Why the NRA hates smart guns(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Why the NRA hates smart guns
http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/30/why-the-nra-hates-smart-guns/
289 comments
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...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/us-to-renegotiate...
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.
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.
Why do you presume that they are not lobbying? This recent articles would suggest that tech firms are spending a lot of money on lobbyists:
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/google-facebook-amazon-lobbying...
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech-...
And this database would suggest some tech companies fall into the 5th highest spending industry: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&inde...
So, a better question is, why, despite these efforts are we still seeing this? A few reasons, I'd guess...
1) Lobbying efforts by other industries and groups (law enforcement has a vested interest here, for example)
2) A tendency to wanting to look tough on crime and terrorism, especially going into an election year. Moderation and wise restraint are always a tough sell in politics
3) The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit - politics edition. http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-...
4) A propensity on the part of many in government to want to hold more power (closely related to point 2, but more self-serving).
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/google-facebook-amazon-lobbying...
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech-...
And this database would suggest some tech companies fall into the 5th highest spending industry: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&inde...
So, a better question is, why, despite these efforts are we still seeing this? A few reasons, I'd guess...
1) Lobbying efforts by other industries and groups (law enforcement has a vested interest here, for example)
2) A tendency to wanting to look tough on crime and terrorism, especially going into an election year. Moderation and wise restraint are always a tough sell in politics
3) The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit - politics edition. http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-...
4) A propensity on the part of many in government to want to hold more power (closely related to point 2, but more self-serving).
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.
And yet, the vast majority of gun usage (at least measured by ammunition consumption) is non-destructive recreation by civilians.
One could argue that many innovations in computing were funded directly by those with the need to harm people.
Great comment and it goes aptly with your username.
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.
Because somehow, some way, the 12 billion (yes, thousand million) plus rounds manufactured in the US every year, plus more imported, somehow manage to cause harm as they're shot???
No, unless you consider punching holes in a piece of paper or a "tin can", or busting a clay bird to be "destruction", most are "not primarily designed for causing harm", and when it comes to self-defense, the resulting harm is praiseworthy and not to overall be deplored. Hunting, well, I only debate that with vegetarians.
No, unless you consider punching holes in a piece of paper or a "tin can", or busting a clay bird to be "destruction", most are "not primarily designed for causing harm", and when it comes to self-defense, the resulting harm is praiseworthy and not to overall be deplored. Hunting, well, I only debate that with vegetarians.
The parent said guns were made primarily for causing harm. This is beyond any doubt historically and presently. The parent said nothing about ammunition. Although, ammunition is most certainly made to facilitate the purpose of guns. So, yeah, they're definitely manufactured to enable causing harm [with a gun]. Targets shot, be they human, animal, or inanimate, most certainly are harmed/destroyed in a very real and undebatable physical way.
> when it comes to self-defense, the resulting harm is praiseworthy and not to overall be deplored.
Bullshit. There is nothing at all praiseworthy about shooting a person, self-defense or otherwise. This is one of the most pernicious ideas advocated by those who defend guns, and makes it very difficult to discuss the related issues rationally. There is nothing praiseworthy about blowing a hole in another human. It should always be deplored, and we can do better than this. At best, shooting someone is a failure of finding a non-lethal avenue of resolving a problem. At worst, defending it as praiseworthy in certain circumstances reveals a moral and ethical failure to value life, and a potential bloodlust for taking life in circumscribed scenarios that absolve people of the need to recognize that what they've done is wrong.
Again, we can do better.
> when it comes to self-defense, the resulting harm is praiseworthy and not to overall be deplored.
Bullshit. There is nothing at all praiseworthy about shooting a person, self-defense or otherwise. This is one of the most pernicious ideas advocated by those who defend guns, and makes it very difficult to discuss the related issues rationally. There is nothing praiseworthy about blowing a hole in another human. It should always be deplored, and we can do better than this. At best, shooting someone is a failure of finding a non-lethal avenue of resolving a problem. At worst, defending it as praiseworthy in certain circumstances reveals a moral and ethical failure to value life, and a potential bloodlust for taking life in circumscribed scenarios that absolve people of the need to recognize that what they've done is wrong.
Again, we can do better.
I don't want to make anything even resembling a moral argument, but I'll say that your explicit and unabashed condemnation of using lethal force in self defense to be shocking. The fact that your comment is so well-worded and apparently well-considered makes it even more horrifying.
I would sincerely love to understand why this is horrifying. Allow me to say I am not attempting to bait you into a pointless argument. I genuinely find myself rather surprised at the strong language in your reaction, though not by any amount of disagreement. I would love to understand your point of view, and specifically the horror, better.
I understand this wasn't directed at me but seeing as I had a similar reaction I hope I can give you some explanation of my response.
Firstly however, I'd like to apologize for the tone of my response below. While I stand by my post's general idea I feel it was poorly worded and came out unnecessarily hostile and combative, along with overly dismissive of your point of view. I'm going to leave it up unedited if for no other reason than to serve as an example of how not to engage in these discussions. In particular, I really shouldn't have made any assumptions about your specific background and again, my apologies.
The exact reasons why I disagreed so strongly with your post are proving difficult for me to illustrate beyond what I've already written. In essence, by painting the act of self defense as being morally or ethically ambiguous, I feel that you are essentially dismissing the experiences that those like myself, who have had to endure violence first hand, have had. I fully accept that I may be misreading your intent here but it comes off as somehow equivocating a defensive response to violence with using violence to prey on others.
Its also upsetting to me because I run across similar sentiments in my daily life that I find troubling. While I consider myself fortunate to both work and socialize with people of many different classes and races I find certain attitudes held by most of those who had the luxury of middle-upper class upbringings regarding being poor to be problematic. I understand this may not be the case with you and I overreacted.
All too often however I come across people espousing views on what it's like to be poor or be surrounded by violence without ever having been poor or surrounded by violence. It comes off as dismissive of my experiences.
It also showcases the problem of racial and economic segregation that is becoming increasingly widespread in the US whereby the burden of being poor and living around violence is increasingly being cordoned off from the rest of society. To me this is expressed by views such as yours that hold self defense as morally ambiguous. It's telling that not a single person who I grew up around would ever consider their right to self defense, even if using deadly force, to be problematic. The only people who I've ever heard espouse these views have never encountered violence at all. I understand that this may not be you, and that there probably exist people who have been victims of violence and still view deadly force as unjust, I've just never met any myself and this surely distorts my perspective.
I'm unsure if this post makes a coherent argument that explains my views succinctly but I hope it helps.
Either way, sorry about the tone of my previous comment.
Firstly however, I'd like to apologize for the tone of my response below. While I stand by my post's general idea I feel it was poorly worded and came out unnecessarily hostile and combative, along with overly dismissive of your point of view. I'm going to leave it up unedited if for no other reason than to serve as an example of how not to engage in these discussions. In particular, I really shouldn't have made any assumptions about your specific background and again, my apologies.
The exact reasons why I disagreed so strongly with your post are proving difficult for me to illustrate beyond what I've already written. In essence, by painting the act of self defense as being morally or ethically ambiguous, I feel that you are essentially dismissing the experiences that those like myself, who have had to endure violence first hand, have had. I fully accept that I may be misreading your intent here but it comes off as somehow equivocating a defensive response to violence with using violence to prey on others.
Its also upsetting to me because I run across similar sentiments in my daily life that I find troubling. While I consider myself fortunate to both work and socialize with people of many different classes and races I find certain attitudes held by most of those who had the luxury of middle-upper class upbringings regarding being poor to be problematic. I understand this may not be the case with you and I overreacted.
All too often however I come across people espousing views on what it's like to be poor or be surrounded by violence without ever having been poor or surrounded by violence. It comes off as dismissive of my experiences.
It also showcases the problem of racial and economic segregation that is becoming increasingly widespread in the US whereby the burden of being poor and living around violence is increasingly being cordoned off from the rest of society. To me this is expressed by views such as yours that hold self defense as morally ambiguous. It's telling that not a single person who I grew up around would ever consider their right to self defense, even if using deadly force, to be problematic. The only people who I've ever heard espouse these views have never encountered violence at all. I understand that this may not be you, and that there probably exist people who have been victims of violence and still view deadly force as unjust, I've just never met any myself and this surely distorts my perspective.
I'm unsure if this post makes a coherent argument that explains my views succinctly but I hope it helps.
Either way, sorry about the tone of my previous comment.
I'm going to flatly state that while I currently live in a relatively high crime area I do not carry any weapons, firearms or otherwise, on me at any time. I do not harbor any kind of action hero revenge fantasies and my first choice when ever I have been faced with the prospect of physical violence has been to try and deescalate the situation followed by attempting to flee.
I will also add that I spent a good part of my youth living in an area of Oakland, and before that Houston, that was brutalized by a bizarre concoction of gang violence and police corruption mixed with a healthy dose of community apathy.
With all that being said I find your comment extraordinarily naive, paternalistic and offensive. To suggest that citizens, especially those of communities that have been systematically disenfranchised both socially and economically, should feel shame in defending themselves from criminal elements that seek to prey on their condition is absurd.
I certainly don't celebrate the death of another human being and hope that we as a society can find non violent ways of addressing grievances, but to conflate self defense, even when it results in unfortunate death, as bloodlust is insulting.
I usually tend to refrain from drawing conclusions about a poster's personal background on the basis of comments since it's rife for misunderstanding but in this instance I find it hard to bite my tongue. You sound like the product of an extraordinarily privileged life. Perhaps not Gates or Zuckerberg levels of privilege, but privilege nonetheless. The type of privilege were you viewed the police as friends of the community, the type were you didn't have to fear being shot, or stabbed, or bludgeoned, or run over multiple times (something that actually happened to a childhood friend) by the gangs that controlled your neighborhood. The type of privilege were as a child you could be outside after sunset, the type were you didn't have to run from the bus stop straight home every afternoon to avoid being jumped.
The funny thing about privilege is that those who are its biggest beneficiaries are often the least aware if its existence. To suggest that those of us who didn't grow up with the privilege of safety from having physical violence visited upon us or our families and friends as a regular occurrence should view the idea of self defense, even when resulting in death, as being ethically or morally ambiguous represents an almost sociopathic level of delusion.
I will also add that I spent a good part of my youth living in an area of Oakland, and before that Houston, that was brutalized by a bizarre concoction of gang violence and police corruption mixed with a healthy dose of community apathy.
With all that being said I find your comment extraordinarily naive, paternalistic and offensive. To suggest that citizens, especially those of communities that have been systematically disenfranchised both socially and economically, should feel shame in defending themselves from criminal elements that seek to prey on their condition is absurd.
I certainly don't celebrate the death of another human being and hope that we as a society can find non violent ways of addressing grievances, but to conflate self defense, even when it results in unfortunate death, as bloodlust is insulting.
I usually tend to refrain from drawing conclusions about a poster's personal background on the basis of comments since it's rife for misunderstanding but in this instance I find it hard to bite my tongue. You sound like the product of an extraordinarily privileged life. Perhaps not Gates or Zuckerberg levels of privilege, but privilege nonetheless. The type of privilege were you viewed the police as friends of the community, the type were you didn't have to fear being shot, or stabbed, or bludgeoned, or run over multiple times (something that actually happened to a childhood friend) by the gangs that controlled your neighborhood. The type of privilege were as a child you could be outside after sunset, the type were you didn't have to run from the bus stop straight home every afternoon to avoid being jumped.
The funny thing about privilege is that those who are its biggest beneficiaries are often the least aware if its existence. To suggest that those of us who didn't grow up with the privilege of safety from having physical violence visited upon us or our families and friends as a regular occurrence should view the idea of self defense, even when resulting in death, as being ethically or morally ambiguous represents an almost sociopathic level of delusion.
I rarely speak about my childhood or private life. & by rarely, I mean never, unless it's the nice stuff. I guess that ends today.
I was born & raised in & around Los Angeles. My parents were pregnant before graduating high school with my older sister. 15 months later, I was born. The family was all-American, all-military. Air Force. Dad worked for his dad in a print shop. Mom worked in a nail & hair salon. They offered us the best they could. I learned at a young age what bankruptcy was, & the impact it had on adults who were struggling to keep their heads above water.
My earliest memory is walking out of our apartment in Canoga Park to find my mom's car up on blocks because someone stole the wheels & tires off her little Mazda. I think I was around 3. Years later, I was still squeezing my now-6-foot-tall self into the back seat of that car. There was a lot of violence & crime in Canoga Park.
But that was child's play, & nothing compared to the violence in my home.
Until I was nearly 11, my father was an uncontrollable force of violent rage. The kind that results from a severe chemical imbalance, not the alcoholic kind--I've seen alcohol pass my dad's lips maybe 3 times in my whole life. He never touched the stuff. Never touched drugs. Never even smoked a cigarette. He was a gym rat, & an enormous man. Lucky for me, though his massive hands were rarely quiet, I was not the target. My mother, on the other hand, learned to take her hits well--both from life & from him.
My earliest memory of a firearm was the one I saw my father point into my mother's face. I was about 5. We'd just moved into a new home they had built. My sister & I watched in horror from the hallway as he pressed the muzzle into her face. My sister, just 6 years old, ran into the room & began yelling at him to stop. Terrified, I hid behind one of those tall floor speakers that were so the rage at that time. Shaking uncontrollably, I couldn't help but peek out from behind the speaker, just waiting for the gun to go off. Words I do not recall were yelled at my sister, & she went scurrying back down the hallway. She & I were like twins. & twins stick together. I overcame my petrifying fear & ran back down the hallway after her. We went to my room. She was never very good at thinking through anything--still isn't. She was unbelievably good at simply acting with no thought of consequences. I, however, was always the thinker. Hiding in my room with my sister, away from the horror unfolding in living room, I was able to think. We grabbed my [other] infant sister, & I kicked screen out of my bedroom window--oh, praise the southern Californian ranch-style, single-level homes!--so we could escape the house. We ran from the house, trying to find a neighbor with a phone. We hadn't really learned about 911 as I recall, or perhaps we were just scared to fucking death, & couldn't recall the digits. My sister & I discussed how we needed to call my uncle, the only other bodybuilding man we knew who was even bigger & stronger than our massive dad. But we did not know his phone number. At this point, my memory gets pretty hazy. I cannot for the life of me remember how we wound up back inside the house. But we did. My mother somehow talked my father into leaving the house--and the gun. While he was gone, we rode with her in that shitty little Mazda some distance away. We thought we were leaving--it would have probably been the dozenth time I could remember. I realized we weren't when my mother pulled up to a dumpster behind a store, & I watched her throw the gun inside. She was, of course, punished pretty severely when my father found out.
From age 5 to 10, living in that house my parents built that my father so routinely did his best to destroy, my father worked in the valley. He would stay close to work Mon-Thur, & only come home Fridays for the weekend. So, it was basically 5 years of 4 days of peace with a mother who grew increasingly hardened, & a father who'd come home just as we were all feeling relaxed to fuck that all up for 2 days & 3 nights. Of course, I never had the slightest idea that in many ways, he simply couldn't help it--and please don't misunderstand that statement as being any kind of excuse for his behavior.
When I was 10, in the 7th grade--I skipped from 3rd to 5th grade--we moved to a new house. I began to learn very quickly about gangs. I knew kids with guns at school. Kids had no shoes because they'd been stolen while walking to school that morning. Same with jackets in the winters. I learned to identify the kids in my schools who were involved in gangs. I learned how to keep my ears open & pay attention to what was around me. I still got the shit beat out of me from time to time. I learned not to be afraid of any single one of these fuckers, & they knew they had to knock me out to shut me up because I wasn't going to back down just because some punk or bully was wearing colors. I also learned about crooked cops. They were everywhere. Oh, there were definitely some good ones to be found. But at 35, I still eye every cop with suspicion. I can't recall a time since I was about 8 that I felt police were a friend of the community.
With a military family, it was inevitable I would learn to fire guns. Everyone in the family had them. I learned to take them apart, clean them, & rebuild them by the time I was 10. I began shooting them when I was about 12. I've fired many. I don't own a single one, & I probably never will. First impressions stick harder than anything else.
It was during this time my father swallowed a bottle of pills. He'd apparently had enough of himself & couldn't cope anymore. The pills were supposed to help him somehow find balance. Instead, they drove him way over the edge into what I assume he thought would be the eternal arms of endless rest.
He failed. I was made to visit him in the hospital. My mom brought my sisters & I to see him and, sitting in a cold room at a table, I saw my father cry for the first time. I hated him for it, & refused to allow him any of my sympathy. I became a little terror for a while. I kind of checked out emotionally & mentally. School, which had always been an effortless straight-A achievement, took a nose-dive. Suspensions. Cut classes. I'd leave school part way through the day & walk miles back home, coordinating my arrival with when the buses dropped my sisters off.
