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

391–400 of 417 posts

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

#391

Post by stale2002 »

coldtea wrote: post #388
stale2002 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Notice how the this obsession with "mass murder" is yours. I've suggested a no-deaths-whatsoever, totally legal process: make guns illegal, and have people hand them in to police. Peacefully. (In fact, to sweeten the deal, I'll now add that they will then get their money back (the price of the guns), plus a lollipop). To which you obsess that "Most/millions of gun owning people will never hand them in, even if it's m…

> Notice how the this obsession with "mass murder" is yours

Of course I am obsessed with preventing mass murder. People said never again, and they meant it.

You are the one saying "oh, they are just criminals".

> have people hand them in to police

People will not hand them in. You'd have to kill them, by the millions (oh, and also you'd have to kill the 10s of millions who merely oppose death squads)

That's the reality of the situation. Millions of people in the US aren't going to hand in their guns to the government, and would rather face the government death squads.

So you can either be happy with an ineffective law that millions aren't going to follow, or you can take the death squads option, and good luck with that, because that's also not going to work.

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

#392

Post by solidsnack9000 »

samsonradu wrote: post #385
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are trying to do here, is find some justification for guns; but that is not how a free country works. We don't need to ask the government permission to do stuff. We can still do things without having a good reason. Not sure what policy you're proposing but whatever it is, it needs justification -- that's what limited government is about. No restrictions without reasons.

I'm not proposing any policy. Trying to assess if having assault guns causes more problems than it solves, considering it's hard to keep control of who buys/sells them in a country of 300M+ population. That would probably stand for a justification, wouldn’t it? We’re also forbidden to keep plutonium or enriched uranium in our basement regardless of what we use it for. Hell there’s many free countries where it’s illeg…

It seems like you’re obliquely arguing for something, since you say “it’s hard to keep control of who buys/sells them” and offer this as justification, but justification for what, exactly?

I don’t think it’s reasonable to look at service pattern rifles in isolation to try to sort out whether they are a problem. They don’t seem to be a major contributor to gun deaths, overall — rifles of all descriptions contribute ~5% of gun deaths every year in the US. Their potential danger may seem great but the data does not bear that out.

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

#393

Post by jki275 »

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…

Guns are supposed to be dangerous. That’s the whole point of their existence.

We already have background checks. Licensed dealers who fail to follow the law lose their license and are prosecuted. The atf has no difficulty in enforcing that.

And as already posted, there’s really no useful information in that “review”.

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

#394

Post by jki275 »

DuskStar wrote: post #331
AdrianB1 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be also out of country purchases: go to Canada, buy the gun, come back. The situation is not different in any way, especially because if you buy the gun in Vermont or Canada you are still not allowed to get it in California. Do you want to regulate guns in Canada?

And that's assuming that people don't just manufacture the guns themselves - automatic rifles with box magazines are literally 1940s tech, and while making a good one takes a ton of expertise, something able to kill a bunch of unarmed civilians is a lot easier. For that matter, how long will it be before home CNC mills will be able to make modern(ish) weapons?

There are custom made Cnc mills designed to make weapons that sell for less than a thousand bucks.

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

#395

Post by jki275 »

tootie wrote: post #341
whatthesmack wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble with those policies (aside from 100-round barrels... I have no idea what that means, and I don’t think you do either) is that they’re often-mentioned, but people forget to ask the question, “Have these policies actually improved anything where they’ve been implemented?” Many of the recently-publicized shootings in the US have occurred in California, which has some of the most strict firearms laws in the n…

Barrel should have been drum. Like what the Dayton shooter used to hit 14 people in 30 seconds. 100% irrelevant. Just because there's a lot of heart disease doesn't mean we don't care about gun deaths. If we passed all this legislation and the net result is that the next mass shooters only kills 5 people instead of 10, then it's still worth it. You don't need 100 round clip to defend your home. You don't need a flash…

He could have done the same with a regular capacity 30 round magazine. The 100 round mags are generally junk anyway.

Flash suppressors make shooting at the range more comfortable, and ar15s don’t have “1000 yards of range”, but hunting rifles often do.

And what business is it if anyone in a free country wants to own more guns than you feel happy for them to?

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

#396

Post by jki275 »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #354
analognoise wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

His comment is exactly accurate. The US didn’t have gun control until the democrats enacted Jim Crow laws throughout the south.

The entire purpose and history of gun control in the US was to keep black people from being able to defend themselves from the KKK.

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

#397

Post by jki275 »

coldtea wrote: post #253
invalidOrTaken wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the more reason to preserve what is left, then.

It is said that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.". I'd say this idea, that after you are guaranteed worse results, you should double down, is even more insane. If anything, what I wrote is all the more reason to find new strategies that don't involve "we'll fight them with guns". Besides who'll do the fighting? The kind of people that have guns…

Have you ever met a gun owner? Most do not want government overreach, hate facism(the real definition, not the “any Trump supporter” definition the left made up last year), and would outright revolt over a military dictatorship.

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

#398

Post by solidsnack9000 »

tootie wrote: post #386
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Correct. For one, it should be mandatory that care be taken that guns not be stolen. Locked up in safes when possible or otherwise attended to and not left lying around. Secondly, a missing gun should be reported immediately. Like I said, punishment ramps up after multiple offense. If it happens once, call it a fluke and fine $100 or whatever. If it happens twice you're being careless. If it happens more, you are pro…

A lot of this seems reasonable; but if people steal the safe, then what?

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

#399

Post by amaccuish »

stale2002 wrote: post #374
coldtea wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

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

As an aside, the US government currently justifies it's incredibly dehumanising treatment of migrants because they're labelled "illegals".

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

#400

Post by analognoise »

jki275 wrote: post #396
EForEndeavour wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

His comment is exactly accurate. The US didn’t have gun control until the democrats enacted Jim Crow laws throughout the south. The entire purpose and history of gun control in the US was to keep black people from being able to defend themselves from the KKK.

It WAY predates Jim Crow.
Post reply on HN