, if perhaps heavily implied by the article's author. It's pretty obvious that Baber means he doesn't want his weapon falling into the hands of criminals, but he has no problem selling it to the military, to be put to whatever use they might find for it.

Granted, the question remains of whether US foreign policy, inasmuch as it deploys our military, is morally or ethically acceptable to you, but that's a point on which reasonable people can differ, and Baber's opinion on that point appears to differ from yours. If, from that difference, you choose to infer that Baber doesn't consider Afghans or Iraqis "people", that is of course entirely your prerogative.

Re: An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

#16

Post by dang » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 6:52 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #2

FWIW, I posted this story today because of the New Yorker's announcement of their redesign and temporary disabling of their paywall. I remembering reading the abstract of this article in 2009, and then became a subscriber because I wanted to read the full version...I'm not passionately against or for paywalls, but the New Yorker is probably the only single publication that could pull me like that. That said, I did a…

Excellent. More, please!

We added the date.

Edit: Perhaps I should clarify. By "more, please" I mean we want substantive articles on unexpected subjects, archival and historical material welcome. Not necessarily more on this topic.

Re: An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

#17

Post by aaronem » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 6:53 PM UTC

chillingeffect wrote: post #3

> propels the shell out of a gun barrel What? > his own weapon: a fully automatic shotgun called the AA-12. "Auto Assault-12 (AA-12), originally designed and known as the Atchisson Assault Shotgun, is a shotgun developed in 1972 by Maxwell Atchisson." [0] What? Can someone please explain to me what's going on here? Is this just my own ignorance or are these factual errors? [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_A…

> What?

Expecting someone who writes for the New Yorker to understand how firearms work is, I think, expecting rather too much.

Re: An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

#18

Post by lesingerouge » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 7:02 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #13

angersock wrote: post #6

See, this is the sort of thing that I hate reading about. Like, yes, we have drones, and yes, we have firearms, and yes, we can add one to the other--but is it really a good idea? The potential for abuse of such systems is absurd; I cannot believe that any engineer with a shred of morality would voluntarily work on such things without at least a solid explanation of why doing so is permissible. Mark my words: these t…

> Mark my words: these things will mostly be used against civilians and dissidents--not standing armies. Which is why I (German) really hate our weapons law. War will come back to Europe, we are on the fringe of a fucking Cold War turning into a Hot War with the Russians in Ukraine. Not to mention the rising inequality in Europe - if it blows up one day, it will hit hard. I'd like to be equipped and trained properly…

I don't really understand how buying your own gun/rifle/whatever would be of any help in surviving a war. The last couple of recent wars (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc) were fought mostly with "big tech" (airplanes, bombs, tanks, etc) which is pretty deadly to low level mosquitoes like civilians and foot soldiers. And while talking about inequality, I am quite uncertain about how a gun/rifle would help you. You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike? I am quite skeptical that a proliferation of this kind of thing would help you much with your "problems".

Re: An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

#19

Post by carsongross » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 7:02 PM UTC

RadioAndrea wrote: post #9

"On an LCD display behind Baber, I could see an image of my leg, transmitted by a camera under the robot’s gun barrel. The gun then pointed at my stomach. He assured me that it was not loaded." Pointing a firearm an anyone, even unloaded, even (especially?) robot controlled, is a terrible idea. This bothers me to no end, and it's so strange that someone who works with very powerful weapons can act like this. Perhaps…

This guy obviously knows the dictum "never point a firearm at anything unless you intend to destroy it."

Apparently writers from the New Yorker fall within that set for him.

Re: An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

#20

Post by aaronem » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 7:03 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #12

angersock wrote: post #6

See, this is the sort of thing that I hate reading about. Like, yes, we have drones, and yes, we have firearms, and yes, we can add one to the other--but is it really a good idea? The potential for abuse of such systems is absurd; I cannot believe that any engineer with a shred of morality would voluntarily work on such things without at least a solid explanation of why doing so is permissible. Mark my words: these t…

The mantra I usually hear around here in regards to tech's harms--like putting people out of work--is to make the advances and let society adapt. It seems very shortsighted.

Well, someone's going to do it.