As my 11th birthday approached, I recall a clear, radical thought: I simply couldn't keep looking to my parents for answers. They were a fucking mess, & barely able to take care of themselves. If I was going to figure out how to navigate life & the world around me, how to not let my life so far have any chance at fucking me up, I was going to have to start tackling it on my own. So, that's what I did. I started reading everything I could get my hands on. The Bible. History. Science. Math. Literature. Philosophy. I began to learn the contours of what I could get away with, & what would make my parents' eyebrows raise. I was looking for something, anything tied to something stronger that could pull me ashore. I found that in knowledge, education, studying, questioning everything I was told, interrogating everything--including myself--to discover just what it was made of.
When I was 17 & learning how to drive, my dad told me he was proud of me for the first time I could recall. Like, a genuine moment I could tell he was facing the fact that I'd just told him & my mom I couldn't stay at home anymore & had to go. I nearly drove the car off the road as, for the first time in 6 years, I teared up & began crying. We were both choked up, & I tried--as I usually do in difficult situations--to lighten the mood by joking that was one hell of a way to risk our lives.
That bottle of pills was my dad's salvation. He was never the same after that. He never raised his hands again. He was transformed. He's such a different person in many ways today because of that moment. I'm proud of him for eventually finding a way out of the darkness. Sadly, he's never been able to forgive himself, even though my sisters & I most certainly have. Some years after my sister & I moved out of the house, my mom told me that he spent almost every night of that first year we were gone crying himself to sleep. In his mind, he's never really stopped being that monster he was before he tried to die.
That bottle of pills was my salvation. I was never the same after that.
---
So, random internet stranger, I am not the product of an extraordinarily privileged life. Except that I was born white. & male. & had a computer at 8, which was the luckiest break I ever had (after being white & male). I never thought growing up that I would ever make it to being 20 years old.
And no, random internet stranger, what I said was neither naive nor paternalistic. Nor is it borne of some sociopathic level of delusion. That you are offended by someone taking a strong stance against violence of all forms is for you to own. We don't have to agree, but please do yourself & everyone else a great favor by not thinking you could possibly ever definitively & accurately intuit someone's personal background on the basis of their comments & the positions they take on things.
I recognize precisely where my privilege lies. I have long known of its existence, before it even became popular to talk about privilege. That you imagine a life of posh privilege as being the life that would cause a person to take a firm position on something shows only a gaping lack of imagination on your part.
I was born & raised in & around Los Angeles. My parents were pregnant before graduating high school with my older sister. 15 months later, I was born. The family was all-American, all-military. Air Force. Dad worked for his dad in a print shop. Mom worked in a nail & hair salon. They offered us the best they could. I learned at a young age what bankruptcy was, & the impact it had on adults who were struggling to keep their heads above water.
My earliest memory is walking out of our apartment in Canoga Park to find my mom's car up on blocks because someone stole the wheels & tires off her little Mazda. I think I was around 3. Years later, I was still squeezing my now-6-foot-tall self into the back seat of that car. There was a lot of violence & crime in Canoga Park.
But that was child's play, & nothing compared to the violence in my home.
Until I was nearly 11, my father was an uncontrollable force of violent rage. The kind that results from a severe chemical imbalance, not the alcoholic kind--I've seen alcohol pass my dad's lips maybe 3 times in my whole life. He never touched the stuff. Never touched drugs. Never even smoked a cigarette. He was a gym rat, & an enormous man. Lucky for me, though his massive hands were rarely quiet, I was not the target. My mother, on the other hand, learned to take her hits well--both from life & from him.
My earliest memory of a firearm was the one I saw my father point into my mother's face. I was about 5. We'd just moved into a new home they had built. My sister & I watched in horror from the hallway as he pressed the muzzle into her face. My sister, just 6 years old, ran into the room & began yelling at him to stop. Terrified, I hid behind one of those tall floor speakers that were so the rage at that time. Shaking uncontrollably, I couldn't help but peek out from behind the speaker, just waiting for the gun to go off. Words I do not recall were yelled at my sister, & she went scurrying back down the hallway. She & I were like twins. & twins stick together. I overcame my petrifying fear & ran back down the hallway after her. We went to my room. She was never very good at thinking through anything--still isn't. She was unbelievably good at simply acting with no thought of consequences. I, however, was always the thinker. Hiding in my room with my sister, away from the horror unfolding in living room, I was able to think. We grabbed my [other] infant sister, & I kicked screen out of my bedroom window--oh, praise the southern Californian ranch-style, single-level homes!--so we could escape the house. We ran from the house, trying to find a neighbor with a phone. We hadn't really learned about 911 as I recall, or perhaps we were just scared to fucking death, & couldn't recall the digits. My sister & I discussed how we needed to call my uncle, the only other bodybuilding man we knew who was even bigger & stronger than our massive dad. But we did not know his phone number. At this point, my memory gets pretty hazy. I cannot for the life of me remember how we wound up back inside the house. But we did. My mother somehow talked my father into leaving the house--and the gun. While he was gone, we rode with her in that shitty little Mazda some distance away. We thought we were leaving--it would have probably been the dozenth time I could remember. I realized we weren't when my mother pulled up to a dumpster behind a store, & I watched her throw the gun inside. She was, of course, punished pretty severely when my father found out.
From age 5 to 10, living in that house my parents built that my father so routinely did his best to destroy, my father worked in the valley. He would stay close to work Mon-Thur, & only come home Fridays for the weekend. So, it was basically 5 years of 4 days of peace with a mother who grew increasingly hardened, & a father who'd come home just as we were all feeling relaxed to fuck that all up for 2 days & 3 nights. Of course, I never had the slightest idea that in many ways, he simply couldn't help it--and please don't misunderstand that statement as being any kind of excuse for his behavior.
When I was 10, in the 7th grade--I skipped from 3rd to 5th grade--we moved to a new house. I began to learn very quickly about gangs. I knew kids with guns at school. Kids had no shoes because they'd been stolen while walking to school that morning. Same with jackets in the winters. I learned to identify the kids in my schools who were involved in gangs. I learned how to keep my ears open & pay attention to what was around me. I still got the shit beat out of me from time to time. I learned not to be afraid of any single one of these fuckers, & they knew they had to knock me out to shut me up because I wasn't going to back down just because some punk or bully was wearing colors. I also learned about crooked cops. They were everywhere. Oh, there were definitely some good ones to be found. But at 35, I still eye every cop with suspicion. I can't recall a time since I was about 8 that I felt police were a friend of the community.
With a military family, it was inevitable I would learn to fire guns. Everyone in the family had them. I learned to take them apart, clean them, & rebuild them by the time I was 10. I began shooting them when I was about 12. I've fired many. I don't own a single one, & I probably never will. First impressions stick harder than anything else.
It was during this time my father swallowed a bottle of pills. He'd apparently had enough of himself & couldn't cope anymore. The pills were supposed to help him somehow find balance. Instead, they drove him way over the edge into what I assume he thought would be the eternal arms of endless rest.
He failed. I was made to visit him in the hospital. My mom brought my sisters & I to see him and, sitting in a cold room at a table, I saw my father cry for the first time. I hated him for it, & refused to allow him any of my sympathy. I became a little terror for a while. I kind of checked out emotionally & mentally. School, which had always been an effortless straight-A achievement, took a nose-dive. Suspensions. Cut classes. I'd leave school part way through the day & walk miles back home, coordinating my arrival with when the buses dropped my sisters off.
As my 11th birthday approached, I recall a clear, radical thought: I simply couldn't keep looking to my parents for answers. They were a fucking mess, & barely able to take care of themselves. If I was going to figure out how to navigate life & the world around me, how to not let my life so far have any chance at fucking me up, I was going to have to start tackling it on my own. So, that's what I did. I started reading everything I could get my hands on. The Bible. History. Science. Math. Literature. Philosophy. I began to learn the contours of what I could get away with, & what would make my parents' eyebrows raise. I was looking for something, anything tied to something stronger that could pull me ashore. I found that in knowledge, education, studying, questioning everything I was told, interrogating everything--including myself--to discover just what it was made of.
When I was 17 & learning how to drive, my dad told me he was proud of me for the first time I could recall. Like, a genuine moment I could tell he was facing the fact that I'd just told him & my mom I couldn't stay at home anymore & had to go. I nearly drove the car off the road as, for the first time in 6 years, I teared up & began crying. We were both choked up, & I tried--as I usually do in difficult situations--to lighten the mood by joking that was one hell of a way to risk our lives.
That bottle of pills was my dad's salvation. He was never the same after that. He never raised his hands again. He was transformed. He's such a different person in many ways today because of that moment. I'm proud of him for eventually finding a way out of the darkness. Sadly, he's never been able to forgive himself, even though my sisters & I most certainly have. Some years after my sister & I moved out of the house, my mom told me that he spent almost every night of that first year we were gone crying himself to sleep. In his mind, he's never really stopped being that monster he was before he tried to die.
That bottle of pills was my salvation. I was never the same after that.
---
So, random internet stranger, I am not the product of an extraordinarily privileged life. Except that I was born white. & male. & had a computer at 8, which was the luckiest break I ever had (after being white & male). I never thought growing up that I would ever make it to being 20 years old.
And no, random internet stranger, what I said was neither naive nor paternalistic. Nor is it borne of some sociopathic level of delusion. That you are offended by someone taking a strong stance against violence of all forms is for you to own. We don't have to agree, but please do yourself & everyone else a great favor by not thinking you could possibly ever definitively & accurately intuit someone's personal background on the basis of their comments & the positions they take on things.
I recognize precisely where my privilege lies. I have long known of its existence, before it even became popular to talk about privilege. That you imagine a life of posh privilege as being the life that would cause a person to take a firm position on something shows only a gaping lack of imagination on your part.
Thank you for taking the time to respond and for sharing your experience. Prior to this post I commented that I regretted my initial response to you as being overly dismissive of your point of view. I had the opportunity to edit/delete it at that time but I figured I may as well let it stand and afford you an opportunity to respond. I echo the same sentiment here, it was poorly worded in addition to being a colossal mistake on my part to try and draw conclusions about your personal experience based on a single comment.
Interestingly enough, while we clearly differ on this issue we both seem to share some similarities in our childhood experiences. I suppose the lesson for me from all this is the understanding that while it may be convenient to assume that those who hold differing opinions from myself must have had vastly different experiences, this isn't necessarily the case. While we probably won't find much common ground on the issue at hand I think it's rewarding to engage in these discussions, my overly dismissive language notwithstanding. It's enlightening to know that even those with somewhat similar experiences can have vastly different viewpoints and reactions as a result of those experiences, this certainly makes for an interesting world.
I too tend to dislike speaking about my private life and I regret that my post resulted in you feeling the need to talk about yours, although I appreciate you taking the time to prove how misguided my initial post was. I'm not particularly good at expressing my views, whether written or spoken, and thus don't engage in these kind of discussions often. While its wonderful to be able to engage with others online, it is too easy to be dismissive or hostile to others in a way I would never be in person. I will certainly try and keep that in mind the next time I post.
I find your strong stance against violence in all its forms to be admirable. It's not something I find myself capable of accepting but as you said that is more of a reflection on me than you. Perhaps you are a better man than I.
In any case, I apologize for the content of my initial response. I'm embarrassed by my rush to judgement and hope that you find my apology sincere.
Interestingly enough, while we clearly differ on this issue we both seem to share some similarities in our childhood experiences. I suppose the lesson for me from all this is the understanding that while it may be convenient to assume that those who hold differing opinions from myself must have had vastly different experiences, this isn't necessarily the case. While we probably won't find much common ground on the issue at hand I think it's rewarding to engage in these discussions, my overly dismissive language notwithstanding. It's enlightening to know that even those with somewhat similar experiences can have vastly different viewpoints and reactions as a result of those experiences, this certainly makes for an interesting world.
I too tend to dislike speaking about my private life and I regret that my post resulted in you feeling the need to talk about yours, although I appreciate you taking the time to prove how misguided my initial post was. I'm not particularly good at expressing my views, whether written or spoken, and thus don't engage in these kind of discussions often. While its wonderful to be able to engage with others online, it is too easy to be dismissive or hostile to others in a way I would never be in person. I will certainly try and keep that in mind the next time I post.
I find your strong stance against violence in all its forms to be admirable. It's not something I find myself capable of accepting but as you said that is more of a reflection on me than you. Perhaps you are a better man than I.
In any case, I apologize for the content of my initial response. I'm embarrassed by my rush to judgement and hope that you find my apology sincere.
Please know, there's really no need for apologizing. I don't harbor the slightest bit of hard feelings. I'll admit I'm feeling pretty uneasy about divulging my past, and I'm really thinking hard about deleting my comment (I had considered emailing you to carry on a conversation offline, but you didn't have an email on your profile). I know it's so easy to assume that everyone we disagree with must be from a completely different universe.
However, allow me to assure you there's no chance I'm in any way better than you. We are different, that's all.
I spent a long while replying, and then editing that reply down because I learned there's a comment length limit on HN. After finishing that, I saw your other reply. I appreciate your kindness. I wanted to reply further (and still do), but it was getting late on the East Coast, and I needed to step away and somewhat just deal with speaking so frankly about my past.
For what it's worth, I'd be happy to keep talking offline if you'd want to. My email is in my profile. I'll return to reply to some other comments and issues raised here.
However, allow me to assure you there's no chance I'm in any way better than you. We are different, that's all.
I spent a long while replying, and then editing that reply down because I learned there's a comment length limit on HN. After finishing that, I saw your other reply. I appreciate your kindness. I wanted to reply further (and still do), but it was getting late on the East Coast, and I needed to step away and somewhat just deal with speaking so frankly about my past.
For what it's worth, I'd be happy to keep talking offline if you'd want to. My email is in my profile. I'll return to reply to some other comments and issues raised here.
Thanks again for the thoughtful and kind reply. Your dignified response is again a reminder of the crassness of my initial comment and the embarrassment I feel towards having made it.
I completely understand your unease with sharing such personal detail, I myself tried to make my post intentionally vague which results in much less valuable substance than what you have shared. Your experience is powerful and well told and although different in terms of the source of our childhood misery, I drew parallels with my own. I understand if you decide to delete it however.
I'm rather new to HN and wasn't aware of a comment length limit either, thanks for pointing it out.
I'm glad to hear that you and your father have made peace.
I look forward to reading your subsequent comments, and in particular I look forward to the next time we might disagree. I assure you I will put more care into crafting my response as I greatly value having someone who can challenge my views, even if that only serves in them being strengthened.
Enjoy the rest of your night.
I completely understand your unease with sharing such personal detail, I myself tried to make my post intentionally vague which results in much less valuable substance than what you have shared. Your experience is powerful and well told and although different in terms of the source of our childhood misery, I drew parallels with my own. I understand if you decide to delete it however.
I'm rather new to HN and wasn't aware of a comment length limit either, thanks for pointing it out.
I'm glad to hear that you and your father have made peace.
I look forward to reading your subsequent comments, and in particular I look forward to the next time we might disagree. I assure you I will put more care into crafting my response as I greatly value having someone who can challenge my views, even if that only serves in them being strengthened.
Enjoy the rest of your night.
Knives, baseball bats, bows, darts, and even arguably dogs were all originally made primarily for causing harm. With the exception of dogs they're almost invariably manufactured to enable causing harm. Some have had other uses developed after the fact, but they cause harm and destruction in very real and undebatable physical ways, often in their day-to-day use.
Does that mean we vilify their ownership and gradually make the many responsible owners felons for the actions of the miscreant few? I'm not going to argue that these devices are somehow as destructive as guns, but an object's design origin shouldn't nullify its value for current use.
We can do better on violence and valuing life as a race and society, but insisting it start with eliminating a set of hobbies whose participants are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding, and civic-minded is itself a pernicious idea.
Does that mean we vilify their ownership and gradually make the many responsible owners felons for the actions of the miscreant few? I'm not going to argue that these devices are somehow as destructive as guns, but an object's design origin shouldn't nullify its value for current use.
We can do better on violence and valuing life as a race and society, but insisting it start with eliminating a set of hobbies whose participants are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding, and civic-minded is itself a pernicious idea.
You're accusing me of advocating things I have not. I did not in any way billing gun ownership. Nor did I in any way suggest we should eliminate "a set of hobbies whose participants are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding, and civic-minded".
s/billing/vilify.
I can no longer edit this post. Apologies for the mistake.
I can no longer edit this post. Apologies for the mistake.
No worries, I read it twice and realized it was an autocorrect mistake and what you'd intended. I recognize that you personally may not be calling for this, but in general individuals that do fixate on guns' capacity for harm do fall to this. I still should not have generalized.
Don't forget paint. The graffiti/vandalism analogy works pretty well here.
Nothing at all praiseworthy about e.g. this recent DGU as reported here: http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/04/29/80-year-old-woman-s...
What's you "better" for when a thug is using lethal force on an innocent?
This is one of the most pernicious ideas advocated by those who defend guns, and makes it very difficult to discuss the related issues rationally.
Yep, as long as you have such disdain for legitimate uses of guns you're certainly not going to be able to discuss the issue "rationally", you've already made up your mind.
And if you think I view all human life as equal, you're sorely confused, which is further supported by you suspicion of bloodlust being a part of this.
What's you "better" for when a thug is using lethal force on an innocent?
This is one of the most pernicious ideas advocated by those who defend guns, and makes it very difficult to discuss the related issues rationally.
Yep, as long as you have such disdain for legitimate uses of guns you're certainly not going to be able to discuss the issue "rationally", you've already made up your mind.
And if you think I view all human life as equal, you're sorely confused, which is further supported by you suspicion of bloodlust being a part of this.
Let me go ahead and start by saying you're probably not going to believe this. Nevertheless, it is true, and sincere.
There are many people for whom I'd give my life, without the slightest hesitation, to ensure their safety and survival. Obviously, my teenage sons. And my family members. And my closest friends. Hell, even my ex-wife.
There is no way I would take a life for anyone. That's a universe away, and a wholly different thing.
I would do all I could to de-escalate a potentially dangerous situation. I would physically fight and attempt to subdue an attacker who threatened me or those I love most dearly. I'd do all I could to diffuse a violent confrontation and disable a threat. But I would not kill for it.
I reject the notion that, where a human life is concerned, there is a "legitimate" use of guns. And yet, despite what you assume, I am most capable of discussing the matter rationally and unemotionally. That I take a strong stance against violence and, as you put it, have made up my mind on that point, in no way prevents me from engaging the matter in rational conversation. Moreover, as with all things, I am and have always been open to allowing my currently staked positions to be changed by a preponderance of convincing evidence and argument that proves more rational, reasonable, defensible, and warranted. As far as taking lives is concerned, however, that climb is far steeper than many other issues.
That you don't view all human life as equal is your own issue to grapple with. I'm in no way confused. I think you may have overreacted to my using the term "bloodlust" in a very specific and narrow context, but I anticipated it being something that would likely incur a rather visceral response. I can only encourage you to view all human life as equally worthy of protection, and really, really difficult to take flippantly.
There are many people for whom I'd give my life, without the slightest hesitation, to ensure their safety and survival. Obviously, my teenage sons. And my family members. And my closest friends. Hell, even my ex-wife.
There is no way I would take a life for anyone. That's a universe away, and a wholly different thing.
I would do all I could to de-escalate a potentially dangerous situation. I would physically fight and attempt to subdue an attacker who threatened me or those I love most dearly. I'd do all I could to diffuse a violent confrontation and disable a threat. But I would not kill for it.
I reject the notion that, where a human life is concerned, there is a "legitimate" use of guns. And yet, despite what you assume, I am most capable of discussing the matter rationally and unemotionally. That I take a strong stance against violence and, as you put it, have made up my mind on that point, in no way prevents me from engaging the matter in rational conversation. Moreover, as with all things, I am and have always been open to allowing my currently staked positions to be changed by a preponderance of convincing evidence and argument that proves more rational, reasonable, defensible, and warranted. As far as taking lives is concerned, however, that climb is far steeper than many other issues.
That you don't view all human life as equal is your own issue to grapple with. I'm in no way confused. I think you may have overreacted to my using the term "bloodlust" in a very specific and narrow context, but I anticipated it being something that would likely incur a rather visceral response. I can only encourage you to view all human life as equally worthy of protection, and really, really difficult to take flippantly.
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 consider the human life of someone trying to kill your loved ones as equal to those loved ones?
No, I believe in the concept of the outlaw, the person who's put himself "outside the law" in a sense, at least for the duration of his lethal threat, and who can be legally opposed with lethal force (which actually means the whole situation is within the law, hence my weasel words). I do not view such human lives as equal to those of the innocents they predate on, for the duration of their lethal threats.
(Although, to make crystal clear, my legal and moral response is to use lethal force on them if necessary, killing per se is no legal, but the job of the judiciary after due process. Of course killing is a likely outcome when using lethal force, but stopping the lethal threat is the legitimate outcome, killing an unfortunate common result.)
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 consider the human life of someone trying to kill your loved ones as equal to those loved ones?
No, I believe in the concept of the outlaw, the person who's put himself "outside the law" in a sense, at least for the duration of his lethal threat, and who can be legally opposed with lethal force (which actually means the whole situation is within the law, hence my weasel words). I do not view such human lives as equal to those of the innocents they predate on, for the duration of their lethal threats.
(Although, to make crystal clear, my legal and moral response is to use lethal force on them if necessary, killing per se is no legal, but the job of the judiciary after due process. Of course killing is a likely outcome when using lethal force, but stopping the lethal threat is the legitimate outcome, killing an unfortunate common result.)
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-have-you.[1]
[1]: I'll admit that I have a difficult time coming up with a realistically successful non-lethal solution to the problem of individuals like Hitler, Stalin, et al. I admit the need for certain nuances, and find there to be a strong moral and ethical case to be made for removing a singular threat posed to millions of human lives. However, I still remain firm on the principle that taking a life, even of one such as Hitler, should be a last resort after all other options have been exhausted. And even then, I would hope the decision to be one that those who made it agonized over, and accepted with heavy hearts that they'd decided to kill.
Yes, I consider all human life to be equal, whether it is the life of a loved one, a stranger, an asshole, or what-have-you.[1]
[1]: I'll admit that I have a difficult time coming up with a realistically successful non-lethal solution to the problem of individuals like Hitler, Stalin, et al. I admit the need for certain nuances, and find there to be a strong moral and ethical case to be made for removing a singular threat posed to millions of human lives. However, I still remain firm on the principle that taking a life, even of one such as Hitler, should be a last resort after all other options have been exhausted. And even then, I would hope the decision to be one that those who made it agonized over, and accepted with heavy hearts that they'd decided to kill.
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.)
(Although if you want to maintain the lowest risk anyone will be killed, you'd never call the police in the US, full stop.)
I have never been in a real-time life-or-death situation in which I had the option to call the police as an adult, so it is difficult to state what I'd do in such a situation with certainty. I do not generally have the greatest amount of trust that police prioritize de-escalation and preserving life, which would likely give me significant pause. Especially in my neighborhood.
I believe strongly that LEO should be barred from carrying lethal weapons, and most certainly should be barred from possessing and utilizing former military hardware.
I believe strongly that LEO should be barred from carrying lethal weapons, and most certainly should be barred from possessing and utilizing former military hardware.
My apologies, I didn't respond to your question about situations. In simplest terms, there are a number of people for whom I'd take a bullet. But I wouldn't fire one. I'd do all I could short of taking a life, including sacrificing my own.
Guns have many uses besides killing people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon
Everyone in my family nordic skis from the first snowflake in winter to the last slushy ribbon of snow melts in the spring. We would love to get into biathlon, but the rifles (which are amazing pieces of craftsmanship, to be sure) start at around $3,500, and used ones are hard to find. This is a tough barrier to entry for people new to the sport.
Are you really telling me you couldn't restock a Ruger 10/22 and get started???
E.g. https://www.google.com/#q=ruger+10%2F22+biathlon
E.g. https://www.google.com/#q=ruger+10%2F22+biathlon
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 often goes for less than a thousand there. As well as an Anschutz with "Walnut German Stock" for the usual $$$$$$.
The Ruger 10/22, which lists at $260 to $400 from what I just found on Google from Ruger, has an awesome ecosystem and is relatively easily worked on.
Heck, everything can be bought from someone else (all patents expired by now), and I'm sure there are many alternatives that could get you started.
Also see http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=biathlon e.g. there's a Russian rifle which often goes for less than a thousand there. As well as an Anschutz with "Walnut German Stock" for the usual $$$$$$.
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.
I have one that was a gift for my 12'th birthday. I'm 45.
Simulated killing, good example.
Hey, if you're simulating killing Communists in Finland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War), it works for me, although per Wikipedia it was started by the Norwegian people.
Yes, now go back to playing Call of Duty.
You forgot one of the key reasons that specific computer is banned. It's Black and looks evil, just like the computers that hackers in the movies use.
Ironically, you've just described the concealed-carry laws that are proliferating through the states right now, which are all based on hunches and gut feeling. As a gun owner over the last two decades, do you feel as uneasy about that proliferation?
hunches and gut feeling
How about decades of experience. Vermont never banned carry in any form, and now has been joined by 9 other states in "Constitutional Carry", many for some years. Washington state went shall issue in the early '60s. Florida started the modern wave in 1987. "Normal" states like Colorado have allowed concealed carry on the grounds of public colleges for years.
Experience, especially in the "50 Petri dishes" of the states, is one of the ways we figure out such things, and this "proliferation" has been a wild success.
How about decades of experience. Vermont never banned carry in any form, and now has been joined by 9 other states in "Constitutional Carry", many for some years. Washington state went shall issue in the early '60s. Florida started the modern wave in 1987. "Normal" states like Colorado have allowed concealed carry on the grounds of public colleges for years.
Experience, especially in the "50 Petri dishes" of the states, is one of the ways we figure out such things, and this "proliferation" has been a wild success.
Yes, Washington state went concealed carry in 1961. Its crime rate rose and fell in step with the other states over the years - concealed carry did not suppress that rate after it was introduced. If you want to argue that concealed carry directly reduces crime rate, Washington state is something you should remain quiet on.
I've read a lot of stuff around concealed carry over the past decade for internet debates, and interestingly, concealed carry debaters will claim absolutely any reduction in crime rate as being due to concealed carry (despite no clear link), which started proliferating rapidly in the '90s... and totally ignore things like the incarceration rate, which rose rapidly in the '90s as well.
I've read a lot of stuff around concealed carry over the past decade for internet debates, and interestingly, concealed carry debaters will claim absolutely any reduction in crime rate as being due to concealed carry (despite no clear link), which started proliferating rapidly in the '90s... and totally ignore things like the incarceration rate, which rose rapidly in the '90s as well.
If you want to argue that concealed carry directly reduces crime rate
You're fighting someone else, I make no such claims, I'm pretty sure simple demographics, particularly the wave of young men in the Baby Boom, is the biggest factor, and swamps all others to the point it's hard to discern any other cause. Although perhaps if we'd locked up those criminals at the rate we'd locked up previous generations it would have gone differently.
All I claim is that at worst it's Mostly Harmless.
You're fighting someone else, I make no such claims, I'm pretty sure simple demographics, particularly the wave of young men in the Baby Boom, is the biggest factor, and swamps all others to the point it's hard to discern any other cause. Although perhaps if we'd locked up those criminals at the rate we'd locked up previous generations it would have gone differently.
All I claim is that at worst it's Mostly Harmless.
I dunno, when someone quotes a particular segment of what I'm saying, then provides an argument to refute it, I generally assume that they're taking up that argument.
And apparently "wild success" has now transmogrified to "mostly harmless"?
And apparently "wild success" has now transmogrified to "mostly harmless"?
A wild success in being Mostly Harmless.
Every time a shall issue regime or better has replaced a more restrictive one, look at colleges as of late since we've run out of states with Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa joining the party, we're assured by our betters that this will result in "Blood in the streets!", "Dodge City!" and all that. You yourself referred to this change with the loaded term "proliferation", and have shown no sign you welcome it, so my limited defense ought to be enough.
And, no, I'm hardly taking up the arguments of every person in the Internet debates, which have raged through this entire modern Florida and on period of shall issue laws. You have a beef with them, address it to them.
Me, I don't "feel as uneasy about that proliferation" because before it happened I had more trust in my fellow Americans, and now with decades of hindsight and these laws or better (Constitional Carry in 10 states) now covering 43 states and 72% of the population, we know it's Mostly Harmless.
Every time a shall issue regime or better has replaced a more restrictive one, look at colleges as of late since we've run out of states with Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa joining the party, we're assured by our betters that this will result in "Blood in the streets!", "Dodge City!" and all that. You yourself referred to this change with the loaded term "proliferation", and have shown no sign you welcome it, so my limited defense ought to be enough.
And, no, I'm hardly taking up the arguments of every person in the Internet debates, which have raged through this entire modern Florida and on period of shall issue laws. You have a beef with them, address it to them.
Me, I don't "feel as uneasy about that proliferation" because before it happened I had more trust in my fellow Americans, and now with decades of hindsight and these laws or better (Constitional Carry in 10 states) now covering 43 states and 72% of the population, we know it's Mostly Harmless.
> A wild success in being Mostly Harmless.
Seriously?
> I'm hardly taking up the arguments of every person in the Internet debates
You keep on moving the goalposts. I didn't assign to you "everyone's arguments". You chose to engage me, and are now pretending to have a neutral point of view, despite your own loaded term 'constitutional carry' to replace concealed carry.
You engaged me of your own accord, and now that I engage you back, you're saying I should take my beef elsewhere? Take some responsibility for your own actions.
Seriously?
> I'm hardly taking up the arguments of every person in the Internet debates
You keep on moving the goalposts. I didn't assign to you "everyone's arguments". You chose to engage me, and are now pretending to have a neutral point of view, despite your own loaded term 'constitutional carry' to replace concealed carry.
You engaged me of your own accord, and now that I engage you back, you're saying I should take my beef elsewhere? Take some responsibility for your own actions.
Computers have uses beyond hacking. Guns are for killing. Killing in self-defense, honing your killing skills as a sport/recreation activity, deterring bad behavior by threat of killing, killing things that are socially acceptable to kill (i.e. game animals), sure, but the theme is killing.
Lockpicks might be a better example. Many similar arguments apply: their use is to open doors without the correct keys, which only a few specialized professions should have a legitimate need to do. Yet on the other hand we ought to be able to tinker with our private property, evaluate its security (bad guys will get lockpicks anyway), let ourselves in if we get locked out, publish security research on "unpickable" locks and participate in locksport.
Or for a more direct computing analogy, Metasploit. It is unambiguously a hacking tool, but it remains legal because bad guys will always get hacking tools, and the good guys need to be able to evaluate their defenses.
Lockpicks might be a better example. Many similar arguments apply: their use is to open doors without the correct keys, which only a few specialized professions should have a legitimate need to do. Yet on the other hand we ought to be able to tinker with our private property, evaluate its security (bad guys will get lockpicks anyway), let ourselves in if we get locked out, publish security research on "unpickable" locks and participate in locksport.
Or for a more direct computing analogy, Metasploit. It is unambiguously a hacking tool, but it remains legal because bad guys will always get hacking tools, and the good guys need to be able to evaluate their defenses.
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.
Target shooting is a sport all on its own, and is probably the single most prevalent application of firearms in the US.
>Target shooting isn't just practice for killing things.
Sure, and locksport isn't just practice for burglary. The point is guns are a lot closer to specific forced-entry tools (lockpicks or Metasploit) than to computers in general.
Sure, and locksport isn't just practice for burglary. The point is guns are a lot closer to specific forced-entry tools (lockpicks or Metasploit) than to computers in general.
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.
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 ;)
the most natural thing to do with a car isn't to run people down though, it's to travel from one place to another.
target practice is to racing, as shooting people (or hunting) is to a road trip.
target practice is to racing, as shooting people (or hunting) is to a road trip.
Appeals to nature are labored. What's the most natural thing to do with a knife then? A plastic bag? It breaks down pretty fast. In the end, a gun propels a lead slug at high speed and good accuracy over a distance of scores of yards.
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.
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.
Clearly you never watched Death Race 2000 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072856/
[deleted]
Your analogy is really really bad.
"Computers have uses beyond hacking. Guns are for killing."
There are somewhere around 300 million guns in the United States. There were around 30,000 deaths by firearm (including homicide, suicide, and accidents) in 2013. So... approximately 1 out of every 10,000 guns was used for "killing" in that year.
If their only use is "killing", one is forced to conclude that they really aren't very good at it.
There are somewhere around 300 million guns in the United States. There were around 30,000 deaths by firearm (including homicide, suicide, and accidents) in 2013. So... approximately 1 out of every 10,000 guns was used for "killing" in that year.
If their only use is "killing", one is forced to conclude that they really aren't very good at it.
I would have expected the vast majority of the killing was of animals e.g. hunting. You don't seem to have left any room for that possibility.
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, and that's leaving out all the ones that are simply used for poking holes in pieces of paper.
