Live data from Hacker News

Why the NRA hates smart guns

techcrunch.com

21–30 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#21
I'd be a lot more interested in a smart gun SAFE than in smart guns.

What I want most, specifically, is a bedside pistol safe, the size of a "gun vault", which is actually secure, but still rapid-access.

(The problems with the "gun vault" style safes are numerous -- some of them can be simply dropped 6" and they pop open from inertia on the locking mechanism. Others can be defeated surreptitiously by peeling off a sticker and inserting a paperclip to hit the reset button inside. They're not suitable for leaving a loaded firearm inside when you have untrustworthy people about for extended periods. The only reasonable model right now is to take a carry gun and put it in the safe every night (which is great IFF you carry every day), or to transfer a weapon from a "real" safe to the bedside vault every night. The problem is at some point you might forget, and both false-positive and false-negative kind of suck there.)

The tradeoff I'm willing to make is spending $1k for this vs. $100, and accepting two distinct entry modes: an slow-path "unattended/unprimed" mode which uses a UL group II electronic lock for access, with timeout-access, and a fast-path "day gate" (which would actually be night gate...) which opens quickly using (ideally) a chording keyboard mechanism, or biometric, or something else.

What I absolutely want to defend against is surreptitious entry when unattended -- i.e. for someone with kids, capable of entering hundreds or thousands of combinations in a week, there should be very low risk of users brute forcing the combo or otherwise gaining access in a way which doesn't leave evidence/alarm. Ideally, tamper events would lock the safe down to full TL-15 mode; if your kids can defeat a TL-15 safe, particularly surreptitiously when it is monitored every day, they might deserve the firearm for their new life of crime.

I'd be willing to have no override capability on the fast-path -- if it misreads, or is at all suspicious, if fails back to the slow-path. The mechanism for enabling fast-path might be unrelated to the slow-path entry mechanism (i.e. you don't need to open the door); what I was thinking of was some kind of presence-detect using bluetooth watch (Apple Watch) challenge-response, or something like that.

I could accomplish this today by buying an actual UL TL-15 safe of some size and putting a gunvault inside it, but that takes up a lot of space, and would weigh half a ton. There has to be a better solution.

I'd also like to have it tied into my alarm system and notifications -- if someone attempts to enter the safe, I want a notification on my phone. I'd also like to be able to force slow-path-only remotely. (I'd also like to have lighting, cameras, etc. controlled by alarm events, but that's a separate thing; I'd prefer NOT to have my bedroom recorded on video normally, but when the gun safe is opened, I'd like video logs to be streamed offsite in realtime.)

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#22
post #14
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's been seriously proposed in California, which is pushing through another wave of gun control legislation, one bill of which would effectively shut down all gun stores in the state, and certainly favorably talked about elsewhere ... maybe Maryland? Just skimmed it (too much going on right now to look at it in depth), but I'm seriously impressed they did so much work to get in things like the classic "shoulde…

Part of the push for smart guns for law enforcement would come from law enforcement's negligent inability to keep track of their own weapons. A local news channel covered the story of one Bay Area city's police department releasing a report on an inventory of the weapons used by police officers. They were literally missing hundreds of them. Often, the weapon would be lost when an officer left it in an unlocked car, e…

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 were bad shots and had poor gun handling skills. I think because they were paid to carry guns they thought they were "professionals" and didn't put the same effort into training and cultivating a mindfulness around firearms.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#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.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#25
post #4

If the better approach is to focus on the "who", why does the NRA oppose background checks?

They don't oppose background checks. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nra-supported-backgrou...

The pertinent part of that bill is about listing mental health information in the background check system. It doesn't increase the number of transactions where a background check would be required.

The NRA regularly opposes such expansions (for instance they oppose closing the so called gun show loophole).

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#26
post #6
post #4

If the better approach is to focus on the "who", why does the NRA oppose background checks?

I think we all know why. In fact. This author implies it: the NRA actually represents the business interests of people who manufacture and sell firearms. They may mask these interests as a public service, defending your rights and hobbies and whatnot but it is always the case that they oppose anything that would reduce firearm sales and support anything that makes it easier for you to get a gun.

Except that organization is the National Shooting Sports Foundation, NSSF. The NRA represents the interests of gun owners, you know, the 5 million or so dues paying members.

Looking at their 2013 Form 990 (http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/5301161...), member dues totaled $175,577,863, which swamps the money they get from the industry including advertisements, and that's not counting the donations from members which are on top of their dues.

Which is a large part of the $83,356,202, from the figures I saw in one of the linked hit jobs, I would guess the majority, and advertising is a mere $24,468,824.

No dice.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#27
Smart guns aren't going to hinder anyone but responsible people.

We need a few things:

1) Funding alternatives to incarceration. People that go to jail tend to have a frequent flyer card.

2) Law enforcement sharing of critical data on offenders.

3) Funding treatment and therapy programs for drug abusers (ABUSERS, key word. I know this isn't a popular opinion on HN, but ABUSE and USE are two different things)

4) Finally, we need to wake up and realize there ARE bad people in the world, and unless you live in a small community, you can't have 100% safety. You can react by protecting yourself (yes, carry concealed), or if you're not comfortable with that, take a professional classes on how to survive extreme situations. Your safety at the end of the day is your responsibility ultimately.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's absolutely false. The NRA's membership drives their policy, not the other way around - manufacturers have historically been perfectly content to give into things like the assault weapons ban or magazine capacity limits (they make roughly the same amount of money if they sell their guns with a scary flash hider or a sanctified muzzle brake). In fact there are numerous groups, like the Gun Owners of America, who…

OP article author here: You are correct and the parent comment is incorrect. The NRA actually used to support background checks, but after decades of "compromises" where they basically gave up ground and got nothing in return, they went hard-line at the membership's insistence. This cartoon does a great job of explaining the average NRA members view of what it means to meet the gun control lobby "halfway" on an issue…

I missed your first article the first time around but read both. I just wanted to say that you did a fantastic job... well-researched and explained. Thank you.

Also, the parallels with how legislators cluelessly approach the adoption of any new technology were painfully clear.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#29
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.

Neither feature is needed on a hunting rifle.

Which the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with. I'm told that many prefer it for vertical pistol grip rifles and carbines in close quarters combat, the combination is more ergonomic (I'm too used to the classic horizontal grip, and that's what my Scout rifle has, so I'm very unlikely to even try it).

Barrel shrouds are to keep yourself from getting burned if you have to fire a lot in a firefight, which again hits on the self-defense and offence purposes behind the 2nd Amendment.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#30
post #6
post #4

If the better approach is to focus on the "who", why does the NRA oppose background checks?

I think we all know why. In fact. This author implies it: the NRA actually represents the business interests of people who manufacture and sell firearms. They may mask these interests as a public service, defending your rights and hobbies and whatnot but it is always the case that they oppose anything that would reduce firearm sales and support anything that makes it easier for you to get a gun.

No it doesn't. The domestic US gun industry is tiny - not nearly big enough to have this kind of influence. Beyond that, the government is a big customer, so they have a history of going along with regulations as long as the police and military contracts come through.
Post reply on HN