FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone • Hacker News Board

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#351

Post by coldtea » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 9:10 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #314

coldtea wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be only slightly bloodier than current mass shootings, and not upon innocent (but on people breaking the law by having guns) at that!

So you'd kill millions? We are literally talking about millions of people who would refuse to follow this law. Seems like you are doing some sort of poes law parody of a gun grabber.

>We are literally talking about millions of people who would refuse to follow this law

Wouldn't then they be criminals?

There are millions of people who have been in jail (even for BS like marijuana, which killed far less people than guns, well, literally 0 people), so what would be special about them?

>Seems like you are doing some sort of poes law parody of a gun grabber.

Yes, but I also like the thought experiment.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#352

Post by tomschlick » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #345

tomschlick wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll accept a solution that takes 30 years over nothing. Guns last a lot longer than 30 years. 80-120 years sounds more like it. They are not going away anytime soon even if you do ban them (which wont happen).

Then why do people keep buying them?

1) different guns do different things 2) they become collectors items 3) just because we can

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#353

Post by jeffdavis » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 10:31 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #49

> Attorney General William Barr said in a speech last month that encrypted messaging services allow "criminals to operate with impunity." The cost of encryption is “ultimately measured in a mounting number of victims — men, women and children who are the victims of crimes, crimes that could have been prevented if law enforcement had been given lawful access to encrypted evidence," This disgraceful, emotionally manipu…

Well, everyone is talking about how excited they are to violate the 2nd Amendment. Might as well violate the 4th, too, and maybe the 1st and 5th while we are at it. All in the name of safety.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#354

Post by EForEndeavour » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

analognoise wrote: post #324

tootie wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have to take anyone's guns. Even if we made some currently legal weapons illegal, just grandfather current ones and let attrition weed them out. I'll accept a solution that takes 30 years over nothing.

The whole point of having guns is so that if somebody tries to take them away from you, you have the tools of preventing that. The police in Hong Kong would be a lot more respectful if the (massive, dense) crowd was armed with more than laser pointers. The riots in LA where Korean shop owners defended their property. Etc., etc. Hell there were violent protests in Ferguson, MO not long ago. "Gun Control" was originall…

> The police in Hong Kong would be a lot more respectful if the (massive, dense) crowd was armed with more than laser pointers

This statement is laughable, yet terrifying in its naiveté.

> "Gun Control" was originally just a mechanism to keep the (black, brown) population from owning guns; just a way of disarming the black/brown population. Look at the past laws, and current policing!

The history of gun politics is inextricably tied to race, but your comment is as dismissive of gun control as it is unsupported and vague, as if waving your hands and dropping a hint of racial bias categorically invalidates arguments in favour of restricting firearms rights.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#355

Post by madhadron » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #202

madhadron wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one who finds the use of "molon labe" farcical? I mean, the Persians did come and take them and killed the entire Spartan force in the process.

It was a successful delaying action. They were outnumbered hundreds to one and never expected to defeat the entire enemy army themselves. They knew they were going to lose that battle, but the intent was to help win the overall war, which the Greeks did. And if you kill many more of the enemy than they do of you despite being vastly outnumbered, you can justifiably say you gave a lot more than you got, which is a vic…

A different reading of the history is that it was a political move by the other Spartan king to force Leonidas to die in a lost cause with a small force in order to remove a rival.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#356

Post by thephyber » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 10:54 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #353

pdkl95 wrote: post #49

> Attorney General William Barr said in a speech last month that encrypted messaging services allow "criminals to operate with impunity." The cost of encryption is “ultimately measured in a mounting number of victims — men, women and children who are the victims of crimes, crimes that could have been prevented if law enforcement had been given lawful access to encrypted evidence," This disgraceful, emotionally manipu…

Well, everyone is talking about how excited they are to violate the 2nd Amendment. Might as well violate the 4th, too, and maybe the 1st and 5th while we are at it. All in the name of safety.

I would argue that all of the Amendments have always been subservient to “national security” (whatever that means in any age), for better or worse.

