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

If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 321 posts

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#291

Post by rorykoehler »

bfuller wrote: post #204
rorykoehler wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal experiences in some of the cases you have mentioned. 2 times house break, both times I confronted the burglars with a kitchen knife and gave them an avenue to escape which they took. I would never want to kill someone because they tried take my property. It's just stuff and quite frankly I value human life much higher, even if it is the life of a criminal who is taking my things. The fact that there are s…

Wait a minute, so you are ok with brandishing a knife, but not a gun? That is silly.

I didn't plan it. I just grabbed the first thing in front of me. It could have been a bat or chain or anything else but it just happened to be a knife. Also both times I exited the building and approached from the outside, I kept my distance (30 feet) and gave myself an escape route if the situation escalated. I know that 99.99% of the time a person will run away from someone surprising them with a knife so I took a chance. It was a calculated risk and it worked. The risk calculation changes drastically if you have a gun and it is much more likely to lead to bad decisions being made.

If circumstances had been that I was cornered and I would have had to use the knife if they didn't leave I don't think I would have taken it (or a gun for that matter). To be quite honest I don't know what I would have done in that situation (probably rushed them unarmed and tried to run away). Thankfully in both properties there were multiple escape routes.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#292

Post by rorykoehler »

hguant wrote: post #249
serf wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I agree with the person you're replying to, but it makes some sense. (caveat: i'd never confront an intruder without my life or my families life in danger.) Guns have hosts of failure modes, and require specialized knowledge on their operation to ensure safety. Guns can even fire accidentally, with an accidental discharge on dropping the firearm being a possibility on any gun without a firing pin block (whic…

This comment made me get off my ass and remember my YC login. Your post parses correctly, but what you're saying doesn't really correspond with reality. > Guns can even fire accidentally, with an accidental discharge on dropping the firearm being a possibility on any gun without a firing pin block (which is practically any long gun, the kind you can buy at Walmart in some states, with no waiting period in some states…

In my case standing back with a knife seemed to project enough power to convince the intruders to leave (3 people the first time and 2 the second time).

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#293

Post by MCRed »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #19
MCRed wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a substantive riff on the original article that provides food for thought. When it only talked about the fact that gays were killed in the holocaust it was accruing upvotes. But now that it also talks about he mechanism by which groups are smeared it is rapidly accruing down votes. I'm guessing because of the defense of gun owners. If HN is a place where substantial discussion is warranted, I've given ammunit…

I downvoted you because I frankly think implying that gun owners, men, Christians and gamers are persecuted in the United States (which was the implication) makes you just as laughable as the same radical feminists you claim to oppose.

"I frankly think implying that jews are persecuted in this country (which was the implication) makes you just as laughable as the same communists you claim to oppose."

Of course you downvote me, you're a bigot and I'm your target victim. You advocated my persecution, and in this case, despite providing a substantive comment you downvoted me-- an act that works to silence me-- because not only are you a bigot you are anti-intellectual.

Thanks at least for admitting it.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#294

Post by MCRed »

vacri wrote: post #221
MCRed wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a substantive riff on the original article that provides food for thought. When it only talked about the fact that gays were killed in the holocaust it was accruing upvotes. But now that it also talks about he mechanism by which groups are smeared it is rapidly accruing down votes. I'm guessing because of the defense of gun owners. If HN is a place where substantial discussion is warranted, I've given ammunit…

> as I am silenced for the crime of critical thinking I love this sort of "If I lose, I called it, so I'm actually right!" hedging. The implication is, of course, that rather than you perhaps being wrong , that your unpopular opinion is actually 'critical thinking' and your opponents are all incapable of it.

Oh, I could be wrong, and if that were the case, people would have arguments that point out the errors in my thinking.

However, consistently, on Hacker News, and among leftists, instead of making arguments that refute my arguments with logic, facts or reason, they choose to do like you do-- and attack me personally.

Since you can't argue to the point and you did argue to the person, and you downvoted to try and silence my opinion-- yes, I think it's a slam dunk that it's an inability to engage in critical thinking.

Also, I have been on this site since around 2007, and so I have many years of experience to draw from... the left teaches anti-intellectualism as much, or more, than the religious right, and it is pervasive on this site.

That you smugly said what you did above is proof positive of it. But you'll never see it, because you've been trained to be unable to see it.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#295

Post by yummyfajitas »

foldr wrote: post #287
yummyfajitas wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don't buy a gun if you have an abusive intimate partner, and do buy one if you are single or have a non-abusive partner. Pretty simple. Also, upon rereading, your article doesn't even really support your claim that a gun makes women less safe. Note the comparisons made: "More than twice as many women are killed with a gun used by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than are murdered by strangers..." "A very s…

It's not "my" article. > the percentage of women in households without a gun who successfully defended themselves Irrelevant, since the whole point is that lethal home invasions are very rare. In other words, even if having a gun provided 100% protection against a murderous home invader, and even if lacking a gun made it 100% certain that he would kill you, owning the gun would still have a negligible effect on you o…

Irrelevant, since the whole point is that lethal home invasions are very rare.

