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

Tor: Illegal Weapons

kukuruku.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Tor: Illegal Weapons

#21

Post by frapandolf »

harshreality wrote: post #20
RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my country (Australia) I believe most people would be a little uncomfortable if they knew they were in a house with a gun. I'd certainly think the owner was a bit odd/unhinged unless they owned it as part of their employment (farmer, roo shooter etc.). That said, I don't see this as a big deal. It's always been possible to mail weapons from a jurisdiction with easier access to them. Tor black markets just make it…

If someone isn't comfortable in a house with a gun, regardless of the upstanding character of the owner, that might indicate a harmful phobia of certain kinds of inanimate objects, but it's their choice not to visit a gun owner's house and nobody is going to take that choice away from them. A law against gun ownership is vastly different. Plenty of people don't like drugs, particularly banned narcotics and stimulants…

I don't think that is a particularly fair correlation. Guns are (historically) tools created with the express purpose of KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, capitalized for emphasis. Being uncomfortable around them is not indicative of some kind of basic phobia of inanimate objects.

Re: Tor: Illegal Weapons

#22

Post by harshreality »

Mimu wrote: post #19
golemotron wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apples and oranges. Guns have no victim unless they are used and the vast majority of them, illegal or not, are never used to hurt anyone. Our society fetishes guns enormously. I know some people who would be uncomfortable being in someone's house if they new they had a gun, even if they trust and know everyone in the house. Those same people are never scared by steak or hunting knives in the same house.

The only mean to a gun is to hurt people so comparing it to fruit or other useful tool is not very relevant imo.

Self defense tools are not useful?

Sporting use or aesthetics are not relevant? There go javelins, bows and arrows, swords, etc.

Hunting is not relevant? I hope you don't eat meat, or perhaps you prefer the ethics of factory animal farming to the ethics of hunting with firearms?

Re: Tor: Illegal Weapons

#23

Post by venomsnake »

collyw wrote: post #17
mathgeek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you have the same attitude about kiddie porn? Logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

It was a genuine question, rather than trying to prove a point. I know what you are saying, but most people outside of the US see gun owning as a pretty serious problem.

And I am not a US citizen. Just pragmatic. And child pornography is something that cannot be "invented" or "improvised". It requires abusing a child (of course in the current landscape child porn is watered down to "whatever gives this politician a boner" - like teenagers sexting between them or works of fiction)

But yeah ... I think that current approach towards CP is misguided. We will be able to prevent the creation of the content if we screen and treat the persons for the mental illness they have. That is the real way to strangle demand.

Re: Tor: Illegal Weapons

#24

Post by ta82828 »

frapandolf wrote: post #21
harshreality wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone isn't comfortable in a house with a gun, regardless of the upstanding character of the owner, that might indicate a harmful phobia of certain kinds of inanimate objects, but it's their choice not to visit a gun owner's house and nobody is going to take that choice away from them. A law against gun ownership is vastly different. Plenty of people don't like drugs, particularly banned narcotics and stimulants…

I don't think that is a particularly fair correlation. Guns are (historically) tools created with the express purpose of KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, capitalized for emphasis. Being uncomfortable around them is not indicative of some kind of basic phobia of inanimate objects.

Maybe it's not a basic phobia, but the grandparent poster implied that anyone who likes target shooting and owns guns for that purpose is "odd/unhinged".

I don't understand why people can say, "oh he's a farmer, so he's not insane for having a gun" but the moment someone's not a farmer, they're suddenly unhinged or obsessed with violence, as opposed to perhaps, a target shooter or other kind of hobbyist. It's like they have this mental pattern "grandpa with a gun" where it's ok, and everything else just sets off alarm bells. It's odd, because it's usually liberals (in the US this is a liberal/conservative thing) that have more "openness to experience" but for some reason they are rarely open to the experience of growing up with guns, considering them dangerous but useful tools, using them for sport and hunting, and not being insane while doing so.

