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

 

[rogerHarding]

ayemahnuhrd[/url]":1xx37huw]

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.

Everyone would. The problem is that it's hard or impossible to prevent criminals from having guns, and neither of the two main approaches to gun control can entirely solve the problem.

The American approach of maximizing gun access to the law-abiding public while attempting to curtail it for certain classes of people (e.g. convicted felons) squares well with the American ethos, and American law, but results in a higher gun homicide rate.

The approach of severely curtailing legal access to guns for everyone, seen elsewhere, has the effect of ensuring that the only folks with guns are people who are prepared to disregard the law (i.e. criminals). It also tends to have the effect of reducing the overall gun homicide rate.

None of this is news. Americans value gun ownership, on the whole, and are prepared to make trade-offs that seem unconscionable to folks looking in from the outside (an important note on this at the bottom). That doesn't mean that we're not interested in reducing gun violence, just that we approach the issue from a different starting point.

For the record, the per capita intentional homicide rate in the US is a little less than four times that of France. Higher, in other words, but not the 30 times higher that people sometimes like to quote in arguments about guns. Per capita suicide rates are roughly equal (France is a hair higher), suggesting that the French figure out how to kill themselves despite a lack of access to firearms, but perhaps kill each other in lower numbers than they might if they had more guns floating around.

One last thing: while overall homicide rates are higher in the US than in France, it's important to remember that those homicides are not distributed (even close to) evenly across the population. If you're arguing with an American on the Internet about gun control, particularly here on Ars Technica, there's a good chance that their first-hand experience of gun violence isn't substantially different from yours. As with many things, there's a disconnect between the personal or communal experience of violence and the broader voting patterns that maintain a particular status quo.

 

[Jimbo57]

iOSecure[/url]":2056nxfb]Wow.. child pornography charges and attempted mass murder at 19... he needs to be locked up in a ward for a few decades.

A lot of hysteria about child porn, and I can't help but wonder how real the danger is.

This kid is clearly messed up, and not the least of his depression is the hole he's in from the porn charges. However, all indications say he's a looker, not a doer. Would he stay that way? Or, to put it more proactively, how could we keep his fascination at a passive level, or better, switch it to more "normal" sexuality, without criminalizing him?

He was already an outcast, and now is totally fucked for probably all his life. I suspect he started looking at images of kids half his age because it seems about the social level he can cope with. Now, on top of the porn charges, and the "mass killer" charges, and the loss of all freedom, and being a pariah to our society, he has all the normal feelings of adolescent sexual guilt plus the guilt of being fascinated by the forbidden. Will kicking the crap out of him help anything but the feelings of self-worth of those who beat him up?

I don't condone child molestation for a minute, but I can't help but think we have a lot of growing and understanding to do around this issue. Demonizing it doesn't help. It's not even that we are throwing away his life, we are making it as black as possible.

 

[Kanchou]

rogerHarding[/url]":1dzcejka]

One last thing: while overall homicide rates are higher in the US than in France, it's important to remember that those homicides are not distributed (even close to) evenly across the population. If you're arguing with an American on the Internet about gun control, particularly here on Ars Technica, there's a good chance that their first-hand experience of gun violence isn't substantially different from yours. As with many things, there's a disconnect between the personal or communal experience of violence and the broader voting patterns that maintain a particular status quo.

Nate Silver had done the calculation on exactly this point.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/blac ... countries/

Similarly, when discuss US education system, when you break it down by race, the performance of US students are usually about equal to or superiors to those students in their ancestral continents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achieveme ... omparisons

As a whole, students in the United States lagged the best Asian and European nations in the TIMSS international math and science test. However, broken down by race, US Asians scored comparably to Asian nations, white Americans scored comparably to the best European nations. Although some racial generally score lower than whites in the US, they scored as well as whites in other European nations. Hispanic Americans averaged 505, comparable to students Austria and Sweden, while African Americans at 482 were comparable to Norway and Ukraine.

