Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 417 posts

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

#371

Post by ehnto »

ineedasername wrote: post #200
ehnto wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia has already made way for other nations to follow suit this year. We have a history with low gun violence, encryption or lack thereof had nothing to do with that.

Sure, but your low gun violence didn't just happen. People used to have guns, they liked their guns, but there were shootings. People including politicians realized they could do something about it. Some gun owners hated that, but shootings all but stopped. You're really the example that all "guns don't kill people" arguers hate having to try and explain away.

Of course, my point was just that it had nothing to do with encryption or the recent laws subverting encryption in Australia. It's worth noting, because you can be sure we will be used as an example to try and push these kinds of laws in other countries.

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

#372

Post by ehnto »

whatthesmack wrote: post #232
ineedasername wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but your low gun violence didn't just happen. People used to have guns, they liked their guns, but there were shootings. People including politicians realized they could do something about it. Some gun owners hated that, but shootings all but stopped. You're really the example that all "guns don't kill people" arguers hate having to try and explain away.

They didn’t “all but stop”. They’ve continued [1]. Why keep repeating The Australia Lie that anti-gun people love touting? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Austral...

Did you even read that list? That list only helps the point. We haven't had a public mass shooting in decades. The more recent incidents have been arson, car attacks, or murders of people known to eachother, and they have had significantly lower impacts.

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

#373

Post by NikkiA »

nickynickell wrote: post #243
yourduskquibble wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 round barrels?

I'd wager they meant drum. Though superimposed loads are a thing too.

And given that drum and barrel (when referring to containers) are usually synonyms in English, it's not unreasonable to imagine a non-english speaker confusing the two, remembering that 'barrel' is a term related to guns, and saying '100 round barrel'.

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

#374

Post by stale2002 »

coldtea wrote: post #351
stale2002 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 experime…

> Wouldn't then they be criminals?

A lot of people justify genocide by calling the targets of their mass murder "criminals".

We are absolutely not killing millions and millions of people in the US right now, as you are advocating for.

No 1st world country is doing anything even close to what you are advocating, which is whole scale mass murder, on the same level of number of deaths, as all of the horrible genocides that the world talks about.

Your suggestion of mass murder against millions and millions of people is well outside the realm of anything that 1st world country is even coming close to doing, and you can expect 10s of millions to fight this crazy mass mass murder plan.

You'd probably have to kill not just the gun owners, but also all these 10s of people in pretty much every major 1st world country, as well, who vowed to never let anything like that happen again, who would fight back in the civil war that you created. (such a civil war would cause more deaths than all mass shootings in the entire world, put together, 10 times over)

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

#375

Post by solidsnack9000 »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #358
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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, double…

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.

It doesn't say that, exactly, since it doesn't distinguish between properly stored and not properly stored cases. It is a meta-analysis; they took a bunch of papers and did the best they could. We can't say that if they're properly stored it's about the same, or worse, or better.

It also acknowledged some methodological limitations, including studying overall death rates, and not specifically deaths due to guns:

...we considered studies of suicide and homicide victimization by any means, and firearm-specific outcomes may differ.

Another issue the study encountered, was that gun ownership rates were not directly available to many of the aggregated studies, which therefore relied on various proxies.

What makes relying on a study like this to initiate a policy of reducing gun ownership not premature?

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.

We do have laws like this already -- FFLs do background checks for every purchase and if they fail to do so, they can lose their license. What are the expansions that you'd like to see?

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

#376

Post by solidsnack9000 »

tootie wrote: post #342
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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…

Liability like car ownership. Failure to secure your weapons imparts liability. Guns stolen or sold without a background check that are used in a crime carry a punishment for the last registered owner. Punishment ramps up rapidly with multiple offenses. This will punish traffickers but also encourage safety.

Guns stolen or sold without a background check that are used in a crime carry a punishment for the last registered owner.

Guns that are stolen would carry a punishment for the last registered owner?

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

#377

Post by mattio »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #286
samsonradu wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please elaborate on why guns are so sacred in the US? Is it for cultural/historical reasons?

Roughly 30% of the population owns guns, and has everyday experience with people owning assault rifles who aren't a harm to anyone. The gun culture is the locus of a lot of important values in the US -- service to the country, acceptance of danger, self control, precise and accountable behaviour -- and gun owners are overall more law abiding than the general population. Gun owners haven't done anything wrong and don'…

So gun owners feel punished when their guns are taken away, and they feel this punishment is more severe than all the lives that are taken away because of mass shootings? And all the families that are ripped apart? If my 'right' harms so many people, I would not even want that 'right' in the first place. Guns perhaps made sense in an era where you had to protect yourself agains outlaws. Now we have governments to take take care of your daily security. Now the freely available guns don't make any sense at all.

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

#378

Post by ryacko »

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…

Interestingly enough, 100-round barrels are banned. Alloys that would allow for cheap guns (“Saturday Night Specials”) are illegal.

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

#379

Post by ben_w »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #376
tootie wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liability like car ownership. Failure to secure your weapons imparts liability. Guns stolen or sold without a background check that are used in a crime carry a punishment for the last registered owner. Punishment ramps up rapidly with multiple offenses. This will punish traffickers but also encourage safety.

Guns stolen or sold without a background check that are used in a crime carry a punishment for the last registered owner. Guns that are stolen would carry a punishment for the last registered owner?

Presumably only if you fail to alert the authorities to the theft.

Of course authorities don’t always pay attention to registration changes — one UK police force sent me a speeding ticket for a car I had sold nine months previously, even though the DVLA had actually registered the sale and transfer of ownership.

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

#380

Post by samsonradu »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #286
samsonradu wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please elaborate on why guns are so sacred in the US? Is it for cultural/historical reasons?

Roughly 30% of the population owns guns, and has everyday experience with people owning assault rifles who aren't a harm to anyone. The gun culture is the locus of a lot of important values in the US -- service to the country, acceptance of danger, self control, precise and accountable behaviour -- and gun owners are overall more law abiding than the general population. Gun owners haven't done anything wrong and don'…

> The gun culture is the locus of a lot of important values in the US -- service to the country, acceptance of danger, self control, precise and accountable behaviour

I have a hard time understanding what does acceptance of danger and self-control have to do with assault rifles? Can't those be exerted with a pistol?

Also I fail to understand how people don't see guns as a liability. Just having one in the house would cause me a lot of headache. Guns can be stolen, kids might find it etc..

Post reply on HN