Why the NRA hates smart guns • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#111

Post by bobochan » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:11 PM UTC

fiatmoney wrote: post #87

muglug wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that metaphor falls flat because Linux has many uses beyond hacking businesses and utilities (or rehearsing such activities).

Guns have many uses besides killing people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon

Everyone in my family nordic skis from the first snowflake in winter to the last slushy ribbon of snow melts in the spring. We would love to get into biathlon, but the rifles (which are amazing pieces of craftsmanship, to be sure) start at around $3,500, and used ones are hard to find. This is a tough barrier to entry for people new to the sport.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#112

Post by hga » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:11 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #107

muglug wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that metaphor falls flat because Linux has many uses beyond hacking businesses and utilities (or rehearsing such activities).

Yes, exactly, and the primary purpose of a computer is not for causing damage to people and/or property. I find the argument that a gun is not primarily designed for causing harm to be disingenuous.

Because somehow, some way, the 12 billion (yes, thousand million) plus rounds manufactured in the US every year, plus more imported, somehow manage to cause harm as they're shot???

No, unless you consider punching holes in a piece of paper or a "tin can", or busting a clay bird to be "destruction", most are "not primarily designed for causing harm", and when it comes to self-defense, the resulting harm is praiseworthy and not to overall be deplored. Hunting, well, I only debate that with vegetarians.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#113

Post by someotheruser1 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:11 PM UTC

fiatmoney wrote: post #87

muglug wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that metaphor falls flat because Linux has many uses beyond hacking businesses and utilities (or rehearsing such activities).

Guns have many uses besides killing people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon

Simulated killing, good example.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#114

Post by minimax » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:12 PM UTC

vaadu wrote: post #66

This article is an ignorant POS. The NRA hates smartguns for at least 3 reasons. First is the government is trying to force an unreliable and complex feature onto a product that needs to work every time. Second is the government has no plans to use it themselves, which speaks volumes about what their LEOs and the US military thinks of the reliability this technology. Last is the government is trying to solve a people…

BTW, these people problems are the result of Democrat's policies in gun-free cities such as Chicago, St Louis, Oakland and Baltimore.

I don't know about the other three cities, but you can concealed carry in Chicago and that has been the case for almost three years now.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#115

Post by hga » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:13 PM UTC

bobochan wrote: post #111

fiatmoney wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns have many uses besides killing people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon

Everyone in my family nordic skis from the first snowflake in winter to the last slushy ribbon of snow melts in the spring. We would love to get into biathlon, but the rifles (which are amazing pieces of craftsmanship, to be sure) start at around $3,500, and used ones are hard to find. This is a tough barrier to entry for people new to the sport.

Are you really telling me you couldn't restock a Ruger 10/22 and get started???

E.g. https://www.google.com/#q=ruger+10%2F22+biathlon

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#116

Post by philh » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:15 PM UTC

woodman wrote: post #94

philh wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cops are nearly as likely to die of a car accident as they are of getting shot. Unless cops die of car accidents significantly less than the base rate, that is not reassuring.

I'm not sure what you'd expect to be reassured of, that cops are less likely to die of car accidents and gunshots than the average person? My point isn't that they have no increased risk, my point is that the level of risk in reality isn't nearly as high as people seem to think - and warrants no special deference. Law enforcement isn't even in the top 10 dangerous professions, they fall well behind loggers, garbage m…

I don't have any particular preconceptions about how dangerous it is to be a cop. But I do know that car accidents are one of the most common ways to die. So when you tell me that cops are more likely to get shot than to die in a car accident, my perception of the danger goes up.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#117

Post by hga » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:16 PM UTC

someotheruser1 wrote: post #113

fiatmoney wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns have many uses besides killing people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon

Simulated killing, good example.

Hey, if you're simulating killing Communists in Finland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War), it works for me, although per Wikipedia it was started by the Norwegian people.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#118

Post by gozur88 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:18 PM UTC

cvwright wrote: post #56

jboggan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The NRA has 4 million American members which I think makes it the largest lobby by membership. I doubt they're all pawns of the gun industry. If the NRA wanted to solely juice sales and sell more guns they would give heavily to elect more Democratic candidates. The current presidency has been great for sales [0]. 0 - https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_...

Left-wingers ranting about the "gun lobby" are like right-wingers ranting about the "LGBT lobby". Everybody loves to pretend that the opposing political party is driven by some strange, inhuman machine, not by a bunch of normal people pretty much just like themselves.

I have never, once, heard anyone utter "LGBT lobby".

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#119

Post by ams6110 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:19 PM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #89

vaadu wrote: post #66

This article is an ignorant POS. The NRA hates smartguns for at least 3 reasons. First is the government is trying to force an unreliable and complex feature onto a product that needs to work every time. Second is the government has no plans to use it themselves, which speaks volumes about what their LEOs and the US military thinks of the reliability this technology. Last is the government is trying to solve a people…

Please elaborate on what these "people problems" are. I'm interested in what you think is common amongst the cities you've cited.

They are run by Democrats and have been for a long time.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#120

Post by bobochan » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:20 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #115

bobochan wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone in my family nordic skis from the first snowflake in winter to the last slushy ribbon of snow melts in the spring. We would love to get into biathlon, but the rifles (which are amazing pieces of craftsmanship, to be sure) start at around $3,500, and used ones are hard to find. This is a tough barrier to entry for people new to the sport.

Are you really telling me you couldn't restock a Ruger 10/22 and get started??? E.g. https://www.google.com/#q=ruger+10%2F22+biathlon

Wow, thanks! My kids had been researching biathlon rifles and the only ones that they found were from either Germany or Russia, and the Russian ones were no longer being imported. We talked with biathletes training at Craftsbury this season (they were National Guard members), and they were all using imported rifles, but I'm glad to see there are other options.