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, and that's leaving out all the ones that are simply used for poking holes in pieces of paper.
> 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.
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.
Fire extinguishers, perhaps.
Emergency parachutes, aka reserve parachutes really are consumer products...
http://www.chutingstar.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?dir=d...
http://www.chutingstar.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?dir=d...
Why did you put designed in quotes?
Look - if you like guns, just say you like guns. People are allowed to like guns.
But, throwing around an illogical argument as a logical one isn't going to help in persuading people - well, at least not people who follow logic.
Look - if you like guns, just say you like guns. People are allowed to like guns.
But, throwing around an illogical argument as a logical one isn't going to help in persuading people - well, at least not people who follow logic.
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, that even most illegitimate uses of guns don't actually require killing. In fact, it is counterproductive. Robbers who kill their victims have to paw over a dead, bleeding body to find the wallet (or have to figure out how to open the safe themselves, or whatever). Most rapists don't want to rape a corpse (yeah, there are exceptions, but most rapists aren't sick enough to do that). Historically, most conquering armies weren't after total genocide -- they wanted to enslave the population and force them to do useful work. Dead slaves don't work.
So, no, the purpose of guns isn't "killing", even if you restrict yourself to illegitimate/criminal uses. I can't help but think that you've formed your opinion of guns from watching TV, and have little or no practical, hands-on experience with them. Is that correct?
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, that even most illegitimate uses of guns don't actually require killing. In fact, it is counterproductive. Robbers who kill their victims have to paw over a dead, bleeding body to find the wallet (or have to figure out how to open the safe themselves, or whatever). Most rapists don't want to rape a corpse (yeah, there are exceptions, but most rapists aren't sick enough to do that). Historically, most conquering armies weren't after total genocide -- they wanted to enslave the population and force them to do useful work. Dead slaves don't work.
So, no, the purpose of guns isn't "killing", even if you restrict yourself to illegitimate/criminal uses. I can't help but think that you've formed your opinion of guns from watching TV, and have little or no practical, hands-on experience with them. Is that correct?
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.
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.
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.
Prisons are very much designed to put people in prison. That's why they're all full.
Ostensibly because they're arguing about the weight and intent of the word, "designed". People saying guns are "designed to kill" are attempting to elicit an emotional response that mirrors their own in a fallacious appeal to emotion. No matter their design, guns have use beyond killing humans, and even beyond hunting.
Take a knife, for example - designed to kill. Small knives, big knives, single-purpose knives, ceramic knives, and even customizable knives. Cutting living things kills them, so knives are "designed to kill". While not as destructive as guns, they account for a non-negligible ~12% of the annual murder toll. Knives even cause way more serious non-fatal injuries per year than guns, but you don't hear anyone bleating "DESIGNED TO KILL" about them because they're mostly not scary.
I like guns, and most of mine _are_ actually designed to kill living beings: animals I am legally authorized to shoot. For 51 weeks of the year I shoot what averages out to 2-3 rounds per day per gun at paper. I do it with my family, my friends, and when I need to settle my nerves and meditate after a rough day. One week a year, I shoot the given gun once, maybe twice. I would argue that while their design certainly involves killing, their purpose to me is practicing fine motor skills and concentration, with an ancillary effect of giving me the excuse to go hiking for a week and put meat on the table for a large portion of the year.
As far as smart guns go, it doesn't matter what the use of the gun is. It's an ineffectual feel-good measure that will primarily affect law-abiding citizens. Hell, that's why gun control is such an issue - because most gun owners fall extremely deeply into the "lawful" D&D dimension. If we didn't care, you could pass whatever laws you like and we'd ignore them, but we don't like falling afoul of laws, intentionally or not.
Take a knife, for example - designed to kill. Small knives, big knives, single-purpose knives, ceramic knives, and even customizable knives. Cutting living things kills them, so knives are "designed to kill". While not as destructive as guns, they account for a non-negligible ~12% of the annual murder toll. Knives even cause way more serious non-fatal injuries per year than guns, but you don't hear anyone bleating "DESIGNED TO KILL" about them because they're mostly not scary.
I like guns, and most of mine _are_ actually designed to kill living beings: animals I am legally authorized to shoot. For 51 weeks of the year I shoot what averages out to 2-3 rounds per day per gun at paper. I do it with my family, my friends, and when I need to settle my nerves and meditate after a rough day. One week a year, I shoot the given gun once, maybe twice. I would argue that while their design certainly involves killing, their purpose to me is practicing fine motor skills and concentration, with an ancillary effect of giving me the excuse to go hiking for a week and put meat on the table for a large portion of the year.
As far as smart guns go, it doesn't matter what the use of the gun is. It's an ineffectual feel-good measure that will primarily affect law-abiding citizens. Hell, that's why gun control is such an issue - because most gun owners fall extremely deeply into the "lawful" D&D dimension. If we didn't care, you could pass whatever laws you like and we'd ignore them, but we don't like falling afoul of laws, intentionally or not.
Interesting stuff, especially the part about knives. I wouldn't have guessed that 12% of murders were caused by knives. But, probably that's because I can only think of one local knife murder but countless gun murders.
I had to go back through the thread to see who used the word 'design' first, and it was actually me. But, given that I don't have an argument against guns, I'm confused. Is the design perspective one that's frequently used by gun regulation advocates? I used it only because when I thought of the question, 'for what purpose are guns manufactured?', 'killing' was the first thing that came to mind. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm surprised that the gun industry doesn't seem do anything to change people's perceptions of guns. They'd probably have a huge impact with a moderate campaign to soften the image of guns.
Also, it may be interesting for you or other readers to know that as a 3rd-party observer, I didn't feel an emotional response to the parent's point. To me, it seemed like a rational argument. On the other hand, your comment actually gave me a very strong negative emotional response. So, if the goal is to convince people like me to side with guns, you may want to alter your approach. Again, it could be extremely effective to your cause to soften the image of guns and gun owners. Personally (as someone who even grew up with guns), guns scare me, and strong gun advocates scare me even more. Where I live, the gun advocates display a very aggressive and dangerous image - from their vehicles, to their clothing and appearance, to their mannerisms and rhetorical approach. Softening that up would probably have a huge impact.
I had to go back through the thread to see who used the word 'design' first, and it was actually me. But, given that I don't have an argument against guns, I'm confused. Is the design perspective one that's frequently used by gun regulation advocates? I used it only because when I thought of the question, 'for what purpose are guns manufactured?', 'killing' was the first thing that came to mind. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm surprised that the gun industry doesn't seem do anything to change people's perceptions of guns. They'd probably have a huge impact with a moderate campaign to soften the image of guns.
Also, it may be interesting for you or other readers to know that as a 3rd-party observer, I didn't feel an emotional response to the parent's point. To me, it seemed like a rational argument. On the other hand, your comment actually gave me a very strong negative emotional response. So, if the goal is to convince people like me to side with guns, you may want to alter your approach. Again, it could be extremely effective to your cause to soften the image of guns and gun owners. Personally (as someone who even grew up with guns), guns scare me, and strong gun advocates scare me even more. Where I live, the gun advocates display a very aggressive and dangerous image - from their vehicles, to their clothing and appearance, to their mannerisms and rhetorical approach. Softening that up would probably have a huge impact.
Thanks, I take that to heart. I'm not certain what would alter public impression of guns and gun owners, but I'll attempt to think it out. I don't fit your stereotype of gun owners, but that's kind of irrelevant. My guess is my anecdata was a bit over the top.
As far as "design" goes, it was just an argumentative tangent. I've had it thrown out at me before, but it's not a major thing as far as I know.
As far as "design" goes, it was just an argumentative tangent. I've had it thrown out at me before, but it's not a major thing as far as I know.
how often does a todler accidentally slice and stab their parent to death with a knife, versus shooting them to death with a gun?
a knife isn't designed to kill because it's difficult to kill somebody with a knife by accident. A knife is designed to maim, explaining the large number of injuries, but much smaller number of deaths.
a knife isn't designed to kill because it's difficult to kill somebody with a knife by accident. A knife is designed to maim, explaining the large number of injuries, but much smaller number of deaths.
> 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.
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.
The "designed for" argument always struck me as odd. Who gives a half toss what it's "designed for", when what it's used for in the real world is what actually matters?
Just to be clear, I don't have an argument. I am just a curious observer who's trying to follow and make sense of what's being discussed here.
However, since you brought it up, do you have issue with 'smart guns' given that apparently most guns are purchased only to ever be used at ranges?
However, since you brought it up, do you have issue with 'smart guns' given that apparently most guns are purchased only to ever be used at ranges?
Not particularly - I view that the same way I view people who buy a $12,000 fully specced out Mac Pro and then browse Facebook all day with it.
Sometimes you just want something to show off. Shrug
Sometimes you just want something to show off. Shrug
Don't forget about starter pistols for telling runners when a race starts. Also flare guns for signalling, although that might not count as a "real gun"?
Flare guns fall under the same air transport rules that full-blown firearms do. They must be transported in a case without ammunition that is locked and openable only by the owner.
well I am all for keeping them around for the self defense aspect alone though I did for a long time love target shooting; boy it gets expensive fast. The police aren't there to save you, they prevent crime by penalizing it but mostly when it comes to violent crime all they can do is figure out what happened and hope to find the perp
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 stated, this has a number of problems not only for the government but for users and their legal rights.
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 in the US have in their active inventories (not going to count old stuff in Cosmoline, which they should sell more of to us, next up are 10,000 M1911s, maybe).
Nope, any existing companies that manufactured so much as one smart gun would be boycotted by us civilians and go out of business, as Colt is close to doing for various reasons including depending too much on the DoD, and, yeah, that smart gun flirtation and general cooperation with the gun-grabbers.
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 in the US have in their active inventories (not going to count old stuff in Cosmoline, which they should sell more of to us, next up are 10,000 M1911s, maybe).
Nope, any existing companies that manufactured so much as one smart gun would be boycotted by us civilians and go out of business, as Colt is close to doing for various reasons including depending too much on the DoD, and, yeah, that smart gun flirtation and general cooperation with the gun-grabbers.
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.)
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 Hook Elementary do to cause a "blackout"?
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 Hook Elementary do to cause a "blackout"?
While we're on this wild and irrelevant tangent, people frequently die from blackouts. See the Northeast blackout in 2003 where a dozen people died.
Look, all I want is that you clearly state if you think the sandy hook school shooting is kind of like the Northeast blackout of 2003.
Also, of the 12 deaths wikipedia reports as "contributed to" by the blackout, one is someone falling off a roof while trying to break into a store, and another is some guy taking the stairs and dying of a hearth attack.
No other US blackout listed on wikipedia mentions any deaths, including the article about the 1977 blackout with widespread looting, but I'm sure you have a good reason to say deaths are frequent.
Also, of the 12 deaths wikipedia reports as "contributed to" by the blackout, one is someone falling off a roof while trying to break into a store, and another is some guy taking the stairs and dying of a hearth attack.
No other US blackout listed on wikipedia mentions any deaths, including the article about the 1977 blackout with widespread looting, but I'm sure you have a good reason to say deaths are frequent.
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.
The point of an analogy is to illuminate some point of an issue by drawing parallels with an aspect of a more easily understood, unrelated issue.
For an analogy to be helpful it crucial that the two aspects being related share characteristics, and school shootings don't share many aspects with blackouts. A school shooting is highly localised, even if the location my vary; blackouts need to happen over a very wide area over an extended period of time to be of importance. A school shooting is an active act of killing, a blackout only increases the lethality of already present dangers.
Also, the concept of "negatives that legislation would attempt to prevent" describes things like racial discrimination, poor quality control of seatbelt manufacturers, improper handling of meat and chemical weapon sales to dictatorships as per your "the scale of the concepts doesn't necessarily have to match". Good luck getting much out of the analogy between the Northeast blackout of 2003 and selling weapons to Saddam Hussein.
For an analogy to be helpful it crucial that the two aspects being related share characteristics, and school shootings don't share many aspects with blackouts. A school shooting is highly localised, even if the location my vary; blackouts need to happen over a very wide area over an extended period of time to be of importance. A school shooting is an active act of killing, a blackout only increases the lethality of already present dangers.
Also, the concept of "negatives that legislation would attempt to prevent" describes things like racial discrimination, poor quality control of seatbelt manufacturers, improper handling of meat and chemical weapon sales to dictatorships as per your "the scale of the concepts doesn't necessarily have to match". Good luck getting much out of the analogy between the Northeast blackout of 2003 and selling weapons to Saddam Hussein.
So, selling weapons to Iraq: What is your list of ridiculous, incidental things to restrict? The premise of the original analogy has two parts. First, something that they want to prevent. Second, cherry-picking things that don't necessarily matter to restrict, and create some nice "tough on crime" theater.
Analogies are limited by nature. Every analogy has holes. The important comparison here is "crime/tragedy occurs" -> "legal system responds with near-random actions that may or may not prevent a recurrence of the same in the future, that subject-matter specialists claim will be ineffective".
Analogies are limited by nature. Every analogy has holes. The important comparison here is "crime/tragedy occurs" -> "legal system responds with near-random actions that may or may not prevent a recurrence of the same in the future, that subject-matter specialists claim will be ineffective".
This reminds me of the "cars can use kill people too!" disingenuous line of thought.
Cars can kill people, but they are primarily used for transportation.
Guns have no other purpose but to kill. You may use it for other stuff (sport, in general). But it was created to kill something. Any analogy where you take some other object that has the potential to be purposefully misused is pretty much invalid when you're talking about the other object's primary purpose.
Cars can kill people, but they are primarily used for transportation.
Guns have no other purpose but to kill. You may use it for other stuff (sport, in general). But it was created to kill something. Any analogy where you take some other object that has the potential to be purposefully misused is pretty much invalid when you're talking about the other object's primary purpose.
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 will give you the best chance to respond appropriately.
Just dealing with mechanical failures quickly and correctly takes very intentional practice.
The last thing I want to have is another thing that can fail in a pressure situation that can't be resolved via trained response. E.g., for a bad primer or failure to eject I can do what's called a tap/rack/bang drill. But there's nothing I can do to train for some type of software failure or battery being dead or some other type of non-mechanical failure that bricks my firearm.
[1]Former because the NRA"s lobbing efforts and powers are ridiculously overstated. Their entire entire existence as near as I can tell is to sell their member's names to third parties. I've never received as much crap snail mail and email as I did during the year I belonged to the NRA.
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 will give you the best chance to respond appropriately.
Just dealing with mechanical failures quickly and correctly takes very intentional practice.
The last thing I want to have is another thing that can fail in a pressure situation that can't be resolved via trained response. E.g., for a bad primer or failure to eject I can do what's called a tap/rack/bang drill. But there's nothing I can do to train for some type of software failure or battery being dead or some other type of non-mechanical failure that bricks my firearm.
[1]Former because the NRA"s lobbing efforts and powers are ridiculously overstated. Their entire entire existence as near as I can tell is to sell their member's names to third parties. I've never received as much crap snail mail and email as I did during the year I belonged to the NRA.
See, I actually like the idea of smart guns. The only thing it really does (or should do) is prevent you from getting shot with your own gun. If someone steals your gun out of your house, they could remove the smart part. If you're thinking about logging gun usage, you could probably edit the logs or corrupt them beyond usability.
I think you could make the system work. It's not complicated, maybe just an RFID reader and a solenoid. The issue is that if politics try and stick a bunch of extra crap onto it. All that extra stuff is what can cause failures, and cause an otherwise good idea to become vilified.
I think you could make the system work. It's not complicated, maybe just an RFID reader and a solenoid. The issue is that if politics try and stick a bunch of extra crap onto it. All that extra stuff is what can cause failures, and cause an otherwise good idea to become vilified.
If it's about politics, a lot of that extra stuff will be to make it non-bypassable. That said, just how many people are getting shot with their own gun as a component of overall firearm murders?
Don't forget the power supply, and don't undercalculate antenna design needs (it probably won't work incorporated into the handle of a pistol). The electrical draw will probably need to be pretty beefy in order to be as reliable as the rest of the gun's mechanisms, and what happens when the gun is being carried or stored in -20C temperatures? What about off-hand shooting when your normal shooting hand is unusable or it's dangerous to shoot from your normal side?
In order to be both universal and not introduce unreliability, the solenoid would likely have to be introduced as a secondary safety. How many firearm designs would even support a secondary safety?
Don't forget the power supply, and don't undercalculate antenna design needs (it probably won't work incorporated into the handle of a pistol). The electrical draw will probably need to be pretty beefy in order to be as reliable as the rest of the gun's mechanisms, and what happens when the gun is being carried or stored in -20C temperatures? What about off-hand shooting when your normal shooting hand is unusable or it's dangerous to shoot from your normal side?
