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

171–180 of 192 posts

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#171

Post by freehunter »

pandaman wrote: post #161
freehunter wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what reality would a long drawn-out firefight between me and a bad guy happen often enough for me to be "seriously inconvenienced" by the fact that I only have a 10 round clip? Does that ever actually happen? The only way I can see that happening is if I'm wildly firing rounds towards a target hoping something hits. Not very realistic.

If you were talking about just yourself - I cannot really comment since I don't know you and have no idea what happens to you. For all I know there are millions of people who don't own a gun at all and don't feel inconvenienced by that at all. If you don't need more than 10 round magazines - just don't buy them. If you decided that 6 rounds or 3 is all you need - just go with that. You know yourself better than anybo…

I had a line in my comment hoping to stave off stupid things like this. I suggest you go back and re-read the last paragraph, it's only a couple sentences long.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#172

Post by beat »

cgore wrote: post #153
beat wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put it another way... if you can't win your argument without going Godwin, maybe your position isn't very strong. Leading with Godwin is the sign of a very weak argument, or a very weak arguer.

I think the Godwin rule is good for stuff that is extreme hyperbole, and typically just examples of attacks on character. The 'Soup Nazi' from Seinfeld being a good example: it was one of my favorite episodes, but really, the soup restaurant guy is Hitler? But I am literally making a point about something that I think is truly key to preserving democratic society in America, or whatever is left of it, and I would vie…

Point 1: You didn't go Godwin on "removal of private gun ownership", you did it on mere registration. Changing parameters to defend your point is bad arguing too.

Point 2: I'm a pro-gun liberal. I'm also opposed to gun registration. I kicked you around on it not to support gun registration, but rather because you're making my side of the argument look bad. I don't want the people I agree with making crappy omg hitler!11!! arguments because it makes my job that much harder.

Point 3: If you can't show how gun registration is bad (or ineffective, which is my usual tack) without saying omg hitler, you're not going to convince anyone that you're right.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#173

Post by gpcz »

talmand wrote: post #133
gpcz wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

You used a rhetorical flourish that made your argument sound more extreme than you intended, and it backfired when someone called you out on it. Rather than write a reply dripping with sarcasm and contempt, perhaps you should meditate on this incident as your personal failure to be a clear and effective writer.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#174

Post by michaeldhopkins »

grey-area wrote: post #170
mortyseinfeld wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking of bankruptcy in that context is a nonsense introduced by politicians intent on doing away with it for ideological reasons. And that comment is a perfect example why we still have people on HN saying things like "free" healthcare. But at the end of the day it all costs money. It's just this make-believe world that some people want to live in...amazing.

Are you saying any part of my comment was make-believe? If so please let me know which part, instead of struggling with a straw man of your own invention. Of course it costs money, and that money comes from taxes and borrowing as does the money for the MOD, MOE, and all other state funded services.

He quoted part of your post directly and responded to it. It was this part: "Talking of bankruptcy in that context is a nonsense introduced by politicians intent on doing away with it for ideological reasons."

I'm just explaining to you that he quoted you since you were unsure.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#175

Post by swalkergibson »

talmand wrote: post #166
swalkergibson wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exam…

Switching from suicides to homicides doesn't really help the case for gun control. That page's neutrality on the subject is also under dispute. You should read the comments about that, they are interesting. If we're talking homicides, does that include legal homicides as well as the illegal kind? If it does then the number is misleading. Since homicide is defined as a person killing another person then many shootings…

Do you have any scientific studies to back up any of the claims you have made here? For someone lamenting the appeals to emotion of strict gun control advocates, there is a striking lack of evidence supporting your position.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#176

Post by talmand »

quanticle wrote: post #168
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…

The problem is that there are lots of examples of gun confiscations that did not lead to mass murder as well. If we look at Britain, or Australia, or Japan, all those regions once allowed gun ownership on much more liberal terms than they allow today. In the transition from having a liberal gun ownership policy to having a strict gun ownership policy, guns were confiscated. But I don't see anyone saying that Britain…

I said much the same thing. I fail to see how it's a problem in any discussion about gun control and/or confiscations.

