ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation • Hacker News Board

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#91

Post by talmand » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 9:28 PM UTC

DerpDerpDerp wrote: post #74

talmand wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim about more likely to die to your own gun is often a misleading statement. The leading type of death caused by firearms in the US is suicide, by a large factor. The leading method of suicide in the US is by firearms. Therefore, if you remove suicide from those numbers the chances of you dieing by your own gun is reduced significantly. Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves whenever I see a statement like t…

Have you considered that gun ownership may contribute to suicide, by lowering the threshold of planning needed, and thus making it possible for gun owners who wouldn't commit suicide by other means? It's not as simple of a relationship as you make it out to be.

Well, I feel that it is that simple.

Owning a gun does not contribute to suicide. I suppose there might be cases of someone killing themselves with their gun because they feel bad about owning a gun. What you are suggesting makes it easier, but does not contribute.

Owning a gun may make it simpler for some people to commit the act, but the sad fact of the matter is it not that difficult to do. There are numerous ways for someone to commit suicide easily without a firearm. There are ways that are quicker, painless, and more apt to succeed.

If the most common method to commit suicide happen to be jumping off the roof of their house, should the government start restricting the access to your own roof regardless of your feelings towards suicide? If the most common method were to jump off bridges, should the government restrict all foot traffic on bridges?

My take on people using this type of statistic, granted I don't feel they all do this, is that it is used as a sad fact to cause emotion in an effort to garner support for their position. I mean, what kind of person are you to want to not help prevent suicides? Don't you want to be reasonable to help people in pain? That's called emotional manipulation and the worst people do it all the time.

When it comes to suicide, people who focus on the how, but not the why, most likely have an agenda about the how and probably could care less about the why. These are the kinds of people who should not be included in the discussion of something so highly emotional and tragic as suicide.

As I stated elsewhere, the government using its powers to restrict ownership of an inanimate object based on what another individual may or may not do with their own inanimate object is a disgusting abuse of power.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#92

Post by JHSheridan » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 9:30 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #88

grey-area wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not. How does a government funded org ever face bankruptcy, unless the government wants it to for political reasons? The NHS provides healthcare to the entire nation for about 7% of GDP. If there's any question of bankruptcy there are plenty of other areas to look at first.

> How does a government funded org ever face bankruptcy, unless the government wants it to for political reasons? It depends on the bankruptcy laws, and its possible that a "government funded" org still would be covered by them. OTOH, in this particular case, its probably the common confusion of "bankruptcy" with "insolvency" playing a major role. Insolvency is usually the reason an entity enters (voluntarily or not)…

You're right. Insolvency is a more accurate term to use in this case.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#93

Post by gizmo686 » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 9:32 PM UTC

RankingMember wrote: post #49

dm2 wrote: post #18

Moral of the story? Police and federal agents must be more transparent and accountable for their actions and expenditures. The whole concept of "spend money so that our budget doesn't shrink next year" has go to be fixed also. I don't know a solution other than having more auditors and efficiency experts (GAO, gao.gov). Would people flip out if there was a bill proposed to require all guns in the US to have a GPS tra…

It's for this reason that I'm strongly in favor of body-mounted surveillance cameras for all public servants. The key is making sure that everyone has access to the data, not just some surveillance team in a back room. For stings and such like this, the footage would be held until the end of the operation, but would be required to be released immediately at the end of the operation. "Missing time" would be rigorously…

I think you are slightly to extreme in your publication of the video. I agree that law enforcement officers (and probably most public servants) do not have an expectation of privacy while on duty, however other people who get recorded do. If the police have a video of me talking with the police than I would not necessarily want that video publicly accessible. However, if I am charged with a crime, those videos should be made available to me along with all the other evidence. Furthermore, If I am the subject of a video, I should have a right to it, and to publish it myself (possibly with the consent of other third parties in the video). Also, if the video was from a clearly public place/event than there is no expectation of privacy in the first place, so it should be publicly available (possibly also by request for practical reasons).

