Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

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

#21

Post by aaronem »

carsongross wrote: post #19
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.

Or maybe he just likes screwing with their heads, and as a fellow Southron well familiar with the oft-condescending ways of Yankees, I don't suppose I can blame him too strongly for that.

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

#22

Post by carsongross »

aaronem wrote: post #21
carsongross wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or maybe he just likes screwing with their heads, and as a fellow Southron well familiar with the oft-condescending ways of Yankees, I don't suppose I can blame him too strongly for that.

Ah, right, I always forget about the "except for people you kinda don't like" clause in the rules of firearms safety.

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

#23

Post by mkr-hn »

aaronem wrote: post #20
mkr-hn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesn't mean the person who does it can't think about ways to deal with the social implications.

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

#24

Post by Crito »

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…

At least drones tend to have cameras, and their operators cannot excuse their own actions by claiming that their lives were at risk. Drones have the potential to be more audit-able.

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

#25

Post by lotsofmangos »

aaronem wrote: post #15
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…

I gave two different ways to read it, you chose which one you thought I favoured.

That said, he stated he didn't want to sell it to police departments, not the public, who couldn't legally buy it anyway, so I don't see how you think it is obvious that he means criminals when it says police.

"Police departments asked for AA-12s, but Baber decided that the gun was too powerful to sell outside the military."

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

#26

Post by jessaustin »

aaronem wrote: post #17
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.

Based on sibling comments, that's also too much to expect of several HN readers. (Hint: shells don't leave by the front door.) I thought the most egregious howler was this one:

...a dainty, short-haired woman in high heels casually grips the gun and fires off eight hundred balls of .20-calibre [sic] metal in four seconds...

Although this is pretty bad, it would have been worse if the "balls" were described as 20-gauge as the author intended rather than 20-caliber which is just silly.

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

#27

Post by mschuster91 »

lesingerouge wrote: post #18
mschuster91 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

EU vs Russia may not be fought on German territory any soon, but civil wars inside the EU are not that far away (hell, they're hunting down jews and black people already)...

Also, I'm not really a supporter of big-caliber shotguns in private hands - but we're not even allowed to own handguns! Fine, not being allowed to carry in public is something I accept and deem necessary, but not even being allowed to possess them is just ridiculous given the huge number of illegal guns.

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

#28

Post by Crito »

lesingerouge wrote: post #18
mschuster91 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> "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."

In those wars, was it both parties using airplanes, bombs, and tanks? Or was it one side using those things, and the other side holding out without them for over a decade? The opposing tanks in Iraq were shredded in hours, it was the guys with rifles and improvised weapons that held out.

In Berlin there is a Soviet war memorial that is known by some locals as "The Tomb of the Unknown Rapist". You can imagine why. When you are in a warzone, you cannot depend on anyone but yourself to keep you safe from the soldiers of the conquering army. Having a gun will not put you on equal footing with them, but at least it will give you the opportunity to attempt to defend yourself.

> "You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike?"

Where the hell did those suppositions come from?

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

#29

Post by lotsofmangos »

Afforess wrote: post #14
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.

That seems unlikely, given that 73% identify as Christian and not that many of them think Jesus was American.

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

#30

Post by [deleted] »

carsongross wrote: post #22
aaronem wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe he just likes screwing with their heads, and as a fellow Southron well familiar with the oft-condescending ways of Yankees, I don't suppose I can blame him too strongly for that.

Ah, right, I always forget about the "except for people you kinda don't like" clause in the rules of firearms safety.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN