Live data from Hacker News

Why the NRA hates smart guns

techcrunch.com

51–60 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#51
I don't want backdoors in my guns just like I don't want backdoors in my encryption. It's really that simple.

Also reminder that Marx was an advocate of widespread gun ownership by the working class, much for the same reasons that the founding fathers of the USA were. Solving the underlying economic issues causing suicide and violence would make far more sense than covering up the symptoms. At the end of the day it's all about poverty.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#52
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't know what you're talking about and I'm guessing you may have never actually shot a semi automatic rifle before. This is a rifle with no scary barrel shroud, pistol grip, or vertical foregrip. If you google "bump fire" you might notice it is pretty easy to rapid fire just about anything as long as it's semi automatic and you don't much care if you hit anything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hlzuAzvuJQ In…

The US Army once taught me to use an M-16.

Being trained in a device's use does not an expert on its design make.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#53
post #35

The irony being is that the gun community acts just as irrational and certainly impractical. Even as a non-gun owner, I know what gun I'd rather have for self defence than these guys. :) Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle? The inventor goes on towards the end of this video to suggest it's useful for personal self-defence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3usocws0E&t=0m42s Here's an example of a guy who has…

" Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle? " People who have a chance to fly over fly-over country might look down and ask themselves what the possible utility there is to rifles that can shoot that far. It also hits very hard, it's an anti-material round, and that has its own utility, for, you know, non-sporting purposes (no Cape Buffalo in the US, fortunately). As for sport, long distance shooting including ser…

Actually with the right ammo .338 and .50 are pretty similar for precision long-range fire. The difference is the .50 has anti-materiel/anti-armor capability at many ranges; the .338 is just anti-personnel.

(Source: Sako TRG-42 .338 Lapua Magnum owner. Would own a .50bmg rifle, but California, and not yet rich enough to keep it fed either.)

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#54
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…

Unfortunately that's not too far from what they've been trying to do with the Wassenaar Arrangement lately, with export restrictions on "intrusion software".

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/us-to-renegotiate...

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#55

Smart guns are to self-defense and the gun industry what the Clipper chip was to encryption and the communications industry, except the Clipper chip actually worked.

Except that literally no one would die if clipper worked or didn't work. I lean toward the side of fewer restrictions on guns, although I don't own any - but I don't think that any comparison that removes the possibility of people dying will really hold up.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#56
post #16
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. The NRA has 4 million American members which I think makes it the largest lobby by membership. I doubt they're all pawns of the gun industry. If the NRA wanted to solely juice sales and sell more guns they would give heavily to elect more Democratic candidates. The current presidency has been great for sales [0]. 0 - https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_...

Left-wingers ranting about the "gun lobby" are like right-wingers ranting about the "LGBT lobby". Everybody loves to pretend that the opposing political party is driven by some strange, inhuman machine, not by a bunch of normal people pretty much just like themselves.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#57
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever shot the rifle in the latter video (Kel-Tec Sub 2000)? It's actually very lightweight, ergonomic, and favored in my experience by women and those of smaller stature as opposed to say, a handgun. Everyone I've ever trained to shoot that rifle have had a very easy time hitting what they are aiming at and more importantly not hitting what they are not aiming at. Why do you think it is completely impractica…

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

I have a 16" .308 M1A by the bed -- I wouldn't go to the door at night anyway unless it were an exceptional situation, but for barricaded defense, something which is armor and barrier blind is a better choice than a handgun. A handgun is great for moving around your house, concealing, etc., but handguns and handgun rounds suck otherwise. And a .223 rifle (or pistol caliber carbine or a light 12ga or 20ga semiauto shotgun) is easier for less-trained less-strong people to shoot than most handguns.)

(I also wouldn't put my life behind a Kel-Tec if I could avoid it, which is a better argument against the 2000. That's the firearm equivalent of running your website on a secondhand overclocked pentium 4 box. I own some of them and am fine with them on the range but can afford better and do.)

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#58
post #53
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle? " People who have a chance to fly over fly-over country might look down and ask themselves what the possible utility there is to rifles that can shoot that far. It also hits very hard, it's an anti-material round, and that has its own utility, for, you know, non-sporting purposes (no Cape Buffalo in the US, fortunately). As for sport, long distance shooting including ser…

Actually with the right ammo .338 and .50 are pretty similar for precision long-range fire. The difference is the .50 has anti-materiel/anti-armor capability at many ranges; the .338 is just anti-personnel. (Source: Sako TRG-42 .338 Lapua Magnum owner. Would own a .50bmg rifle, but California, and not yet rich enough to keep it fed either.)

Right you are, and I'm ashamed I forgot that the longest recorded sniper kill was with .338 Lapua Magnum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills as were another couple beyond the generic "1,500 yards" range it's said to have.

(And if I had a place to shoot it, I'd like have a TRG-42 as well.)

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is, left leaning politicians constantly threaten their fundamental constitutional rights, either overtly or not. Every time a gun is used in a crime that rises to national prominence politicians sprint to the microphone to decry gun ownership or at very least to make it harder or much harder to acquire a gun. Bigger than that though, the entertainment media is largely left wing and extremely vocal of thei…

Well, except that fundamental constitutional right is about 50 years old http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you...

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#60
post #22
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.
Post reply on HN