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

81–90 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#81

Post by redprince »

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.

That is kind of doubtful. The video clearly shows a small puff of smoke presumably above the ejection port when he fires the gun for the first time. The Welrod and its modern descendants have a bolt which is locked in position when the gun is fired and it has to be cycled manually. Thus no gas would escape the gun at the ejection port when the gun is fired.

It is more likely that this is a semi-automatic pistol which will not cycle properly for one reason or another and the shooter has to manually complete the cycle by racking the slide.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#82

Post by slibhb »

cdelsolar wrote: post #64
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,…

This is a specious argument. A healthcare provider has a special responsibility because of the nature of their work. By definition, their role involves providing essential care to those in need. Their professional mission and the ethical codes guiding them (e.g., the Hippocratic Oath for physicians) emphasize patient welfare above all. An average person, while still morally capable of altruism, does not have a profes…

> The more direct your ability to help and the more acute the need, the stronger the moral obligation. A hospital that can provide a life-saving drug at a lower price but chooses not to, in order to maximize profit, is directly and immediately impacting patients’ lives. In contrast, an ordinary person’s failure to donate their personal entertainment budget to global health charities is morally less direct and involves a much more diffuse causal chain. The responsibility is mitigated by lack of proximity, lack of direct obligation, and lack of any professional or social contract stating that their role is to provide healthcare.

"Proximity". What evasion. Apparently healthcare workers are responsible for dedicating their entire lives to saving others, profit be damned, but you aren't culpable for depositing money into your savings account becuase you went into software. Hahaha, how absurd. At least the EA people/Peter Singer are consistent.

We have moral concepts to figure this stuff out and to avoid worrying about a "diffuse causal chain". Concepts like an "action" or "intent". When you apply these concepts to this situation, it becomses clear that neither insurance companies nor healthcare providers are going around murdering people. But the guy waiting outside a conference with a gun did.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#83

Post by kelseyfrog »

avalys wrote: post #60
aijdosaijd wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 believ…

The purpose of a system is what it does.

It's functionally isomorphic to a black box where I make a deposit, every time it denies someone medical treatment I get back monetary reward and I can withdraw my deposit at any time. If we ask ourselves, "Should this black box exist?" I cannot reasonably expect people to say, "Yes." Yet, here we are.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#84

Post by allturtles »

itsanaccount wrote: post #58
burningChrome wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Theres not a flaw in the logic just because you dislike its conclusion.

Okay. So we should assassinate all the CEOs. Presumably the president, anyone with significant power in the national security apparatus. Then what? The people rise up? We put you in charge so you can cull all the undesirables?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#85

Post by kube-system »

dole wrote: post #67
blahyawnblah wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to wait at least 8 months (it varies) to get a suppressor when you buy one. You also have to submit passport photos, get finger printed by either the sheriff or police chief, and then wait. This is in addition to a regular NICS type check.

Also a $200 tax stamp for each suppressor. Again, someone COULD buy a manufactured suppressor legally and tie all their credit info and everything back but according to the news this shooter: 1. Traveled on a Greyhound bus from somewhere between Atlanta to New York in the past 5-10 days 2. Used a fake New Jersey driver's license to register at the hostel he was staying at 3. reportedly wore a mask indoors consistentl…

He also didn't leave the gun or suppressor behind, so it being tied to his real identity isn't a link to the crime scene.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#87

Post by kube-system »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #83
avalys wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 believ…

The purpose of a system is what it does. It's functionally isomorphic to a black box where I make a deposit, every time it denies someone medical treatment I get back monetary reward and I can withdraw my deposit at any time. If we ask ourselves, "Should this black box exist?" I cannot reasonably expect people to say, "Yes." Yet, here we are.

> The purpose of a system is what it does.

As if systems always do as intended? If that were the case, my code would never have downtime!

The interactions between intent and results in any sufficiently large system is inherently complex.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#88

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#89

Post by [deleted] »

allturtles wrote: post #84
itsanaccount wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres not a flaw in the logic just because you dislike its conclusion.

Okay. So we should assassinate all the CEOs. Presumably the president, anyone with significant power in the national security apparatus. Then what? The people rise up? We put you in charge so you can cull all the undesirables?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN