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

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#101

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

dm2 wrote: post #95

wl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tho…

> 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.

No. Drum magazines are prone to jamming, which is exactly what happened in your linked scenario (the gunman then decided to drop the rifle rather than clear the misfeed). The same thing happened to the Aurora, Colorado shooter and his drum magazine. An efficient killer would be better off with a MOLLE vest with the pouches filled with smaller-capacity magazines.

> 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.

The 2nd amendment was not written for hunters or people who enjoy recreational shooting. It is an emergency brake against tyranny and a prodding towards militia defense of the country rather than standing army (read what James Madison wrote about the subject), so yes it actually is about killing people. In a time when all branches of federal government seem to be ignoring the Constitution, I for one am glad that we still have it.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#102

Post by mxfh » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:06 PM UTC

cgore wrote: post #59

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…

The problem with gun registration versus car registration is that there is no real use to having a list of car owners, other than legitimate ones. But, a list of people with weapons would be the first thing any would-be dictator would love to have. I realize I am inviting the wrath of Godwin's Law here, but, as a real-world historical example of the threat of gun registration, the Nazis: "In 1931, Weimar authorities…

It's a myth that Hitler Nazi movement employed gun control to any amount to gain power, it merely employed it as an additional mean once it was there, owning a gun wasn't really of much help at that point.

Also it just brushes over that facts that just 12 years before that guns were outlawed completely after WWI in Germany (analog to 2001 as of today), that the Weimar Republic witnessed some rampaging street violence between the different anti-democratic forces and that the main part of the executive wing didn't like democracy ever and had sympathy for nationalistic forces. The Nazi Party was backed by the majority of the German population in a general election in 1933 which makes pretty made pretty much most of the German population an "ultimate extremist group".

In my view Halbrook is more of a pro-gun rights lawyer who wants to sell books than a historian.

Heck it weren't even the Nazis who came up with this in Germany. It were the ruling monarchist in 1878 with their "Sozialistengesetze" who denied Social Democrats, Socialists and Communists the right to acquire or own guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Socialist_Laws

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#103

Post by lwhalen » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:06 PM UTC

dm2 wrote: post #95

wl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tho…

Right, but consider this - the bad guy knows when and where he is going to strike, the good guy doesn't. Say we were able to wave a magic wand and all the magazines over X rounds were to magically disappear and turn into (X-1)-round magazines. The bad guy, because he can choose where and when he is going to act, can adequately prepare and just bring many magazines regardless of artificially-restricted mag limits. The 'good guys' generally prefer to carry one or two magazines for convenience, regardless of capacity, because they have other things to do with their day besides committing crimes. Laws that restrict magazine capacity reasoning that criminals will be 'less dangerous' with lower-cap magazines are misguided - those laws (like all gun laws) only apply to law-abiding gun owners, and only serve to weaken them.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#104

Post by freehunter » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:08 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…

Seriously inconvenience? I'm a hunter and I also target shoot for recreation, and I can't say a 10 or 15 round limit is an inconvenience at all, let alone a serious one. If you're hunting and you need to fire 10 or 15 shots without taking the time to reload, you're dangerously ill-equipped to be using a gun. You're placing everyone else at risk as you're wildly slinging bullets through the forest. If you're target shooting, you need to take time to adjust your aim between shots anyway, and the target isn't going anywhere. If you're using a gun in self defense and you need more than 10 or 15 rounds, again, you're woefully under-equipped to be using a gun. Chances are if you can't hit your target in 10 or 15 rounds, you're going to hit someone else or your target has already killed you or isn't a real threat. Even the police are known to fire wildly at a suspect and end up hitting innocent bystanders.