 

[carldjennings]

SixDegrees[/url]":uaa6s8dn]

pjlahaie[/url]":uaa6s8dn]

simonov[/url]":uaa6s8dn]
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.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right, and it's not protected by the Constitution like gun ownership is. At least in the US.

 

[psd]

Natt[/url]":2tut1v6z]

psd[/url]":2tut1v6z]

In her search warrant affidavit, McManus noted that the old method had "definable costs" and required a "significant amount of skill."

But not anymore. The Internet, which provides simple global gathering places for every niche interest, has done the same thing for child pornographers.

Sleep well anonymizing network researcher/developer/operator who's sense of social responsibility is only of the self-serving kind. When oh when will you get your head out of your back side to recognize that your genius and labor are being exploited by some of the most heinous pieces of scum to walk the Earth!

No worry. I sleep quite fine, thank you. If you think otherwise you might want to pull your head out of your ass.

Obviously I did not mean the literal wellness of your sleep because "sleep well" is a common expression for having a clear conscience. Do you have a clear conscience about all the things you know is going on in the anonymizing network you research/develop/operate?

 

[passivesmoking]

muhname[/url]":2htllpte]It would be one thing to upload self-encrypted files to some cloud storage, but to upload illegal pics/vids as such. After everything we have learned about the NSA and stuff.. Perhaps these guys unconsciously want to get caught..

Or maybe he's just a moron who's sick in the head.

 

[jeffrey_jeff_de]

simonov[/url]":3ftt38ym]I haven't even read the article yet, but just wanted to say, "After Dropbox finds a child porn collector, a chess club stops his knife attack" is certainly the Ars Technica headline of the year.

This.

The whole story reads like the plot of the latest Troma movie:

"Chess Master Veterans Vs. Pumpkin Pedo - Dropbox Alliance".

If this wasn't a real story, I'd pay to see that movie.

 

[Akzo]

He could be looking at pictures of people his own age and it would still be child pornography

 

[scooby509]

RockDaMan[/url]":1znuwuai]

Pokrface[/url]":1znuwuai]

drewd[/url]":1znuwuai]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.

Ain't no strength like angry old man strength.

Second only to the mother bear and/or the woman scorned.

You realize movies are not real life, right?

 

[King_DuckZ]

Nice story. Glad it ended up well. And I'm also glad pedos get caught.

A big question remains in my mind: why do people store sensitive and private data on DropBox? In this case it's a good thing they did, since it allowed them to expose a criminal, but come on...

 

[Jurrasic]

artvandelayIIII[/url]":y08ys33e]Perfect illustration of why we need strong gun control laws. If this disturbed creep had had a gun or two a bunch of kids would be dead, no question.

How do you figure? He wasn't really going to attack anyone, that's obvious by how he acted when he first walked in the door. A real killer dosen't walk into a room, pull knives and say 'I'm gonna kill people!' then stand there and wait for someone to stop him. I still say he was trying to work up an insanity plea. *edit-maybe not, as per below*

 

[Jurrasic]

cpast[/url]":1wvaruqi]

Jurrasic[/url]":1wvaruqi]

Rommel102[/url]":1wvaruqi]Great job James Vernon, a 75 year old Vet taking down a 19 year old psychopath.

I have a very strong suspicion that this attack was not real, but was a cynical ploy to set up an insanity defense.

A scrawny nerd who is not skilled in knife fighting who REALLY wants to kill some kiddies is NOT going to march into the area in question, pull his knives and loudly announce his intentions! He will enter the area, pick his first victim away from any adults, move close to him/her and THEN pull blades and go to work.

I don't buy it at all. It's a either an actual cry for help (unlikely in this case) or a ploy to get a reduced sentence or committal to a mental hospital rather then go into the prison population upon conviction, where he will rapidly learn what it felt like to be the abused kids he jerked off to.