Some people would claim is on its way to totalitarianism considering the rise in government intrusion and control in people's lives. But that's a different debate.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#177

Post by swalkergibson »

talmand wrote: post #146
swalkergibson wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

I don't see a strict interpretation of the cause of suicide in what I said, I see a disagreement in whether guns are contributors. Having a gun increases the likelihood of you attempting to use it, much like using any other means to do so. If knives were the most common choice, should we consider them risks for everyone because they might commit suicide with them? The fact that so many succeed with guns while failing…

> If knives were the most common choice, should we consider them risks for everyone because they might commit suicide with them?

Yes.

Your argument is unclear to me. All else equal, it makes perfect sense that having a gun accessible nearby increases your suicide risk. Just as if you had a big bottle of pills nearby, or a big tower that you could just jump off of. Now, the question turns to whether or not those things should or could be regulated in some way to reduce that risk. The answer is no. Death is a side effect of those modalities. Neither pills nor a tower's main purpose is to end human life. However, for the vast majority of guns, the main purpose is to end life.

> But I'm glad to see that you agree with me that not all guns are designed to kill living things.

Could you please provide some examples of guns like this? The only thing I can think of would be some sort of really heavily modified .22LR for target shooting.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#178

Post by talmand »

gpcz wrote: post #173
talmand wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." You used a rhetorical flourish that made your argument sound more extreme than you intended, and it backfired when someone called you out on it. Rather than write a reply dripping with sarcasm and contempt, perhaps you should meditate on this incident as your personal failure to be a cle…

Well, since we're discussing opinions here, it is of my opinion that it is your reading comprehension that's lacking. But you shouldn't take it as a personal failure, it happens to everyone from time to time.

When there is an ongoing discussion about an object then one is fully capable of referring to that object without literally naming that object each and every time it is mentioned.

My way: I am holding a stapler. The object in my hand is red. I use it to excess, wasting staples. The boss wants to restrict everyone's usage of staplers because of my waste. I don't think the boss should restrict your usage of an object because of my inefficient usage of the same object.

Your way: I am holding a stapler. The stapler in my hand is red. I use the stapler to excess, wasting staples. The boss wants to restrict everyone's usage of staplers because of my waste. I don't think the boss should restrict your usage of a stapler because of my inefficient usage of a stapler.

That's a stupid way to construct a discussion. But if it makes you happy.

If you take my statement and remove it from the context of the discussion then sure, you are quite correct. But it is not correct to quote that statement as to somehow proving your point by removing it from the context of the discussion.

I did not fail in using a rhetorical flourish to make an argument. I used a simple statement to prove my point that you apparently either failed to follow or attempted to use as a "gotcha!" moment. I'm leaning towards you thinking you had an excellent gotcha moment but alas, I think you protest too much.

By the way, your expanding my statement to include nuclear weapons to totally blow the discussion out of proportion and out of reality was the joke of my office yesterday. Many people thank you for the chuckles you provided.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#179

Post by swalkergibson »

krakensden wrote: post #164
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.

I suspect banning guns wouldn't really help. Japan doesn't have many, but they have lots of suicides.

The argument does not work in reverse. If they had more guns, there would probably be more suicides. End of story.

I am not suggesting that no guns == no suicides, because that would be ridiculous. I am refuting the suggestion that having a gun does not increase your risk of dying by suicide. I submit that having a gun nearby does increase your risk of dying by suicide with ample supporting evidence listed above. I am happy to read studies to the contrary, but it seems pretty clear to me at this point.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#180

Post by talmand »

swalkergibson wrote: post #175
talmand wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switching from suicides to homicides doesn't really help the case for gun control. That page's neutrality on the subject is also under dispute. You should read the comments about that, they are interesting. If we're talking homicides, does that include legal homicides as well as the illegal kind? If it does then the number is misleading. Since homicide is defined as a person killing another person then many shootings…

Do you have any scientific studies to back up any of the claims you have made here? For someone lamenting the appeals to emotion of strict gun control advocates, there is a striking lack of evidence supporting your position.

Much of the information I described is listed on the very page on Wikipedia linked above. If you dig a bit further on Wikipedia you can find the stats on a state-by-state basis. I believe at one point there was a breakdown by race on Wikipedia at one time but I'm unable to find it now.

The FBI's own crime statistics can be rather enlightening if one were to drill down into the numbers instead of looking at the nation as a whole.

The problems with gun control studies are the same as with climate change studies, there are always accusations of bias on both sides. I suggest everyone read studies that purport to show the truth as presented by both sides and decide for yourselves.

Post reply on HN