Hacker News Reader

Comment by vaadu | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

"...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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I haven't tried obtaining a CCW in Chicago because the idea of wandering around Chicago carrying a gun seems totally ridiculous to me.

What a strange response to his post. Did some portion of your post get deleted/omitted?

Can you elaborate on why "Democrat's policies in gun-free cities" has led to "people problems?"

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?"

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com