That would only make sense if you had no clue what the insanity defense meant. It's not a matter of "he did something irrational? He MUST be crazy!" The Illustrated Guide to Law has a good primer; essentially, insanity (which is a legal term here, and not a medical one) means that because of a mental issue, you were unable to understand that what you were doing was criminal at the time you did it (Illinois law says "at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct").

Going on a berzerker rampage isn't actually any evidence at all that you are incapable of understanding that what you're doing is criminal, nor that you were insane when you did something different over a year ago before you had a huge extra source of stress. And the insanity defense puts a pretty high burden of proof on the defendant; the defendant has to prove it by "clear and convincing evidence." Insanity is a defense which is very rarely tried, and when it is tried is very rarely successful.

Thank you for the clarification. It still is possible this kid is as ignorant about the insanity defense as I am. ;-)

The way he acted still dosen't make much sense other then this, or cry for help. (perhaps more likely then I thought at first.)

 

[AliceWonder]

King_DuckZ[/url]":26lkvjio]Nice story. Glad it ended up well. And I'm also glad pedos get caught.

A big question remains in my mind: why do people store sensitive and private data on DropBox? In this case it's a good thing they did, since it allowed them to expose a criminal, but come on...

Some local backup systems have a "feature" to remote backup to various cloud storage services. I don't know that's what happened here, but it wouldn't surprise me if some people weren't thinking of their illicit content when they set up a consumer NAS for local backup that also then backs up to a cloud account.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I'm sure someone worked on producing the header image for this story so no offense is intended, but it's a bit much isn't it? A knife, a bloodstain, a chessboard... It just seems a bit tabloid for Ars. Personal opinion.

 

[Zoolook]

And therein lies the difference between guns and knives. If he'd had an automatic weapon, nothing could have stopped him.

 

[gwold]

Zoolook[/url]":ihovs14i]And therein lies the difference between guns and knives. If he'd had an automatic weapon, nothing could have stopped him.

This! And just imagine, if you can bear it, what would've surely happened if he'd had a flame thrower! Or ... or ... an Atom Bomb! /s

 

[AliceWonder]

gwold[/url]":bopvdd2k]

Zoolook[/url]":bopvdd2k]And therein lies the difference between guns and knives. If he'd had an automatic weapon, nothing could have stopped him.

This! And just imagine, if you can bear it, what would've surely happened if he'd had a flame thrower! Or ... or ... an Atom Bomb! /s

Yes, and swarms of people are lobbying for those to be legal under the second amendment !!!!!!!

 

[CppThis]

Zoolook[/url]":1jing44v]And therein lies the difference between guns and knives. If he'd had an automatic weapon, nothing could have stopped him.

Spencer Stone might disagree with that assessment.

 

[RI_Swamp_Yankee]

Statistical[/url]":8cgnkc13]

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).

This doesn't make much sense.

An assault rifle is a well defined category of infantry long-arm among weapons scholars and aficionados. Its prototypical form is the Sturmgewehr 44, a German infantry weapon from the later part of the Second World War. "Sturmgewehr" means, literally, "Assault Rifle." It defined an entire category of weapon, due to it being the first practical example in wide use.

It’s different from older infantry rifles like the k98 in that it was chambered for a smaller rifle round, had a high-capacity quick-change magazine, pistol-grip, and automatic action. It was not meant to replace the machine gun - it was meant to allow the soldier rapid follow-up shots in the heat of action, and to keep killing while the enemy needed to pause.

Now, an interlude to stomp down on the “AR-15s aren’t automatic weapons!” horsecrap. Ask any gun enthusiast what are the two main types of pistols, and they won’t even hesitate an eyeblink in answering “Revolver and Automatic.” And they’d be correct - an automatic action is a mechanism that uses the energy of the round fired to load the next round (gas expansion or recoil, usually). Fully automatic, select-fire and semi automatic are different subcategories of an automatic action, and the gun enthusiasts damn well know it. They’re just trying to lie to you by getting their terminology wrong on purpose.

