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

31–40 of 54 posts

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

#31

Post by jessaustin »

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…

For some reason I didn't expect a mad scientist with a secluded death-robot workshop to be a nice guy. I'd love to have one of his shotguns, though.

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

#32

Post by crpatino »

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.

On the other hand, the robot arm might have been carrying an iron rod that just looked like a gun, loaded or otherwise?

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

#33

Post by aaronem »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #25
aaronem wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I submitted a third reading which strikes me as both more charitable, and almost certainly more accurate, than either of yours were.

Nor did he state what you claim he did; it's the article author, not Baber as quoted, who equates civilian police and the military -- if Baber didn't want it in the hands of civilian police, why'd he donate one to the county sheriff?

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

#34

Post by JasonFruit »

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…

Maybe the key phrase is, "all over the damn place." Perhaps he's okay with it killing people in the context of a war zone, but not whatever any single person might decide to do with it.

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

#35

Post by cortesoft »

mkr-hn wrote: post #23
aaronem wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, but it does mean the solution isn't "Just don't build the weapon"

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

#36

Post by jpindar »

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 was a HUGE red flag for me too.

It seems to me that the only right way to work with robotic firearms is to keep a chamber flag in them at all times except when they're on a hot range.

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

#37

Post by mschuster91 »

Crito wrote: post #28
lesingerouge wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> > "You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike?" > Where the hell did those suppositions come from?

Actually, he is not far from what I'd do. I'd just keep the bastard at gunpoint until the cops come. Not the first time I had to resort to this with my gas revolver.

Lesson learned (for the two fools): never go to a shooting with a knife (the fact that one had a knife actually yielded him a bigger sentence for the attempted theft; it's called "Diebstahl mit einer Waffe").

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

#38

Post by mkr-hn »

cortesoft wrote: post #35
mkr-hn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Right, but it does mean the solution isn't "Just don't build the weapon"

I'm not the one saying that.

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

#40

Post by Crito »

mschuster91 wrote: post #37
Crito wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 w…

> > "You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike?" > Where the hell did those suppositions come from? Actually, he is not far from what I'd do. I'd just keep the bastard at gunpoint until the cops come. Not the first time I had to resort to this with my gas revolver. Lesson learned (for the two fools): never go to a shooting with a knife (the fact that one had a knife actually yiel…

With a thief that might be reasonable, but I think that'd be a bit overboard with somebody that was just going through your trash. I definitely wouldn't confront a thief with no gun though.
Post reply on HN