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

271–280 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#271

Post by Turing_Machine »

baddox wrote: post #220
Turing_Machine wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not "implying" it, I'm explicitly stating it. If guns are "designed for killing", why is only one out of 10,000 used for that purpose in a typical year? Can you think of another example of a consumer product that's "designed" for a particular purpose that has that low a rate of actual utilization for that purpose? Most successful defensive gun use incidents don't involve anyone even getting shot, much less killed…

> Can you think of another example of a consumer product that's "designed" for a particular purpose that has that low a rate of actual utilization for that purpose? I haven't look up the actual usage rates, but I suspect things like smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, air bags, and (emergency) parachutes, are very seldomly used for their intended purpose.

Smoke detectors, at least, are designed to go off when they detect smoke. Mine goes off several times per year. Does yours not do that? Emergency parachutes aren't consumer products. Air bags aren't either -- they're required by law. It's not a matter of consumer choice.

Fire extinguishers, perhaps.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#272

Post by Turing_Machine »

DanBC wrote: post #270
Turing_Machine wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "illogical" here? Can you be specific about which specific rule of formal logic I'm violating? Again, even ignoring target shooting and the like, guns are not "designed to kill". They are designed to persuade other people to conform to your will. This can be both legitimate ("stop beating me up/robbing me/raping me/invading my country") or illegitimate ("give me your money/body/country"). Note, and note well,…

Your point - that guns are used to persuade, not kill - makes less sense when you consider the fact that it is the killing bit which is most persuasive. You're not going to rob me with a blancmange.

The IRS uses the threat of prison to persuade you to pay your taxes.

That doesn't make the IRS "designed" to put people in prison.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#273

Post by DanBC »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #272
DanBC wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point - that guns are used to persuade, not kill - makes less sense when you consider the fact that it is the killing bit which is most persuasive. You're not going to rob me with a blancmange.

The IRS uses the threat of prison to persuade you to pay your taxes. That doesn't make the IRS "designed" to put people in prison.

But in that analogy prisons == guns and the IRS == the person holding the gun.

Prisons are very much designed to put people in prison. That's why they're all full.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#274

Post by SixSigma »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #212
ap22213 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite bizarre logic for someone with that handle. Are you really implying that the great majority of guns were not designed for killing?

I'm not "implying" it, I'm explicitly stating it. If guns are "designed for killing", why is only one out of 10,000 used for that purpose in a typical year? Can you think of another example of a consumer product that's "designed" for a particular purpose that has that low a rate of actual utilization for that purpose? Most successful defensive gun use incidents don't involve anyone even getting shot, much less killed…

> Can you think of another example of a consumer product that's "designed" for a particular purpose that has that low a rate of actual utilization for that purpose?

Smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, dozens of things in my kitchen, games from Steam sales, shelves full of DVDs and books, I'm sure you can think of some of your own if you try.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#275

Post by hga »

DanBC wrote: post #264
schismsubv wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed the GP's point - go scan through the admittedly silly but illustrative cartoon linked. Gun rights have been repeatedly nibbled, sliced, and cut away over the past century, all in the name of "reasonable compromises". Said "reasonable" "compromises" have progressively eliminated a large swath of gun ownership rights and put the average owner in constant risk of felony. Example: an individual ma…

Sure, but hga's response to that is to threaten to mass murder people. He's done that in this thread, and several times elsewhere on HN.

That, of course, is the ultimate outcome when the other side never offers true compromises, never stops their legal abuses let alone verbal abuses, and makes it crystal clear their objective is to strip us of our best instruments to resist and contain a tyranny.

One who many have made clear has no room for us at all, e.g. the couple in who's home now President Obama launched his political career planned on liquidating 25 million Americans who they judged couldn't be reeducated, adjust for population growth and that's now around 37 million, well over 10% of the population.

And it's only murder if my side loses, the winners after all write the history books. You should be happy for the fair warning of the folly of your actions, should you initially succeed in them.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#276

Post by jabv »

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.