Indeed, the standard-issue modern American infantry rifle, the M4, is no longer a fully-automatic weapon, but has a select-fire action, where it can be set to shoot small bursts of three rounds per trigger-pull. Even this mode is rarely used, and only in certain circumstances such as covering fire. Studies have proven that you can shoot more people if you take the time to aim each round. (Yes, they study this stuff. Quite a deal. I can provide citations, but they may take a day or two to dig out of my notes.)

So! an Assault Rifle can be defined as a weapon that meets the design goals of the original StG 44 -

1) Fires a smaller-caliber centerfire rifle round than an earlier infantry rifle.
2) Automatic action to allow quick follow-up shots without having to operate a bolt with only a minor loss of accuracy.
3) Pistol-grip, which allows quick target acquisition with only a minor loss of accuracy
4) Large-capacity magazine, simply and quickly interchangeable, to engage more of the enemy without needing to reload as often as earlier clip-fed rifles.

Now, we can dance around some parts of the definition - for instance, the Ruger Mini-14 doesn't have a pistol-grip, and the FN-FAL is chambered in a large center-fire round, and they have both been employed with great success by mass-murderers.

You will notice, however, that "Scary" and "Black" aren't part of the category definition.

"Able to acquire and shoot as many human-sized targets at close and medium range as possible" *is.*

They are weapons designed for an infantryman, not a hunter or competitive marksman. This is where some people have an issue with them being available to anyone who waltzes into a gun show.

 

[Natt]

RI_Swamp_Yankee[/url]":1turm3lt]

Statistical[/url]":1turm3lt]

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).

This doesn't make much sense.

An assault rifle is a well defined category of infantry long-arm among weapons scholars and aficionados. Its prototypical form is the Sturmgewehr 44, a German infantry weapon from the later part of the Second World War. "Sturmgewehr" means, literally, "Assault Rifle." It defined an entire category of weapon, due to it being the first practical example in wide use.

It’s different from older infantry rifles like the k98 in that it was chambered for a smaller rifle round, had a high-capacity quick-change magazine, pistol-grip, and automatic action. It was not meant to replace the machine gun - it was meant to allow the soldier rapid follow-up shots in the heat of action, and to keep killing while the enemy needed to pause.

Now, an interlude to stomp down on the “AR-15s aren’t automatic weapons!” horsecrap. Ask any gun enthusiast what are the two main types of pistols, and they won’t even hesitate an eyeblink in answering “Revolver and Automatic.” And they’d be correct - an automatic action is a mechanism that uses the energy of the round fired to load the next round (gas expansion or recoil, usually). Fully automatic, select-fire and semi automatic are different subcategories of an automatic action, and the gun enthusiasts damn well know it. They’re just trying to lie to you by getting their terminology wrong on purpose.

Indeed, the standard-issue modern American infantry rifle, the M4, is no longer a fully-automatic weapon, but has a select-fire action, where it can be set to shoot small bursts of three rounds per trigger-pull. Even this mode is rarely used, and only in certain circumstances such as covering fire. Studies have proven that you can shoot more people if you take the time to aim each round. (Yes, they study this stuff. Quite a deal. I can provide citations, but they may take a day or two to dig out of my notes.)

So! an Assault Rifle can be defined as a weapon that meets the design goals of the original StG 44 -

1) Fires a smaller-caliber centerfire rifle round than an earlier infantry rifle.
2) Automatic action to allow quick follow-up shots without having to operate a bolt with only a minor loss of accuracy.
3) Pistol-grip, which allows quick target acquisition with only a minor loss of accuracy
4) Large-capacity magazine, simply and quickly interchangeable, to engage more of the enemy without needing to reload as often as earlier clip-fed rifles.

Now, we can dance around some parts of the definition - for instance, the Ruger Mini-14 doesn't have a pistol-grip, and the FN-FAL is chambered in a large center-fire round, and they have both been employed with great success by mass-murderers.

You will notice, however, that "Scary" and "Black" aren't part of the category definition.

"Able to acquire and shoot as many human-sized targets at close and medium range as possible" *is.*

They are weapons designed for an infantryman, not a hunter or competitive marksman. This is where some people have an issue with them being available to anyone who waltzes into a gun show.

Well tough effin' luck, the 2nd amendment doesn't limit the right to own and bear arms to hunting, competitive marksmanship and other nonsense that those types of folks would like to restrict it to. If they don't like it muster the support to change the US Constitution. But of course, if they could they already would have. They haven't because there's is a minority opinion.

 

[AliceWonder]

Changing the constitution isn't about a minority opinion. Reality has shown that you just need the opinion of the supreme court.

The kind of firearms that exist now simply weren't conceived of when the 2nd amendment was written, it is rather silly to believe modern tech should held to literal interpretation of laws written before the modern tech was dreamed of.

Hence why lots of different types of firearms are illegal to own despite the literal "shall not be infringed"

It's the gun nuts that need a grasp on reality.

 

[Natt]

AliceWonder[/url]":18iesr21]Changing the constitution isn't about a minority opinion. Reality has shown that you just need the opinion of the supreme court.

The kind of firearms that exist now simply weren't conceived of when the 2nd amendment was written, it is rather silly to believe modern tech should held to literal interpretation of laws written before the modern tech was dreamed of.

Hence why lots of different types of firearms are illegal to own despite the literal "shall not be infringed"

It's the gun nuts that need a grasp on reality.

Sorry, you are just making the point that there is a good reason that these types of firearms are not illegal to own despite the literal "shall not be infringed". These are not new types of "modern" firearms that never existed until very recently. The bar is high to what is illegal re firearms, and you are just making excuses to try and lower the bar to ban whatever types suit your desires.

 

[RI_Swamp_Yankee]

Natt[/url]":2552bub3]
Well tough effin' luck, the 2nd amendment doesn't limit the right to own and bear arms to hunting, competitive marksmanship and other nonsense that those types of folks would like to restrict it to. If they don't like it muster the support to change the US Constitution. But of course, if they could they already would have. They haven't because there's is a minority opinion.

This doesn't make much sense. A private individual cannot own a MA-2A machine gun or a M203 grenade launcher and the attendant ammunition without a ton of expensive licensing and background checks. I fail to see why a modern antipersonnel infantry weapon like a Bushmaster AR-15 should be excluded from those precautions, or how the constitution prevents it. "Well Regulated" is right there in the amendment.

 

[AliceWonder]

RI_Swamp_Yankee[/url]":2tdcz4yu]

Natt[/url]":2tdcz4yu]
Well tough effin' luck, the 2nd amendment doesn't limit the right to own and bear arms to hunting, competitive marksmanship and other nonsense that those types of folks would like to restrict it to. If they don't like it muster the support to change the US Constitution. But of course, if they could they already would have. They haven't because there's is a minority opinion.

This doesn't make much sense. A private individual cannot own a MA-2A machine gun or a M203 grenade launcher and the attendant ammunition without a ton of expensive licensing and background checks. I fail to see why a modern antipersonnel infantry weapon like a Bushmaster AR-15 should be excluded from those precautions, or how the constitution prevents it. "Well Regulated" is right there in the amendment.

Well the way that many read the amendment, we have a right to bear arms because the state has a well-regulate militia.

But anyway, the arms back then were radically different than the arms we have now, and the courts take that into considerations.

The benefits to risk ratio of population have access to whatever arms exist is radically different now.

 

[Statistical]

I fail to see why a modern antipersonnel infantry weapon like a Bushmaster AR-15 should be excluded from those precautions, or how the constitution prevents it. "Well Regulated" is right there in the amendment.

Because it isn't an infantry weapon anymore than a civic with a spoiler is a formula one car. Name one military which uses a semi-automatic rifle as an infantry weapon. True infantry weapons (like an M-16 or M-4) ARE tightly regulated and all but banned.

