After Dropbox finds a child porn collector, a chess club stops his knife attack

"I failed my mission to kill everyone."

Read the whole story

 

[simonov]

ewelch[/url]":3pe8qsk7]
You can deny there's no difference in the kinds of guns one can buy, but that's disingenuous and ignores the facts involved. If you can't tell the difference between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons, you shouldn't be given access to them.

You sound like an expert.

So, what are the differences between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons?

 

[SixDegrees]

DanNeely[/url]":10aw8gd9]Is the technology behind Photo DNA available for other uses? Photo DNA appears focused exclusively on child abuse; but being able to match images up even if cropped/partially modified/etc seems like something that would have a number of other uses that could be commercialized (or used internally as product differentiators I suppose).

There are a number of algorithms that attempt to identify cropped or otherwise modified images. That's a much trickier problem - especially the latter case - than simple direct matching. Fourier transforms, which can be thought of as producing a frequency domain "hologram" of the original image, are often your friend in this pursuit. I don't know that the hashing technique described would handle even simple scalings, although a more detailed description of how it works would be interesting.

 

[iPirateEverything]

I would say this man should be nationally celebrated, but...

he want's his life to go back to normal and I respect that.

It's just not possible to have it both ways

 

[rick*d]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":2xu3e4ny]

ewelch[/url]":2xu3e4ny]

Statistical[/url]":2xu3e4ny]

Statistical[/url]":2xu3e4ny]

assault rifles .... nonsensense, nonsense, nonsense

Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the NFA in the 1930 and new sales banned since 1980s. Maybe you are thinking about "scary black rifles". Weapons no more dangerous than their non-black counterparts but since they were scary looking a huge amount of political capital was expended to ban them for a decade with absolutely no benefit found (as concluded by the DOJ).

I guess I'm thinking of the ones where you just keep pulling the trigger and it keeps shooting more and more bullets and no elderly vietnam vet would ever be able to run up to you and punch you and make you stop. I guess I think that I'd rather live in a world where it is less likely that people in society have access to those types when planning to kill folks.

I guess I don't really give a sh*t about model numbers and the pointless arguments about whether pink ones or faster shooting ones or bazookas or tanks should/shouldn't be classified as 'assault widgets' or 'high capacity thingamajigs' so as to obfuscate the actual point. This is a person intending harm to children being thwarted because he didn't have a gun. I like this type of outcome better than the other kind.

Then say you want to ban guns. Just be honest about it and not hide under incorrect terminology. You want to ban guns so guys like this can hurt people. Because "keep pulling the trigger and it keeps shooting" is the definition of pretty just about every firearm manufactured since the early 1900s. So if you want to ban guns, then say "I want to ban guns" stop regurgitating terms that you yourself admit you don't even know what they mean.

Also I think this outcome had more to do with the attacker than the weapon. The guy thankfully was not mentally prepared for the attack. Had it walked right up to the teacher with the knife hidden and stabbed him in the neck he could have then gone on to butcher the kids with impunity. He didn't. He hesitated and gave up the element of surprise. Most mass killings don't have the attacker trying to "scare" someone, or announcing they want to kill lots of people. They just violently and suddenly ... start killing people.

You can deny there's no difference in the kinds of guns one can buy, but that's disingenuous and ignores the facts involved. If you can't tell the difference between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons, you shouldn't be given access to them.

Hunting weapons are in fact much nastier than military weapons. Military guns tend to be good at punching holes through armor. They will punch a hole through a person, but it tends to be a clean hole. Hunting weapons don't punch through so much as transfer energy. They are more likely to tumble and fragment when hitting a bone and are quite a bit messier on the way out.

Sounds like you're differentiating ammo, not guns.

 

[ayemahnuhrd]

Statistical[/url]":2h6ekrp2]

Statistical[/url]":2h6ekrp2]

assault rifles .... nonsensense, nonsense, nonsense

Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the NFA in the 1930 and new sales banned since 1980s. Maybe you are thinking about "scary black rifles". Weapons no more dangerous than their non-black counterparts but since they were scary looking a huge amount of political capital was expended to ban them for a decade with absolutely no benefit found (as concluded by the DOJ).

I guess I'm thinking of the ones where you just keep pulling the trigger and it keeps shooting more and more bullets and no elderly vietnam vet would ever be able to run up to you and punch you and make you stop. I guess I think that I'd rather live in a world where it is less likely that people in society have access to those types when planning to kill folks.