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#94

Post by frenchy » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 9:39 PM UTC

pjungwir wrote: post #81

talmand wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, people down voting because of Godwin's law? Fine... Armenians in Ottoman Turkey, Anti-Communists/Stalinists in Soviet Union, Anti-Communists in China, Mayan Indians in Guatemala, Christians in Uganda, General Population in Cambodia There are lots of examples of gun confiscations preceding mass murders. Not that every gun confiscations lead to mass murder since there are examples of that not happening. But to igno…

Even if the situation does not progress to dictatorship or mass murder, gun registration often (inexorably?) leads to confiscation. See Canada and New York State.

Confiscation in Canada? I'm not well informed on gun laws but I know we have plenty of gun carriers (registered and illegal), most of them live in rural areas.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#95

Post by dm2 » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 9:39 PM UTC

wl wrote: post #73

dm2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone be against that? Both of those things seem perfectly reasonable. I'm sure there would be a provision for a type of license that would allow a larger magazine if you had a valid reason and very clean record. If you live on a large farm and like to shoot for fun, then maybe a larger magazine would be acceptable. If you live in an apartment in a city, then you don't reasonably need extremely large magaz…

The magazine size restriction only looks reasonable if you're unfamiliar with guns and how they're used in crime. The most common criminal use of a gun consists of a few rounds, rarely exceeding the capacity of these restricted size magazines. If we move to the much more rare mass shooting, we see that magazine size doesn't really reduce the body count. In the Virginia Tech shooting, for example, the shooter killed 3…

The problem is that high-capacity magazines can be extremely dangerous if actually used in a crime.

A prime example of this is the North Hollywood shootout where the gunmen had several 75 and 100 round drum magazines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

These high-capacity magazines are devastating when used to commit a crime and there is zero legitimate use of them for a civilian.

Do hunters or those who enjoy shooting weapons legally NEED high-capacity magazines? The answer is no. Under no circumstances does a civilian actually need or would even benefit from a high-capacity magazine unless they were killing people, cops, or zombies.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#96

Post by bambax » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 9:48 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #90

bambax wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, if you purchase a gun without a license or attempt to hire a contract killer and it turns out to be a police officer you are in contact with, then that sting just save a life, which is good. How do you know that? How do you know the whole thing wasn't completely created by the police, enticing unstable individuals to do things they would never have done without their help? Stings are not just "sl…

(Replacing guns and drugs with cars, so that it isn't a topic we feel strongly about (I am pro-legalization for either, in any event)) If a unstable person walking down the street is enticed by a bait car and attempts to steal it, I think we can caulk that up as a win for society. Maybe they would not have tried to steal a car that day, but they are evidently the sort of person that is willing to steal cars. It is be…

> The bate car scenario eliminates the possibility that the officers involved talked the person into it

It also doesn't make much sense; what's the difference between a "bate car" and a regular car? Do we need bate cars and people watching those, or regular police officers patrolling the streets and protecting ordinary cars from getting stolen?

The whole sting concept lies on the idea that there are inherently bad people and that society just needs to somehow flush them out with clever traps.

But that concept is at odds with the fundamental humanist idea of "punishment" and human perfectibility; the purpose of punishment is to help people improve and amend their behavior. If some people are just "bad" then punishment won't help them.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#97

Post by beat » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 9:48 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #75

beat wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Godwin's Law exists for a reason, man. (signed, a pro-gun liberal who loathes your bad line of reasoning)

Not really. Godwin's law itself is just an observation on the nature of online conversations. (And arguably commentary on the popularity of fallacious reductio ad hitlerum style arguments) Godwin's Law has become some sort of notion of mentioning Hitler being a "forfeit" of sorts. The reason this has become popular is because low barrier-to-entry comment sniping is great fun and this version of Godwin's Law makes it…

Godwin's Law is important because it shows the cost of attaching baggage to your arguments. I think that if you can argue that something is bad by invoking Hitler, you can argue that something is bad without invoking Hitler. It's not just that going Godwin is tacky. It is, or should be, a sign of rhetorical weakness.