 

[Natt]

RI_Swamp_Yankee[/url]":3t67rx8m]

Natt[/url]":3t67rx8m]
Well tough effin' luck, the 2nd amendment doesn't limit the right to own and bear arms to hunting, competitive marksmanship and other nonsense that those types of folks would like to restrict it to. If they don't like it muster the support to change the US Constitution. But of course, if they could they already would have. They haven't because there's is a minority opinion.

This doesn't make much sense. A private individual cannot own a MA-2A machine gun or a M203 grenade launcher and the attendant ammunition without a ton of expensive licensing and background checks. I fail to see why a modern antipersonnel infantry weapon like a Bushmaster AR-15 should be excluded from those precautions, or how the constitution prevents it. "Well Regulated" is right there in the amendment.

I see your problem. The AR-15 family of firearms isn't the "modern antipersonnel infantry weapon" that you want to portray it to be. It's the most popular hunting, target shooting and self defense rifle in America.

"As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5-3.7 million rifles from the AR-15 family in civilian use in the United States. They are favored for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection, and have become the most popular rifle in America."

And as for your comment that "Well Regulated is right there in the amendment."

Sorry, nice try. But being a member of a well regulated militia isn't a constitutional requirement to keep and bear arms in the United States.

District of Columbia v. Heller.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

"In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation."

 

[Natt]

AliceWonder[/url]":eqbcy23k]

RI_Swamp_Yankee[/url]":eqbcy23k]

Natt[/url]":eqbcy23k]
Well tough effin' luck, the 2nd amendment doesn't limit the right to own and bear arms to hunting, competitive marksmanship and other nonsense that those types of folks would like to restrict it to. If they don't like it muster the support to change the US Constitution. But of course, if they could they already would have. They haven't because there's is a minority opinion.

This doesn't make much sense. A private individual cannot own a MA-2A machine gun or a M203 grenade launcher and the attendant ammunition without a ton of expensive licensing and background checks. I fail to see why a modern antipersonnel infantry weapon like a Bushmaster AR-15 should be excluded from those precautions, or how the constitution prevents it. "Well Regulated" is right there in the amendment.

Well the way that many read the amendment, we have a right to bear arms because the state has a well-regulate militia.

But anyway, the arms back then were radically different than the arms we have now, and the courts take that into considerations.

The benefits to risk ratio of population have access to whatever arms exist is radically different now.

Well that may be the way many read the 2nd amendment, but that's certainly not the way the US Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (see above).

And please, the arms they had in 1791 when the US Bill of Rights was adopted were every bit as modern and radical to them as today's firearms are to us. And they had no problem with the notion of an individual having the right to keep and bear those arms, and enshrined that belief in the 2nd amendment.

 

[Natt]

AliceWonder[/url]":2e2djowz]Changing the constitution isn't about a minority opinion. Reality has shown that you just need the opinion of the supreme court.

True, very true. And yet the anti-gun lobby hasn't even been able to accomplish that. ;-)

 

[AliceWonder]

Natt[/url]":9quq0vm6]

AliceWonder[/url]":9quq0vm6]

RI_Swamp_Yankee[/url]":9quq0vm6]

Natt[/url]":9quq0vm6]
Well tough effin' luck, the 2nd amendment doesn't limit the right to own and bear arms to hunting, competitive marksmanship and other nonsense that those types of folks would like to restrict it to. If they don't like it muster the support to change the US Constitution. But of course, if they could they already would have. They haven't because there's is a minority opinion.

This doesn't make much sense. A private individual cannot own a MA-2A machine gun or a M203 grenade launcher and the attendant ammunition without a ton of expensive licensing and background checks. I fail to see why a modern antipersonnel infantry weapon like a Bushmaster AR-15 should be excluded from those precautions, or how the constitution prevents it. "Well Regulated" is right there in the amendment.

Well the way that many read the amendment, we have a right to bear arms because the state has a well-regulate militia.

But anyway, the arms back then were radically different than the arms we have now, and the courts take that into considerations.

The benefits to risk ratio of population have access to whatever arms exist is radically different now.