In order to be both universal and not introduce unreliability, the solenoid would likely have to be introduced as a secondary safety. How many firearm designs would even support a secondary safety?
Where do I keep that RFID? An implant, a ring? What if it gets damaged in a scuffle and I'm SOL when I try to shoot?
Technology fails.
Technology fails.
They have a "do not promote" list that you must request to be added to which solves the spam/marketing mail problem. That you have to ask is problematic but there is a solution if this was the only problem.
Eh, that Ackerman McQueen allows even that is a major thing.
(For those who claim the "gun companies" run the NRA, no, more than anyone else, it's run for the benefit of its PR firm (and of course the current entrenched executive leadership, who have made sure another Cincinnati revolt is impossible).)
(For those who claim the "gun companies" run the NRA, no, more than anyone else, it's run for the benefit of its PR firm (and of course the current entrenched executive leadership, who have made sure another Cincinnati revolt is impossible).)
It wasn't just that. Ultimately I decided that there were more effective 2A organizations that I preferred to support.
I'm saddened to hear your feelings on the NRA and its effectiveness.
While they, thankfully, haven't had to fight any big national gun control initiatives for some time, they are still very active at the state and city level. See their recent lawsuit against the City of Seattle and its new gun tax.
While they, thankfully, haven't had to fight any big national gun control initiatives for some time, they are still very active at the state and city level. See their recent lawsuit against the City of Seattle and its new gun tax.
Well, if you want to fund lawsuits, the Washington state based Second Amendment Foundation is a better bet, and I'll bet they're a party to that lawsuit as well.
They are the only other effective one as I count them, but you have to donate money to them, a simple membership will just line the pockets of whomever is mailing out their stuff.
They are the only other effective one as I count them, but you have to donate money to them, a simple membership will just line the pockets of whomever is mailing out their stuff.
The value, as I see it, of the NRA is more its ability to efficiently mobilize 5 million members around key issues. I liken relying only on smaller, fractious orgs to when we had small state militias and no formal army.
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.
Exactly! If the fingerprint scanner on the gun works like the one on my phone, many people will unnecessarily die. What do their families do then? Sue Congress?
Seriously, the idea of smart guns is really stupid. Can you build a system that's 100% reliable? No. Then people will die unnecessarily because of this legislation and, of course, no gun owner will want this optional piece of equipment with a nonzero failure rate. I'm glad no gun company wants to make this idiotic and dangerous technology.
Seriously, the idea of smart guns is really stupid. Can you build a system that's 100% reliable? No. Then people will die unnecessarily because of this legislation and, of course, no gun owner will want this optional piece of equipment with a nonzero failure rate. I'm glad no gun company wants to make this idiotic and dangerous technology.
Another aspect I suspect is that gun owners already have the fundamental gun safety rules that are respected like gospel. All gun owners I've met are extremely serious about safety, and treat safety with great reverence.
I saw a reddit post of a guy who accidentally shot his foot: known as a Negligent Discharge. In the comments the general conclusion was not to blame the gun maker, but rather to blame the poster for failing to abide by the fundamental rules: 1. keep the gun pointed in a safe direction 2. keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot 3. keep the gun unloaded until ready to use 4. treat all guns as if they are loaded
I suspect that gun owners feel that smart guns also "cheapen" the safety ritual (which could be disastrous).
I saw a reddit post of a guy who accidentally shot his foot: known as a Negligent Discharge. In the comments the general conclusion was not to blame the gun maker, but rather to blame the poster for failing to abide by the fundamental rules: 1. keep the gun pointed in a safe direction 2. keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot 3. keep the gun unloaded until ready to use 4. treat all guns as if they are loaded
I suspect that gun owners feel that smart guns also "cheapen" the safety ritual (which could be disastrous).
You're close on the four rules. :)
1. Every firearm is loaded. 2. Don't point it at anything you don't want to destroy. 3. Trigger finger stays indexed until sights are engaged with target. 4. Know your backstop.
I can't say as I've thought that these guns (I just cannot bring myself to use the adjective "smart" in reference to this idea) would cheapen these rules.
It's more that it's yet another idea proposed by people that don't have enough experience with firearms to present an educated opinion coming up with a scheme that to other ignorant parties thing sounds like, to quote amother commenter "a gimme."
1. Every firearm is loaded. 2. Don't point it at anything you don't want to destroy. 3. Trigger finger stays indexed until sights are engaged with target. 4. Know your backstop.
I can't say as I've thought that these guns (I just cannot bring myself to use the adjective "smart" in reference to this idea) would cheapen these rules.
It's more that it's yet another idea proposed by people that don't have enough experience with firearms to present an educated opinion coming up with a scheme that to other ignorant parties thing sounds like, to quote amother commenter "a gimme."
4: Be certain of your target and what's behind it.
The former is critical for all sorts of things like hunting and self-defense, although a few of the "accidents" I've read about sure smelled like murders to me.
The former is critical for all sorts of things like hunting and self-defense, although a few of the "accidents" I've read about sure smelled like murders to me.
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 problem with technology. BTW, these people problems are the result of Democrat's policies in gun-free cities such as Chicago, St Louis, Oakland and Baltimore.
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 problem with technology. BTW, these people problems are the result of Democrat's policies in gun-free cities such as Chicago, St Louis, Oakland and Baltimore.
While I agree with (and just stopped writing a long response about) the unreliable and complex feature argument - consider adding the necessary components to a semiautomatic handgun - I wouldn't call the article ignorant. There are many reasons the NRA and gun owners in general dislike "smart" guns, some of which include the soft, social reasoning the article outlines.
Hard technical arguments of feasibility and reliability tend to have little effect on those that espouse this form of gun control. They'd typically prefer the guns not be there in the first place, and don't particularly care how feasible or reliable the result is. Social arguments, however, tend to affect them more, or at least can put the argument in a place they find harder to dismiss. We need both parts to make the strongest argument.
Hard technical arguments of feasibility and reliability tend to have little effect on those that espouse this form of gun control. They'd typically prefer the guns not be there in the first place, and don't particularly care how feasible or reliable the result is. Social arguments, however, tend to affect them more, or at least can put the argument in a place they find harder to dismiss. We need both parts to make the strongest argument.
Author here. I covered all three points you raised on my previous piece for TC this topic, so I didn't see the need to repeat myself here. That piece is linked in the opener of this article.
Please elaborate on what these "people problems" are. I'm interested in what you think is common amongst the cities you've cited.
They are run by Democrats and have been for a long time.
Well, they claimed that the "people problems" were caused by Democrats' policies, so it'd be useful to have some clarification as to what that is before we identify root causes.
Unless your implication is that Democrats are the "people problems?"
Unless your implication is that Democrats are the "people problems?"
Can you elaborate on why "Democrat's policies in gun-free cities" has led to "people problems?"
BTW, these people problems are the result of Democrat's policies in gun-free cities such as Chicago, St Louis, Oakland and Baltimore.
I don't know about the other three cities, but you can concealed carry in Chicago and that has been the case for almost three years now.
I don't know about the other three cities, but you can concealed carry in Chicago and that has been the case for almost three years now.
Have you tried obtaining a CCW in Chicago? In order to get one you have to:
-Take a 16 hour course. There are only a handful of companies that can offer the course and they're fully booked year-round
-Pay $150, one of the highest CCW permit fees in the nation
-Hope that you aren't one of the 800 applicants/year that are inexplicably denied (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-07-04/news/ct-concea...)
So yes, you can technically get a CCW in Illinois. It's also obvious that the state has thrown as many roadblocks as they legally could in the way, ironically bolstering the NRA's argument that any "common sense" requirements around gun ownership will be used as de facto restrictions
-Take a 16 hour course. There are only a handful of companies that can offer the course and they're fully booked year-round
-Pay $150, one of the highest CCW permit fees in the nation
-Hope that you aren't one of the 800 applicants/year that are inexplicably denied (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-07-04/news/ct-concea...)
So yes, you can technically get a CCW in Illinois. It's also obvious that the state has thrown as many roadblocks as they legally could in the way, ironically bolstering the NRA's argument that any "common sense" requirements around gun ownership will be used as de facto restrictions
"...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, I would argue that we still can't write durable software in general, and as such we should avoid integrating it into important things such as guns and cars until we can improve our development skills)
[1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086422-japanese-satell...
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, I would argue that we still can't write durable software in general, and as such we should avoid integrating it into important things such as guns and cars until we can improve our development skills)
[1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086422-japanese-satell...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tell that to the families of the people who will die because of unreliable technology. I'm sure they will be consoled by the fact that their loved one died so others in the future, when we figure out how to create a 100% reliable smart gun mechanisms, some strangers might not die. I'm sure that will bring smiles at their loved one's funeral.
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.
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.
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.
And you have clearly never been in a marksmanship competition.
The article makes it sound theoretical, but New Jersey already has the Childproof Handgun Law that makes it illegal to sell a non-smart gun "three years after it is determined that personalized handguns are available for retail purposes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Childproof_Handgun_...
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 "shoulder thing that goes up". In their defense, New Jersey's law is, as I recall, much older.
I'll mention one other bottom line: we wouldn't even consider it prior to all law enforcement officers in the nation being required to use them, and only them.
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 "shoulder thing that goes up". In their defense, New Jersey's law is, as I recall, much older.
I'll mention one other bottom line: we wouldn't even consider it prior to all law enforcement officers in the nation being required to use them, and only them.
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, either a police car or their own and the thief simply opened the door/trunk and took it.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Playing basketball is an NBA player's entire job, shooting guns is a small part of a police officer's job.
Enthusiasticly reading some tutorials on the Internet isn't really what I'd consider "into" something, but there are absolutely amateur programmers that are far better at programming than a 9-5 enterprise "code monkey" level programmer with no interest in the job apart from the paycheck.
Enthusiasticly reading some tutorials on the Internet isn't really what I'd consider "into" something, but there are absolutely amateur programmers that are far better at programming than a 9-5 enterprise "code monkey" level programmer with no interest in the job apart from the paycheck.
Police very seldom, and sometimes never have to use their guns, except maybe to threaten. They're paid to keep the peace and all that, the gun is merely one of many tools, although the one that all others ultimately rest on.
I suppose so, but it's not like that would make any difference in the number of illicit guns on the street, and I've never heard of smart guns being designed for that much harder use case, where an adversary had lots of time to modify them. The most common one is limiting who can fire it, e.g. preventing the all too common tragedy when a criminal snatches a cop's gun and kills him with it.
> all too common tragedy
Any murder is too much murder, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as common. Cops are nearly as likely to die of a car accident as they are of getting shot. A cop friend of mine was going on about how the recent media focus on them has made things so dangerous - officer murders were up by 15%! I asked him if that translated to an increase of 5 or 6 a year, and if that was actually above the noise floor - he responded with a blank stare - "15%."
Any murder is too much murder, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as common. Cops are nearly as likely to die of a car accident as they are of getting shot. A cop friend of mine was going on about how the recent media focus on them has made things so dangerous - officer murders were up by 15%! I asked him if that translated to an increase of 5 or 6 a year, and if that was actually above the noise floor - he responded with a blank stare - "15%."
Well, you're got a point, especially with modern retention holsters, but it's still a major issue, and those holsters also slow down the draw speed of officers (but one defeated the Boston bombers' after they murdered the MIT Campus Policeman, that murder was for naught).
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 while it's pointed in a unfortunate direction.
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 while it's pointed in a unfortunate direction.
I'm going to have to disagree with you, I think thumb break retention holsters (that have been the standard forever) are just fine. The usability problem for holsters comes from the loss of fine motor control following an adrenaline dump, you go all thumbs. Of course nothing beats boring old training - where even very complex behavior can be ingrained. I blacked out my first fire fight, but I was later told that I effectively performed three magazine changes, manipulated the radio, called in a SALUTE and fired a signal flare. I'm confident that if I spent several years training to not shoot myself in the leg with a serpa holster, I could, but it would be a waste of time as better holsters long predate that silly design.
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/
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
> That's not how the release button is intended to be used.
Stress does funny things, also "Just avoid holding it that way" isn't good advice for things like guns.
> ...with a non-Serpa nobody blames the holster...
That is the point. Normally the user would be blamed, but the design is bad enough that the equipment is being blamed, IDPA even banned it.
Stress does funny things, also "Just avoid holding it that way" isn't good advice for things like guns.
> ...with a non-Serpa nobody blames the holster...
That is the point. Normally the user would be blamed, but the design is bad enough that the equipment is being blamed, IDPA even banned it.
But "Avoid jamming your finger in the trigger area" is very solid advice for guns. That has got to be the leading cause of NDs while drawing a firearm but someone does it with a Serpa and everyone is blaming the holster. Had my Serpa for years and it never even occurred to me to jab my fingertip at the button until Grebner's video.
IDPA never banned the Serpa. Some ranges / organizers have.
IDPA never banned the Serpa. Some ranges / organizers have.
The problem isn't the advice, it is the reliance on the advice being followed without fail for a product that leaves very little safety margin in normal operation. It is like putting a factory reset button right next to the power button and expecting that the instruction to never accidentally press the reset button provides sufficient safety. Do you make the same allowance for guns that discharge when dropped? Surely the users know to not drop their guns, and yet recalls still happen. Foolproofing can look really silly when everybody is well rested and calm, but you might be grateful for the raised "Front Toward Enemy" when things get hairy.
You are correct about the IDPA ban, my mistake. It makes me wonder though, I can't think of a similar case of a safety rule being so charged. Green tip 5.56 is the closest thing that comes to mind, but that is more to do with property damage than safety.
You are correct about the IDPA ban, my mistake. It makes me wonder though, I can't think of a similar case of a safety rule being so charged. Green tip 5.56 is the closest thing that comes to mind, but that is more to do with property damage than safety.
> Cops are nearly as likely to die of a car accident as they are of getting shot.
Unless cops die of car accidents significantly less than the base rate, that is not reassuring.
Unless cops die of car accidents significantly less than the base rate, that is not reassuring.
I'm not sure what you'd expect to be reassured of, that cops are less likely to die of car accidents and gunshots than the average person? My point isn't that they have no increased risk, my point is that the level of risk in reality isn't nearly as high as people seem to think - and warrants no special deference. Law enforcement isn't even in the top 10 dangerous professions, they fall well behind loggers, garbage men, truck drivers, roofers... have you thanked your garbage man for risking his life to collect your refuse today?
I don't have any particular preconceptions about how dangerous it is to be a cop. But I do know that car accidents are one of the most common ways to die. So when you tell me that cops are more likely to get shot than to die in a car accident, my perception of the danger goes up.
I used the word "nearly" for a reason, the numbers are very close and the method of categorization is not known to me (folks like to lump suicide with homicide when it furthers their argument). So "more" isn't an order of magnitude and the absolute number is so low that a use of it in justification for any endeavor would be a disguised appeal to emotion.
I never really thought about that aspect- smart guns only really prevent someone from picking up your gun and shooting you with it. I mean that's basically it, it's safety for the gun owner and nobody else.
All guns are illegal anywhere outside your home and place of work in New Jersey with very few, minor exceptions for certain types of guns which will be sorted out after your arrest. This is the model gun control advocates want for the whole nation. Our cities are perfect examples of gun free zones. No gun violence in years. No one is afraid in Camden, Trenton, Newark, AC, etc. because guns are illegal so there is no gun violence. Criminals respect all laws in New Jersey. Of course we are the first with smart gun legislation.
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.
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.
I've always thought that the arguments from the anti-gun crowd defied all logic. If access to guns was the root of the problem, then gun violence should be going down, rather than up. Far fewer people own guns now than did, say 150 or 200 years ago (when it was probably close to 100%). Solving the problem by focusing on guns is trying to treat the symptom rather than the disease.
I don't think you're right about how pervasive gun ownership was, due to changes in costs and wealth, and the ability to maintain guns in the days of corrosive black gunpowder and corrosive percussion caps and primers (the WWII M1 Carbine was the first US weapon system to use non-corrosive primers). And of course blacks were largely disarmed post-Reconstruction, next up were post-Civil War immigrants starting around the last turn of the century, etc. See also Chicago post-McDonald and the nationwide sweep of shall issue laws has radically increased the utility of owning a handgun, now 43 states and ~72-3% of the population.
what's your evidence that gun violence is going up?
Smart guns have an interesting history. In the 90's Colt developed a smart gun, but the results "backfired." Anti-gun groups were against it because of the idea that safer guns meant that the barrier to entry to ownership was lower (now that guns are "safer", why not have one?); people who depended upon guns for their livelihood were skeptical: when you need to use one there needs to be no questions that it will function (barring all the traditional issues of "dumb" gun); if successful, other manufacturings would have to follow suit and there could be legal actions against "dumb" gun manufacturing and ownershpi...etc.