The fallacy here is that causing harm is intrinsically bad. Causing harm can be legitimate or illegitimate. Guns are designed for sport or to cause harm, and the fact that the latter is sometimes used illegitimately does not change the legitimate uses. Computers are designed to handle information, and they can be used for that purpose legitimately or illegitimately.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#277

Post by hga »

bobwaycott wrote: post #265
hga wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many people for whom I'd give my life, without the slightest hesitation, to ensure their safety and survival. There is no way I would take a life for anyone. These simultaneous positions are rational??? In what situations would you be able to a) give your life for another in which that selfless act would both "ensure their safety and survival" but could not entail the taking of a life? Do you really conside…

Yes, holding those seemingly at-odds positions is, in my opinion, both rational and morally/ethically defensible. I define the limits of my actions by what I believe to be morally and ethically defensible, not by what I think will be legally defensible. The law is no arbiter of what is right or good . Yes, I consider all human life to be equal, whether it is the life of a loved one, a stranger, an asshole, or what-ha…

I assume your ethics also don't allow you to kill by proxy, e.g. you'd call the police in the aftermath of a burglary, but not for a real time life and death situation?

(Although if you want to maintain the lowest risk anyone will be killed, you'd never call the police in the US, full stop.)

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#278

Post by partiallypro »

hga wrote: post #139
partiallypro wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the government really wanted to push "smart guns," they could do it easily. How? Well, the U.S government is the single biggest purchaser of guns & ammo in the world. If they required all of their guns to be smart guns, manufacturers would suddenly shift production to make smart guns and it would raise the cost of production (and thus the price) for traditional weapons. But as you and others in this thread have st…

Well, the U.S government is the single biggest purchaser of guns & ammo in the world. Not even close. E.g. they annually procure by an order of magnitude less small arms ammo than the 12+ billion produced in the US alone for civilians every year (and that doesn't count the seconds that ATK sells to us from Lake City). Similarly, by now we civilians are every year or two buying as many new guns as all the governments…

I said single biggest, as in a single entity. On an aggregate, if you combine everyone else, of course they aren't the biggest. They are also the single biggest consumer of oil products. In any case, if you combine federal, state and local government arm sales it is enough to have a massive market weight to shift production lines. The federal government could have stipulations of state governments with their federal funding that all cops must do x, y & z. (I personally do not support this, I'm merely saying it's a proposal I have seen put forth.)

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#279

Post by schismsubv »

ubernostrum wrote: post #269
schismsubv wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I'm a silly backwards hick from Lawrence that warrants only mockery and spite. That said, whatever you insist I'm not an absolutist. I don't think that all weapons-limiting laws should be repealed (e.g. explosive devices), but you continue to insist on your own absolutist approach, that we have zero gun ownership rights and insist we work from your side of the equation. Do you see the duality here? I do…

zero gun ownership rights Well, I think that's true. But you jumped straight from that to universal disarming, which doesn't follow. Not having a right to a thing does not automatically ban the thing; it simply means the thing becomes a privilege to be granted or withheld/revoked. A driver's license works the same way: you don't have an automatic inherent right to a driver's license, but that doesn't in any way imply…

I see. So beyond the noisome insistence that you understand the Constitution and US history better than all the Supreme Courts in history, you simply wanted some strawmen to knock down. For someone that's studied philosophy as much as you state you have, I expected better. A machine gun, for example - I actually couldn't care about them in the least, I'm not their target market. They are, to your analogy, like race cars - expensive, often highly regulated devices that are not allowed for use in public spaces.

There are many vastly greater ills that plague our society; it is regrettable that intelligent people like you choose to waste so much hate and energy fighting something that has such a relatively miniscule effect on society. Prison reform, for example. Smoking cessation, for another. Drug law reform or repeal. There are myriad more solvable and more effective ills to correct that have actual strong causative effects.

I'm not interested in continuing this conversation further, whatever followup you may make.

[edit: dropping an errant comma]

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#280

Post by 8note »

baddox wrote: post #219
TeMPOraL wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not really. Most automobile racing involves driving your car as quickly as possible along a clearly-marked track. The skill set to do that is pretty much exactly the same skill set required to run over people.

it's more like the skillset for being a getaway driver.

running over people doesn't require that much speed, but lots of agility. if you're driving really fast,a person will get out of the way, and you won't be able to turn fast enough to intercept them.

Post reply on HN