Well that may be the way many read the 2nd amendment, but that's certainly not the way the US Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (see above).

And please, the arms they had in 1791 when the US Bill of Rights was adopted were every bit as modern and radical to them as today's firearms are to us. And they had no problem with the notion of an individual having the right to keep and bear those arms, and enshrined that belief in the 2nd amendment.

But you couldn't have an angry kid wipe out 20 classmates with the radical firearms they had in 1791.

 

[h4rm0ny]

AliceWonder[/url]":1d8cjjc3]Changing the constitution isn't about a minority opinion. Reality has shown that you just need the opinion of the supreme court.

The kind of firearms that exist now simply weren't conceived of when the 2nd amendment was written, it is rather silly to believe modern tech should held to literal interpretation of laws written before the modern tech was dreamed of.

Hence why lots of different types of firearms are illegal to own despite the literal "shall not be infringed"

It's the gun nuts that need a grasp on reality.

We have enough problems with the law not keeping up with technology in general, why so bothered when it does? In any other scenario where a clear principle of a law was violated because of some refinement of technology, I presume you would object. Example, government agencies have used the emergence of email as an excuse to do things that they would never be legally allowed to do with posted letters through the US mail system. I could list numerous cases where the legal principle is clear but people or companies have tried to wriggle out of it because the lawmakers didn't anticipate some new technological version of what they were legislating.

The right to bear arms was put in place so that people could defend themselves against the state. The USA had just escaped from colonial rule. There's no violation of the intent of that constitutional right because gun technology is different now from then. Nor is there any real violation of the written terms of it which is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Arms are weapons - that's what it means. You may not like it, but there's no real argument that arms has some more limited meaning that you prefer.

 

[AliceWonder]

`The right to bear arms was put in place so that people could defend themselves against the state'

Exactly, but at the time, the benefit did not outweigh the risks.

That has clearly changed, the kind of firearms that now exist can do far far far more damage to innocents than they could back then, and the kind of firearms available to the military now are well beyond the budget of 99% of the population even if they were legal.

The benefit they received from the second amendment simply is no longer obtainable, and the risk with the firearms that can now be obtained is far greater.

Yes, you should be allowed to have a firearm. Lots of them if you want lots of them.

But *especially* since the purpose of the 2nd amendment is no longer obtainable, the risk factor of what a firearm can be used for must be taken into consideration.

Firearms designed to kill lots of people in a short period of time are too risky to be legal. Even if they can be used to shoot a deer.

 

[Natt]

AliceWonder[/url]":1xijcpbf]

Natt[/url]":1xijcpbf]

AliceWonder[/url]":1xijcpbf]

RI_Swamp_Yankee[/url]":1xijcpbf]

Natt[/url]":1xijcpbf]
Well tough effin' luck, the 2nd amendment doesn't limit the right to own and bear arms to hunting, competitive marksmanship and other nonsense that those types of folks would like to restrict it to. If they don't like it muster the support to change the US Constitution. But of course, if they could they already would have. They haven't because there's is a minority opinion.

This doesn't make much sense. A private individual cannot own a MA-2A machine gun or a M203 grenade launcher and the attendant ammunition without a ton of expensive licensing and background checks. I fail to see why a modern antipersonnel infantry weapon like a Bushmaster AR-15 should be excluded from those precautions, or how the constitution prevents it. "Well Regulated" is right there in the amendment.

Well the way that many read the amendment, we have a right to bear arms because the state has a well-regulate militia.

But anyway, the arms back then were radically different than the arms we have now, and the courts take that into considerations.

The benefits to risk ratio of population have access to whatever arms exist is radically different now.

Well that may be the way many read the 2nd amendment, but that's certainly not the way the US Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (see above).

And please, the arms they had in 1791 when the US Bill of Rights was adopted were every bit as modern and radical to them as today's firearms are to us. And they had no problem with the notion of an individual having the right to keep and bear those arms, and enshrined that belief in the 2nd amendment.

But you couldn't have an angry kid wipe out 20 classmates with the radical firearms they had in 1791.

