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

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#181

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 3:34 PM UTC

dm2 wrote: post #99

logfromblammo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most gun safes are Faraday cages when closed and locked. This means that not all guns are locatable at any given time, and the majority of non-locatable guns would be entirely legitimate.

And as counterexample to your claims, I propose the smartphone. Every smartphone, intrinsic to its normal operation, is locatable with a high degree of precision to a single building, yet most smartphone thefts are not ever prosecuted, nor any attempt at recovery ever made. The carriers themselves have even resisted efforts to remotely deactivate those stolen phones, even though it would be trivial from a technical standpoint.

Clearly, GPS beacons do not prevent, deter, or reverse thefts. I have no reason to believe that cops would be any better at catching tracked-gun thieves than they are at catching smartphone thieves.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#182

Post by talmand » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 4:00 PM UTC

swalkergibson wrote: post #177

talmand wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thing…

Again, having a gun increases the likelihood of succeeding in the attempt. It allows for snap decisions is also true. But I do not agree that it contributes to the act in of itself.

A perfect example of this someone pointed out elsewhere; Japan has an incredibly high suicide rate. It is apparently the leading cause of death of men and women in the younger age brackets. Japan has little to no gun culture. From what I've read, people there are attempting to address the why's of the situation instead of tackling the how's as it would change nothing.

People who talk of restricting people's access to guns because of other people's choices of using those gun on themselves is attempting to tackle the how's of the problem and not discussing the why's. It restricts people's rights without actually solving anything.

I have no problems with restricting access to someone with suicidal thoughts, although that's tough to determine how to go about that fairly. But it's a completely different thing to restrict a person's rights because his neighbor is suicidal.

As for guns designed for things other than killing. The easiest examples are shotguns. There are a number of shotguns specifically designed for clay sports. There's even a difference in designs between a shotgun intended for trap and skeet. In trap the clay flies away from you so the shotgun is designed to sling lead as far and as accurately as possible. In skeet the lead doesn't have to travel far but you often have to be able to swing the gun from left-to-right rather quickly, so it is designed with that in mind. Then there are shotguns designed for you to carry in the field and shoot birds. There is often overlap in these designs and the guns designed for clay sports can of course be used to kill living things. But that's not what they are designed for.

There are many other examples, such as the very one you describe.

If you want to discuss the aspect of something being designed to kill, a better and more accurate discussion is about ammunition. A gun is something designed to sling a projectile at high speeds. You can take any gun and insert blanks to make it useless for just about anything.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#183

Post by talmand » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 4:03 PM UTC

swalkergibson wrote: post #179

krakensden wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I don't think anyone is disputing that having a gun increases the likelihood of succeeding. I just disagree with the idea that the gun contributed to the attempt.

Most of what you just stated I have no disagreements with, but it is worded differently than what has been stated by others before.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#184

Post by gpcz » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 4:03 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #178

gpcz wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 difference between the office example and the gun example is that the generalized version would actually make sense in the office example (for example, here is Derek Sivers bringing a similar argument up: https://sivers.org/punish ). If you were my coworker saying the generalized version to me in an office, I would have interpreted you as having the generalized opinion. Of course, since I agree, I wouldn't have raised a counterexample, and you would have walked away thinking I agreed with what you meant instead of what you said. Language is tricky like that.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#185

Post by cschneid » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 4:44 PM UTC

wl wrote: post #54

cschneid wrote: post #34

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? Ohh god yes, they would. I live in Colorado, and 2 of our state reps got recalled when the democrats limited clip size to 15, and required more background checks on purchase. That restriction got people so angry that they did mid-term recalls. Not even just waiting till next election.

FYI, using the term "clip" in this way is common but incorrect. Colorado limited the size of magazines to 15 rounds. Magazines hold ammunition in a way that a gun can pull a round from it when the action cycles. Clips are a specific kind of device for loading some types of magazines.

