An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
An Appalachian gunsmith’s robot army (2009)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/23/shoot
8 comments
This guy obviously knows the dictum "never point a firearm at anything unless you intend to destroy it."
Apparently writers from the New Yorker fall within that set for him.
Apparently writers from the New Yorker fall within that set for him.
Or maybe he just likes screwing with their heads, and as a fellow Southron well familiar with the oft-condescending ways of Yankees, I don't suppose I can blame him too strongly for that.
Ah, right, I always forget about the "except for people you kinda don't like" clause in the rules of firearms safety.
Sadly, that's basically the perspective of the guy in the article:
“I don’t want that on my conscience—something I
created going out and killing people all over the damn
place,” he said. “I’m not worried about what it does
over in Iraq or Afghanistan. That’s fine.”
[deleted]
On the other hand, the robot arm might have been carrying an iron rod that just looked like a gun, loaded or otherwise?
Not many days go by without a funny headline on Fark about somebody with a supposedly-unloaded gun who decided to "screw with someone's head."
This was a HUGE red flag for me too.
It seems to me that the only right way to work with robotic firearms is to keep a chamber flag in them at all times except when they're on a hot range.
It seems to me that the only right way to work with robotic firearms is to keep a chamber flag in them at all times except when they're on a hot range.
Yeah, that is a big red flag for me too. Confidence in your engineering is one thing but I think this guy's hubris might explain why he has no friends. Someone points a gun at me and I'm giving them a wide berth from then on.
Baber decided that the gun was too powerful to sell outside the military. He donated one to his local county sheriff, but turned everyone else away. “I don’t want that on my conscience—something I created going out and killing people all over the damn place,” he said. “I’m not worried about what it does over in Iraq or Afghanistan. That’s fine.”
This doesn't sound as though he has really thought this through. Either that or he has a rather nasty definition of "people".
This doesn't sound as though he has really thought this through. Either that or he has a rather nasty definition of "people".
The reading you've given that quote is rather uncharitable, if perhaps heavily implied by the article's author. It's pretty obvious that Baber means he doesn't want his weapon falling into the hands of criminals, but he has no problem selling it to the military, to be put to whatever use they might find for it.
Granted, the question remains of whether US foreign policy, inasmuch as it deploys our military, is morally or ethically acceptable to you, but that's a point on which reasonable people can differ, and Baber's opinion on that point appears to differ from yours. If, from that difference, you choose to infer that Baber doesn't consider Afghans or Iraqis "people", that is of course entirely your prerogative.
Granted, the question remains of whether US foreign policy, inasmuch as it deploys our military, is morally or ethically acceptable to you, but that's a point on which reasonable people can differ, and Baber's opinion on that point appears to differ from yours. If, from that difference, you choose to infer that Baber doesn't consider Afghans or Iraqis "people", that is of course entirely your prerogative.
I gave two different ways to read it, you chose which one you thought I favoured.
That said, he stated he didn't want to sell it to police departments, not the public, who couldn't legally buy it anyway, so I don't see how you think it is obvious that he means criminals when it says police.
"Police departments asked for AA-12s, but Baber decided that the gun was too powerful to sell outside the military."
That said, he stated he didn't want to sell it to police departments, not the public, who couldn't legally buy it anyway, so I don't see how you think it is obvious that he means criminals when it says police.
"Police departments asked for AA-12s, but Baber decided that the gun was too powerful to sell outside the military."
I submitted a third reading which strikes me as both more charitable, and almost certainly more accurate, than either of yours were.
Nor did he state what you claim he did; it's the article author, not Baber as quoted, who equates civilian police and the military -- if Baber didn't want it in the hands of civilian police, why'd he donate one to the county sheriff?
Nor did he state what you claim he did; it's the article author, not Baber as quoted, who equates civilian police and the military -- if Baber didn't want it in the hands of civilian police, why'd he donate one to the county sheriff?
I imagine his motives for giving a virtually unique gun worth $10K to the local sheriff are pretty straightforward. Keeping the local officialdom on his side... probably not sinister just good politics
For some reason I didn't expect a mad scientist with a secluded death-robot workshop to be a nice guy. I'd love to have one of his shotguns, though.
Maybe the key phrase is, "all over the damn place." Perhaps he's okay with it killing people in the context of a war zone, but not whatever any single person might decide to do with it.
I hate to be the one to inform you 99% of Americans don't actually care about the middle east.
That seems unlikely, given that 73% identify as Christian and not that many of them think Jesus was American.
> propels the shell out of a gun barrel
What?
> his own weapon: a fully automatic shotgun called the AA-12.
