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

ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

jsonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 192 posts

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#131

Post by aric »

wylee wrote: post #41
herbig wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already carry a cellphone, I presume. Also, I am against most forms of gun control, being otherwise very liberal in my worldview. However, I cannot possibly understand why a developer would need to carry a gun at all times. You are inviting trouble with that, and more likely to die to your own gun than you are to protect yourself from some bad guys. If you want to carry a gun with you, I support your right to do…

A question (maybe a nitpick) about the word "liberal"--wouldn't it be more "liberal" to be against gun control since less control means more liberty?

Yes. The more classical term "liberal," unfortunately, has been steadily eroding into a term used by people who espouse much the opposite of any form of liberation or freer society. Both major political wings amount to funnels for increasing government power and reach. Thus, the nation has learned to largely solve its social issues through docile hope (e.g. deferring to the spending decisions of oligarchical interests and trickle-down economics) and through the torture of imprisonment to settle nonviolent disobedience.

There are people who think that giving a central group the authority to prohibit an entire general population's ability to use guns is justified. They feel it would personally give themselves an increased sense of liberation. I empathize with the wish to see a more peaceful world (a highly subjective idealism). However, from my vantage, putting faith into a heavily centralized form of constraint is not "liberal" in any way that actually respects that word at a human level.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#132

Post by lmm »

JHSheridan wrote: post #13
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Size is irrelevant. When you declare your mission is a 'war on drugs' you're going to end up losing, plain and simple. Meanwhile, very, very large government programs like the NHS do well and provide healthcare to millions in an affordable way with great outcomes. There's something very lazy about arguing about government size. Its just dumb simpleminded platitudes that libertarians pat each other on the back for, bu…

> Meanwhile, very, very large government programs like the NHS do well and provide healthcare to millions in an affordable way with great outcomes. Isn't NHS facing bankruptcy?

The NHS has been "facing bankruptcy" for as long as I've been able to read the news. Somehow I never see it actually happen.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#133

Post by talmand »

gpcz wrote: post #126
talmand wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the old personal ownership of nuclear weapons argument, as if that were the same thing and relevant to this discussion. Note, in my comment above when I state "an inanimate object", I am referring to a gun. For you to take that statement and expand it to an extreme such as nuclear weapons is rather childish on your part. Since we've started into childish manner of discussion, are you suggesting then that some…

This is Hacker News -- you are expected not to be sloppy with your argumentation here. If you say "inanimate object" rather than gun, then we're going to assume you are making a more general statement and react accordingly. I cannot read your mind, so please do not assume I (or anyone else) knows your precise opinion on gun control without being precise with your words.

Well, I guess I'm at fault for assuming that people would follow that I was referring to the object that was the center of the discussion at hand. I should have guessed that someone would take such a simple concept and expand it to every single object in the known universe.

My apologies.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#134

Post by taejo »

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…

Gun ownership contributes to suicide, not because gun owners are more likely to attempt suicide, but because they are more likely to succeed. Men are more likely to commit suicide than women in the US, largely because most men who attempt use guns, while women are more likely to try to overdose.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#135

Post by swalkergibson »

talmand wrote: post #127
swalkergibson wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Owning a gun does not contribute to suicide. The statistics suggest that you are incorrect. Harvard, the National Institutes of Health, and the Israeli Defense Forces all have studies that point to gun ownership actually increasing suicide risk. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-... EDIT: Furthermore, the argument that guns don't kill people is intellectually lazy. Guns are designed to kil…

No, it does not. The statistics show that firearms are the most popular choice. If it is a contributor then people shoot themselves BECAUSE they own the gun. I fail to follow that sort of logic. The only connection I can agree with is that firearms allow for snap decisions and fatal first-attempts. Owning a gun does not lead you to a suicide risk, but it doesn't help if you have suicidal tendencies. That's not enough…

> If it is a contributor then people shoot themselves BECAUSE they own the gun.

That is a pretty strict interpretation of the cause of suicide. Of course, nobody kills themselves by sheer virtue of the fact that they own a weapon.

> Owning a gun does not lead you to a suicide risk

That is precisely what those studies suggest. Having a firearm nearby does in fact increase your risk of suicide. Whether or not that is enough to restrict people's rights is a totally separate issue. You argued that guns do not increase suicide risk, which is incorrect.

