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

181–190 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#181

Post by jqm »

hga wrote: post #125
bobochan wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're very welcome. The Ruger 10/22, which lists at $260 to $400 from what I just found on Google from Ruger, has an awesome ecosystem and is relatively easily worked on. Heck, everything can be bought from someone else (all patents expired by now), and I'm sure there are many alternatives that could get you started. Also see http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=biathlon e.g. there's a Russian rifle which o…

The Ruger 10/22 has been in production a long time.

I have one that was a gift for my 12'th birthday. I'm 45.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#182

Post by nhebb »

8note wrote: post #172
wyager wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

when do you run things over when racing?

Clearly you never watched Death Race 2000 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072856/

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#183

Post by hga »

woodman wrote: post #156
hga wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually not sure we're disagreeing, but I'll defer to you, seeing as how I've avoided firefights up to now, and probably will in the future, and carry concealed with a Summer Special, friction the only retention besides, of course, having it covered. Ah, also a Safepacker in winter weather, which is not even clearly a hostler: http://www.thewilderness.com/safepacker-concealment-holster/

Oh yeah, we are talking about different use cases. I'd never advocate anything that would make an IWB draw any slower than it already is :) For the more block inclined, MIC trigger guards are nice for winter jackets.

I worship at the alter of John Moses Browning, so no MIC holsters for me any time soon.... But I have many many others to choose from, they've been insanely, amazingly even for me popular with civilians for a long time.

And, yeah, slow is a good word to use there ^_^.

(#1 one overriding reason is that since I was a teen the M1911 fits my hand like a glove, and I can shoot it very well. And 8 round magazines weren't a big forfeit when I started buying handguns after leaving Massachusetts and the Federal AW ban was in effect.)

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#184

Post by cloakandswagger »

tootie wrote: post #179
crikli wrote: post #83

I'm an engineer, gun owner, and former NRA member[1]. I hate the idea of smart guns, but politics are a distant secondary concern. Firearms fail all the time, even the simple reliable ones. Bad primers, failure to eject, failure to cycle, stovepipes, etc. It takes education and then repeated training to know how to deal with failures. In a pressure situation you revert to your lowest level of training; muscle memory…

We're about 10-20 years from self-driving cars. Smart guns seem like a gimme.

Automated defense turrets for area denial perhaps, but 'dumb guns' will exist until a weapon superior to the gun is devised.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#185

Post by hga »

lumberjack wrote: post #159
hga wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument I have heard is that a universal background checks system would require the government to keep a registry of gun owners to be at all useful. Bingo, and the imposition of a registry would inevitably spark our next hot civil war. Best to avoid that.... where the seller would get a signed certificate proving they ran a background check and it's result, but the government wouldn't store anything Unfortunatel…

Serious question: do NRA members leave their smartphone at home when they go to a gun range? What about buying ammo? Do they use cash? What about their internet browsing activity? Do they go through a proxy?

It depends; many of us realize we're already on plenty of lists of "undesirables", so OPSEC measures like that are not yet needed, although it might be a good idea to get in practice now.

And it's not just smartphones, all will at minimum triangulate to the nears cell towers while on.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#186

Post by cloakandswagger »

tootie wrote: post #177
fouric wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...trying to force an unreliable and complex feature onto a product that needs to work every time." This. This is my biggest problem with smart-gun tech. We still haven't managed to figure out how to write software for hundred-million-dollar space projects that doesn't crash (the Japanese Hitomi satellite[2] being the latest of many); how on Earth are we going to implement smart gun technology correctly? (actually,…

The plan is not to ban non-smart guns next week. Obama is calling for a push to improve the technology until it becomes reliable. Despite the Hitomi failure, we have sent a few hundred things into space pretty successfully. Half the systems in your car are under computer control. Opposing technology that could save thousands of lives a year because it doesn't work perfectly yet is bullshit.

But opposing it because of the political ramifications isn't. See California's micro-stamping bill: politicians mandated a technology which was literally infeasible to implement.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#187

Post by hga »

8note wrote: post #175
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…

higher up in this thread, it is argued that the primary purpose of a gun is either punching holes in a piece of paper or a "tin can" or busting clay birds. those don't seem like times when it is critical to work every time.

No, the primary use of guns, and purpose of most guns in Americans' hands, although that's rapidly changing.

And you have clearly never been in a marksmanship competition.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#188

Post by TeMPOraL »

mbrameld wrote: post #178
8note wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when do you run things over when racing?

You don't. You also don't kill things when you target shoot. You can run over things with a car, or you can race one. You can kill things with a gun, or you can shoot paper targets with one. Get it?

The analogy is really stretched. The racing sport equivalent to target shooting would be running over paper targets.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#189

Post by schismsubv »

tootie wrote: post #177
fouric wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...trying to force an unreliable and complex feature onto a product that needs to work every time." This. This is my biggest problem with smart-gun tech. We still haven't managed to figure out how to write software for hundred-million-dollar space projects that doesn't crash (the Japanese Hitomi satellite[2] being the latest of many); how on Earth are we going to implement smart gun technology correctly? (actually,…

The plan is not to ban non-smart guns next week. Obama is calling for a push to improve the technology until it becomes reliable. Despite the Hitomi failure, we have sent a few hundred things into space pretty successfully. Half the systems in your car are under computer control. Opposing technology that could save thousands of lives a year because it doesn't work perfectly yet is bullshit.

I think what most opposition to smart guns centers on is the assertion that the technology could "save thousands of lives". It would be great to see hard numbers of exactly how many people are killed with immediately stolen guns, and I doubt it would be in the thousands.

As the author's prior article in the series notes, such technology will almost invariably be easily bypassed. Criminals will, unfortunately, remain criminals, and will disable the technology or continue to buy guns underground. None of this even addresses the fact that many murders are perpetrated by legal owners of said guns, which this technology would do nothing about.

As is usual with such things, if smart-gun technology were legislated its only measurable effect would be on law-abiding citizens, adding yet more potential felonies to the maze we traverse daily.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#190

Post by at-fates-hands »

incongruity wrote: post #128
Vexs wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's kinda funny is that's very similar to what's actually going in computing, especially with encryption most recently.

Absolutely - because the fundamentals are all the same - highly technical specifics being mandated by people who have no clue about the technology nor the impact of their proposed mandates. As systems get more complex and integrated, we're going to see more of this, not less, I fear. Also, note - this happens in the courts as well.

So why doesn't the industry have lobbyists of their own, pushing the proper narrative then? If politicians on either side want to get it right, then why aren't industry leaders going to Washington, testifying in front of committees and telling these people how this should be handled?

I haven't seen ANY politician coming out and saying they support encryption. As soon as the Apple and FBI case came out, you saw both republicans and democrats divided even on this fairly simple case:

Democratic congressman Mike Honda of California has come down firmly on the side of the tech company, saying that the DoJ sought to increase its authority “with the tyrannical impulses that were the very reason our country was created”.

By contrast, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California called on Apple to cooperate immediately following the “terrorist attack in my state” and threatened legislation, though she said she “hope[d] it would not be necessary”.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/29/apple-fbi...

If the tech industry wants to push the needle forward, then they have to get in the game. As of 2016. I haven't seen many people in the industry rushing to try and educate the politicians in Washington. Sure, they like to write articles and stand on the side of Apple and other companies, but that doesn't count for much in my book.

Post reply on HN