"Auto Assault-12 (AA-12), originally designed and known as the Atchisson Assault Shotgun, is a shotgun developed in 1972 by Maxwell Atchisson." [0]
What?
Can someone please explain to me what's going on here? Is this just my own ignorance or are these factual errors?
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun
What?
> his own weapon: a fully automatic shotgun called the AA-12.
"Auto Assault-12 (AA-12), originally designed and known as the Atchisson Assault Shotgun, is a shotgun developed in 1972 by Maxwell Atchisson." [0]
What?
Can someone please explain to me what's going on here? Is this just my own ignorance or are these factual errors?
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun
"In 1987, Max Atchisson sold the rights of the AA-12 to Jerry Baber of Military Police Systems, Inc., Piney Flats, Tennessee.[3] MPS in turn developed the successor simply known as Auto Assault-12, which was redesigned over a period of 18 years with 188 changes and improvements to the original blueprint, modifications included changing the AA-12 from blowback- to gas-operated with a locked breech." [0]
Looks like there was a bit of exaggeration going on, but not anything terribly out of line.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun
Looks like there was a bit of exaggeration going on, but not anything terribly out of line.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun
I imagine the recoil would have been ungovernable in the original blowback configuration and the reciprocating mass would have been relatively huge.
Read further in the Wikipedia article, the first sentence in the 'History' section is
> In 1987, Max Atchisson sold the rights of the AA-12 to Jerry Baber of Military Police Systems, Inc., Piney Flats, Tennessee
Quoting the New Yorker in full
>[...]he started producing, from start to finish, his own weapon: a fully automatic shotgun called the AA-12.
it is obvious that he was the first to produce a mass market ready model. The article doesn't claim that he invented it.
> In 1987, Max Atchisson sold the rights of the AA-12 to Jerry Baber of Military Police Systems, Inc., Piney Flats, Tennessee
Quoting the New Yorker in full
>[...]he started producing, from start to finish, his own weapon: a fully automatic shotgun called the AA-12.
it is obvious that he was the first to produce a mass market ready model. The article doesn't claim that he invented it.
[deleted]
The article covers that. The original design was done by Atchisson, then sold to Baber, who improved on it.
> What?
Expecting someone who writes for the New Yorker to understand how firearms work is, I think, expecting rather too much.
Expecting someone who writes for the New Yorker to understand how firearms work is, I think, expecting rather too much.
Based on sibling comments, that's also too much to expect of several HN readers. (Hint: shells don't leave by the front door.) I thought the most egregious howler was this one:
...a dainty, short-haired woman in high heels casually grips the gun and fires off eight hundred balls of .20-calibre [sic] metal in four seconds...
Although this is pretty bad, it would have been worse if the "balls" were described as 20-gauge as the author intended rather than 20-caliber which is just silly.
...a dainty, short-haired woman in high heels casually grips the gun and fires off eight hundred balls of .20-calibre [sic] metal in four seconds...
Although this is pretty bad, it would have been worse if the "balls" were described as 20-gauge as the author intended rather than 20-caliber which is just silly.
T buckshot is .20-caliber while 00 is .32-caliber.
> Armed robots, he believes, could offer crucial assistance in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; they could be employed on a street monitored by snipers or sent into a building harboring insurgents.
And you hope they don't capture the robot because they then have
> the most deadly close-range weapon ever created.
And you hope they don't capture the robot because they then have
> the most deadly close-range weapon ever created.
This kind of thing bothers me. I think it makes it easier for the US, or any other government for that matter, to drop a few dozen of these into any kind of local conflict without any debate in Congress or among the public. They are cheap and expendable, no television of troops mobilizing, no flag draped coffins flying home. The operators sit in Lazy Boys at their home bases while the eastern Ukraine (pick your battlefield) is overrun with these things.
When the army and police forces get robotic weapons, I can only imagine criminals won't be far behind.
See, this is the sort of thing that I hate reading about.
Like, yes, we have drones, and yes, we have firearms, and yes, we can add one to the other--but is it really a good idea?
The potential for abuse of such systems is absurd; I cannot believe that any engineer with a shred of morality would voluntarily work on such things without at least a solid explanation of why doing so is permissible.
Mark my words: these things will mostly be used against civilians and dissidents--not standing armies.
Like, yes, we have drones, and yes, we have firearms, and yes, we can add one to the other--but is it really a good idea?
The potential for abuse of such systems is absurd; I cannot believe that any engineer with a shred of morality would voluntarily work on such things without at least a solid explanation of why doing so is permissible.
Mark my words: these things will mostly be used against civilians and dissidents--not standing armies.
> Mark my words: these things will mostly be used against civilians and dissidents--not standing armies.