Also, I have yet to hear anyone argue that we should “violate” the 2A, but I have heard lots of 1A discussion about how we could frame laws or discuss whether 2A is worth keeping in its current state.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#357

Post by EForEndeavour » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 10:57 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #347

tomschlick wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The kind of people that have guns are in more in favor of fascism and army rule than those who don't. So all it takes to get them on the side of the opressors it's to sell it to them as army control, as opposed to "big government" control. I feel like you have never talked to a gun owner before. Though they may lean towards the pro police/pro military side, they absolutely would not bow to the government implementi…

> I feel like you have never talked to a gun owner before. Though they may lean towards the pro police/pro military side, they absolutely would not bow to the government implementing some kind of mass martial law. That's what they pay lip service too. In practice the huge majority are chickens, when they're not pro-army (and the first to cheer for an actual martial law, as long it was done by favorable politicians to…

Well put. Second-amendment gun fanatics dwell so intently on their fantasies of bravely exchanging fire with government soldiers, when in fact their government has figured out how to oppress people in less physical and more effective ways than direct military action could ever achieve.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#358

Post by dodobirdlord » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 10:58 PM UTC

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #280

tootie wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has vast and currently unimpeachable rights to weaponry. There is a huge swath of policy space between that and banning gun ownership. We can reduce gun ownership, trafficking and weapon deadliness a thousand different ways while not adversely impacting legitimate usage. Universal background checks, limiting purchase frequency, banning 100-round barrels, increasing liability for dealers.

...banning 100-round barrels... Not sure if you're joking there -- maybe you meant magazines? Like so many other gun regulation ideas, it seems superficially reasonable based on "danger" but it's almost never the case that items like that contributed measurably to gun deaths. They don't need to be banned -- they are niche items. Mass shooters who have access to them rarely use them. They rarely use 40 or 50 round mag…

> That is not a legitimate policy goal. The earlier poster points out that gun ownership is not correlated with crime at all. We shouldn't set policy goals that are merely about partisanship -- trying to cut down on gun owners because we don't like them -- rather than a clear public benefit.

A 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded having a firearm in the home, even when it’s properly stored, doubles your risk of becoming a victim of homicide and triples the risk of suicide. [0]

Guns are intrinsically dangerous, in much the same way as certain aggressive dog breeds and industrial explosives. While many/most people can safely raise rottweilers, store dynamite, and keep guns, some will not. Is there a marginal benefit associated with the removal of each marginal gun? Obviously. Is gun ownership reduction a legitimate policy goal? Obviously. It's strange that you think otherwise.

> In general, modern legal systems reject holding one person responsible for the crime of another. If a mass shooter lawfully purchases a firearm, what possible liability could a dealer have?

Part of a more involved system of background checks would necessarily involve more action by dealers to verify that the customer's purchase is legal. Prosecuting and holding liable individuals who fail to follow established precautions when selling dangerous products is not unusual.

[0] https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-fir...

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#359

Post by madhadron » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 11:03 PM UTC

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #197

madhadron wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one who finds the use of "molon labe" farcical? I mean, the Persians did come and take them and killed the entire Spartan force in the process.

It makes more sense in context, take Patrick Henry's words in 1775 to understand what liberty and the preservation of constitutional rights means to Americans. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" or Thomas Jefferson in 1787: "We have had 13. states…

> It makes more sense in context

I disagree, especially with these quotations, which are disingenuous.

Patrick Henry was a firebrand. His words were meant to incite violence and insurrection for the financial advantage of the order of people to which he belonged.

The Jefferson letter you are quoting[1] doesn't mean what you imply with how you quote it. The real meaning, if you use the sentences right before that, says that some part of the population is always going to be ignorant and misinformed and discontent in proportion to that, and that it's better they rebel openly so they can be corrected, patted on the head, and sent home instead of stewing silently. From that point of view, the people should be minimally armed so this could be accomplished with as little bloodshed as possible.

It's also fraught to impute anything about constitutional matters to Jefferson, since he regarded a constitution perpetuated more than a generation or two as a form of tyranny.

The scholarship on Sparta has been pretty thoroughly revised over the past few decades. Any reference to Sparta rooted before that is of at best suspect legitimacy.

[1]: https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-je...

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#360

Post by EForEndeavour » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 11:03 PM UTC

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #282

coldtea wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was at a time when wars were fought with such arms, and the police had the same. Heck, that was true for 100+ years afterwards still. Now the police even has tanks and army level guns, and the army of course has 1000x the resources, airplanes, drones, etc. And of course, at the time the states were indeed independent and fighting fiercely for that. Now (and ever after the Civil War) it's all a charade, from what…

Wars are still fought with such arms. It's important to remember that many of the civilians who are proponents of the 2nd Amendment were trained by the military and fought in recent wars; and understand full well what it means to prosecute a modern war.

This constant obsession about the US government potentially launching overt, ground-based military action against its own people makes me envision a doomsday prepper who invests tons of resources into a fallout shelter, but rides a motorcycle without a helmet or something. The risk assessment just doesn't make sense to me at all.

Get with the times: our governments oppress and control us in ways that don't require open conflict. The 1860s are gone forever.

Disclaimer: I've never owned a gun, and I have no military or government experience.