Weapons of war have historically become objects of sport: it happened with fencing and archery - firearms are no different.

Re: Tor: Illegal Weapons

#25

Post by harshreality »

frapandolf wrote: post #21
harshreality wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone isn't comfortable in a house with a gun, regardless of the upstanding character of the owner, that might indicate a harmful phobia of certain kinds of inanimate objects, but it's their choice not to visit a gun owner's house and nobody is going to take that choice away from them. A law against gun ownership is vastly different. Plenty of people don't like drugs, particularly banned narcotics and stimulants…

I don't think that is a particularly fair correlation. Guns are (historically) tools created with the express purpose of KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, capitalized for emphasis. Being uncomfortable around them is not indicative of some kind of basic phobia of inanimate objects.

You skipped over the middle of that sentence. If you're afraid that the person you're visiting has guns and is unsafe with them, or will actively try to kill you with them, by all means don't visit them. Most gun owners feel the same way. Allowing people to own guns does not give them carte blanche to handle them any way they want without being criticized, shunned or charged with a crime.

They also might accidentally stab you with a knife or have horrible aim when trying to butcher a chicken you're holding, and cut off your hand with a cleaver. Is it reasonable, then, to be uncomfortable around knives in a kitchen, too? Even when they're not in use? Within certain boundaries of storage and safe handling and usage, knives are not dangerous.

It's the same with guns. Within certain boundaries of safe handling, by someone who you don't suspect is mentally unhinged, gun possession or use is a non-problem. Anyone who is unsafe with guns, around anyone who's familiar with gun safety, will quickly be educated about proper gun handling.

As with bows and arrows, and swords, and crossbows (which, when cocked, are not so different from guns... they must be handled very carefully, but where's the casual disparagement of crossbow owners?). And all other things that have their places in everyday use, sport or culture, even when they could be dangerous. The origins of guns as weapons is irrelevant. Guns are not unique in that respect, yet many people who dislike, or are afraid of guns, treat a gun phobia uniquely as something to be praised. "How would any reasonable person not be afraid of guns? They're instruments of death!" How would any reasonable person not be afraid of a crossbow, or a katana, or even a knife? We learn to use knives safely without fear, and learn not to be afraid of swords and (cross)bows when they're being stored or carried or used properly.

Re: Tor: Illegal Weapons

#26

Post by bhayden »

venomsnake wrote: post #3

Big deal. It is not as if it is something hard to DIY if you are committed to breaking the law. I think that is the stuff that both sides of second amendment shouting match fail to get - inventing deadly stuff is easy.

Agreed - anyone can make a zipgun with a couple pieces of pipe and a nail from Home Depot, under $10. Just as lethal as any other single-capacity shotgun.

Re: Tor: Illegal Weapons

#27

Post by craigwblake »

venomsnake wrote: post #3

Big deal. It is not as if it is something hard to DIY if you are committed to breaking the law. I think that is the stuff that both sides of second amendment shouting match fail to get - inventing deadly stuff is easy.

> Big deal. It is not as if it is something hard to DIY if you are committed to breaking the law.

And, for the most part, it has little to do with breaking the law. In many places, including the vast majority of the U.S., DIY weapons (with a few exceptions) are perfectly legal provided you are not a prohibited person.

> I think that is the stuff that both sides of second amendment shouting match fail to get - inventing deadly stuff is easy.

What makes you think that 2A supporters fail to understand this? The ubiquitous availability of deadly weapons of all forms is a common theme in the utilitarian argument against gun control.

Re: Tor: Illegal Weapons

#28

Post by hga »

pakled_engineer wrote: post #12
hias wrote: post #6

How does this work? I guess they can not just ship the heavy guns via standard postal services? Aren't there controls in the shipping centers which check for scents of drugs, gunpowder, whatever?