I guess I don't really give a sh*t about model numbers and the pointless arguments about whether pink ones or faster shooting ones or bazookas or tanks should/shouldn't be classified as 'assault widgets' or 'high capacity thingamajigs' so as to obfuscate the actual point. This is a person intending harm to children being thwarted because he didn't have a gun. I like this type of outcome better than the other kind.

Then say you want to ban guns. Just be honest about it and not hide under incorrect terminology. You want to ban guns so guys like this can hurt people. "Keep pulling the trigger and it keeps shooting" is the definition of just about every firearm manufactured since the early 1900s (earlier if you want to include revolvers and lever action rifles to that definition). So if you want to ban guns, then say "I want to ban guns" and stop regurgitating terms that you yourself admit you don't even know what they mean.

Also I think this outcome had more to do with the attacker than the weapon. The guy thankfully was not mentally prepared for the attack. Had he walked right up to the teacher with the knife hidden and stabbed him in the neck he could have then gone on to butcher the kids with impunity. He didn't. He hesitated and gave up the element of surprise. Most mass killings don't have the attacker trying to "scare" someone, or announcing they want to kill lots of people. They just violently and suddenly ... start killing people.

Pokrface[/url]":2h6ekrp2]

ayemahnuhrd[/url]":2h6ekrp2]So... lessons from the last two weeks. When planning crazy civilian attacks - Having assault rifles = mass casualties, not having them = minimal casualties, able to be stopped by heroic unarmed elderly people.

As a society, this inevitably leads me to support LESS regulations for assault rifles because... just... reasons... I'm sure we'll get this answer soon from the internet and then I'll understand better and life will fit back into its black and white / good/evil / manicheanistic categories where reason isn't so necessary.

Federal firearm law already working as intended here—"Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition." He was indicted months ago, so this dingdong purchasing any firearm was already illegal. In this particular case, no additional legislation necessary.

My original comment was a simple point - I see this story as a data point for the simple, almost tautological statement that an attacker with knives is less likely to rack up bodies that one with a gun.

To that, you've provided the helpful point that gun regulations save lives/ are not == to toilet paper, as we so often hear. To which, I'm happy to agree.

Beyond that, we're in holy war territory and I kind of know how these debates go, thus, don't care to engage, since if parties cannot agree that a kitchen knife is statistically less likely to commit mass murder than a gun, then there's small possibility that any meaningful debate could happen.

 

[Ralf The Dog]

simonov[/url]":2taz8euy]

ewelch[/url]":2taz8euy]
You can deny there's no difference in the kinds of guns one can buy, but that's disingenuous and ignores the facts involved. If you can't tell the difference between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons, you shouldn't be given access to them.

You sound like an expert.

So, what are the differences between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons?

The bullets fired, large magazine, collapsible stock, bayonet mount, pistol grip.

 

[dermott]

ewelch[/url]":2f4q271i]

Statistical[/url]":2f4q271i]

Statistical[/url]":2f4q271i]

assault rifles .... nonsensense, nonsense, nonsense

Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the NFA in the 1930 and new sales banned since 1980s. Maybe you are thinking about "scary black rifles". Weapons no more dangerous than their non-black counterparts but since they were scary looking a huge amount of political capital was expended to ban them for a decade with absolutely no benefit found (as concluded by the DOJ).

I guess I'm thinking of the ones where you just keep pulling the trigger and it keeps shooting more and more bullets and no elderly vietnam vet would ever be able to run up to you and punch you and make you stop. I guess I think that I'd rather live in a world where it is less likely that people in society have access to those types when planning to kill folks.

I guess I don't really give a sh*t about model numbers and the pointless arguments about whether pink ones or faster shooting ones or bazookas or tanks should/shouldn't be classified as 'assault widgets' or 'high capacity thingamajigs' so as to obfuscate the actual point. This is a person intending harm to children being thwarted because he didn't have a gun. I like this type of outcome better than the other kind.

Then say you want to ban guns. Just be honest about it and not hide under incorrect terminology. You want to ban guns so guys like this can hurt people. Because "keep pulling the trigger and it keeps shooting" is the definition of pretty just about every firearm manufactured since the early 1900s. So if you want to ban guns, then say "I want to ban guns" stop regurgitating terms that you yourself admit you don't even know what they mean.