Thanks, I'm obviously not very knowledgable about guns. But the word choice sure doesn't change the political reality in the US about any sort of gun control being totally untenable.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#186

Post by talmand » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 4:58 PM UTC

gpcz wrote: post #184

talmand wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 difference between the office example and the gun example is that the generalized version would actually make sense in the office example (for example, here is Derek Sivers bringing a similar argument up: https://sivers.org/punish ). If you were my coworker saying the generalized version to me in an office, I would have interpreted you as having the generalized opinion. Of course, since I agree, I wouldn't have r…

Both examples are the same thing within the discussion that each was a part of. During any of the discussion of this thread, I don't see generalized opinions, the discussion was very direct in discussing one topic: firearms used for suicide. You were the one to attempt to generalize my statement by taking it outside the context of the discussion.

If I had walked up to you and made my statement without any context whatsoever then you would be absolutely correct, which I said before.

Thanks for the link, it supports my argument quite well that punishing all for the actions of an individual is not always the correct course of action. It actually goes beyond what I was saying since I was only speaking of restricting someone based on what another person does to themselves.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#187

Post by grey-area » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 6:56 PM UTC

michaeldhopkins wrote: post #174

grey-area wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He quoted me, then proceeded on a tangent completely unrelated to it, about free health care which doesn't cost money, and a make-believe world which apparently I want to live in.

I have trouble relating the quote with his arguments, because I said nothing about 'free' healthcare, things which don't cost money, or something make believe. If anything a bankruptcy in a centrally funded department involves make-believe, because it implies that there is no more money; it's a question of priorities and what you want to spend the budget on, and much money has been found for other projects by HMG during this recession alone, for example bank bailouts, wars abroad or tax cuts.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#188

Post by zootar » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 7:40 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #52

rayiner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite a bit more complicated than that. The two most important graphs for understanding U.S. law enforcement: Total state and federal prisoners: http://www.sentencingproject.org/images/photo/State%20and%20... . Total violent crime: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zJiRb6FKYgM/Tqil-T4fLpI/AAAAAAAAAF... . Violent crime increases almost 5x from the mid 1960's to the early 1990's. The number of state and federal prisoners…

The strongest-correlated single factor to violent crime is, in fact, lead pollution. When lead antiknock compounds were abolished in gasoline, and lead pigments abolished in paint, lead pollution peaked and began a long, steady decline. Violent crime followed. The prisoner incarceration rate has stayed high, despite the decline in violence, because of the money interests. For-profit prisons are the ratchets that prev…

The connection between lead and crime is tenuous. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6092990.

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#189

Post by cgore » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 8:42 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #172

cgore wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hitle…

I think there is a sizable minority that wants anybody who isn't in jail to be well armed, whether or not they agree with me politically, and I'm in that minority. I think it benefits society. I sort of vacillate between conservative and libertarian depending on the issue and the day of the week myself, but I think pro-gun liberals are a great addition.

I think there is a sizable minority that wants nobody to have guns, for various reasons, but typically because they actually think it'll stop violence. I think that won't work at all, and has lots of negative effects. It isn't a coincidence that all of the mass shootings happen in "gun free zones".

I think there is a vanishingly small number of people who actually want to disarm society in order to try and push a Nazi-like situation. But, imagine an America where the NSA that Snowden has told us about are the only people with firearms. Do you want to live there?

Re: ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

#190

Post by beat » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 4:20 AM UTC

cgore wrote: post #189

beat wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hitle…

I think there is a sizable minority that wants anybody who isn't in jail to be well armed, whether or not they agree with me politically, and I'm in that minority. I think it benefits society. I sort of vacillate between conservative and libertarian depending on the issue and the day of the week myself, but I think pro-gun liberals are a great addition. I think there is a sizable minority that wants nobody to have gu…

Small logical problem there, common in pro-gun circles. The reason mass shooting happen in "gun free zones" is because those are the places where people are concentrated. The idea that mass murderers are afraid of armed self-defense is utter nonsense - after all, they know they will be engaged with the police quickly enough.