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

51–60 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#51

Post by kube-system »

dole wrote: post #36
kube-system wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 d…

Someone could do all of this, but it doesn't make any sense for a determined actor to do any of that in a place where it is easy (for a determined, relatively educated, and resourceful person) to get an already polished commercial option.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#52

Post by aijdosaijd »

avalys wrote: post #41
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…

By this same logic, you are responsible for the death of every person who could have been saved by you donating all of your income beyond basic living expenses (your personal "profit", if you will) to pay for their medical care. You monster! How many people could you have saved! Instead you spend your money on vacations, television, computer games, music, movies, coffee, whatever. Oh, what's that you say? _You_ (who,…

Personal income, that which sustains someones family, is vastly different then the billions made by United off the backs of those suffering. What, are you some healthcare exec or something?

This is not the own you think it is.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#53

Post by itsanaccount »

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?

I think in philosophy there's something to be said for the difference between action and lack of action when it comes to culpability. Is a surgeon responsible for not being good enough to save a persons life? No, I don't think so. Is a surgeon responsible for not being sober for a planned surgery? In our society, yes. I think a lot of responsibility is determined by mens rea, and when you run a health insurance company you have good numbers for exactly how many lives you're going to effect when denying coverage.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#54

Post by cthalupa »

lupire wrote: post #15
cthalupa wrote: post #13

From my understanding, hitmen in general are not what you see in movies or video games. Many of them are just everyday criminals that are willing to take on the job of murdering someone for shockingly low amounts of money. I'm sure there are higher end and higher cost options, but I don't think every hitman out there is going to be as put together as the villain from a Bond or Bourne movie.

Bourne was a hit man.

Several of the villains he encounters are hit men he formerly worked with.

But I also don't believe it is particularly relevant to the point, either way - surely you understood the intent of the reference?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#55

Post by dtjb »

allturtles wrote: post #46
itsanaccount wrote: post #20

[flagged]

Even if we do accept that this executive was responsible for many deaths, you will need to find a law that lets you prosecute him or get one passed. There's a reason we don't just let people murder murderers, even if they have very good moral justification for it.

In the last 50 years, over 1600 murderers have been murdered by the state. It's a question of authority, not justification, and I think that's a much less meaningful distinction.

The fact that there's so little sympathy for the death of a CEO who, in their view, callously discards human life tells us the authority is a much smaller dealbreaker than the justification.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#56

Post by kelseyfrog »

itsanaccount wrote: post #20

[flagged]

Based on market share and the number of annual bankruptcies due to health reasons, UHC bankrupts ~80,000 people annually. While a finite number, this is still a LOT of people to comb through especially considering it might go back multiple years.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#57

Post by slibhb »

cogman10 wrote: post #38
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…

> 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 co…

> This is not a soldier or a serial killer. It's worse than both.

How can you be so morally clueless?

When an insurance company denies coverage, it isn't killing someone. It didn't make anyone sick. Rather, it didn't pick up the bill for their treatment. That may have been wrong, it may have been an evasion of responsibility, but it is not comparable to someone who goes around killing people.

I have to understand comments like this (there are a lot of them) as some kind of morbid performance art. Either that or severe mental illness.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#59

Post by 542354234235 »

aaroninsf wrote: post #16
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…

I do not agree, because IMO this exactly matches the profile of a someone disgruntled and willing and able to do the prep work. What motivation would be more serious than e.g. losing a spouse or child etc. because of their bullshit...? That's exactly the scenario I find not just most plausible, but draws from the largest pool from which stochastic terrorism is prone to emerge. This is not meaningfully different from…

>This is not meaningfully different from another mass shooting except for the nuance and specificity of the target.

Take the Vegas shooting as an example. The planning and prep he put into it show competence, expertise, logistical planning, etc. All because he was (likely) disgruntled about an erosion of high roller perks being given to him by the casino.

Given how controversial the American heathcare system is, the idea that someone affected by it would be the right combination of fanatical and competent enough to plan and execute a symbolic killing doesn’t surprise me at all. It seems like everyone wants there to be a plan from “the people in power”. The idea that one random person could strike such a powerful target makes people feel uncomfortable with a world so chaotic.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#60

Post by avalys »

aijdosaijd wrote: post #52
avalys wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this same logic, you are responsible for the death of every person who could have been saved by you donating all of your income beyond basic living expenses (your personal "profit", if you will) to pay for their medical care. You monster! How many people could you have saved! Instead you spend your money on vacations, television, computer games, music, movies, coffee, whatever. Oh, what's that you say? _You_ (who,…

Personal income, that which sustains someones family, is vastly different then the billions made by United off the backs of those suffering. What, are you some healthcare exec or something? This is not the own you think it is.

United Healthcare is a publicly-traded company which makes a 6% profit margin and pays a dividend, which means that those profits ultimately benefit people's retirement accounts, pensions and middle-class investments.

The person who was killed made $10M last year, while UHC provided care to 52 million patients. So, the CEO was paid approximately $0.20 per patient treated last year.

What part of all this do you believe is immoral?

Post reply on HN