Also I think this outcome had more to do with the attacker than the weapon. The guy thankfully was not mentally prepared for the attack. Had it walked right up to the teacher with the knife hidden and stabbed him in the neck he could have then gone on to butcher the kids with impunity. He didn't. He hesitated and gave up the element of surprise. Most mass killings don't have the attacker trying to "scare" someone, or announcing they want to kill lots of people. They just violently and suddenly ... start killing people.

You can deny there's no difference in the kinds of guns one can buy, but that's disingenuous and ignores the facts involved. If you can't tell the difference between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons, you shouldn't be given access to them.

It'll blow your mind when you realize an "assault rifle" has never been used in a school shooting...
*Most* people in the United States can't actually tell the difference between an assault rifle and a target shooting rifle. The only difference is, quite literally, one pin and a slightly modified hammer/trigger assembly.

Physical differences aside, "assault rifles" are heavily regulated. You need a $200 tax stamp and written permission from the ATF in order to purchase, and cannot take them across state lines without additional prior written permission.

The previous poster was not being disingenuous at all. He was trying to educate folks, and he was technically accurate. Something discussions around firearms in the US sorely lack.

 

[bglick4]

ayemahnuhrd[/url]":3knzea5v]So... lessons from the last two weeks. When planning crazy civilian attacks - Having assault rifles = mass casualties, not having them = minimal casualties, able to be stopped by heroic unarmed elderly people.

As a society, this inevitably leads me to support LESS regulations for assault rifles because... just... reasons... I'm sure we'll get this answer soon from the internet and then I'll understand better and life will fit back into its black and white / good/evil / manicheanistic categories where reason isn't so necessary.

Oh yeah, I bet after the Paris attacks, they are going to start restricting Kalashnikovs. Wait a minute...

 

[TenderBabyMeat]

simonov[/url]":a1l462gw]

jdale[/url]":a1l462gw]

The change has been so dramatic that computers are now "a preferred method of distribution and receipt of child pornography materials."

This sentence sounds very dramatic, but I think it's fair to say computers are now "a preferred method of distribution and receipt" of many types of media. Certainly porn in general, but also for example music, probably newspapers and magazines, etc.

It also misses the fact that the Golden Age of Online Child Porn was 15 years ago, when Usenet was still active and open as the wild west. I reckon it's actually much harder to find child porn online today than it was in 2000 or so.

I hope you are right about it being harder to find. Back in the early days of the web I was growing up in a very rural area where cable TV was out of the question and satellite was more than my parents could afford, but I did have dialup internet (this was in excess of 20 years ago). A friend told me about a really neat music video that I had to check out, and a quick search gave me a very promising filename result. A day's worth of download later, I had the file and eagerly opened it only to discover a rather grotesque scene involving a clearly underage girl. I literally could not stop and delete it fast enough and then spent the next few weeks wringing my hands terrified that at any moment some cop or fed was going to show up knocking on my door with a warrant and handcuffs. Fortunately for me nothing ever came of it, but there was (maybe still is) a small part of me that lamented that such a thing was out there and was so readily available that it could be acquired by accident.

 

[rick*d]

Pokrface[/url]":2m6b0tcj]

ayemahnuhrd[/url]":2m6b0tcj]So... lessons from the last two weeks. When planning crazy civilian attacks - Having assault rifles = mass casualties, not having them = minimal casualties, able to be stopped by heroic unarmed elderly people.

As a society, this inevitably leads me to support LESS regulations for assault rifles because... just... reasons... I'm sure we'll get this answer soon from the internet and then I'll understand better and life will fit back into its black and white / good/evil / manicheanistic categories where reason isn't so necessary.

Federal firearm law already working as intended here—"Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition." He was indicted months ago, so this dingdong purchasing any firearm was already illegal. In this particular case, no additional legislation necessary.

What are you talking about? It's an election year! Additional legislation is always necessary!

 

[Ralf The Dog]

rick*d[/url]":ldmq8rk6]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":ldmq8rk6]

ewelch[/url]":ldmq8rk6]

Statistical[/url]":ldmq8rk6]

Statistical[/url]":ldmq8rk6]

Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the NFA in the 1930 and new sales banned since 1980s. Maybe you are thinking about "scary black rifles". Weapons no more dangerous than their non-black counterparts but since they were scary looking a huge amount of political capital was expended to ban them for a decade with absolutely no benefit found (as concluded by the DOJ).