Which is why I (German) really hate our weapons law. War will come back to Europe, we are on the fringe of a fucking Cold War turning into a Hot War with the Russians in Ukraine. Not to mention the rising inequality in Europe - if it blows up one day, it will hit hard.
I'd like to be equipped and trained properly instead of being restricted to gas revolvers, stones and arrows. Or knives, which are useless as I'm a terrible close-range fighter.
Which is why I (German) really hate our weapons law. War will come back to Europe, we are on the fringe of a fucking Cold War turning into a Hot War with the Russians in Ukraine. Not to mention the rising inequality in Europe - if it blows up one day, it will hit hard.
I'd like to be equipped and trained properly instead of being restricted to gas revolvers, stones and arrows. Or knives, which are useless as I'm a terrible close-range fighter.
I really don't understand this kind of reasoning. What do you expect will a couple of lightly trained people with guns do against a huge, well-trained army with tanks, modern weapons, jets, and combat experience. If only it will make things worse because once civillians are starting to fire at will, it will be much easier for soldiers to decide to shoot at civillians, too.
I refer you to this beautiful Onion article. http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one...
I'm particularly happy with our German gun laws, and I highly doubt that war will easily come back to mainland Europe. And if Russia really decided to start a war and bomb Germany, dude, not having a gun will be the least of your problems.
I refer you to this beautiful Onion article. http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one...
I'm particularly happy with our German gun laws, and I highly doubt that war will easily come back to mainland Europe. And if Russia really decided to start a war and bomb Germany, dude, not having a gun will be the least of your problems.
Well you can look at how the US has done in the middle east for an example of the economic cost of asymmetric warfare. Though I generally agree with your point that it's not going to work out well for the invaded country either unless another state actor comes to their aid. It's also worth noting that the French Resistance was considered important not just for the acts of sabotage and intelligence it gave the allies as they advanced but also in the rapid growth of the FFI after the allies invaded.
I don't really understand how buying your own gun/rifle/whatever would be of any help in surviving a war. The last couple of recent wars (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc) were fought mostly with "big tech" (airplanes, bombs, tanks, etc) which is pretty deadly to low level mosquitoes like civilians and foot soldiers.
And while talking about inequality, I am quite uncertain about how a gun/rifle would help you. You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike?
I am quite skeptical that a proliferation of this kind of thing would help you much with your "problems".
> "The last couple of recent wars (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc) were fought mostly with "big tech" (airplanes, bombs, tanks, etc) which is pretty deadly to low level mosquitoes like civilians and foot soldiers."
In those wars, was it both parties using airplanes, bombs, and tanks? Or was it one side using those things, and the other side holding out without them for over a decade? The opposing tanks in Iraq were shredded in hours, it was the guys with rifles and improvised weapons that held out.
In Berlin there is a Soviet war memorial that is known by some locals as "The Tomb of the Unknown Rapist". You can imagine why. When you are in a warzone, you cannot depend on anyone but yourself to keep you safe from the soldiers of the conquering army. Having a gun will not put you on equal footing with them, but at least it will give you the opportunity to attempt to defend yourself.
> "You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike?"
Where the hell did those suppositions come from?
In those wars, was it both parties using airplanes, bombs, and tanks? Or was it one side using those things, and the other side holding out without them for over a decade? The opposing tanks in Iraq were shredded in hours, it was the guys with rifles and improvised weapons that held out.
In Berlin there is a Soviet war memorial that is known by some locals as "The Tomb of the Unknown Rapist". You can imagine why. When you are in a warzone, you cannot depend on anyone but yourself to keep you safe from the soldiers of the conquering army. Having a gun will not put you on equal footing with them, but at least it will give you the opportunity to attempt to defend yourself.
> "You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike?"
Where the hell did those suppositions come from?
> > "You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike?"
> Where the hell did those suppositions come from?
Actually, he is not far from what I'd do. I'd just keep the bastard at gunpoint until the cops come. Not the first time I had to resort to this with my gas revolver.
Lesson learned (for the two fools): never go to a shooting with a knife (the fact that one had a knife actually yielded him a bigger sentence for the attempted theft; it's called "Diebstahl mit einer Waffe").
Actually, he is not far from what I'd do. I'd just keep the bastard at gunpoint until the cops come. Not the first time I had to resort to this with my gas revolver.
Lesson learned (for the two fools): never go to a shooting with a knife (the fact that one had a knife actually yielded him a bigger sentence for the attempted theft; it's called "Diebstahl mit einer Waffe").
With a thief that might be reasonable, but I think that'd be a bit overboard with somebody that was just going through your trash. I definitely wouldn't confront a thief with no gun though.
