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

31–40 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#31

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

sky_rw wrote: post #23
nirav72 wrote: post #7

The shooter used a rare weapon with an integrated suppressor (or "Silencer" as the article indicates). A British made station six 9. I wonder if that will be the focus of investigators, since its an highly unusual weapon.

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.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#32

Post by int_19h »

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 spectacular hits; there was that one time when a local crime boss was shot with a rifle while dining in a restaurant, through the window.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#33

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

nirav72 wrote: post #7

The shooter used a rare weapon with an integrated suppressor (or "Silencer" as the article indicates). A British made station six 9. I wonder if that will be the focus of investigators, since its an highly unusual weapon.

> The shooter used a rare weapon with an integrated suppressor (or "Silencer" as the article indicates). A British made station six 9.

Hilarious how bad this is.

- No, it’s not the B&T. He racks it straight back, and releases to spring pressure. The Welrod/Six is twist and pull and push. It was a compact or subcompact, with either the wrong booster or no booster in a can

- There is a puff of smoke per shot on the left side of the handgun. The Six is a locked breech gun, it doesn’t really smoke per shot at the chamber, and its chamber isn’t on the left side, it is on top. Again, this was a normal likely browning style action handgun, left side action, unlocks per shot even if it doesn’t cycle fully.

- No, the B&T Six is not British made, it is a Swiss update of the WWII British Welrod

- The original and the legal term is silencer. No quotes needed.

Stop believing the media reports on anything gun related.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#34

Post by nickff »

itsanaccount wrote: post #30
nickff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You know why I don't work for a trapping and pest control company? Because structurally they kill animals. They go around with tools of destruction and end the lives of animals. Its the function of their existence. Do you know why I don't work for a _for profit_ health insurance company, who's stated goals are explicitly to make profit by slicing out some amount of premiums that are not spent to provide healthcare in…

If your definition of responsibility is so broad, wouldn't every Head of Government for every country be deserving of assassination? Even more broadly, every police chief in every large city, along with all military officers, most mayors, governors, and premiers would also be 'natural targets'. This seems a bit drastic to me, is it your view?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#35

Post by deadbabe »

dgfitz wrote: post #18
JamesBarney wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think most billionaires know professional killers. Where would they have met them? The idea that someone at JP Morgan introduces you to them when their company IPOs doesn't pass the smell test for me.

I think it’s the classic “hey personal assistant to whom I pay 200k/yr, I have a problem, can you handle it discretely?” Kind of thing.

Fast way to get blackmailed and end up in prison.

You need to get connections by ensuring the person recommending you a pro-killer has incentive to ensure you are not discovered.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#36

Post by dole »

kube-system wrote: post #25
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…

> 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. As you can to construct an entire gun, if you want a crude option. But this isn’t Japan. Obtaining a commercial silencer doesn’t require someone to smuggle them through international customs, just across state lines. They’re harder to get than a handgun, but not hard enough to get that a determ…

When it comes to DIY suppressors, there's making your own from hardware scrap, making them from various oil and fuel filters, ordering them from an overseas vendor (Ali, Wish, etc) with the risk of customs, and now there's 3d printing.

You can print a fully workable 9mm suppressor on nearly any 3d printer in 8-10 hours or less with no post finishing necessary. No, common street criminals may not use them yet, but I don't think this shooter is a common street criminal, or a professional either.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#37

Post by JKCalhoun »

nickff wrote: post #34
itsanaccount wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know why I don't work for a trapping and pest control company? Because structurally they kill animals. They go around with tools of destruction and end the lives of animals. Its the function of their existence. Do you know why I don't work for a _for profit_ health insurance company, who's stated goals are explicitly to make profit by slicing out some amount of premiums that are not spent to provide healthcare in…

If your definition of responsibility is so broad, wouldn't every Head of Government for every country be deserving of assassination? Even more broadly, every police chief in every large city, along with all military officers, most mayors, governors, and premiers would also be 'natural targets'. This seems a bit drastic to me, is it your view?

> If your definition of responsibility is so broad

His/her definition seems to be narrower than yours — namely profit over lives.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#38

Post by cogman10 »

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…

> What is your theory of responsibility?

Ethical:

He was the CEO of the company and ultimately the buck stops with him on company policies. The company he lead has the highest number of insurance denials (double most other insurance agencies). That has almost certainly lead to death as people not being able to afford treatment is a great way to die. Consider, for example, if someone has cancer and insurance denies coverage of chemo medications that they are supposed to cover. Well, now the covered person is in a battle with the insurance company to pay for the medications (which they say they cover) that works as a ticking timebomb against them. They could pony up the bill while they wait for coverage, but that's not going to be within the means of many people.

> what framework and criteria is it evaluated under?

One of responsibility. Surely the CEO of a company must know that the policy the company he runs and owns has lead to industry leading denial rates. That's exactly the sort of statistic CEOs track and have influence over.

And when dealing with health, the outcome is simply obvious. By increasing the amount of denials you know you are harming legitimate claimants.

This is not a soldier or a serial killer. It's worse than both. It's an uncaring individual optimizing profit over people. Unlike a soldier who likely can't avoid killing or a surgeon who makes mistakes, this is more akin to a general positioning wounded soldiers on the frontlines so the army doesn't have to pay their salaries or feed them. Not for pleasure or psychosis in the case of a serial killer, just for simple banal resource optimization.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#39

Post by chris_va »

itsanaccount wrote: post #30
nickff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You know why I don't work for a trapping and pest control company? Because structurally they kill animals. They go around with tools of destruction and end the lives of animals. Its the function of their existence. Do you know why I don't work for a _for profit_ health insurance company, who's stated goals are explicitly to make profit by slicing out some amount of premiums that are not spent to provide healthcare in…

The assumption by insurance commissioners (elected officials) is that private insurance will result in better outcomes in the long term, and profit margins are regulated and this is the will of the voters.

... Now that doesn't mean it is true, and health insurance in the US is completely broken, but it is not at all obvious who is at fault here.

Post reply on HN