I guess I'm thinking of the ones where you just keep pulling the trigger and it keeps shooting more and more bullets and no elderly vietnam vet would ever be able to run up to you and punch you and make you stop. I guess I think that I'd rather live in a world where it is less likely that people in society have access to those types when planning to kill folks.

I guess I don't really give a sh*t about model numbers and the pointless arguments about whether pink ones or faster shooting ones or bazookas or tanks should/shouldn't be classified as 'assault widgets' or 'high capacity thingamajigs' so as to obfuscate the actual point. This is a person intending harm to children being thwarted because he didn't have a gun. I like this type of outcome better than the other kind.

Then say you want to ban guns. Just be honest about it and not hide under incorrect terminology. You want to ban guns so guys like this can hurt people. Because "keep pulling the trigger and it keeps shooting" is the definition of pretty just about every firearm manufactured since the early 1900s. So if you want to ban guns, then say "I want to ban guns" stop regurgitating terms that you yourself admit you don't even know what they mean.

Also I think this outcome had more to do with the attacker than the weapon. The guy thankfully was not mentally prepared for the attack. Had it walked right up to the teacher with the knife hidden and stabbed him in the neck he could have then gone on to butcher the kids with impunity. He didn't. He hesitated and gave up the element of surprise. Most mass killings don't have the attacker trying to "scare" someone, or announcing they want to kill lots of people. They just violently and suddenly ... start killing people.

You can deny there's no difference in the kinds of guns one can buy, but that's disingenuous and ignores the facts involved. If you can't tell the difference between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons, you shouldn't be given access to them.

Hunting weapons are in fact much nastier than military weapons. Military guns tend to be good at punching holes through armor. They will punch a hole through a person, but it tends to be a clean hole. Hunting weapons don't punch through so much as transfer energy. They are more likely to tumble and fragment when hitting a bone and are quite a bit messier on the way out.

Sounds like you're differentiating ammo, not guns.

The type of bullet fired is the biggest factor in how much damage a gun can do. A 12.7 mm bullet will do far more damage than a 5.56 mm and be far more likely to over penetrate and kill some random kid in a park.

 

[dermott]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":77nojgg7]

simonov[/url]":77nojgg7]

ewelch[/url]":77nojgg7]
You can deny there's no difference in the kinds of guns one can buy, but that's disingenuous and ignores the facts involved. If you can't tell the difference between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons, you shouldn't be given access to them.

You sound like an expert.

So, what are the differences between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons?

The bullets fired, large magazine, collapsible stock, bayonet mount, pistol grip.

Okay... so you just described my target shooting rifles. All 4 of them.
How do you define an assault rifle?

ETA: "an", not "and". Edited for spelling.

 

[rick*d]

ewelch[/url]":stcbpve8]

drewd[/url]":stcbpve8]One thing that always escaped me when I was younger was that old people got that way for a reason. Don't mess with them.

As one of them, I can say, "You know it Get off my lawn!"

As one of them, I fixed it for you.

 

[rick*d]

dermott[/url]":1uaxq2js]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":1uaxq2js]

simonov[/url]":1uaxq2js]

ewelch[/url]":1uaxq2js]
You can deny there's no difference in the kinds of guns one can buy, but that's disingenuous and ignores the facts involved. If you can't tell the difference between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons, you shouldn't be given access to them.

You sound like an expert.

So, what are the differences between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons?

The bullets fired, large magazine, collapsible stock, bayonet mount, pistol grip.

Okay... so you just described my target shooting rifles. All 4 of them.
How do you define an assault rifle?

ETA: "an", not "and". Edited for spelling.

You have four target shooting rifles with bayonets? The only reason to have a bayonet is close-hand combat after your ammo runs out. What are you practicing for, anyway? Alien invasion? Zombie infestation? ATF coming to get ur guns?

 

[pjladyfox]

SixDegrees[/url]":4ru2dcuy]

ProfessorGuy[/url]":4ru2dcuy]I guess I'll get labelled as a monster, but let me point this out: Having these penalties so high and ruining a life so thoroughly that suicide (or murder/suicide) is the only acceptable outcome may be counterproductive.

If we were talking about drug use or other crimes, I might agree. But child porn directly harms children. And that harm is not a secret. I have very few problems with long sentences for this particular crime, particularly in light of the fact that there is simply no effective treatment for such problems.

Using that same logic why not just institute the death penalty for them? If they are so beyond hope, beyond help, then why not? Now before you answer this do recall that, currently, we have a "one size fits all" approach to this particular charge that is catching many teenagers texting images of themselves around to their boyfriend/girlfriend.