I've linked some articles that touch upon this attempt by Colt.
NRP Article: http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473416699/how-an-idea-to-devel...
Hacker News Discussion of Article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11462297
I've linked some articles that touch upon this attempt by Colt.
NRP Article: http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473416699/how-an-idea-to-devel...
Hacker News Discussion of Article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11462297
From the beginning of the first comment in the HN discussion you link to:
he explained that it was only supposed to fire if the shooter was wearing a special wristband with a little radio frequency transmitter inside. The CEO put on the wristband and went to pull the trigger. ... And it didn't shoot. Just silence.
An "oops" which is entirely unacceptable for any law enforcement/self defense use case.
he explained that it was only supposed to fire if the shooter was wearing a special wristband with a little radio frequency transmitter inside. The CEO put on the wristband and went to pull the trigger. ... And it didn't shoot. Just silence.
An "oops" which is entirely unacceptable for any law enforcement/self defense use case.
Slightly redundant, but I also enjoyed the (apparently contemporary) Planet Money podcast episode on the same topic:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/08/473581490/episo...
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/08/473581490/episo...
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.
The reason that the government wanted the Clipper chip was to make it possible for police agencies to listen in on the encrypted communications of suspected criminals, often ones whose activities would certainly involve the possibility of people dying.
Both cases are examples of government attempting to interfere with a technology to further some legitimate public government interest (catching criminals, reducing accidents) while compromising the private interests of citizens (effective self-defense, privacy).
Both cases are examples of government attempting to interfere with a technology to further some legitimate public government interest (catching criminals, reducing accidents) while compromising the private interests of citizens (effective self-defense, privacy).
Everybody[1] who's actually owned a gun (or plans to) hates smart guns.
[1]: Okay maybe not everybody but based on my anecdata it's everybody.
[1]: Okay maybe not everybody but based on my anecdata it's everybody.
That's the conclusion I came to when looking at the market for smart guns (I was interested in smart attachments for guns, think Fitbit for your gun). Smart guns drum up a bunch of press and buzz from people who will never buy them. It's a failure to understand the target market, who hates the concept for reasons mentioned elsewhere in this comment section.
Washington regulates a million things over which is has no particular expertise. Including, but not limited, to medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, food production, law, agriculture, investment banks, the oil and gas industry, and on and on.
The fact that the government is bad at regulating these things doesn't mean that any step they take will be bad. The details matter, and it doesn't mean you should terminate any regulatory effort before it is defined.
In many (maybe all) of these areas, some regulation is needed.
The fact that the government is bad at regulating these things doesn't mean that any step they take will be bad. The details matter, and it doesn't mean you should terminate any regulatory effort before it is defined.
In many (maybe all) of these areas, some regulation is needed.
Most of those areas are regulated by boards and committees of dentists, pharmacists, food specialists, etc.
For whatever reason, gun control is the one area where politicians refuse to consult specialists, thus resulting in bills as ridiculous as the AWB.
For whatever reason, gun control is the one area where politicians refuse to consult specialists, thus resulting in bills as ridiculous as the AWB.
If the better approach is to focus on the "who", why does the NRA oppose background checks?
If you commit a felony and are as a result never again allowed to purchase a firearm, your rights are being perpetually limited, and I and a lot of other people object to that, and it's arguably a violation of the 8th ammendment.
If background checks were more limited in the kind of background they checked for, say only restricting people who had injured someone using a firearm, then there might be fewer objections.
And felons who want to buy a gun for nefarious purposes are either smart enough to pay up and get an unregistered one on the black market (so you're not targeting them with background checks) or dumb enough to get one at a local gun store. But the dumb ones are still felons, which means they likely have criminal connections, and if they need a gun they probably can find another way to get one. So by stopping them from buying a firearm legally, they're more likely to end up with unregistered weapon, which makes the DoJ's job harder. I concede that a fair number of them might be inconvenienced enough to just not buy a gun, but then many of them will just go on to stab people instead of shooting them. The number of actual lives saved by background checks is probably much lower than people think.
Further, background checks are notoriously unreliable, turning up plenty of hard-to-resolve false-positives and dangerous false-negatives.
And then there's restrictions on mental health conditions. The problem with these is that people like guns, and if someone who likes guns thinks they might have a mental health disorder like bipolar or schizophrenia that would perclude them from owning one, they won't see a doctor. The result is that they won't get treatment and are more likely to hurt themselves, and indeed, others. Shootings and violent crime have been declining for decades, but the lives of the mentally ill have not been improving. I find the mental health problem much more important than the gun control issues to the proper functioning of our society, it's just that gun violence is more visible. This is a hard problem, and there will have to be compromises but it has to be part of the debate.
I don't know why the NRA opposes background checks, but there are good reasons to.
If background checks were more limited in the kind of background they checked for, say only restricting people who had injured someone using a firearm, then there might be fewer objections.
And felons who want to buy a gun for nefarious purposes are either smart enough to pay up and get an unregistered one on the black market (so you're not targeting them with background checks) or dumb enough to get one at a local gun store. But the dumb ones are still felons, which means they likely have criminal connections, and if they need a gun they probably can find another way to get one. So by stopping them from buying a firearm legally, they're more likely to end up with unregistered weapon, which makes the DoJ's job harder. I concede that a fair number of them might be inconvenienced enough to just not buy a gun, but then many of them will just go on to stab people instead of shooting them. The number of actual lives saved by background checks is probably much lower than people think.
Further, background checks are notoriously unreliable, turning up plenty of hard-to-resolve false-positives and dangerous false-negatives.
And then there's restrictions on mental health conditions. The problem with these is that people like guns, and if someone who likes guns thinks they might have a mental health disorder like bipolar or schizophrenia that would perclude them from owning one, they won't see a doctor. The result is that they won't get treatment and are more likely to hurt themselves, and indeed, others. Shootings and violent crime have been declining for decades, but the lives of the mentally ill have not been improving. I find the mental health problem much more important than the gun control issues to the proper functioning of our society, it's just that gun violence is more visible. This is a hard problem, and there will have to be compromises but it has to be part of the debate.
I don't know why the NRA opposes background checks, but there are good reasons to.
I agree with you that on the fundamental level I don’t like the idea of rights being perpetually limited on the basis of being a convicted felon. As far as I’m concerned once a person has served their sentence, including parole, they have paid their debt to society in full and shouldn’t be barred from exercising any rights that non felons enjoy. This isn’t limited solely to the right to bear arms but also the right to vote, which many states still bar for convicted felons. If we as a society are so uncomfortable with the people who have paid their debt that we deem they must be prevented from exercising their rights even after serving their sentence, then perhaps it’s time we take a hard look at the failings of our “corrections” system.
On a hypothetical level, even if I did support the current laws barring convicted felons of certain rights in perpetuity, I would still have a problem with the way this is being administered today. I’ve read some pretty damning reports on some of the discriminatory practices that continue at the institutional level within the broader criminal justice system which seem to primarily affect certain segments of our population. Poor people, particularly minorities and specifically black males, face some very specific challenges when it comes to things like selective enforcement, pretrial plea bargains, rates of conviction and length of sentencing. At this point I can’t really describe our justice system as anything but blatantly discriminatory.
Even in a more equitable and just system, I personally wouldn’t support the taking away of rights in perpetuity, and I certainly don’t support it when it seems to have such a deliberate and specific impact on certain groups.
On a hypothetical level, even if I did support the current laws barring convicted felons of certain rights in perpetuity, I would still have a problem with the way this is being administered today. I’ve read some pretty damning reports on some of the discriminatory practices that continue at the institutional level within the broader criminal justice system which seem to primarily affect certain segments of our population. Poor people, particularly minorities and specifically black males, face some very specific challenges when it comes to things like selective enforcement, pretrial plea bargains, rates of conviction and length of sentencing. At this point I can’t really describe our justice system as anything but blatantly discriminatory.
Even in a more equitable and just system, I personally wouldn’t support the taking away of rights in perpetuity, and I certainly don’t support it when it seems to have such a deliberate and specific impact on certain groups.
[deleted]
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. You have to be able to go back and prove whether a seller performed the proper background check before selling a gun to a particular person.
A possible alternative I thought and have always wondered why it doesn't get used would be some sort of private public key cryptography 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.
A possible alternative I thought and have always wondered why it doesn't get used would be some sort of private public key cryptography 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.
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
Unfortunately, a lot of people are really really bad about keeping records. It would also be open to abuse by the government seizing and disappearing the certificate of someone they wanted to persecute. Heck, the government sucks here, the BATFE's machine gun etc. registry is in horrible shape, and they sometimes abuse that.
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
Unfortunately, a lot of people are really really bad about keeping records. It would also be open to abuse by the government seizing and disappearing the certificate of someone they wanted to persecute. Heck, the government sucks here, the BATFE's machine gun etc. registry is in horrible shape, and they sometimes abuse that.
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.
And it's not just smartphones, all will at minimum triangulate to the nears cell towers while on.
Really? Are you saying you'd start shooting people over a gun registry, or "other gun owners" would?
Yes, I will personally "start shooting people". Except I won't do anything so anodyne.
We gun owners know our 20th Century history.
Note we're talking about a nation wide gun registry, you're a criminal if all your guns are not listed on it.
We gun owners know our 20th Century history.
Note we're talking about a nation wide gun registry, you're a criminal if all your guns are not listed on it.
Maybe I was too subtle. If gun owners are threatening to shoot people over regulations, isn't that a sign that guns do kill people, and maybe we do need some type of regulations?
And we're talking about a registry, not a conspiracy to secretly make all gun-owners criminals. If you insist they're the same, that's your problem.
And we're talking about a registry, not a conspiracy to secretly make all gun-owners criminals. If you insist they're the same, that's your problem.
No, I insist, based on 20th Century history, that pretty much all confiscations in developed, and in most undeveloped countries, have been preceded by registries, and this includes multiple states in the US (where, I grant, you can move the weapon out of state).
And since they serve no good purpose, and are promoted by people who are not shy about signaling their ill will towards us, we're allowed to take the imposition of one as a solid signal what what's to come.
You say "And we're talking about a registry, not a conspiracy to secretly make all gun-owners criminals."? Prove it.
And let's be clear, in this putative Civil War 2.0, we're threatening to kill gun-grabbers wholesale and retail, with guns being one of the least effective means when compared to tactics like killing Blue cities. People kill other people, guns are inanimate objects.
And since they serve no good purpose, and are promoted by people who are not shy about signaling their ill will towards us, we're allowed to take the imposition of one as a solid signal what what's to come.
You say "And we're talking about a registry, not a conspiracy to secretly make all gun-owners criminals."? Prove it.
And let's be clear, in this putative Civil War 2.0, we're threatening to kill gun-grabbers wholesale and retail, with guns being one of the least effective means when compared to tactics like killing Blue cities. People kill other people, guns are inanimate objects.
I can only believe you're making a rhetorical point, but even in the abstract, threatening mass murder is beyond the pale here. Please respect the site rules and the community and don't post like this here.
Sure, if you're willing to have the participants of the site be ignorant of the consequences of the actions some of them support, sure.
But if you think our contingent threat is rhetorical, you're a fool. If you live in a fragile Blue city like San Francisco, you're doubly a fool (did they get around to closing the last power plant in SF, or was it on the peninsula? I remember Willie Brown commenting, after a major localized blackout, that maybe that wasn't such a good idea...).
But if you think our contingent threat is rhetorical, you're a fool. If you live in a fragile Blue city like San Francisco, you're doubly a fool (did they get around to closing the last power plant in SF, or was it on the peninsula? I remember Willie Brown commenting, after a major localized blackout, that maybe that wasn't such a good idea...).
Please just stop. You're a fine contributor otherwise.
I've also heard the argument that having a national registry makes the possibility of future mass confiscation much more palatable.
There are probably a good deal of people who wouldn't mind amending the Constitution to rid it of the Second Amendment but who still view the 4th Amendment favorably. It would be very difficult to enforce a policy of mass confiscation without the aid of a national registry that wouldn't be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
There are probably a good deal of people who wouldn't mind amending the Constitution to rid it of the Second Amendment but who still view the 4th Amendment favorably. It would be very difficult to enforce a policy of mass confiscation without the aid of a national registry that wouldn't be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
All 20th Century gun confiscations I can think of, aside from the Chinese Communists' rifle tax system, were preceded by registration. Nazi Germany most infamously, and in occupied territories like the Netherlands failure to produce yours would result in your entire family being summarily shot in the village square. But also Cuba after Castro took power, or less dire (so far), the U.K. bit by bit. Or closer to home, California, after the AG decided that SKSes were banned after all.
Last time I checked, which was decades ago, the national ACLU, which has no respect for the 2nd Amendment at all, did have such a 4th Amendment objection.
Last time I checked, which was decades ago, the national ACLU, which has no respect for the 2nd Amendment at all, did have such a 4th Amendment objection.
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.
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 are even more membership-driven and essentially exist in order to keep pressure on the NRA to avoid making "deals" with gun control partisans.
This idea of the NRA as a manufacturer-driven astroturf organization seems to have been made up out of whole cloth over the last 5 years or so and is only sustainable to the extent that its proponents avoid actually talking to any gun owners.
This idea of the NRA as a manufacturer-driven astroturf organization seems to have been made up out of whole cloth over the last 5 years or so and is only sustainable to the extent that its proponents avoid actually talking to any gun owners.
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:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-comprom...
I'll link another piece I wrote on this topic, which is way too long and incoherent and should have gotten edits but didn't:
http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/11/12/why-fake-moderate-gun-o...
For discussion of the evolution of the NRA into a hard-line, no-compromise lobbying group, see the last section, "NRA: The Original Moderate Pro-Gun Group".
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:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-comprom...
I'll link another piece I wrote on this topic, which is way too long and incoherent and should have gotten edits but didn't:
http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/11/12/why-fake-moderate-gun-o...
For discussion of the evolution of the NRA into a hard-line, no-compromise lobbying group, see the last section, "NRA: The Original Moderate Pro-Gun Group".
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 their disdain of not just "allowing crazy to buy guns" but their hatred of all gun owners and the second amendment.
Never mind belligerent crazy people, I can't remember a single TV show or movie in the last thirty years that depicted responsible gun owners, i.e. the vast majority of gun owners, in any positive light. Can you? Every time I see a gun on TV it's either used by a police officer or used in a crime of some sort. Test me on this next time you see a gun shown on TV or in a movie that comes out Hollywood.
Never mind belligerent crazy people, I can't remember a single TV show or movie in the last thirty years that depicted responsible gun owners, i.e. the vast majority of gun owners, in any positive light. Can you? Every time I see a gun on TV it's either used by a police officer or used in a crime of some sort. Test me on this next time you see a gun shown on TV or in a movie that comes out Hollywood.
And then there's all the dramatic productions of written works where positive uses of guns are somehow dropped on the floor. Schindler's List I remember reading about, he armed "his" Jews before they left, and as I recall, being armed made a big difference in their subsequent survival.
This sort of thing was dropped from the dramatization of a novel by a totally PC woman black? author, I could probably find a reference if anyone is interested.
At minimum this is part of a wide spectrum culture war which these gun-grabbing politicians are on one side of, at worst, well, we gun owners know our 20th Century history (see above).
This sort of thing was dropped from the dramatization of a novel by a totally PC woman black? author, I could probably find a reference if anyone is interested.
At minimum this is part of a wide spectrum culture war which these gun-grabbing politicians are on one side of, at worst, well, we gun owners know our 20th Century history (see above).
> *dramatization of a novel by a totally PC woman black? author
I fail to see how the gender or sex of the author has anything to do with anything, but it's good to know where your own biases lie.
I fail to see how the gender or sex of the author has anything to do with anything, but it's good to know where your own biases lie.
It's relevant in the context of the people who dramatized her work. In theory, coming from someone like her, they should have shown it the respect it was due. But the Hollywood narrative that also erased the good uses of guns from Schindler's List had to be maintained at all costs.
The original book, Schindler's Ark, was written by a man (Thomas Keneally), as was the screenplay (Steven Zaillian).
Putting that aside, you seem to be under the impression that there's some kind of Hollywood conspiracy, when in fact when you're adapting a novel you usually leave out a bunch of stuff. You stick with what's important. Despite what you might think, Schindler's List is not meant to be read as a story where the gun is the hero. You would be rather missing the point of it to take that view.
Putting that aside, you seem to be under the impression that there's some kind of Hollywood conspiracy, when in fact when you're adapting a novel you usually leave out a bunch of stuff. You stick with what's important. Despite what you might think, Schindler's List is not meant to be read as a story where the gun is the hero. You would be rather missing the point of it to take that view.