If women defend themselves successfully 7% of the time when a gun is in the home but 3% when it's not (the relevant comparison), then guns are effective in preventing domestic violence. The article doesn't even discuss this statistic, which is the only important one.

Either guns make it easier to kill people or they don't.

They do - no one disputes this. No one disputes that an armed man vs an unarmed woman has a better shot than an unarmed man vs an unarmed woman. So what?

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#296

Post by kwhitefoot »

ams6110 wrote: post #138
spdustin wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect the fourth amendment to be a growing factor in SCOTUS cases related to privacy - at the time of inception, a person's self, house, papers and effects were tangible things - the idea that the other "digital effects" we all have in our "digital houses" didn't exist. I think the argument that an email would be a "paper" under the fourth amendment is going to be the first test. I know that sort of thing has been…

I would read "papers" as different from email. Papers I interpret as personal records: journals, financial records, etc. Email, tweets, Facebook postings, etc. are already by default shared with at least one other person or unknown other persons so there's an implicit reduced notion of privacy. I agree with the larger point that information on digital devices should properly be considered "papers" or "effects" even i…

Financial records are also shared with others. And my correspondence with another person is also private whether achieved via paper and envelope or by email or instant message.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#297

Post by foldr »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #295
foldr wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "my" article. > the percentage of women in households without a gun who successfully defended themselves Irrelevant, since the whole point is that lethal home invasions are very rare. In other words, even if having a gun provided 100% protection against a murderous home invader, and even if lacking a gun made it 100% certain that he would kill you, owning the gun would still have a negligible effect on you o…

Irrelevant, since the whole point is that lethal home invasions are very rare. If women defend themselves successfully 7% of the time when a gun is in the home but 3% when it's not (the relevant comparison), then guns are effective in preventing domestic violence. The article doesn't even discuss this statistic, which is the only important one. Either guns make it easier to kill people or they don't. They do - no one…

Having a gun in the home makes it easier for each partner to kill the other. Thus, I don't see how it could possibly make one partner safer than they would otherwise be. It would appear to make both of them less safe. (And the real solution to this problem is to GTFO of an abusive relationship, not to buy a gun because then maybe there's a tiny chance that you can kill the guy before he kills you. That's just nuts.)

I'm not sure why you keep harping on statistics, since neither of us has any direct statistical information regarding whether a woman owning a gun makes her less likely to be killed by her partner. There are no statistics supporting your position either.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#298

Post by Evolved »

All rights are worth fighting for even if they don't affect your life. The reasoning behind this should be pretty clear in that the individual rights tend to help protect the others much like chainmail. Maybe each individual link is not particularly strong but together they can fend off quite an attack but the hole that's left if a single link is compromised is why we should fight for all rights.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#299

Post by tripzilch »

stickfigure wrote: post #239
task_queue wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good percentage of the time a weapon used by a homeowner during a home invasion is used against them. Get out of the house and let the authorities deal with it. Your stuff isn't worth your life or your family's continued safety. Remember that most burglars aren't as shocked or scared as you are during a burglary. It's a routine for them. Their attention is focused on what to do if someone in the house notices. If y…

A good percentage of the time a weapon used by a homeowner during a home invasion is used against them. This quasi-statistic (which I will take at face value), while interesting from a sociological perspective, does not actually inform individual decisionmaking. It's a thinly veiled way of saying to someone "you can't be trusted to handle a gun/knife/whatever properly" - which, even if true for the majority of humans…

Same goes for speed limits.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#300

Post by vacri »

MCRed wrote: post #294
vacri wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as I am silenced for the crime of critical thinking I love this sort of "If I lose, I called it, so I'm actually right!" hedging. The implication is, of course, that rather than you perhaps being wrong , that your unpopular opinion is actually 'critical thinking' and your opponents are all incapable of it.

Oh, I could be wrong, and if that were the case, people would have arguments that point out the errors in my thinking. However, consistently, on Hacker News, and among leftists, instead of making arguments that refute my arguments with logic, facts or reason, they choose to do like you do-- and attack me personally. Since you can't argue to the point and you did argue to the person, and you downvoted to try and silen…

> they choose to do like you do-- and attack me personally.

You are being a hypocrite. By saying "downvoters aren't critically thinking", you are attacking people who haven't even responded yet. You're setting up a pre-response trigger. It's an immature, adolescent way to debate. If you were a good at critical thinking as you say you are, you'd see that and understand why.

> you downvoted to try and silence my opinion

Are you psychic? HN doesn't provide a mechanism to see the modders, up or down, and I usually don't downmod and respond, myself. I do one or the other. So much for your 'slam dunk'.

> That you smugly said what you did

You really aren't above this 'personal attack' thing, you know. I actually attacked what you were saying, not you personally, pointing out your hedging. Even if you took it as 'personal attack', that you chide me for doing so, then do it yourself? Hypocrisy.

Your 'critical thinking' is rife with errors, so your pre-response strike against people who disagree with you is entirely unwarranted, and a very non-critical-thinking way to conduct your argument.

Post reply on HN