Now don't get me wrong here I'm not excusing what this person did at all nor do I have a good answer for what a better solution would be. All I can say is that what we are doing now is not working as well as some here think or we would be seeing less of these instead of more.

 

[nitePhyyre]

Statistical[/url]":3rx6snxs]

Statistical[/url]":3rx6snxs]

assault rifles .... nonsensense, nonsense, nonsense

Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the NFA in the 1930 and new sales banned since 1980s. Maybe you are thinking about "scary black rifles". Weapons no more dangerous than their non-black counterparts but since they were scary looking a huge amount of political capital was expended to ban them for a decade with absolutely no benefit found (as concluded by the DOJ).

I guess I'm thinking of the ones where you just keep pulling the trigger and it keeps shooting more and more bullets and no elderly vietnam vet would ever be able to run up to you and punch you and make you stop. I guess I think that I'd rather live in a world where it is less likely that people in society have access to those types when planning to kill folks.

I guess I don't really give a sh*t about model numbers and the pointless arguments about whether pink ones or faster shooting ones or bazookas or tanks should/shouldn't be classified as 'assault widgets' or 'high capacity thingamajigs' so as to obfuscate the actual point. This is a person intending harm to children being thwarted because he didn't have a gun. I like this type of outcome better than the other kind.

Then say you want to ban guns. Just be honest about it and not hide under incorrect terminology. You want to ban guns so guys like this can hurt people. "Keep pulling the trigger and it keeps shooting" is the definition of just about every firearm manufactured since the early 1900s (earlier if you want to include revolvers and lever action rifles to that definition). So if you want to ban guns, then say "I want to ban guns" and stop regurgitating terms that you yourself admit you don't even know what they mean.

Also I think this outcome had more to do with the attacker than the weapon. The guy thankfully was not mentally prepared for the attack. Had he walked right up to the teacher with the knife hidden and stabbed him in the neck he could have then gone on to butcher the kids with impunity. He didn't. He hesitated and gave up the element of surprise. Most mass killings don't have the attacker trying to "scare" someone, or announcing they want to kill lots of people. They just violently and suddenly ... start killing people.

Because bolt-action rifles haven't been made since 1853, right?

 

[SixDegrees]

pjladyfox[/url]":v0s5g2za]

SixDegrees[/url]":v0s5g2za]

ProfessorGuy[/url]":v0s5g2za]I guess I'll get labelled as a monster, but let me point this out: Having these penalties so high and ruining a life so thoroughly that suicide (or murder/suicide) is the only acceptable outcome may be counterproductive.

If we were talking about drug use or other crimes, I might agree. But child porn directly harms children. And that harm is not a secret. I have very few problems with long sentences for this particular crime, particularly in light of the fact that there is simply no effective treatment for such problems.

Using that same logic why not just institute the death penalty for them? If they are so beyond hope, beyond help, then why not? Now before you answer this do recall that, currently, we have a "one size fits all" approach to this particular charge that is catching many teenagers texting images of themselves around to their boyfriend/girlfriend.

Now don't get me wrong here I'm not excusing what this person did at all nor do I have a good answer for what a better solution would be. All I can say is that what we are doing now is not working as well as some here think or we would be seeing less of these instead of more.

I'm not at all a fan of the death penalty. Not that it isn't deserved, perhaps, in some cases. But because of our abyssal record when it comes to applying it. At least a long, even indefinite, prison sentence can be reversed should a conviction turn out to be wrong.

As for this approach not working, it keeps these people off the streets and away from other victims, so it works at that level. And currently, there is no effective alternative, such as medical treatment, that can address problems like this.

 

[Rommel102]

rick*d[/url]":3ojdh6i9]

dermott[/url]":3ojdh6i9]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":3ojdh6i9]

simonov[/url]":3ojdh6i9]

ewelch[/url]":3ojdh6i9]
You can deny there's no difference in the kinds of guns one can buy, but that's disingenuous and ignores the facts involved. If you can't tell the difference between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons, you shouldn't be given access to them.

You sound like an expert.

So, what are the differences between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons?

The bullets fired, large magazine, collapsible stock, bayonet mount, pistol grip.

Okay... so you just described my target shooting rifles. All 4 of them.
How do you define an assault rifle?

ETA: "an", not "and". Edited for spelling.