I do subscribe to the argument that gun control laws are a slippery slope for lawmakers, but the real need for high capacity civilian firearms just isn't there in lawful use. Does banning high capacity magazines change anything? Not really, it's a useless law. But as a rallying point, I think there are more substantial arguments to be made.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#105

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:09 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…

[deleted]

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#106

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

dm2 wrote: post #95

wl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tho…

The conclusions you're taking from the North Hollywood shootout aren't what most of the police world took from it. The police had .38 special revolvers and shotguns and were confronted with people with rifles. Someone with a rifle is going to be able to effectively engage someone long before someone with a revolver or a shotgun gets into effective range. Also, .38 special isn't very effective against ballistic vests, which the robbers had. And suppressive fire (from the illegally modified AK variant rifle) limits an adversary's tactical options. The conclusion that police generally came to afterwards was that officers should have rifles available to use in such situations.

Have you ever shot a rifle with a detachable magazine? And practiced magazine changes? Because it seems to be universally accepted among those who do such things that magazine changes are more of an annoyance than a hindrance.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#107

Post by gpcz » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:18 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #91

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.

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…

> 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.

Do you believe the government should restrict personal ownership of nuclear weapons, or is that a disgusting abuse of power?

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#108

Post by Crito » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:18 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #96

Crito wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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 pe…

Bate cars are placed in high-crime areas, have unambiguous ownership (read: anybody trying to drive away with it is trying to steal it) and are easier to stake out than an entire neighborhood of cars. They require less manpower per arrest. Furthermore, bate cars can be rigged to trap the suspect in the car, eliminating the possibility of dangerous car chases.

I am not bullish on punishment. I am instead interested in protecting the public. Imprisonment is useful not because it punishes criminals but because it prevents the criminals from victimizing the general public. Punishment itself serves little purpose (I don't believe that punishment as a deterrent is particularly effective). Rehabilitation is useful, though imprisonment during rehabilitation is often necessary (rehabilitation is not an out-patient procedure). America needs to work on it's rehabilitation, but in the meantime arresting criminals remains necessary.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#109

Post by Crito » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:21 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #97

Crito wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While bad arguments can be made with Hitler, good arguments can be made with Hitler as well. These arguments do not necessarily need to use Hitler, but they can. They frequently do because comparisons to Hitler are accessible. Nobody needs to explain who Hitler was; nobody needs to tap out of the conversation for a few minutes to go read the Hitler wikipedia page.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#110

Post by grey-area » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:22 PM UTC

JHSheridan wrote: post #85

grey-area wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NHS is not set up to make money, it is set up to spend it. You appear to think it is some kind of profit making enterprise - it is a way of spending taxpayers money to safeguard their health, and does so in a demonstrably more efficient manner than private healthcare systems based on insurance, despite any flaws it may have. Compare costs with the US for example. Clearly it will never turn a profit in pounds and…

Whether or not private companies can provide better health care than public institutions is an entirely different argument, and was not one I was trying to make. Bankruptcy has nothing to do with whether an organization is for-profit or not. It has to do with whether it can pay its debts or not. Trying to figure out how to pay for things you can't afford isn't nonsense. Believing government institutions are exempt fr…

It has to do with whether it can pay its debts or not.

The NHS does not have debt in any meaningful sense, the government takes on debt, and chooses to spend some of that on new missile systems, some on wars in foreign countries, some on education, and some on the NHS.

A part of government cannot be bankrupt without the entire government itself being bankrupt, because it is funded as part of government obligations, and the amount given to it is decided almost entirely on the whim of politicians - it varies considerably and depends on all the other expenditures. You might argue that the UK as a whole is borrowing against its future rather than paying down debts (and it is currently as many countries do), but to argue that the NHS is somehow in debt or in danger of bankruptcy simply doesn't make sense when it is part of a variable budget paid for with taxes and borrowing.

You might claim the UK can't afford the NHS, but I'd point to the other parts of the budget which consume considerably more money, and compare it to the spending of other countries - that's a very different discussion, and a valid one to have, but it's not one you can have on the basis of the NHS somehow being bankrupt as compared to an arbitrary budget set by politicians with an agenda.