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

Hit men aren't what you think

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#211

Post by ablation »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #31
sky_rw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an absolute zero chance that he used a B&T Station 6. The media, as usual, is 100% wrong.

It is hilarious how bad the media is about guns, but understandable when gun people for the most part are also bad about guns. It looks to me like a subcompact with no booster in the can. He is already dropping the gun to rack after the first shot, he knew it would need it, but it isn’t the welrod’s twist and pull. Good for B&T sales though.

You seem to know what you’re talking about. I have no clue or idea whatsoever about firearms. Why is he racking it each time? I’ve never seen that before in my extremely limited knowledge of guns.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#212

Post by motorest »

parpfish wrote: post #117
JamesBarney wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most personal assistants are not going to go find an hire a contract killer for their 200k a year job.

yeah, that entry-level FAANG engineer money. and i'm PRETTY sure that those folks aren't paid enough that they're willing to kill for their boss

> yeah, that entry-level FAANG engineer money.

In the US Amazon pays their SDE1s around $100k/year,with $160k total compensation that is actually relocation bonus bundled with vested stock paid in 4 years.

Elsewhere, salaries are even lower.

So, definitely not entry level FANG engineer money.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#213

Post by tliltocatl »

erulabs wrote: post #207

As far as I’ve read, historically speaking, most assassinations are crimes of passion. When Japan’s government was “government by assassination” in the early 1900s, most of the assassins were not hired guns but instead true believers. Ultra nationalists who were proud to “die for the cause”. When evaluating a mystery you need to be careful not to sell yourself on the one that is more titillating, all things being equ…

I think it's just that political assassinations are better documented. Money flow control-related stuff usually goes unnoticed, and frequently there are all parts involved that would prefer it to go unnoticed.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#214

Post by chomskyole »

nickff wrote: post #27
itsanaccount wrote: post #20

[flagged]

This phrase: "responsible for so many deaths" is doing a lot of work in your post. What is your theory of responsibility? Is it legal or ethical, and if it is the latter (as I would suspect), what framework and criteria is it evaluated under? The answer is easy for a serial killer (obviously responsible for willful murder), a little more difficult for a soldier in war (directly responsible, but perhaps defending them…

It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence.

Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions?

How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the decision is about the price for a certain treatment and you are balancing profit expectations from investors. Is this an act of violence? I'd imagine that the outcome of deaths could probably estimated quite reliably in this instance. And you would need to justify the various salaries and profits along the way and weighing it up against number of people suffering. Does this sound violent to you?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#215

Post by chomskyole »

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence.

It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence.

Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions?

How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the decision is about the price for a certain treatment and you are balancing profit expectations from investors. Is this an act of violence? I'd imagine that the outcome of deaths could probably estimated quite reliably in this instance. And you would need to justify the various salaries and profits along the way and weighing it up against the number of people suffering. Does this sound violent to you?

EDIT: And I'm particularly keen to hear from the downvoters about this. Always keen on good arguments. Thanks :)

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#216

Post by tomcam »

sakopov wrote: post #168
int_19h wrote: post #32

Growing up in Russia in the 90s, assassinations (usually of folk associated with various organized crime groups, but also the occasional journalist or politician) were fairly common. As I recall, usually the person would get shot with some common weapon - often milsurp TT - somewhere in their daily routine where there aren't people around, e.g. on the stairs in their apartment building. But sometimes you did get more…

Yep. Grew up in the 90s Russia. Every spring when the snow melted you had bodies show up in nearby forests. It was such a common thing people started calling them snowdrops (after the first flower of spring). Everyone tried to keep cash in USD and you often got better rates from the guys selling currency in the streets. These guys were dying like flies. I've lost count how many times we'd find dismembered hand or foo…

> people started calling them snowdrops

I adore the Russian sense of humor.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#217

Post by BoxFour »

chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

> I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence.

Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force. If you mean that certain acts are just as morally contemptible as violence, or equally likely to cause harm, just say that directly.

Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#218

Post by BoxFour »

ablation wrote: post #211
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hilarious how bad the media is about guns, but understandable when gun people for the most part are also bad about guns. It looks to me like a subcompact with no booster in the can. He is already dropping the gun to rack after the first shot, he knew it would need it, but it isn’t the welrod’s twist and pull. Good for B&T sales though.

You seem to know what you’re talking about. I have no clue or idea whatsoever about firearms. Why is he racking it each time? I’ve never seen that before in my extremely limited knowledge of guns.

Suppressors can interfere with the auto cycling mechanism, so you have to manually cycle it.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#219

Post by bloqs »

chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

Its not violence. There may me a missing word to describe reputation and livlihood destruction

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#220

Post by chomskyole »

BoxFour wrote: post #217
chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

> I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force. If you mean that certain acts are just as morally contemptible as violence, or equally likely to cause harm, just say that directly. Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical for…

> Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force.

It absolutely doesn't. Historically we judged laws as violent. Germany stands as an example.

> Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force.

Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think?

EDIT: for instance paying someone to do physical harm. How would you assess this?

Post reply on HN