I don't think the problem described by Godwin's Law is that bad arguments cheapen Hitler. I think the problem is that Hitler cheapens one's arguments, unless one is arguing about genocide. Sure, you can draw lesser lessons from Hitler's lesser crimes (ie gun control), but the implication, intentional or not, is that the lesser crime you're arguing about is on par with the Holocaust.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#98

Post by lwhalen » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 9:53 PM UTC

bandushrew wrote: post #70

pionar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would people flip out if there was a bill proposed to require all guns in the US to have a GPS tracker? As a gun control advocate who also owns guns, yes, I would flip the f * out. While I have no problem if the government knows I own a gun (they know I own a car), Putting a GPS tracker on it would result in two things: 1. The government would know where I am at all times (I carry my Kahr CM-9 everywhere that allow…

if you carry a cellphone, the government does know where you are at all times. this is now established fact. why do you care so much more when the discussion is around guns?

We don't have a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to own cell-phones, for one.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#99

Post by dm2 » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 9:54 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #84

dm2 wrote: post #18

Moral of the story? Police and federal agents must be more transparent and accountable for their actions and expenditures. The whole concept of "spend money so that our budget doesn't shrink next year" has go to be fixed also. I don't know a solution other than having more auditors and efficiency experts (GAO, gao.gov). Would people flip out if there was a bill proposed to require all guns in the US to have a GPS tra…

Your proposed bill has some flaws. - It could be considered an unreasonable search. - The data would be accessed and used by police without warrants, despite your admonishment that they shouldn't. - The system would be used by criminals to track gun-carrying police and identify gun-owning households. - Criminals would remove, disable, or spoof the trackers, or simply make guns that didn't have them. - Gun rights devo…

Many home burglaries are in effort to steal guns. Let's assume that most of those criminals are not the brightest people in the world, let's say half don't bother removing the GPS, those low-hanging fruit are quickly arrested and deserving go to prison. A good percentage of thieves would simply not risk stealing the weapon, especially if the GPS was difficult to remove (like a sticker GPS that was either internal or very difficult to remove).

Some would steal an entire safe or lock box and as soon as it's open the GPS would track where that lock box is located, those people would be caught.

The point is not to stop all gun crimes, just to lower the amount of burglaries looking for firearms and to try to minimize the amount of firearms in the hands of criminals.

No, my proposed bill isn't perfect, but it would undoubtedly save lives. It's not even a serious suggestion, more of a thought experiment, people who NEVER allow such a law to be in place.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#100

Post by gpcz » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:01 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #76

DerpDerpDerp wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that gun ownership may contribute to suicide, by lowering the threshold of planning needed, and thus making it possible for gun owners who wouldn't commit suicide by other means? It's not as simple of a relationship as you make it out to be.

My below argument still applies. If we take a "gun ownership"->"suicide" relationship for granted, we cannot assume that this particular gun owner is at risk for suicide. If there is a trend, then we can talk about the trend and populations. However talking about individuals requires more care.

I think the argument only applies depending on your definition of "risk for suicide" and whether you believe there are people who never under any circumstances in their lives feel suicidal even for a second before snapping out of it.

Killing yourself requires two things: the will to do it and a means. If you have a loaded gun, the means is a constant: at any point in time you have it you could use it to kill yourself. Will, on the other hand, is a function dependent on a bunch of things: bad news, time, emotional state, social interactions, etc.

I would define "risk for suicide" in terms of the combination of both will and means. As such, unless the individual's will to commit suicide is absolutely and always zero, adding a reliable means would always increase risk of suicide. I guess it's up for debate whether there's anyone on the planet who has never felt suicidal for even a second in their lives.