9 ms·

This is pretty fucked up. The author conveniently ignores the fact that sniper mass killings have already happened (e.g. the Washington sniper). The reason we d

by hristov 14y ago

This is pretty fucked up. The author conveniently ignores the fact that sniper mass killings have already happened (e.g. the Washington sniper). The reason we do not get more sniper mass killings is that it takes a lot of skill to hit a target at a very long range with a sniper rifle. This rifle of course removes the skill element and allows for shooting at an extremely long range.

bmelton 14y ago
I have to apologize because I knee-jerk downvoted you because frankly, your position disagrees with my own. Had I waited half a second longer, I wouldn't have, because I don't believe that disagreement is a valid reason for downvoting, but my instinct took over apparently and got away from me. I'd reverse it if I could, though I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to prevent development of new technology. Also, since I'm bothering to respond, I'll try to at least make it informative and relatable, and I think that this article is relevant: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/overreaction_an.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/overreaction_a...
- abraininavat 14y ago
  Kudos for the apology. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to prevent development of new technology It's a bit of a stretch to call this new technology. Aside from some clever trickery to get around remote firing laws, this is just a (maybe) novel assemblage of standard technology. The argument is obviously about its legality and its availability to consumers. Given that, surely you can't stand by your statement if it's modified as follows: I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to make something illegal That statement's so clearly wrong to any reasonable person that it's simply not defendable.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    I think you're not giving nearly enough credit to an automated, laser-guided range-finding and compensation device. I agree that it isn't nuclear fusion, or in any way related to the Higgs Boson, but that doesn't make this in any way less noteworthy. Regarding ATF guidelines on remote firing, the wording of their rules seem geared towards actual remote firing, not aided or delayed firing, as this is. The difference is, I think, as large as the difference between a Google automated vehicle and a car with by-wire steering (or perhaps a better example is a drone to a traditional aircraft). In cars with by-wire technology, I still have to steer, brake, accelerate, etc., but there are technologies in place that mean I am still physically driving it. There are assistive mechanisms in place that help me brake faster, or alert me when I'm crossing lanes and what have you, but I'm still driving, and presumably, still free to wreck the car, at least in most cars. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to make something illegal That statement's so clearly wrong to any reasonable person that it's simply not defendable. Why? Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things? Cars? Airplanes? Ice Picks? By your argument, how are those things legal? Are you honestly suggesting that everything with dangerous potential should be legislated out of existence? Isn't that exactly what the DMCA and other digital legislation has tried to do with crypto?
    - wwweston 14y ago
      > Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things? I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but which do you really think is more likely: * he's arguing that "potential for misuse" may well be a legitimate reason for regulating some things (inside a larger cost-benefit analysis about danger vs beneficial use, both observed and potential), perhaps up to and including banning * he's arguing that every single potentially dangerous thing should be banned (and also, believes in a flat equivalence between melee weapons, firearms, and motor vehicles) > Should we not ban all those things? Cars? Airplanes? Probably not ban outright. We do seem to have made some progress in automobile and air travel safety by enacting/tweaking requirements for manufacture, registration and insurance for ownership, training and licensing for operating various classes of vehicle, and regulations regarding operation.
      - bmelton 14y ago
