An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)

Post by terhechte » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 8:22 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…

Post by russell » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 8:33 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #26

aaronem wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-gaug…

Post by CamperBob2 » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 8:45 PM UTC

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.

   “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.”

Post by chrisbennet » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 8:51 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…

Post by adaml_623 » Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 9:05 PM UTC

aaronem wrote: post #33

lotsofmangos wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?