> The last couple of recent wars (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc) were fought mostly with "big tech" (airplanes, bombs, tanks, etc) which is pretty deadly to low level mosquitoes like civilians and foot soldiers.
EU vs Russia may not be fought on German territory any soon, but civil wars inside the EU are not that far away (hell, they're hunting down jews and black people already)...
Also, I'm not really a supporter of big-caliber shotguns in private hands - but we're not even allowed to own handguns! Fine, not being allowed to carry in public is something I accept and deem necessary, but not even being allowed to possess them is just ridiculous given the huge number of illegal guns.
EU vs Russia may not be fought on German territory any soon, but civil wars inside the EU are not that far away (hell, they're hunting down jews and black people already)...
Also, I'm not really a supporter of big-caliber shotguns in private hands - but we're not even allowed to own handguns! Fine, not being allowed to carry in public is something I accept and deem necessary, but not even being allowed to possess them is just ridiculous given the huge number of illegal guns.
> they're hunting down jews and black people already
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
Anti-Israel protests escalating in Hitler greets, synagogues being attacked by mobs. Right now. In Germany, in France, probably even more all over Europe.
As for the blacks, there have been multiple attacks of right extremists where they have beaten black people near to death in Germany.
And I don't even want to talk about the anti-Roma sentiments ALL over Europe, beginning from France with the rise of Front National and ending in Hungary with Viktor Orban and his cronies doing NOTHING at all to stop mobs from even killing Roma.
We have in our midst a civil war brewing.
And hey, I'd like to have a gun when the left+right wing extremists are all armed to the teeth with illegal guns, pipe bombs and stuff. Add in motorcycle gangs and the various Mafia clans, and you have a shitload of guys with big guns and no respect for anyone but their own safety and cash.
As for the blacks, there have been multiple attacks of right extremists where they have beaten black people near to death in Germany.
And I don't even want to talk about the anti-Roma sentiments ALL over Europe, beginning from France with the rise of Front National and ending in Hungary with Viktor Orban and his cronies doing NOTHING at all to stop mobs from even killing Roma.
We have in our midst a civil war brewing.
And hey, I'd like to have a gun when the left+right wing extremists are all armed to the teeth with illegal guns, pipe bombs and stuff. Add in motorcycle gangs and the various Mafia clans, and you have a shitload of guys with big guns and no respect for anyone but their own safety and cash.
At least drones tend to have cameras, and their operators cannot excuse their own actions by claiming that their lives were at risk. Drones have the potential to be more audit-able.
The mantra I usually hear around here in regards to tech's harms--like putting people out of work--is to make the advances and let society adapt. It seems very shortsighted.
I think that technology that provides goods and services more efficiently is quite different from technology that kills people more efficiently. Think of all those hunters and gatherers who were put out of work with the advent of farming, or all those farmers who lost their jobs when we switched away from a subsistence farming economy. "Make the advances and let society adapt" has worked quite well in the past.
Well, someone's going to do it.
That doesn't mean the person who does it can't think about ways to deal with the social implications.
FWIW, I posted this story today because of the New Yorker's announcement of their redesign and temporary disabling of their paywall. I remembering reading the abstract of this article in 2009, and then became a subscriber because I wanted to read the full version...I'm not passionately against or for paywalls, but the New Yorker is probably the only single publication that could pull me like that.
That said, I did a cursory search for the gunmaker...didn't see any big update, I saw a mention that it's in rotation with the Marines...but no contemporary mention of what sounded like an impending revolution of shotgun-wielding-robots.
That said, I did a cursory search for the gunmaker...didn't see any big update, I saw a mention that it's in rotation with the Marines...but no contemporary mention of what sounded like an impending revolution of shotgun-wielding-robots.
Excellent. More, please!
We added the date.
Edit: Perhaps I should clarify. By "more, please" I mean we want substantive articles on unexpected subjects, archival and historical material welcome. Not necessarily more on this topic.
We added the date.
Edit: Perhaps I should clarify. By "more, please" I mean we want substantive articles on unexpected subjects, archival and historical material welcome. Not necessarily more on this topic.
This is a remarkable story, thanks for sharing it. As a former Shadow 200 UAV/Drone pilot, I had no idea that they had this type of tech, so it came as fascinating.
Pointing a firearm an anyone, even unloaded, even (especially?) robot controlled, is a terrible idea. This bothers me to no end, and it's so strange that someone who works with very powerful weapons can act like this. Perhaps he feels that he's smart enough that no mistakes will happen? Perhaps he has confidence in the robot not to fire any rounds? He's a brilliant man, very good at what he does; certainly he's spent lots of time with these things, and understands them more than I ever will.
That said: mistakes happen, don't point guns at people you don't want holes in.