        Airplanes and automobiles are not fundamental rights enumerated by the Constitution. The president has balked at the notion of requiring licensure (or even having to present a license) to exercise the right to vote because it is sacrosanct in the bill of rights. So what is difference between the first amendment and the second? While I obviously understand the difference in utility between a gun, an airplane and a hammer, the gun is only lacking utility to people that do not believe in the value of a right to prevent against tyranny. Neither a hammer or a car is particularly effective in that regard, though our fundamental rights are more specifically geared for that objective, however ugly some might find them.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    It should not be assumed, for things that have valid, legal uses, that illegal uses will be the de facto use. That kind of thinking is a side-effect of the fear-driven society we are currently living in. Knee-jerk reactions are almost always wrong. Yes, this could make it easier to shoot a person (it makes it easier to shoot anything); but there is no evidence that it will make it more likely that a person will be shot. Even if this was used to facilitate a murder (unlikely, given the cost and the background checks for gun ownership), you have to prove that the murder would not have been committed if this technology didn't exist. I think that would be difficult to prove.
rsync 14y ago
How much skill did the tokyo subway sarin gassings take ? Lots of dexterity involved ? Nerves of steel ? A rock-steady hand ? Exactly. Thanks for playing.
- cheald 14y ago
  Your point is made, but the snark isn't necessary or welcome.
- abraininavat 14y ago
  The production and ownership of sarin gas is illegal. So you seem to be agreeing with the parent that things that are easy to kill with and that have (arguably) little other use should be illegal. If you're not agreeing with the parent, care to explain your point a little more articulately, and without the smug and childish "Thanks for playing"?
  - bmelton 14y ago
    While I agree that rsync came off as a might obnoxious, I feel it's important that I point out murder is also illegal. I honestly don't understand what point you're making, unless it is to say that because sarin gas is illegal, this gun ought to be too?
    - abraininavat 14y ago
      The argument at hand is obviously whether a particular thing should be illegal because it is deadly. rsync brought up sarin in some inexplicable attempt at getting the better of hristov. I pointed out that sarin gas is illegal specifically because it is deadly. If sarin has any bearing on the argument, it seems to back hristov's (unstated but obvious) point that this rifle should be illegal. So I asked rsync to clarify. I never implied this gun ought to be illegal, or made any statement about it one way or another.
      - bmelton 14y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. His snark aside, neither bleach nor ammonia are illegal, and require approximately zero skill to combine and deploy in confined spaces. Actually, I'll just shut up and let rsync respond if he chooses. I get a little excitable when things like this come up on HN because I love hearing the discussion of pragmatists (which I believe comprises much of HN) on the subject.
nettdata 14y ago
Funny, the first thing I thought of was long-distance target shooting or hunting, not mass killings. The fact that you immediately go to the sniper mass killings angle is what I find to be pretty fucked up.
- wavesounds 14y ago
  Long distance target shooting? It has a computer that helps you aim. Where's the fun in that?
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Long distance target shooting? The bullet kills the animal for you. Where's the fun in that?
    - wavesounds 14y ago
      I get hunting, I don't get "target" shooting, just play a video game and save the $17k - or am I missing something?
      - ghshephard 14y ago
        Hunting is 99% spending time getting into a position to take a shot, and then dressing your kill (and, for larger animals, getting all that meat out of the woods) and less than 1% aiming and pulling the trigger. This weapon increases the chances of you accurately targeting the vitals on an animal at ranges from 100 to 200+ yards, which a lot of hunters would probably be nervous about trying to shoot at. Ideally, this weapon would reduce the number of animal injuries, and increase the number of immediate kills. [edit: Ah, I just re-read your comment - you are actually saying you understand the use of this weapon while hunting, but don't understand the purpose of target shooting with it. Perhaps to prepare for hunting?]
      - bmelton 14y ago
        Except when there are really[1] fun[2] targets[3], I generally get bored too. I do love sporting clay, which is similar to trap and skeet, except you walk from one station to the next, and the patterns are different at each station. [1] - http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets-that-make-the-range-more-fun/?pid=495#image http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets... [2] - http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets-that-make-the-range-more-fun/?pid=500#image http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets... [3] - http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1314484 http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1314484
rdl 14y ago
The reason we don't get more mass killings is that most people aren't homicidally insane. Those that are seem to fall into either impulsive or relatively able to prepare. Those able to prepare would be more than capable of becoming decent rifle shots already. Decent is Whitman/Texas Tower level, not Carlos Hathcock level. That people don't do this now probably means it's somehow unappealing to most homicidal maniacs to go shoot people at "extreme" (100m) range with a rifle, rather than doing it up close. So this is probably not a huge risk. If it makes the short-term killing spree guy more effective, then it's a problem, but I still don't see a short term killing spree person using something like this vs. a more up-close weapon where he gets to exert his power over people in immediate vicinity and dominate/kill them. Just pulling the trigger on people at range through a scope doesn't seem psychologically rewarding to most killers. It would be appealing for terrorists, or maybe other brands of crazy, but not for your average spree killer. The Washington sniper was really amazingly unprecedented in the US, and hasn't been copied, and really was more terrorism than anything else I think.
- phreanix 14y ago
  Thanks for this, I think you've articulated it much better than I could have. The Knee jerk reaction would be to see the 'evil' aspect of such a precision machine, but then again who would have thought of 747's as a WMD? I frankly see no practical purpose for such a rifle. I'm surprised they've almost sold out, but with collectors and people who just have to have something for the sake or it, maybe I shouldn't be.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    If shooting things were a chore to me (shooting wild pigs perhaps? A legitimate issue from what I've heard.) then this sort of thing might be appealing. If it were a hobby, then I think I'm with you.
  - chrsstrm 14y ago
    With a $17,000+ price tag the person who can afford it will more than likely not have a practical use for it, but rather think of it as another "toy" in their collection. What may be the real test of how practical they are will be their availability in the secondary market in 1-2 years after the cost of ownership vs need/use is measured.
malandrew 14y ago
Fucked up or not. Who cares. It's a statistically challenged worry. You're more likely to die in a car accident. If you want to get all bent out of shape about something, get bent out of shape about humans operating motor vehicles in cities that prioritize motor vehicles over pedestrians.
- ansgri 14y ago
  His position simply means that for him (as for many others) the terrorists have won (with the help of psychopatic mass murderers): they're statistically negligible yet much more money and attention is spent on dealing with them than with car accidents and similar real threats.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    Not to mention swimming pools, bathtubs, and lakes: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm "....Results indicated that each year an average of 3,880 persons were victims of fatal drowning."
alexgartrell 14y ago
Technology doesn't go away. In 10 years, you'll be able to build this rifle with a 3d printer, an arduino kit, and plans from the internet. However you feel about gun control, you've got to acknowledge that strict gun control will be unrealistic short of ridiculous, draconian measures.
- venomsnake 14y ago
  Make them 3 not 10. Both yes and no ... depending on how we frame the control. Guns should be limited by the kinetic energy they are able to eject both per shot and per minute. No matter if the gun is home made or purchased.
Too 14y ago
Did you read until page 3? He actually brings up the Washington sniper incident, although it's phrased as the opinion of another authors article.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
How much skill is required to ram a car into a crowd of people? Why doesn't that happen all the time?
sbank 14y ago
> The reason we do not get more sniper mass killings is that it takes a lot of skill to hit a target at a very long range with a sniper rifle. That is the reason, you think, and not that most people in the world are relatively decent and not psychopath monsters?
quasque 14y ago
Yes. As someone from the UK, I find the brutish eagerness Americans tend to have about their guns to be pretty fucked up anyway, so this is just another level on top of that. No doubt someone will trot out the old discredited "protecting our freedoms" argument, that somehow seems to apply both to personal gun ownership and invading foreign nations.

by hristov 14y ago

bmelton 14y ago

I have to apologize because I knee-jerk downvoted you because frankly, your position disagrees with my own. Had I waited half a second longer, I wouldn't have, because I don't believe that disagreement is a valid reason for downvoting, but my instinct took over apparently and got away from me. I'd reverse it if I could, though I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to prevent development of new technology. Also, since I'm bothering to respond, I'll try to at least make it informative and relatable, and I think that this article is relevant: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/overreaction_an.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/overreaction_a...

abraininavat 14y ago
Kudos for the apology. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to prevent development of new technology It's a bit of a stretch to call this new technology. Aside from some clever trickery to get around remote firing laws, this is just a (maybe) novel assemblage of standard technology. The argument is obviously about its legality and its availability to consumers. Given that, surely you can't stand by your statement if it's modified as follows: I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to make something illegal That statement's so clearly wrong to any reasonable person that it's simply not defendable.
- bmelton 14y ago
  I think you're not giving nearly enough credit to an automated, laser-guided range-finding and compensation device. I agree that it isn't nuclear fusion, or in any way related to the Higgs Boson, but that doesn't make this in any way less noteworthy. Regarding ATF guidelines on remote firing, the wording of their rules seem geared towards actual remote firing, not aided or delayed firing, as this is. The difference is, I think, as large as the difference between a Google automated vehicle and a car with by-wire steering (or perhaps a better example is a drone to a traditional aircraft). In cars with by-wire technology, I still have to steer, brake, accelerate, etc., but there are technologies in place that mean I am still physically driving it. There are assistive mechanisms in place that help me brake faster, or alert me when I'm crossing lanes and what have you, but I'm still driving, and presumably, still free to wreck the car, at least in most cars. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to make something illegal That statement's so clearly wrong to any reasonable person that it's simply not defendable. Why? Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things? Cars? Airplanes? Ice Picks? By your argument, how are those things legal? Are you honestly suggesting that everything with dangerous potential should be legislated out of existence? Isn't that exactly what the DMCA and other digital legislation has tried to do with crypto?
  - wwweston 14y ago
    > Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things? I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but which do you really think is more likely: * he's arguing that "potential for misuse" may well be a legitimate reason for regulating some things (inside a larger cost-benefit analysis about danger vs beneficial use, both observed and potential), perhaps up to and including banning * he's arguing that every single potentially dangerous thing should be banned (and also, believes in a flat equivalence between melee weapons, firearms, and motor vehicles) > Should we not ban all those things? Cars? Airplanes? Probably not ban outright. We do seem to have made some progress in automobile and air travel safety by enacting/tweaking requirements for manufacture, registration and insurance for ownership, training and licensing for operating various classes of vehicle, and regulations regarding operation.
    - bmelton 14y ago
      Airplanes and automobiles are not fundamental rights enumerated by the Constitution. The president has balked at the notion of requiring licensure (or even having to present a license) to exercise the right to vote because it is sacrosanct in the bill of rights. So what is difference between the first amendment and the second? While I obviously understand the difference in utility between a gun, an airplane and a hammer, the gun is only lacking utility to people that do not believe in the value of a right to prevent against tyranny. Neither a hammer or a car is particularly effective in that regard, though our fundamental rights are more specifically geared for that objective, however ugly some might find them.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  It should not be assumed, for things that have valid, legal uses, that illegal uses will be the de facto use. That kind of thinking is a side-effect of the fear-driven society we are currently living in. Knee-jerk reactions are almost always wrong. Yes, this could make it easier to shoot a person (it makes it easier to shoot anything); but there is no evidence that it will make it more likely that a person will be shot. Even if this was used to facilitate a murder (unlikely, given the cost and the background checks for gun ownership), you have to prove that the murder would not have been committed if this technology didn't exist. I think that would be difficult to prove.

rsync 14y ago

How much skill did the tokyo subway sarin gassings take ? Lots of dexterity involved ? Nerves of steel ? A rock-steady hand ? Exactly. Thanks for playing.

cheald 14y ago
Your point is made, but the snark isn't necessary or welcome.
abraininavat 14y ago
The production and ownership of sarin gas is illegal. So you seem to be agreeing with the parent that things that are easy to kill with and that have (arguably) little other use should be illegal. If you're not agreeing with the parent, care to explain your point a little more articulately, and without the smug and childish "Thanks for playing"?
- bmelton 14y ago
  While I agree that rsync came off as a might obnoxious, I feel it's important that I point out murder is also illegal. I honestly don't understand what point you're making, unless it is to say that because sarin gas is illegal, this gun ought to be too?
  - abraininavat 14y ago
    The argument at hand is obviously whether a particular thing should be illegal because it is deadly. rsync brought up sarin in some inexplicable attempt at getting the better of hristov. I pointed out that sarin gas is illegal specifically because it is deadly. If sarin has any bearing on the argument, it seems to back hristov's (unstated but obvious) point that this rifle should be illegal. So I asked rsync to clarify. I never implied this gun ought to be illegal, or made any statement about it one way or another.
    - bmelton 14y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. His snark aside, neither bleach nor ammonia are illegal, and require approximately zero skill to combine and deploy in confined spaces. Actually, I'll just shut up and let rsync respond if he chooses. I get a little excitable when things like this come up on HN because I love hearing the discussion of pragmatists (which I believe comprises much of HN) on the subject.

nettdata 14y ago

Funny, the first thing I thought of was long-distance target shooting or hunting, not mass killings. The fact that you immediately go to the sniper mass killings angle is what I find to be pretty fucked up.

wavesounds 14y ago
Long distance target shooting? It has a computer that helps you aim. Where's the fun in that?
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Long distance target shooting? The bullet kills the animal for you. Where's the fun in that?
  - wavesounds 14y ago
    I get hunting, I don't get "target" shooting, just play a video game and save the $17k - or am I missing something?
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      Hunting is 99% spending time getting into a position to take a shot, and then dressing your kill (and, for larger animals, getting all that meat out of the woods) and less than 1% aiming and pulling the trigger. This weapon increases the chances of you accurately targeting the vitals on an animal at ranges from 100 to 200+ yards, which a lot of hunters would probably be nervous about trying to shoot at. Ideally, this weapon would reduce the number of animal injuries, and increase the number of immediate kills. [edit: Ah, I just re-read your comment - you are actually saying you understand the use of this weapon while hunting, but don't understand the purpose of target shooting with it. Perhaps to prepare for hunting?]
    - bmelton 14y ago
      Except when there are really[1] fun[2] targets[3], I generally get bored too. I do love sporting clay, which is similar to trap and skeet, except you walk from one station to the next, and the patterns are different at each station. [1] - http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets-that-make-the-range-more-fun/?pid=495#image http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets... [2] - http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets-that-make-the-range-more-fun/?pid=500#image http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets... [3] - http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1314484 http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1314484

rdl 14y ago

The reason we don't get more mass killings is that most people aren't homicidally insane. Those that are seem to fall into either impulsive or relatively able to prepare. Those able to prepare would be more than capable of becoming decent rifle shots already. Decent is Whitman/Texas Tower level, not Carlos Hathcock level. That people don't do this now probably means it's somehow unappealing to most homicidal maniacs to go shoot people at "extreme" (100m) range with a rifle, rather than doing it up close. So this is probably not a huge risk. If it makes the short-term killing spree guy more effective, then it's a problem, but I still don't see a short term killing spree person using something like this vs. a more up-close weapon where he gets to exert his power over people in immediate vicinity and dominate/kill them. Just pulling the trigger on people at range through a scope doesn't seem psychologically rewarding to most killers. It would be appealing for terrorists, or maybe other brands of crazy, but not for your average spree killer. The Washington sniper was really amazingly unprecedented in the US, and hasn't been copied, and really was more terrorism than anything else I think.

phreanix 14y ago
Thanks for this, I think you've articulated it much better than I could have. The Knee jerk reaction would be to see the 'evil' aspect of such a precision machine, but then again who would have thought of 747's as a WMD? I frankly see no practical purpose for such a rifle. I'm surprised they've almost sold out, but with collectors and people who just have to have something for the sake or it, maybe I shouldn't be.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  If shooting things were a chore to me (shooting wild pigs perhaps? A legitimate issue from what I've heard.) then this sort of thing might be appealing. If it were a hobby, then I think I'm with you.
- chrsstrm 14y ago
  With a $17,000+ price tag the person who can afford it will more than likely not have a practical use for it, but rather think of it as another "toy" in their collection. What may be the real test of how practical they are will be their availability in the secondary market in 1-2 years after the cost of ownership vs need/use is measured.

malandrew 14y ago

Fucked up or not. Who cares. It's a statistically challenged worry. You're more likely to die in a car accident. If you want to get all bent out of shape about something, get bent out of shape about humans operating motor vehicles in cities that prioritize motor vehicles over pedestrians.

ansgri 14y ago
His position simply means that for him (as for many others) the terrorists have won (with the help of psychopatic mass murderers): they're statistically negligible yet much more money and attention is spent on dealing with them than with car accidents and similar real threats.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  Not to mention swimming pools, bathtubs, and lakes: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm "....Results indicated that each year an average of 3,880 persons were victims of fatal drowning."

alexgartrell 14y ago

Technology doesn't go away. In 10 years, you'll be able to build this rifle with a 3d printer, an arduino kit, and plans from the internet. However you feel about gun control, you've got to acknowledge that strict gun control will be unrealistic short of ridiculous, draconian measures.

venomsnake 14y ago
Make them 3 not 10. Both yes and no ... depending on how we frame the control. Guns should be limited by the kinetic energy they are able to eject both per shot and per minute. No matter if the gun is home made or purchased.

Too 14y ago

Did you read until page 3? He actually brings up the Washington sniper incident, although it's phrased as the opinion of another authors article.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

How much skill is required to ram a car into a crowd of people? Why doesn't that happen all the time?

sbank 14y ago

> The reason we do not get more sniper mass killings is that it takes a lot of skill to hit a target at a very long range with a sniper rifle. That is the reason, you think, and not that most people in the world are relatively decent and not psychopath monsters?

quasque 14y ago

Yes. As someone from the UK, I find the brutish eagerness Americans tend to have about their guns to be pretty fucked up anyway, so this is just another level on top of that. No doubt someone will trot out the old discredited "protecting our freedoms" argument, that somehow seems to apply both to personal gun ownership and invading foreign nations.