You have four target shooting rifles with bayonets? The only reason to have a bayonet is close-hand combat after your ammo runs out. What are you practicing for, anyway? Alien invasion? Zombie infestation? ATF coming to get ur guns?

A huge number of civilian and military rifles and shotguns have bayonet lugs (mounts). 99.9% of the time, even in the military, the actual bayonet knife is not attached.

They are generally considered a cosmetic feature, and their inclusion as criteria in the 1994 Assault Weapons ban was widely criticized.

 

[dermott]

rick*d[/url]":9o7n2r5d]

dermott[/url]":9o7n2r5d]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":9o7n2r5d]

simonov[/url]":9o7n2r5d]

ewelch[/url]":9o7n2r5d]
You can deny there's no difference in the kinds of guns one can buy, but that's disingenuous and ignores the facts involved. If you can't tell the difference between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons, you shouldn't be given access to them.

You sound like an expert.

So, what are the differences between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons?

The bullets fired, large magazine, collapsible stock, bayonet mount, pistol grip.

Okay... so you just described my target shooting rifles. All 4 of them.
How do you define an assault rifle?

ETA: "an", not "and". Edited for spelling.

You have four target shooting rifles with bayonets? The only reason to have a bayonet is close-hand combat after your ammo runs out. What are you practicing for, anyway? Alien invasion? Zombie infestation? ATF coming to get ur guns?

I don't own a bayonet. I should... they'd go nicely in my knife collection. Haven't got around to it.
You, however, specified bayonet mounts, which are a standard part of the front-sight base (FSB), which also serves as the gas block on a standard AR-15 model.

I shoot paper. Can't say I've ever seen a zombie/alient/ATF officer. Wouldn't resort to shooting them out-of-hand if I did. That's silly.

You do not get to specify "bayonet mounts" (a standard component of the front sight) and then move the goalposts to also include mounted "bayonets".

Now, are you going to retract your blatantly fallacious argument, and concede the point, or are you going to double-down on ignorance? This is a tech site. Learn some tech. It's fun.

If you want to argue about guns, cool, but you need to do it in a technically correct fashion, without logical fallacies. Anything less is a disservice to the community, and tends to feed hysteria rather than well-considered policy. Generally speaking, we don't do that here.

 

[Isahaya]

rick*d[/url]":2ze6nf7f]

dermott[/url]":2ze6nf7f]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":2ze6nf7f]

simonov[/url]":2ze6nf7f]

ewelch[/url]":2ze6nf7f]
You can deny there's no difference in the kinds of guns one can buy, but that's disingenuous and ignores the facts involved. If you can't tell the difference between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons, you shouldn't be given access to them.

You sound like an expert.

So, what are the differences between an assault rifle, and a hunting weapon, or target shooting weapons?

The bullets fired, large magazine, collapsible stock, bayonet mount, pistol grip.

Okay... so you just described my target shooting rifles. All 4 of them.
How do you define an assault rifle?

ETA: "an", not "and". Edited for spelling.

You have four target shooting rifles with bayonets? The only reason to have a bayonet is close-hand combat after your ammo runs out. What are you practicing for, anyway? Alien invasion? Zombie infestation? ATF coming to get ur guns?

The AR15 is the most popular target shooting rifle in the United States, and it and its derivatives are frequently used in competitions from the recreational to professional levels. Being patterned after its military cousins, the M4 (and derivatives) as well as the M16 (and derivatives), many of them have bayonet mounts.

 

[wrkg_onit]

t_newt[/url]":1yqy33rw]

As for the other young man, a former felon and alleged heroin addict accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl he had met at a church youth group, his name was Cody Brown. The fact that he shared the same last name as the knife-wielding Dustin was no coincidence; both lived in the same home on Fernwood Street.

Interesting little fact slipped into the end of the article. Was it his brother? His father? Messed up family any way you look at it.

Looks too young to be his father, so I am guessing brother. Typically sexual abusers have learned by example. When two kids out of the same family are involved in sex crimes that calls for some investigation of what is going on in this family.

 

[pjlahaie]

ewelch[/url]":2fwqptl4]
Yes, that is the case. Unfortunately, wrongly accused people suffer because of that.

He showed police a collage of child porn images on his cellphone when questioned. Why he was out on bail is baffling to me.

Perhaps so he could fuck a kid or two before being sent away for life.... The DoJ should be renamed the Dept. of Laws, since it's laws they are enforcing, not justice.

