zlacker

>>KenCoc+(OP)
I can't wait until the part where we all don't talk about gun control and carry on as usual. Sigh.

EDIT: I see my post is being downvoted. I know that it may come across as insensitive to immediately leap to the gun control debate, but frankly I'm more angry than upset by this news. How many times does it have to happen? We have a good 48 hours of emotional outpouring and then everyone forgets it ever happened.

>>untog+M
Well, why don't we bring it back to technology then?

Everyday on HN there's this drone about the next Instagram or 37 Signals. Or who will produce better email or flamewars regarding the next dominant mobile OS. Time wasted, honestly (Oh yeah, 'I figured out project management, again.')

Where's the debate on HN on how best to handle gun control in the U.S. using technology? Can this community not produce answers for those questions?

>>balanc+72
Well, I think this is an example of technology not being able to solve everything.

Computers are logical and deal in absolutes. People are the exact opposite. Gun control is an emotional, sometimes irrational issue, and the solutions (I suspect) lie in societal changes. Gun control doesn't need advanced technology, as far as I can see. But I'd be interested to know what ideas people have.

>>untog+s2
Pretty soon, anyone who wants a gun will be able to 3d-print one. I think "gun control" will soon become "technology control", which is going to be tricky because this community appears to be largely anti-gun and pro-tech.

>>maqr+H5
Most members of this community see the absurdity of making a certain string of bits illegal, whether its the private key to decrypt blu-ray discs or describes the shape of a firearm. What's odd is that they don't see the parallel absurdity of outlawing a piece of metal carved into the shape of a firearm. Perhaps they will now that its possible to produce the object from the bits.