Well, except that fundamental constitutional right is about 50 years old http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you...
It's probably not worth pointing out because its so obvious but even in the event of an individual right to carry guns you still don't actually have a second amendment right to use guns in defense of person or property: that comes from non-constitutional laws.
I disagree. Self defense is a basic human right. You may be punished by the state for exercising that right, but that just means you live in a tyranny.
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.
Also, the parallels with how legislators cluelessly approach the adoption of any new technology were painfully clear.
where they basically gave up ground and got nothing in return
What would they get in return? The absolutist/fundamentalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not admit of compromise, and sets up a world view in which compromises and "reasonable middles" cannot exist; from that stance one either wins completely or loses completely, which is not coincidentally the rhetoric often used to work supporters up into a frenzy.
What would they get in return? The absolutist/fundamentalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not admit of compromise, and sets up a world view in which compromises and "reasonable middles" cannot exist; from that stance one either wins completely or loses completely, which is not coincidentally the rhetoric often used to work supporters up into a frenzy.
What would they get in return?
The right to own new machine guns made after 1986, and aren't additions before that that are not already in the pool of 200,000 forbidden?
Nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, like with drivers licenses.
Related to the above, enforcing shall issue concealed carry on the entire nation.
Removing the many state restrictions on magazine size, and against "assault weapons", which the Congress has explicit, original Constitutional power to do, forget about the 2nd Amendment.
Removing post-Reconstruction laws like the sheriff's permit to buy a handgun in North Carolina.
In general, there's a host of "flypaper" laws that are designed to make it harder and more dangerous to keep and bear arms, and only serve such purposes, that clearing away a bunch of them would be a big thing for us.
Reform the BATFE.
That's just off the top of my head in 2 minutes.
The right to own new machine guns made after 1986, and aren't additions before that that are not already in the pool of 200,000 forbidden?
Nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, like with drivers licenses.
Related to the above, enforcing shall issue concealed carry on the entire nation.
Removing the many state restrictions on magazine size, and against "assault weapons", which the Congress has explicit, original Constitutional power to do, forget about the 2nd Amendment.
Removing post-Reconstruction laws like the sheriff's permit to buy a handgun in North Carolina.
In general, there's a host of "flypaper" laws that are designed to make it harder and more dangerous to keep and bear arms, and only serve such purposes, that clearing away a bunch of them would be a big thing for us.
Reform the BATFE.
That's just off the top of my head in 2 minutes.
You forgot silencers.
Heck, flip the law around as is done in some countries: require them, or at least require that they be provided with all new guns. It's a health and safety measure to prevent hearing loss.
BTW, the problem is the name. Silencers don't actually silence. Pretending that they do is feeding the idea that they are for assassinations.
Heck, flip the law around as is done in some countries: require them, or at least require that they be provided with all new guns. It's a health and safety measure to prevent hearing loss.
BTW, the problem is the name. Silencers don't actually silence. Pretending that they do is feeding the idea that they are for assassinations.
Can't imagine how I forgot them, especially with neighboring Iowa just last month legalizing suppressors, and my own hearing losses over the years, which I'd like to limit going forward.
In part, it's because handguns in concealed carry are now by daily bread and butter use of guns, and they're impractical in that use case, and would hinder retention in a home defense case.
But, hey, a compromise where I could own a full auto suppressed P90 (a post '86 design) for home defense and the like, yeah, I could get behind that, and Henrietta would no doubt approve.
In part, it's because handguns in concealed carry are now by daily bread and butter use of guns, and they're impractical in that use case, and would hinder retention in a home defense case.
But, hey, a compromise where I could own a full auto suppressed P90 (a post '86 design) for home defense and the like, yeah, I could get behind that, and Henrietta would no doubt approve.
But... your points all come from the stance I was talking about. You don't seem interested in reasonable compromises, you seem interested in just getting everything you want and everyone else having to deal with it.
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 may own an AR-15 lower receiver, or even machine one themselves. If, however, they drill one 5/32" hole too many in that receiver, they are guilty of a felony. If they own a pistol based on the AR-15 platform and disassemble it at the same time and in the same space that they're disassembling and cleaning an AR-15 rifle, they are committing a felony. These examples are thanks to complex rules based on "compromises".
Gun owners have given up rights time and again, to zero gain of their own. That's not a compromise. A compromise is your asking me to give you half of my cake in return for half of your pie.
Example: an individual may own an AR-15 lower receiver, or even machine one themselves. If, however, they drill one 5/32" hole too many in that receiver, they are guilty of a felony. If they own a pistol based on the AR-15 platform and disassemble it at the same time and in the same space that they're disassembling and cleaning an AR-15 rifle, they are committing a felony. These examples are thanks to complex rules based on "compromises".
Gun owners have given up rights time and again, to zero gain of their own. That's not a compromise. A compromise is your asking me to give you half of my cake in return for half of your pie.
Gun owners have given up rights time and again, to zero gain of their own.
My question is simply: what is the thing they would like to gain? The NRA's modern reinterpretation of the Second Amendment (and make no mistake: they are pushing a modern invention, not a historical understanding) does not appear to allow the possibility that any compromise would be reasonable. Hence anything which is not a complete and utter victory is immediately spun as a complete and utter defeat.
My question is simply: what is the thing they would like to gain? The NRA's modern reinterpretation of the Second Amendment (and make no mistake: they are pushing a modern invention, not a historical understanding) does not appear to allow the possibility that any compromise would be reasonable. Hence anything which is not a complete and utter victory is immediately spun as a complete and utter defeat.
Our answer is equally simple: some of what we have lost. We perceive it is you who has reinterpreted the Second Amendment.
It appears you choose to categorically reject returns in the same space as losses; what do you wish, that we exchange something trite like steaks and sexual favors in return for all firearms? Do you believe firearm rights are somehow perfectly fungible? If so, it would appear you yourself are insisting on complete, utter victory.
I cannot begin to speak for others, but ask not for complete victory. Rather, I wish we would make steps back in what gun owners regard as a positive direction. The seven options hga gave above are not a linked list, they are several options. Even one would be regarded as a victory.
It appears you choose to categorically reject returns in the same space as losses; what do you wish, that we exchange something trite like steaks and sexual favors in return for all firearms? Do you believe firearm rights are somehow perfectly fungible? If so, it would appear you yourself are insisting on complete, utter victory.
I cannot begin to speak for others, but ask not for complete victory. Rather, I wish we would make steps back in what gun owners regard as a positive direction. The seven options hga gave above are not a linked list, they are several options. Even one would be regarded as a victory.
I believe that the Second Amendment provides no guarantee whatsoever of an individual right to own firearms. And given what we have in terms of historical documents and commentaries about it, it's pretty clear that the intent was to create a collective right for purposes of protecting the well-established militia system of the time.
So, given the lack of support for a guaranteed individual right, what exactly do you feel is being infringed? If there really is a possibility of compromise, then why is even the tiniest hint of the possibility of a suggestion of perhaps trying to implement a sensible background-check and registration system guaranteed to stir up such disgusting rhetoric from the allegedly "reasonable" people who oppose it? It's gone far beyond just basic hyperbole like claiming that any regulation actually consists of outlawing and confiscating all guns from all people (though that's still a popular one), and well off the deep end into suggesting that the murders of children have been faked by paid actor "parents" in order to give support to the gun-confiscating plan.
Again: it's very very clear what the proposal from those folks is, and it's all-or-nothing with no compromise possible.
So, given the lack of support for a guaranteed individual right, what exactly do you feel is being infringed? If there really is a possibility of compromise, then why is even the tiniest hint of the possibility of a suggestion of perhaps trying to implement a sensible background-check and registration system guaranteed to stir up such disgusting rhetoric from the allegedly "reasonable" people who oppose it? It's gone far beyond just basic hyperbole like claiming that any regulation actually consists of outlawing and confiscating all guns from all people (though that's still a popular one), and well off the deep end into suggesting that the murders of children have been faked by paid actor "parents" in order to give support to the gun-confiscating plan.
Again: it's very very clear what the proposal from those folks is, and it's all-or-nothing with no compromise possible.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F. 3d 370 (U.S. 2008) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html, the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with militia service. In particular, the District of Columbia's law banning possession of usable handguns in the home for self-defense violated the Constitution.
In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 567 F. 3d 856 (U.S. 2010) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZO.html, the court held that the right of self-defense in the Second Amendment is a fundamental right and its guarantees are applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Legislation similar to that in Heller was struck down as unconstitutional.
I encourage you to read both opinions (and the dissents), even if they are laden with constitutional legalese and references to language from hundred-year-old opinions. You can argue all you want about your own opinions, but the opinions of the Supreme Court are the law of the land and are binding on every other court in the United States.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F. 3d 370 (U.S. 2008) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html, the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with militia service. In particular, the District of Columbia's law banning possession of usable handguns in the home for self-defense violated the Constitution.
In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 567 F. 3d 856 (U.S. 2010) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZO.html, the court held that the right of self-defense in the Second Amendment is a fundamental right and its guarantees are applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Legislation similar to that in Heller was struck down as unconstitutional.
I encourage you to read both opinions (and the dissents), even if they are laden with constitutional legalese and references to language from hundred-year-old opinions. You can argue all you want about your own opinions, but the opinions of the Supreme Court are the law of the land and are binding on every other court in the United States.
You presume I must agree with your selective interpretation of historical writings as viewed by you through your own personal filter, because for you, your interpretation is the only logical conclusion. Since that is so firmly settled in your mind I see no use in further arguing that point.
The problem is that you keep talking about compromise and an all-or-nothing attitude, but ignore the fact that gun owners have bent over backwards over the past century and you offer nothing but more limitations. How, exactly, is that compromise? Imagine this conversation:
As far as "sensible background checks" go, they already exist. You already cannot own a firearm if you fit a fairly broad list of disqualifiers, and attempting to buy a weapon at a licensed dealership and undergoing the already compulsory (if inaccurate and problematic) check will result in your wasting $20 and going home empty-handed. The "sensible" most people seem to be attempting to espouse today is reaching into private activities. If my father wishes to give me a gun that has been inherited over 3 generations, why must we go to the gun shop and pay them $20 to tell him he can? Why would I agree to risk a felony charge by loaning my brother a rifle for his two-week hunting trip without a $20 visit to the gun store?
"But the gun show loophole" you might say - if a licensed dealer sells an individual a firearm without undertaking the proper background check, they should lose their license. That's my opinion. If a private citizen sells another private citizen a firearm without undergoing a background check, nothing has changed or will change that. All you're doing is putting already extraordinarily lawful citizens in yet greater jeopardy of committing a felony.
Other than our fundamental disagreement about the Second Amendment, I perceive a core issue here: gun control advocates fail to take criminals into account. Criminals don't buy guns at gun shops that run background checks, they don't register them (ask California and Chicago), and they illegally modify guns (removing serials and shortening weapons). No proposed measures (even complete disarmament) would put even a dent in that, and criminally-owned guns are disproportionately represented in firearm crime.
So what, exactly, do you propose registration and further background checks would solve, and what assurance can you offer that civilian disarmament is not the end goal of all involved?
The problem is that you keep talking about compromise and an all-or-nothing attitude, but ignore the fact that gun owners have bent over backwards over the past century and you offer nothing but more limitations. How, exactly, is that compromise? Imagine this conversation:
Lion: I want to eat you
Gnu: No
Lion: Fine, let me bite you
Gnu: No
Lion: Be reasonable, compromise with me here - let me nibble one of your legs, you have four.
Gnu: You've already eaten my cousin and sister, and I like all four of my legs just the way they are, thank you.
Lion: Being alive provides no guarantee whatsoever of a right to four legs. Your four legs make me feel unsafe, you could kick me. I insist you let me have one.
Gnu: No, I'm just fine the way I am.
Lion: You just have an all-or-nothing attitude, all I'm trying to do is be sensible here. I need to eat so I can hunt you next week.
...
As far as "sensible background checks" go, they already exist. You already cannot own a firearm if you fit a fairly broad list of disqualifiers, and attempting to buy a weapon at a licensed dealership and undergoing the already compulsory (if inaccurate and problematic) check will result in your wasting $20 and going home empty-handed. The "sensible" most people seem to be attempting to espouse today is reaching into private activities. If my father wishes to give me a gun that has been inherited over 3 generations, why must we go to the gun shop and pay them $20 to tell him he can? Why would I agree to risk a felony charge by loaning my brother a rifle for his two-week hunting trip without a $20 visit to the gun store?
"But the gun show loophole" you might say - if a licensed dealer sells an individual a firearm without undertaking the proper background check, they should lose their license. That's my opinion. If a private citizen sells another private citizen a firearm without undergoing a background check, nothing has changed or will change that. All you're doing is putting already extraordinarily lawful citizens in yet greater jeopardy of committing a felony.
Other than our fundamental disagreement about the Second Amendment, I perceive a core issue here: gun control advocates fail to take criminals into account. Criminals don't buy guns at gun shops that run background checks, they don't register them (ask California and Chicago), and they illegally modify guns (removing serials and shortening weapons). No proposed measures (even complete disarmament) would put even a dent in that, and criminally-owned guns are disproportionately represented in firearm crime.
So what, exactly, do you propose registration and further background checks would solve, and what assurance can you offer that civilian disarmament is not the end goal of all involved?
>and make no mistake: they are pushing a modern invention, not a historical understanding
Depends on who is writing the "historical understanding". Are we talking about the courts, or the people who actually ratified the constitution?
Depends on who is writing the "historical understanding". Are we talking about the courts, or the people who actually ratified the constitution?
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.
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.
>You don't seem interested in reasonable compromises...
That's something of a no true Scotsman argument, where any compromise offered by the other side can be rejected as unreasonable.
Besides, why should we be expected to compromise on our civil rights? What other civil right could acceptably be demolished over time?
That's something of a no true Scotsman argument, where any compromise offered by the other side can be rejected as unreasonable.
Besides, why should we be expected to compromise on our civil rights? What other civil right could acceptably be demolished over time?
Hello? That's a laundry list of possible items. Pick one, and then we can start talking about your "reasonable compromise". As noted previously, up to now all we've done is give things away in these so called compromises.
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_...
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.
LGBT lobby? And what this lobby political agenda would be? Promoting skinny jeans?
(I consider myself to be a right-winger, as I am certainly pro-gun and pro-business, and straight as a rail, but I never heard about LGBT lobby concept, except in jokes about fashion. LGBT guys and gals are fun.)
(I consider myself to be a right-winger, as I am certainly pro-gun and pro-business, and straight as a rail, but I never heard about LGBT lobby concept, except in jokes about fashion. LGBT guys and gals are fun.)
Try https://www.google.com/#q=target+transgender for example.
I have never, once, heard anyone utter "LGBT lobby".
Saying that 2nd amendment supporters want politicians who threaten their rights is like saying heavy eaters are in favor of natural disasters because they justify buying a lot of extra food.
Banning private sales means that I have go to into a gun shop to transfer a gun to a friend. That implies:
- Buying new now no longer has additional hassle compared to buying used, since the difficulty of the latter has been increased.
- Two people are now forced to go into a gun shop where they wouldn't have before. They might browse for accessories or maybe a new piece.
This is rather similar to the software industry's attacks on the ability to resell. If the NRA was just a lobby for gun businesses, why would they not support private sales bans? They should want this kind of captive audience.
- Buying new now no longer has additional hassle compared to buying used, since the difficulty of the latter has been increased.
- Two people are now forced to go into a gun shop where they wouldn't have before. They might browse for accessories or maybe a new piece.
This is rather similar to the software industry's attacks on the ability to resell. If the NRA was just a lobby for gun businesses, why would they not support private sales bans? They should want this kind of captive audience.
And the government can shut down all sales nation wide by shutting down the NICS. Which they do upon occasion because it's a computer system, and it's not always able to handle the load.
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.
> NRA actually represents the business interests of people who manufacture and sell firearms
But this is in no way mutually exclusive from representing the interests of citizens who want to buy and possess those firearms.
It makes total sense that an organization lobbying against outlawing a product would be supported by both the manufacturers and consumers of that product.
But this is in no way mutually exclusive from representing the interests of citizens who want to buy and possess those firearms.
It makes total sense that an organization lobbying against outlawing a product would be supported by both the manufacturers and consumers of that product.
> the NRA actually represents the business interests of people who manufacture and sell firearms
NRA member here.
I neither manufacture nor sell firearms, and the NRA represents my interests re: gun ownership.
NRA member here.
I neither manufacture nor sell firearms, and the NRA represents my interests re: gun ownership.
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.
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.
They don't oppose background checks.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nra-supported-backgrou...
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nra-supported-backgrou...
It says they do on the NRA-ILA website. https://www.nraila.org/issues/background-checksnics/
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).
The NRA regularly opposes such expansions (for instance they oppose closing the so called gun show loophole).
The idea that mental health information should be a part of background checks is a pretty tough row to hoe. With crimes at least there's an ostensibly fair trial that determines the guilt or innocence of the person; with mental health there may or may not be any kind of trial but the resulting embargo on your gun rights will be just as real.
Further that would incentivize people who might be struggling with mental illness NOT to seek help, lest they forever find themselves unable to own a gun. Is that what we want? Discouraging people from seeking help?
Finally, there's absolutely NO incentive for the people actually executing the background check system to "be reasonable" such that if you had a nervous breakdown in college at 20 years old from trying to take 21 credits so you could graduate before your scholarship ran out (as a totally contrived example) should that really prevent 40 year old you from owning a shotgun to shoot clays? I might argue "no" but the bureaucracy has NO incentive to allow it and EVERY incentive not to allow it. There are no real repercussions for taking someone's rights in a nebulous and opaque manner but large repercussions if anyone, anywhere ever who has any kind of mental health history ever gets a gun and uses it murderously.
Further that would incentivize people who might be struggling with mental illness NOT to seek help, lest they forever find themselves unable to own a gun. Is that what we want? Discouraging people from seeking help?
Finally, there's absolutely NO incentive for the people actually executing the background check system to "be reasonable" such that if you had a nervous breakdown in college at 20 years old from trying to take 21 credits so you could graduate before your scholarship ran out (as a totally contrived example) should that really prevent 40 year old you from owning a shotgun to shoot clays? I might argue "no" but the bureaucracy has NO incentive to allow it and EVERY incentive not to allow it. There are no real repercussions for taking someone's rights in a nebulous and opaque manner but large repercussions if anyone, anywhere ever who has any kind of mental health history ever gets a gun and uses it murderously.
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 hasn't forwarded his involuntary treatment order to the NICS due to their confusion and/or sloth.
Or take the Colorado theater shooter, he so alarmed his university psychiatrist that she reported him to its threat board, which she was also a member of. But he soon withdrew, and they washed their hands of any further responsibility WRT to him.
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 hasn't forwarded his involuntary treatment order to the NICS due to their confusion and/or sloth.
Or take the Colorado theater shooter, he so alarmed his university psychiatrist that she reported him to its threat board, which she was also a member of. But he soon withdrew, and they washed their hands of any further responsibility WRT to him.
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.
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.
I don't think so. They've opposed any background check legislation proposed before, and that bill seems more like it is about "augmenting" "background checks" rather than actually augmenting background checks in a useful manner.
Sometimes they do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njBvpxhsa_Y&feature=youtu.be...
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 left in hands of experts, they say.
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 left in hands of experts, they say.
> 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 left in hands of experts, they say.
That sums up my position nicely. I would not trust myself with either of these things.
That sums up my position nicely. I would not trust myself with either of these things.
Well, that's your self-confidence problem. It's not my problem, so don't try to impose it upon me.
Are you willing to trust other people like myself with them?
> 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.
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.
Speeding is not rejection of the opinion of experts.
Speed limits are normally set low to appease the locals, who get to vote and who care most about one particular place, rather than those passing through.
It's a NIMBY problem. Most of us want to go places quickly, but don't want fast/dense traffic through our own neighborhood.
We also don't get bothered when the local cops earn a living from ticketing people from out of town. Those out-of-town people of course don't get a say in local policy, just as we don't get a say in the fact that we get ticketed in the other towns.
Speed limits are normally set low to appease the locals, who get to vote and who care most about one particular place, rather than those passing through.
It's a NIMBY problem. Most of us want to go places quickly, but don't want fast/dense traffic through our own neighborhood.
We also don't get bothered when the local cops earn a living from ticketing people from out of town. Those out-of-town people of course don't get a say in local policy, just as we don't get a say in the fact that we get ticketed in the other towns.
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.)
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.)
These threads are always so weird to me - from a country where I have never known someone who owns a gun or ever seen one outside of police carrying them.
Growing up, I can't think of anyone I knew that didn't have guns, or who professed to believe they should be restricted further.
Interesting to me how many people feel so strongly about a topic, often to such a degree that they openly void having an understanding of views counter to their own and unable to express the reasoning behind their own beliefs in any meaningful way.
To me, this is the real issue, not that there's a topic people disagree on.
_______
Re: SmartGuns — People kill people, and if someone wants to harm someone, they will. To me, a more natural solution would be to have areas, much like schools, that're gun free, and others that are not. Clearly this won't fit the issues, but it might end the debates.
To me, this is the real issue, not that there's a topic people disagree on.
_______
Re: SmartGuns — People kill people, and if someone wants to harm someone, they will. To me, a more natural solution would be to have areas, much like schools, that're gun free, and others that are not. Clearly this won't fit the issues, but it might end the debates.
...somewhere a tiny yellow light blinks at 20 bpm in a the NRA chapter tasked with online argument response, and three pagers subsequently buzz...
[deleted]
DC v. Heller means nothing will come from any of this.
Not clear. Prior to Scalia's death, on the ground if you don't count Illinois, which was not appealed to the Supremes, and California and Hawaii, where it looks like the appeals court will overturn the current shall issue decision en banc, on the ground there's been no changes, because the Supremes have denied cert to every case appealed to them aside from the Massachusetts stun gun case just decided.
The bottom line is that Heller and McDonald mean we have a right to keep some types of arms, and bear them inside our homes, nothing more. And surely you've noticed how replacing Scalia is claimed by gun-grabbers as a necessary step towards reversing, de facto or de jure, both of those decisions, e.g. http://thehill.com/regulation/277248-chelsea-clinton-scotus-...
The bottom line is that Heller and McDonald mean we have a right to keep some types of arms, and bear them inside our homes, nothing more. And surely you've noticed how replacing Scalia is claimed by gun-grabbers as a necessary step towards reversing, de facto or de jure, both of those decisions, e.g. http://thehill.com/regulation/277248-chelsea-clinton-scotus-...
[deleted]
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.
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.
I think that Marx comparison is pretty wrong. Marx expected a global workers' revolution that would result in a classless society. He was an advocate of armed revolution against the bourgeoisie. As far as I can tell, anything he wrote about gun ownership was in the context of this armed revolution.
The second amendment reads, in full, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The notion of protecting a state lead by a capitalist, slave owning class (think about what "people" means in this context) is completely contradictory to Marx.
The second amendment reads, in full, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The notion of protecting a state lead by a capitalist, slave owning class (think about what "people" means in this context) is completely contradictory to Marx.
Marxists have enslaved far more people that were ever enslaved by the "capitalist, slave-owning class" in the early United States.
Reasons against smart guns - smart appliances don't work well, never have, never will. I prefer things simple, mechanical and working instead of praying that some Dilbert style company developed an usable software.
I live in a country that has very restrictive gun ownership regime - and yet every person knows instinctively about the gun safety rules:
1. Always assume loaded, unless proven otherwise 2. Don't point it at something you don't want to kill.
I am sure that people will appreciate when their gun starts firmware update or resets during a boar charging at you situation.
I live in a country that has very restrictive gun ownership regime - and yet every person knows instinctively about the gun safety rules:
1. Always assume loaded, unless proven otherwise 2. Don't point it at something you don't want to kill.
I am sure that people will appreciate when their gun starts firmware update or resets during a boar charging at you situation.
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.
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.
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 fact I find pistol grips and vertical foregrips plenty ergonomic for aimed fire, especially because I have a bit of carpal tunnel going on and cocking my wrist is somewhat painful. That's why every olympic target rifle (eg the Anschutz) uses some version of a vertical grip.
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 fact I find pistol grips and vertical foregrips plenty ergonomic for aimed fire, especially because I have a bit of carpal tunnel going on and cocking my wrist is somewhat painful. That's why every olympic target rifle (eg the Anschutz) uses some version of a vertical grip.
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.
How does a barrel shroud make shooting easier?
All it does is keep you from burning your hands accidentally.
All it does is keep you from burning your hands accidentally.
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 1.5M subscribers explaining how he'd protect himself answering the door in the middle of the night with a completely impractical close range weapon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiWhFTfUCg&t=3m33s
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 1.5M subscribers explaining how he'd protect himself answering the door in the middle of the night with a completely impractical close range weapon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiWhFTfUCg&t=3m33s
Those youtubers are just jerking off. A .50 caliber rifle is just a big expensive dangerous toy. No one is going to commit a shooting spree with one. It's not practical. Regulating them only impacts people who like loud bangs and will never hurt anyone.
My congresscritter a while back put out a statement supporting the 50 BMG ban in California, because she wanted "these dangerous weapons off our streets." I emailed her, asking how many of these weapons, exactly, she'd happened to find on our streets! I figure, they're so rare and expensive, if I could walk outside and trip over one, I might as well go out and pick one up that'd been left in the nearby hedges! She didn't respond. :-(
Tangent: It made me wonder what the longest distance criminal shot in American history is. Anybody got any ideas?
Tangent: It made me wonder what the longest distance criminal shot in American history is. Anybody got any ideas?
Do you mean "criminal shot by police/civilians", or shooting-by-criminals?
Pure negligent shootings which happen to damage property or injure/kill people happen at range all the time, and the shooter is by definition a criminal. Celebratory fire, particularly at a 30-45 degree angle, is going to have serious range, even if inaccurate, and is guaranteed to hit something.
Most of the fear of .50 was anti-armor, not so much pure range.
The "DC Beltway sniper" fucktards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks) were under 200m shots, but that's still solidly rifle distance.
Famously, Charles Whitman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman) had many shots resulting in injury or murder at 400-500m. He was firing from a tower, and high angle shooting rewards flat trajectory even more than the distance itself would indicate.
JFK was 81m, also well outside handgun range. I suspect there are a reasonably large number of 50-200m range shootings with rifles (there are very few shootings with rifles overall, but when they do happen); that's easily house-to-driveway-end in a lot of places.
Pure negligent shootings which happen to damage property or injure/kill people happen at range all the time, and the shooter is by definition a criminal. Celebratory fire, particularly at a 30-45 degree angle, is going to have serious range, even if inaccurate, and is guaranteed to hit something.
Most of the fear of .50 was anti-armor, not so much pure range.
The "DC Beltway sniper" fucktards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks) were under 200m shots, but that's still solidly rifle distance.
Famously, Charles Whitman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman) had many shots resulting in injury or murder at 400-500m. He was firing from a tower, and high angle shooting rewards flat trajectory even more than the distance itself would indicate.
JFK was 81m, also well outside handgun range. I suspect there are a reasonably large number of 50-200m range shootings with rifles (there are very few shootings with rifles overall, but when they do happen); that's easily house-to-driveway-end in a lot of places.
That's the point, that same impractical rational gets applied everywhere. Even in cases where people get hurt.
"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 serious competitions is a thing. Your basic medium-big game hunting round is capable of, say, 800-1000 yard use, .338 Lapua Magnum gets you at least half again that distance, beyond that you need something like .50 BMG.
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 serious competitions is a thing. Your basic medium-big game hunting round is capable of, say, 800-1000 yard use, .338 Lapua Magnum gets you at least half again that distance, beyond that you need something like .50 BMG.
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.)
(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.)
(And if I had a place to shoot it, I'd like have a TRG-42 as well.)
For pure sporting use, if I had an 800-1000yd range less than 2.5h away from me (sigh), I'd probably build/buy a Palma rifle in .308, at least as long as my eyesight supported it.
What not neck that down to 6.5 mm, which I've heard works a lot better at those distances.
Ah, and, yeah, the eyesight is also getting to be an issue for me, I should be in bifocals but am putting that off as long as I can get away with it (I don't drive).
Ah, and, yeah, the eyesight is also getting to be an issue for me, I should be in bifocals but am putting that off as long as I can get away with it (I don't drive).
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 impractical?
Because a rifle isn't practical for close targets. A handgun is much better suited for that.
I could refer you to an endless list of professional doorkickers who would strongly disagree. At most the lead man in an entry team would have a pistol solely because it is impossible to hold a ballistic shield and aim a rifle at the same time; but every other man in the stack would have a carbine or shotgun.
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.)
(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.)
A rifle, particularly a short carbine like a Sub 2000, is eminently practical for close range. They're faster to aim accurately and are more likely to incapacitate a target with the first shot.
The only exception is perhaps at ranges of < 1m where you're grappling with an assailant, in which case a snub-nosed revolver is probably the ideal choice. But that's not really a typical scenario, and I'd wager sight lines in your home are generally > 1m.
Consider that soldiers use carbines, or occasionally shotguns, when clearing rooms, not handguns.
The only exception is perhaps at ranges of < 1m where you're grappling with an assailant, in which case a snub-nosed revolver is probably the ideal choice. But that's not really a typical scenario, and I'd wager sight lines in your home are generally > 1m.
Consider that soldiers use carbines, or occasionally shotguns, when clearing rooms, not handguns.
The only exception is perhaps at ranges of < 1m where you're grappling with an assailant
In which case you should strongly consider transitioning to using it as a club, which has been a point in at least one (Clint Eastwood) movie. Especially since your retaining the weapon is much harder than if it was a handgun (see my comment elsewhere about my demonstrating this to a nephew).
In which case you should strongly consider transitioning to using it as a club, which has been a point in at least one (Clint Eastwood) movie. Especially since your retaining the weapon is much harder than if it was a handgun (see my comment elsewhere about my demonstrating this to a nephew).
"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.
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).
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).
I know from personal experience that an AR style rifle is completely practical for close range combat.
That's very debatable.
Under stress, people are much more accurate with long guns.
On the other hand, they have terrible weapons retention properties, as I've e.g. demonstrated to my taller and fitter nephew about the time he graduated from high school, quickly ripping my shotgun out of his grasp by gaining a longer lever arm by grasping it outside his grasp. And without injuring him, but an adversary wouldn't be as gentle, especially after gaining the weapon.
This is what the all too common recommendation of a shotgun for home defense hinges on. And in more than a few states that highly restrict handgun ownership, a shotgun is much more practical, which is what I did when I lived in Massachusetts, the first gun I ever purchased.
Under stress, people are much more accurate with long guns.
On the other hand, they have terrible weapons retention properties, as I've e.g. demonstrated to my taller and fitter nephew about the time he graduated from high school, quickly ripping my shotgun out of his grasp by gaining a longer lever arm by grasping it outside his grasp. And without injuring him, but an adversary wouldn't be as gentle, especially after gaining the weapon.
This is what the all too common recommendation of a shotgun for home defense hinges on. And in more than a few states that highly restrict handgun ownership, a shotgun is much more practical, which is what I did when I lived in Massachusetts, the first gun I ever purchased.
It's seriously fun to shoot at a target a mile away and hit it with one of this rifles. The people that I know who own these types of guns also own many, many other guns. The .50 cal is more like a sports car, it's really fun to shoot, very expensive to own, etc.
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 such a disaster. The attacker used some strange system called Ubuntu which most computer users have little or no reason to have, so that was specifically outlawed in the state (while any other Linux distro is fine). They had a quad-core CPU, 16 gigs of RAM, and a USB 2.0 keyboard for "faster hacking"; the bill mandated a limit of 9 gigs, 2 cores, and PS/2 connectors only. The attacker also used something called the "TCP protocol" (misnomer intended); the bill also mandated that the protocol include a 4th and 5th step transmitting "I am not a hacker" and acknowledging "You will be prosecuted with a felony under California SB1137 for improper use of this TCP protocol".
The bill passes and no more hacks occur. Other states don't want to be seen as soft on crime, so they draft copycat bills and randomly ban openSUSE, Gentoo, and trackballs with more than 6 buttons. Within a few years computer enthusiast sites pop up detailing which states are safe to travel to with your laptop. 1 gig RAM chips get unexpectedly expensive as everyone wants to get up to that 9 gig limit in restricted states. California legislators visit university computer labs disapprovingly and talk about closing the "Linux loophole". Activist groups lobby Congress, maintaining that the Founding Fathers never could have conceived of computers as an evolution of the printing press and therefore the 1st Amendment did not apply to electronic devices or communications. Programmers everywhere grumble about coding for two different communication protocols depending on whether or not your users are in California (but it's such a big market you can't ignore it). Your mother wonders why you can't just get your work done on an 8 year old laptop running Windows 7, it's good enough for her web browsing!
The contractor maintaining the power plant control system again leaves the web admin panel open and unsecured after testing from home and forgetting to unflip a poorly labeled feature flag on the production server.