> There are many guns that are designed for a very specific target and would be incredibly bad to use to kill any living thing.

Fantastic! We should allow those firearms for people to have their fun, and regulate the other types (the ones for killing people) as much as possible.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#136

Post by aidenn0 »

jonnathanson wrote: post #20
viraptor wrote: post #9

So what they're doing in general goes in the direction completely opposite to what the broken windows theory would suggest... It seems really weird to me - it's one thing to try to be friendly with someone who's already planning a crime and something completely different when you're providing both incentive and funding for new crime (pawn shops).

I'm surprised nobody's gone after them for entrapment. IANAL, but my understanding is that the definition of entrapment is inducing someone to commit a crime that he wouldn't have been likely to commit otherwise. In the case of convincing a mentally disabled teenager to run drugs and guns, the shoe seems to fit.

IANAL, but entrapent is an affirmative defense; in most cases it moves the burden of proof onto the defendant. That makes it hard to use.

Furthermore, the inducement usually has to be pretty strong. Merely suggesting someone commit a crime is not entrapment. Even paying them to commit a crime isn't in many cases.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#137

Post by gknoy »

talmand wrote: post #119
scott_karana wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the controversy over the recent High River, Alberta gun seizures. During a recent flood, numerous evacuated homes that were entered by the RCMP had their houseowners' firearms seized, regardless of whether they were stored securely and legally. A total of 542 firearms were seized. There are ongoing debates as to whether any homes were entered for the sole purpose of seizure.[1] "Plenty" of gun carriers is a…

The same thing happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Personally, I would have no problem with this as long as they logged the seized property correctly and provided means for the owners to retrieve their property at a later date.

I'd trust such a "Means to retrieve" about as far as I can throw it. FOIA requests are often denied or returned completely redacted, and I'd expect any similar "give me back my gun" requests to be either rubber stamped, or mired in enough red tape that it would be more cost effective to buy a new one.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#138

Post by swalkergibson »

talmand wrote: post #118
gpcz wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Ah yes, the old personal ownership of nuclear weapons argument, as if that were the same thing and relevant to this discussion. Note, in my comment above when I state "an inanimate object", I am referring to a gun. For you to take that statement and expand it to an extreme such as nuclear weapons is rather childish on your part. Since we've started into childish manner of discussion, are you suggesting then that some…

You are dealing in really generic platitudes that do not have any basis in fact.

> In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[48] The likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[49] For example, the mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Stat...

The statistics on this issue are stacked pretty highly in favor of gun control. If part of the social contract for living in the United States means that we have to contend with the threat of gun violence, then so be it. However, we should not pretend that the number of guns currently in our society somehow makes us safer or more advanced or anything like that.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#139

Post by scardine »

lwhalen wrote: post #103
dm2 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In Brazil, it used to be very difficult to obtain the permit to legally carry a gun. A couple years ago, there was a national referendum and now it is effectively impossible to legally carry a gun unless you are linked to a LEA, private security company or the judicial system.

Result? A 260% increase in murders after robbery[1] (link in Portuguese, sorry). I guess every idiot that voted for these stupid laws deserves to get shot.

The government excuse? Blame the victim. Like people are more likely to fight back unarmed.

[1] http://g1.globo.com/sao-paulo/noticia/2013/04/abc-tem-aument...

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#140

Post by aric »

rayiner wrote: post #39
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #36

I don't own a gun, but let's assume I become a gun enthusiast and decide to go buy "something cool" I go to my local gun store, which is actually a front for the ATF. In my mind, looks like a bunch of seedy characters, but i assume they're trustworthy because, natch, they have a license from the ATF. I strike up a conversation with the bearded, scraggly guy behind the counter. What would I like? I don't know. How abo…

You don't even have to bring morality into the equation. There's functional problems with this sort of operation, for precisely the reason you outlined. The legal system assumes that people can figure out, based on social context, what the law is, or at least know when they need to consult a lawyer. Actively misleading people, in the guise of licensed dealers, upends this assumption. Whether it's moral or immoral, it…

Morality is important to bring into the equation. Although s/he didn't have to, as you say, I'm glad s/he did. One should always keep ethics as a fundamental layer in discussing law, especially about actions that result in forms of torture (e.g. prison).
Post reply on HN