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

281–290 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#281

Post by nightowl_games »

big-green-man wrote: post #4

This is an interview with someone presented as some type of expert that obviously is not an expert. 1) it is not hard to get a silencer. You can make one in under an hour with cheap parts from a hardware store and a drill. 2) the CEO was at a conference. It's not surprising that this person "knew he would be there", it's interesting that this interviewee stresses this point like it is some big one to be made. The CEO…

The conference started at 8am, the assassination happened at 6:45am. The assassin was only waiting there for a few minutes ahead of time. It's surprising how "on time" the assassin was. Wasn't waiting around there for an hour or anything. Seemed like he knew when the CEO would arrive.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#282

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

magicalhippo wrote: post #238
ablation wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's my understanding. Semi-automatic pistols predominantly rely on recoil to cycle the action, in one way or another. If you are firing subsonic ammunition, to avoid the loud supersonic crack, then you typically get less recoil[1] compared to a firing supersonic ammunition due to the reduced speed of the bullet. In some firearms you can replace parts such a recoil springs to get the weapon to cycle reliably with s…

It’s possible he really downloaded some 158gr+ to get it as quiet as possible. To the point it wasn’t supposed to cycle.

Typically, though, you don’t necessarily get less recoil with subs. You get different recoil.

A 115gr 9mm at 1300fps as a sharp recoil. More than enough to run the gun.

A 147 / 158 / 160+ 9mm at 1000fps, has a lot of of the same energy, and typically a slower burning powder is used. It’s also enough to run the gun, the recoil is a lot longer and pushier instead of snappy.

I don’t know. If it was me, I would have my ammunition ready to cycle the gun. Yes, it’s a little bit louder, but the chance that I need to fire more than a couple of shots in order to achieve my goal and escape, outweighs the absolute sound reduction to me.

But, there is something to say that if I filled my silencer with wire, pulling gel, it was a big can, I have some ammo that I know won’t cycle, and I didn’t think I was gonna be in a place with cameras, yeah I don’t know. Maybe it was intentionally downloaded ammo.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#283

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

BoxFour wrote: post #218
ablation wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They’re not supposed to. This is what a booster in a handgun silencer does.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#284

Post by beefnugs »

userabchn wrote: post #267
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…

My suspicion is that this murder was organised by Russia as an attempt to normalise and encourage further vigilante actions, thereby weakening society. They chose their target well for this one, but I imagine, even after the shift it has caused in what is considered acceptable, there will be less widespread approval of future killings.

Even if this was completely accurate, doesn't it make you mad that they will spend millions of dollars and 100 times more man hours trying to hunt this guy down than 99% of all other murders?

Also they are going to track and investigate thousands upon thousands of social media normies who decided to let some schadenfreude slip for a sweet meme opportunity

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#285

Post by ConspiracyFact »

gruez wrote: post #253
Ygg2 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How did we enter a world in which the only given fact that must be held true is that "the business profit will grow unceasingly for all time, no matter the consequence" What do you mean enter? This was always the model of capitalistic acquisition. Early industrial revolution was not known for it's blue skies, labor friendly laws and preventing children from working in the mines. The moment you have inflation, which…

>This was always the model of capitalistic acquisition. Early industrial revolution was not known for it's blue skies, labor friendly laws and preventing children from working in the mines. Except for "blue skies", the other things you've listed are the default state of nature. Children worked the moment they were able. Even without a capitalist boss, people worked their asses off during the planting/harvest season u…

>the other things you've listed are the default state of nature

That depends on what you consider to be the default. If you're talking about pre-agricultural man, the difficulty of life varied based on population density. A band of human beings that found an isolated island wouldn't have practiced child labor. They'd do a little bit of work to maintain comfortable living standards and spend most of their time on leisure activities. An area with many competing tribes, on the other hand, would see harsh and sometimes brutal social practices. Again, in a pre-industrial agricultural society, the difficulty of life also varied based on population density. Shortly after the invention of some new agricultural technique or tool, there would be abundance, peace, and easy living. Once that technique had caused a population boom, there would be scarcity, war, and hard living.

>Even without a capitalist boss, people worked their asses off during the planting/harvest season under the threat of starvation.

So, yeah--this isn't true in general.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#286

Post by BeefWellington »

nradov wrote: post #251
oskarkk wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But wouldn't denying less claims necessitate raising prices? I see stats like these: https://i.redd.it/7aa6zytdox4e1.jpeg If the company is denying so much claims (32%), and they have quarterly profit around $6B on $100B revenue (and they had less profit in earlier quarters, even a loss in Q1), I think they would need to raise prices to stop denying most claims that they deny. And what then? Someone would kill the CE…

Denying claims generally doesn't improve health insurance company profits. It's not like auto or homeowner's insurance. Due to the minimum medical loss ratio rule, insurers can generally increase their profits by approving more claims. Their most important customers are self-funded employers. https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/med... When insurers tighten their claim approval policies it's usual…

> Denying claims generally doesn't improve health insurance company profits.

If this is true, why do several of the larger companies deny so many claims? I can't imagine they would do this if what you were saying were true; the board would have leadership's heads.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#287

Post by ConspiracyFact »

moomin wrote: post #244
BoxFour wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So why is physical force so important here? If I poison someone, they’re just as dead as if I’d stuck a knife in them.

Poisoning someone is using physical force. Why would you think otherwise?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#288

Post by ConspiracyFact »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #224
bloqs wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is no sane reason to restrict violence to the immediate physical. If you destroy someone's livelihood, e.g. by forcing them into bankruptcy, they will have to leave their home and give up their assets. What if they don't? They must because there is a threat of force behind the act. Destroying someone's livelihood is nothing else than asking someone to give up the resources they collected over time under the thr…

>There is no sane reason to restrict violence to the immediate physical.

There is no sane reason to restrict sane to mean of sound mind. It should also mean blue. How sane the sky is today!

Much better.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#290

Post by herewulf »

jajko wrote: post #21
big-green-man wrote: post #4

This is an interview with someone presented as some type of expert that obviously is not an expert. 1) it is not hard to get a silencer. You can make one in under an hour with cheap parts from a hardware store and a drill. 2) the CEO was at a conference. It's not surprising that this person "knew he would be there", it's interesting that this interviewee stresses this point like it is some big one to be made. The CEO…

No need for speculations, literally any theory may be a valid one and we simply don't know. Agree re that silencers, they are trivial to make if one has some basic skills and equipment, the problem is usage - you can't use them anywhere where folks may ask questions. Don't mean for hits obviously but some training with silencers is required to wield them well. But maybe in rural US nobody bats an eye, hard to say fro…

Unlikely to be a disgruntled veteran with health issues. Their care is provided by the Veteran's Administration hospital system at no cost. While the VA doesn't have a great reputation, in recent years in has been paying for veterans to see providers outside the VA system also.
Post reply on HN