 

[rick*d]

SixDegrees[/url]":1wo118ny]

Solar-Powered-Sea-Slug[/url]":1wo118ny]

="I have to wonder how often "This isn't fair!" goes through the kids' minds.

Especially when they meet their Prison Daddy for the Nth time...

Well, I'm not sure, but I've read that this is a myth, at least in the form where child abusers are singled out for retribution by the prison population. I'm pretty sure they get treated pretty much like everyone else, and that their treatment is based on their interactions with the rest of the inmates, rather than the particulars of whatever crime they committed.

"They said, 'Kid, why were you arrested?' and I said, 'Littering' and they all moved away from me. 'And creating a public nuisance' and they all came back and we had a great time filling out the forms and playing with the pencils."

 

[SixDegrees]

rick*d[/url]":2mfseib7]

SixDegrees[/url]":2mfseib7]

Solar-Powered-Sea-Slug[/url]":2mfseib7]

="I have to wonder how often "This isn't fair!" goes through the kids' minds.

Especially when they meet their Prison Daddy for the Nth time...

Well, I'm not sure, but I've read that this is a myth, at least in the form where child abusers are singled out for retribution by the prison population. I'm pretty sure they get treated pretty much like everyone else, and that their treatment is based on their interactions with the rest of the inmates, rather than the particulars of whatever crime they committed.

"They said, 'Kid, why were you arrested?' and I said, 'Littering' and they all moved away from me. 'And creating a public nuisance' and they all came back and we had a great time filling out the forms and playing with the pencils."

Wow. It's been a REALLY long times since I played that album.

 

[simonov]

Isahaya[/url]":1oxkvcro]
The AR15 is the most popular target shooting rifle centerfire rifle of any description in the United States by far, and it and its derivatives are frequently used in competitions from the recreational to professional levels. Being patterned after its military cousins, the M4 (and derivatives) as well as the M16 (and derivatives), many of them have bayonet mounts.

Made some minor edits to emphasize a point. A little education is required here. When some criminal misuses an AR-15 the bicoastal media and their credulous consumers are outraged. But no one is outraged when someone misuses a Honda Accord or Ford F150. You kind of expect the most popular cars in America to also be popular with criminals.

That being said, rifles of any description are used in only about 4% of homicides in the US. Feet and fists are used to kill more people!

 

[Wardatrigger]

andrgl[/url]":36kwt0ql]Russian sites seem to be the common source. Anyone know why that is?

If Russian subs are threatening to cut undersea internet cables, perhaps it's not such a bad thing...

 

[Hinton]

Statistical[/url]":14av4y5p]Things I learned today:
Some child pornographers are too stupid to encrypt their illegal content.

I am pleasantly surprised by this.

Given that he was concerned about safety, uploading the files unencrypted sure seemed weird.

Most criminals prefer to have their stuff locally, so they can "control it", ie. why murderers often burry their victims in their own back yard. But this guy was opposite, he wanted his stuff where he had no control over who could access it.

 

[SixDegrees]

pjlahaie[/url]":2hm8om4r]

ProfessorGuy[/url]":2hm8om4r]I guess I'll get labelled as a monster, but let me point this out: Having these penalties so high and ruining a life so thoroughly that suicide (or murder/suicide) is the only acceptable outcome may be counterproductive.

Plenty of people sentenced to life in prison don't go on killing rampages or commit suicide before going to prison.

Let him get tortured and raped in prison. He seemed to like it when it was happening to other people.

The convicted are punished by simply being in prison and having very nearly all of the rights and privileges afforded to free citizens stripped away. We're supposed to be better than those we mete these punishments out to.

Hoping they'll be tortured and raped makes us small.

 

[LeTrax]

If not one, but two children who grew up in the same household have been arrested for accessing child porn & have serious issues (one's a Heroin addict who molested a 14 year old, the other just tried to kill a bunch of kids with bizarre duct-taped knives...)

Then it's a pretty safe bet some *very* bad things happened to them when they were younger. The saddest part about child abuse is that it's so taboo that victims rarely speak out and many turn into predators themselves later in life due to a lack of support when they really needed it.

Also, that article read like a z-grade true-crime novel. I ended up skimming most of it it was so bad.

 

[pjlahaie]

simonov[/url]":h2ymqf0k]
Made some minor edits to emphasize a point. A little education is required here. When some criminal misuses an AR-15 the bicoastal media and their credulous consumers are outraged. But no one is outraged when someone misuses a Honda Accord or Ford F150. You kind of expect the most popular cars in America to also be popular with criminals.

