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

191–200 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#191

Post by hga »

angersock wrote: post #140
xorgar831 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a rifle isn't practical for close targets. A handgun is much better suited for that.

"A handgun is much better suited for that." I'll take "What is a carbine chambered in a pistol round for $200, Alex." The SUB-2000 uses the 9x19 round, so it's basically a pistol with better ergonomics. Defending a home with a full rifle round in close quarters, say a .30-06 or 8mm Mauser, would be kinda silly--but that carbine is fine.

"16.25in" barrel so it's not a SBR (Short Barreled Rifle, register with the BATFE and pay $200 etc.), so you'll get more energy out of the rounds, and presumably better hollow point performance, but I wouldn't be confident about that without testing with calibrated gelatin.

Me, 1911 for retention, and maybe a long gun if I'm bunkering waiting for the police to arrive (slow to access in the main gun safe).

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#192

Post by hga »

msandford wrote: post #127
hga wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that mental health information should be a part of background checks is a pretty tough row to hoe. So tough that many states still absolutely refuse to supply their relevant mental health records to the NICS "instant" background check system. And then there's the screwups, the Virginia Tech shooter should have been stopped by the gun store (and who knows what would have happened after that), but Virginia has…

I'm sure it's a "hard-line" stance to take, but if you want to make gun violence a public health issue I'd be far, far more supportive of the idea that we have a mental health problem here in the US than an access-to-guns problem here in the US.

Indeed. My mother's RN residency was just before the original anti-psychotics came into widespread use, and she did 3 months in a psych ward. After she was finished and then working in the same hospital, she was amazed to see a "hopeless" (for thousand of years) case working in a custodial or the like function at that hospital.

Where I suspect he got some extra help to keep on that nasty class of drugs and otherwise manage his life. Little did she suspect they, and lithium for bi-polar disorder, would be used as an excuse to dump the mentally ill on the streets, saving money that could be better used in other ways to buy votes.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#193

Post by TeMPOraL »

Frompo wrote: post #149
cortesoft wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Hours of training are hours of training.

The GP argued that "People who are into something for fun are more likely to out effor into getting good at that thing." (emphasis mine).

> 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.

If you're in it just for the money then quite possibly. I can quite easily tell for whom programming is not just a job but also a hobby, and for whom it's just a way to make a living - coding skills tend to be much stronger in former.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#194

Post by tbyehl »

hga wrote: post #92
woodman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped having to carry daily around the time that serpa holsters got popular. All the combat vets accurately predicted that the release mechanism would lead to a lot of negligent discharges - many training courses wouldn't let you on the range with one. I'm surprised to see that they are still being sold, I'd have thought they went the way of the lawn dart.

The Serpa holster is by no means the only retention holster out there! Nor would have one stopped the Boston bombers from what I understand of them, it's hard to expresses just how bad an idea they are in every way. For those who don't know, you have to press a button about over where the trigger is, inside the holster. If you keep pressing into your draw, you may as many have found out continue and press the trigger…

If you keep pressing into your draw, WITH YOUR FINGERTIP. That's not how the release button is intended to be used. When someone NDs with a non-Serpa nobody blames the holster -- they blame the idiot user for doing it wrong.

The Serpa has a secondary retention feature -- the button is blocked when there's upward pressure on the gun. It is not easy to snatch a gun out of a Serpa.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#195

Post by zaroth »

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.

There is unbounded amount of technology which could "save thousands of lives a year" which even if it did work perfectly would be widely opposed.

I think we should have mandatory breathalyzer ignition locks before electronic gun locks. Which is to say, I think both are bad ideas for approximately the same reasons.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#196

Post by khedoros »

Frompo wrote: post #163
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…

So, is it the Stockton schoolyard or 101 California Street shooting that you liken to a blackout? I guess its a pretty dramatic blackout since at least 5 people dies... You also neglect the detail that the police response was of little consequence as the hacker had committed suicide before they police was at the scene. I'm unsure what the web panel remark can mean concretely, exactly what did the children at Sandy Ho…

Why not all of them as a category, or shootings in general? They all fit the concept of "negatives that legislation would attempt to prevent" in the analogy. That's the great thing about analogies: They compare concepts, but the scale of the concepts doesn't necessarily have to match. But I'm sure that you understand that already.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#197

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

> Those a better left in hands of experts, they say.

Not sure about guns, but your average driver is definitely not an expert in operating their car. Hell, the widespread rejection of the opinion of experts is a part of the driving culture (speeding, ignoring traffic laws). When it comes to cars, I'm totally willing to trust that (not so) "random programmer" over an average person.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#198

Post by darpa_escapee »

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.

One could argue that many innovations in computing were funded directly by those with the need to harm people.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#199

Post by nv-vn »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #188
mbrameld wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not an analogy, that's trying to directly apply the sport to another device. That would be like saying an analogy to soccer is kicking basketballs into hoops. The most natural thing to do with a car is to drive it and the most natural thing to do with a gun is to fire it. And running over paper targets instead of racing would probably be an improvement in motorsport safety ;)

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#200

Post by tootie »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #184
tootie wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Smart guns in the context of this article. They are not self-firing, they just identify their operator.
Post reply on HN