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

Why the NRA hates smart guns

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#141

Post by woodman »

philh wrote: post #116
woodman wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I used the word "nearly" for a reason, the numbers are very close and the method of categorization is not known to me (folks like to lump suicide with homicide when it furthers their argument). So "more" isn't an order of magnitude and the absolute number is so low that a use of it in justification for any endeavor would be a disguised appeal to emotion.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#142

Post by angersock »

Animats wrote: post #24

The vertical forward handgrip claim is a bit much. While not too useful for aimed fire, as the author points out, it makes un-aimed "spray and pray" shooting easier. So does a barrel shroud. Neither feature is needed on a hunting rifle.

How does a barrel shroud make shooting easier?

All it does is keep you from burning your hands accidentally.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#143

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

yorwba wrote: post #95
atemerev wrote: post #79

I wouldn't say "hate", as it is too strong a word. But smart guns have the same problem as self-driving cars: they take control from you and transfer it to unknown actors (a random computer programmer? Clueless legislators? Various three-letter government agencies?) Conversely, anti-gun folks and self-driving car proponents consider guns and cars too dangerous to be left in hands of _those people_. Those a better lef…

> Conversely, anti-gun folks and self-driving car proponents consider guns and cars too dangerous to be left in hands of _those people_. Those a better left in hands of experts, they say. That sums up my position nicely. I would not trust myself with either of these things.

Well, that's your self-confidence problem. It's not my problem, so don't try to impose it upon me.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#144

Post by hga »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #138
crikli wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't just that. Ultimately I decided that there were more effective 2A organizations that I preferred to support.

I'm saddened to hear your feelings on the NRA and its effectiveness. While they, thankfully, haven't had to fight any big national gun control initiatives for some time, they are still very active at the state and city level. See their recent lawsuit against the City of Seattle and its new gun tax.

Well, if you want to fund lawsuits, the Washington state based Second Amendment Foundation is a better bet, and I'll bet they're a party to that lawsuit as well.

They are the only other effective one as I count them, but you have to donate money to them, a simple membership will just line the pockets of whomever is mailing out their stuff.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#145

Post by cloakandswagger »

appleflaxen wrote: post #76

Washington regulates a million things over which is has no particular expertise. Including, but not limited, to medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, food production, law, agriculture, investment banks, the oil and gas industry, and on and on. The fact that the government is bad at regulating these things doesn't mean that any step they take will be bad. The details matter, and it doesn't mean you should terminate any regul…

Most of those areas are regulated by boards and committees of dentists, pharmacists, food specialists, etc.

For whatever reason, gun control is the one area where politicians refuse to consult specialists, thus resulting in bills as ridiculous as the AWB.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#146

Post by vacri »

hga wrote: post #136
vacri wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, you've just described the concealed-carry laws that are proliferating through the states right now, which are all based on hunches and gut feeling. As a gun owner over the last two decades, do you feel as uneasy about that proliferation?

hunches and gut feeling How about decades of experience. Vermont never banned carry in any form, and now has been joined by 9 other states in "Constitutional Carry", many for some years. Washington state went shall issue in the early '60s. Florida started the modern wave in 1987. "Normal" states like Colorado have allowed concealed carry on the grounds of public colleges for years. Experience, especially in the "50 P…

Yes, Washington state went concealed carry in 1961. Its crime rate rose and fell in step with the other states over the years - concealed carry did not suppress that rate after it was introduced. If you want to argue that concealed carry directly reduces crime rate, Washington state is something you should remain quiet on.

I've read a lot of stuff around concealed carry over the past decade for internet debates, and interestingly, concealed carry debaters will claim absolutely any reduction in crime rate as being due to concealed carry (despite no clear link), which started proliferating rapidly in the '90s... and totally ignore things like the incarceration rate, which rose rapidly in the '90s as well.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#147

Post by tbirdz »

superuser2 wrote: post #130
jboggan wrote: post #11

Good article, glad to see some knowledgable firearms writing in the general press. This is how I've felt as a gun owner over the last two decades, translated into computing: Imagine that someone in California hacked into a power station and caused a blackout. Police responded and found the hacker and their equipment. Shortly thereafter an "anti-hacking" bill appeared in the state legislature to prevent a repeat of su…

Computers have uses beyond hacking. Guns are for killing. Killing in self-defense, honing your killing skills as a sport/recreation activity, deterring bad behavior by threat of killing, killing things that are socially acceptable to kill (i.e. game animals), sure, but the theme is killing. Lockpicks might be a better example. Many similar arguments apply: their use is to open doors without the correct keys, which on…

Don't forget about starter pistols for telling runners when a race starts. Also flare guns for signalling, although that might not count as a "real gun"?

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#148

Post by wyager »

superuser2 wrote: post #130
jboggan wrote: post #11

Good article, glad to see some knowledgable firearms writing in the general press. This is how I've felt as a gun owner over the last two decades, translated into computing: Imagine that someone in California hacked into a power station and caused a blackout. Police responded and found the hacker and their equipment. Shortly thereafter an "anti-hacking" bill appeared in the state legislature to prevent a repeat of su…

Computers have uses beyond hacking. Guns are for killing. Killing in self-defense, honing your killing skills as a sport/recreation activity, deterring bad behavior by threat of killing, killing things that are socially acceptable to kill (i.e. game animals), sure, but the theme is killing. Lockpicks might be a better example. Many similar arguments apply: their use is to open doors without the correct keys, which on…

Target shooting isn't just practice for killing things. That's as absurd as claiming "racing is just practice for running people over".

Target shooting is a sport all on its own, and is probably the single most prevalent application of firearms in the US.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#149

Post by Frompo »

cortesoft wrote: post #60
jboggan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to shoot at an indoor range north of Atlanta. Once a sheepish customer came in asking the clerks what they knew about the rifle laying in the parking lot. Apparently the federal agent who had just left the range with his issued M4-style automatic carbine leaned it against his car while loading up his range bag. Then he forgot about it and drove off. I hated shooting next to law enforcement in general, they wer…

It makes sense... People who are into something for fun are more likely to out effor into getting good at that thing. Only some of the law enforcement community are also into guns for fun, whereas all of the people who are shooting at a gun range who AREN'T law enforcement are there for fun.

Indeed, another example of this is how NBA basketball players are worse than all the amateurs on the streets!

And lets not forget how the cousin of your boss that enthusiastically read some tutorials on the net is a much better programmer than you.

Or maybe the argument magically only applies in the realm of gun use?

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#150

Post by wyager »

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.

And yet, the vast majority of gun usage (at least measured by ammunition consumption) is non-destructive recreation by civilians.
Post reply on HN