Except the Honda Accord or the Ford F150 weren't designed to kill. Guns were created for the sole purpose of injuring/killing. Handguns are designed to injure/kill *people*, so are assault rifles.

 

[simonov]

pjlahaie[/url]":xo44p9nz]

simonov[/url]":xo44p9nz]
Made some minor edits to emphasize a point. A little education is required here. When some criminal misuses an AR-15 the bicoastal media and their credulous consumers are outraged. But no one is outraged when someone misuses a Honda Accord or Ford F150. You kind of expect the most popular cars in America to also be popular with criminals.

Except the Honda Accord or the Ford F150 weren't designed to kill. Guns were created for the sole purpose of injuring/killing. Handguns are designed to injure/kill *people*, so are assault rifles.

Well, hell, I have over 130 firearms and I have never killed anyone or anything with them.

Am I doing it wrong?

Or perhaps one of us has the wrong idea about the purpose of firearms.

 

[SixDegrees]

pjlahaie[/url]":3udqcvdq]

simonov[/url]":3udqcvdq]
Made some minor edits to emphasize a point. A little education is required here. When some criminal misuses an AR-15 the bicoastal media and their credulous consumers are outraged. But no one is outraged when someone misuses a Honda Accord or Ford F150. You kind of expect the most popular cars in America to also be popular with criminals.

Except the Honda Accord or the Ford F150 weren't designed to kill. Guns were created for the sole purpose of injuring/killing. Handguns are designed to injure/kill *people*, so are assault rifles.

Also, I'll note that the dangerous nature of automobiles is thoroughly recognized by society, and as a result they are extremely tightly regulated, from manufacturing through driver education and licensing through titling requirements.

By all means, if safety is of concern, let's regulate guns as tightly as we do cars.

 

[RickyP784]

RockDaMan[/url]":3oxqhpxf]

SixDegrees[/url]":3oxqhpxf]

On October 26, 2015, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner paid a visit to Morton. He was there to proclaim it "James Vernon Day" and to meet the man who had kept his chess club safe

It's a nice gesture. It really is. But it'd be nicer if he were to scratch together some cash for Vernon as a reward, or at least to cover some of his medical bills, in recognition of his acts.

Illinois has no money.

Seriously. They're about to get power shut off in a number of offices downstate for failure to remit payment to the local electric co-op (link).

 

[PRMan]

Iphtashu Fitz[/url]":2pdhyq4f]

simonov[/url]":2pdhyq4f]How is a PhotoDNA file of child porn any different, fundamentally, from, say, a JPEG file of the same image? Both are computer codes that could be used to display a prohibited image. Or does the one-way hash make it okay?

The same exact way the value b2650798dd5f07838ccd91af91b22db1 is different from this image:

That first value is the md5sum hash of the image. There's no way you can get the original image back from the hash, but it's easy to calculate the hash from the image.

PhotoDNA apparently creates a similar hash but it's not a hash of every individual byte in the image (as this md5sum one is). The PhotoDNA hash value will apparently be the same even if the image has been altered slightly by cropping, watermarking, etc.

It just cuts it up into little squares and if the hashes of the squares match a certain percentage, it flags it for human review.

 

[rick*d]

Hinton[/url]":253aewvq]

Statistical[/url]":253aewvq]Things I learned today:
Some child pornographers are too stupid to encrypt their illegal content.

I am pleasantly surprised by this.

Given that he was concerned about safety, uploading the files unencrypted sure seemed weird.

Most criminals prefer to have their stuff locally, so they can "control it", ie. why murderers often burry their victims in their own back yard. But this guy was opposite, he wanted his stuff where he had no control over who could access it.

Probably figured it was safer to not have it on him. Clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[jihadjoe]

Boskone[/url]":3qbxi967] I have to wonder how often "This isn't fair!" goes through the kids' minds.

OMG! HAX!

 

[SixDegrees]

John Savard[/url]":1n61akgq]It was just luck that the right man was in the right place at the right time to prevent a horrible tragedy.

This should have been avoided in the simplest, most direct way: the suspect should never have been granted bail in the first place.

Well, yes - in hindsight.

Was there anything in his past behavior, however, that would have warned that this might have been a potential risk? Because denying bail requires fairly extraordinary reasons, and without such reasons you can be sure the defense would mount a strenuous effort to have bail granted.