Russians always use GPS drop since the post system there is totally unreliable. Everywhere else they disassemble and mail the guns with a pile of scrap and call it 'bike parts' or something. No idea how they ship the ammo I hope they don't mail it as it goes on passenger planes and live ammunition has to be secured so an LD3 doesnt roll around, crush something then set off bullets flying through the cabin.

If a round is not sufficiently encased by a chamber, the bullet will go nowhere as the brass or steel splits and vents. In one "oops" I read about, when someone was in too much of a hurry to finish a "bullet board" (a display of cartridges on a board), they used a drill on a loaded round to to make a hole to get the powder out (also makes it clear the round is not loaded), holding the round with their fingers.

No, that's not a good idea; even if their fingers didn't feel the heat generated by the drill quickly enough, it was sufficient to set off the primer, which embedded itself into the guy's bicep. And the case split, but only spilled unburned powder on his hand, that situation wasn't enough to set it on fire or otherwise harm him.

So I tend to assume it's more of an accelerant problem than a primary fire hazard, especially since as far as I know, loaded cartridges with sharp, pointy bullets but also with extra hard military primers as sometimes sold and shipped in bulk packaging, "loose" inside a bag (! see e.g. http://www.natchezss.com/federal-5-56-62gr-fmj-green-tip-600...). That doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling, but apparently the biggest US ammo manufacturer, many distributors, and the US Department of Transportation and UPS are OK with shipping that by ground.

Re: Tor: Illegal Weapons

#29

Post by venomsnake »

craigwblake wrote: post #27
venomsnake wrote: post #3

Big deal. It is not as if it is something hard to DIY if you are committed to breaking the law. I think that is the stuff that both sides of second amendment shouting match fail to get - inventing deadly stuff is easy.

> Big deal. It is not as if it is something hard to DIY if you are committed to breaking the law. And, for the most part, it has little to do with breaking the law. In many places, including the vast majority of the U.S., DIY weapons (with a few exceptions) are perfectly legal provided you are not a prohibited person. > I think that is the stuff that both sides of second amendment shouting match fail to get - inventi…

That the debate is pointless. That if we take away some toys, people will just use others, so what is the point of defending firearms ownership. On the other hand - even with strict gun control gun violence probably won't be reduced ... you need good jobs to make the young males not taking stupid risks and better mental health care for the psychos.

And the feds actually have lots of tools with which to reduce gun ownership legally ... seems the whole issue is alive mostly because it channels away energy from the real issues.

Re: Tor: Illegal Weapons

#30

Post by Snesker »

collyw wrote: post #17
mathgeek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you have the same attitude about kiddie porn? Logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

It was a genuine question, rather than trying to prove a point. I know what you are saying, but most people outside of the US see gun owning as a pretty serious problem.

>but most people outside of the US see gun owning as a pretty serious problem.

A lot of people INSIDE the US see guns as a serious problem. That doesn't make them right. People who can't fathom being harmed, who think their salary and location preclude them from violent acts against their person are people I don't mind not having guns. Being responsible for your own safety indicates that you're ready to be responsible for firearms. Whether they're illegally purchased or personally fabricated, if you care for deploy it responsibly you're only a criminal on paper. I'll toss in also that there are responsible pedophiles, who don't support the child pornography industry with purchases. To the poster who replied to you who mentioned a draconian screening system - In this climate that would result in them being identified and executed. The world isn't ready to handle non-pracicing paedophiles. Some people are even so bigoted they would claim that a non-practicing pedophile doesn't exist. In the first world, I would say they're the most subjugated(lack of a better word) people. They're the only people who, when, they're found out, get harmed and ostracised and there's no undoing it. Picturing the malice of a simple-minded thug who would destroy someone's life over what they masturbate to makes me viciously angry.

HN has a climate of wanting to manage humanity with numeric efficiency, and speak casually about removing human rights. I find that unacceptable but I don't have the intellectual capacity to argue with them. I'm fundamentally opposed to all form of societal control.

I don't know why I posted this here and I apologize for involving you in it. I'm a bad poster.

Post reply on HN