Oh course, of course! think of the children! It's always about the children...

While tragic in 251 years there's only been 5 american school massacres with a death toll in the double digits that i'm aware of. The first one, i mean the very first one, was in 1764! And it didn't even involve firearms. as a matter of fact if schoolmaster Enoch Brown had had a firearm with him they may have all lived instead. Fact is you don't need a firearm to kill a crap load of kids in a gun-free safe zone like a school. Is it easier? Yes. Does that mean we should curtail everyone's basic right to keep and bear arms because of something that's occurred all of 4 times since the '60s? Not IMO.

"American Indian warriors entered a settlers' log schoolhouse in the Province of Pennsylvania in what is now Franklin County, near the present-day city of Greencastle.

Inside were the schoolmaster, Enoch Brown, and a number of young students. Brown pleaded with the warriors to spare the children; nonetheless he was shot and scalped. The warriors then tomahawked and scalped the children. Brown and nine children were killed. Two scalped children survived their wounds. Four children were taken as prisoners."

 

[AliceWonder]

Natt[/url]":ifknvu08]
Oh course, of course! think of the children! It's always about the children...

It is the responsibility of adults to defend those who can not defend themselves.

So yes, I do think of the children.

But it's not just children.

Today's shooting in San Bernardino wasn't targeting a school.

 

[Natt]

AliceWonder[/url]":2c0w8iu5]`The right to bear arms was put in place so that people could defend themselves against the state'

Exactly, but at the time, the benefit did not outweigh the risks.

That has clearly changed, the kind of firearms that now exist can do far far far more damage to innocents than they could back then, and the kind of firearms available to the military now are well beyond the budget of 99% of the population even if they were legal.

The benefit they received from the second amendment simply is no longer obtainable, and the risk with the firearms that can now be obtained is far greater.

Yes, you should be allowed to have a firearm. Lots of them if you want lots of them.

But *especially* since the purpose of the 2nd amendment is no longer obtainable, the risk factor of what a firearm can be used for must be taken into consideration.

Firearms designed to kill lots of people in a short period of time are too risky to be legal. Even if they can be used to shoot a deer.

Exactly? No, hardly. Sorry, but your reading of the 2nd amendment is fundamentally flawed, and is not supported by the wording of the amendment itself, or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.

Furthermore the historical concept of an individuals right to keep and bear arms extends much further back to British common law. It is not something the founding fathers envisioned themselves, but a concept they felt so important that it should be a basic constitutional right of every citizen.

 

[Natt]

AliceWonder[/url]":10rsuvt8]

Natt[/url]":10rsuvt8]
Oh course, of course! think of the children! It's always about the children...

It is the responsibility of adults to defend those who can not defend themselves.

So yes, I do think of the children.

But it's not just children.

Today's shooting in San Bernardino wasn't targeting a school.

Speaking of which, as i recall California has some very strict guns laws. I wonder what firearms they used? :/

Also this is an act of domestic terrorism committed by 3 conspirators who came prepared to do what they did. I'm not sure any gun control measures you think would have stopped them actually would have.

The gunmen “were dressed and equipped in a way that indicate they were prepared, and they were armed with long guns, not handguns; I do not know what type of long guns,” Chief Burguan said at a news conference about three hours after the shooting. “They came prepared to do what they did, as if they were on a mission.”

 

[h4rm0ny]

AliceWonder[/url]":10ul51ty]`The right to bear arms was put in place so that people could defend themselves against the state'

Exactly, but at the time, the benefit did not outweigh the risks.

That has clearly changed, the kind of firearms that now exist can do far far far more damage to innocents than they could back then, and the kind of firearms available to the military now are well beyond the budget of 99% of the population even if they were legal.

The benefit they received from the second amendment simply is no longer obtainable, and the risk with the firearms that can now be obtained is far greater.

This is not so. You are arguing that because the US military has better armaments than most of the populace that there is no parity any longer and that therefore the purpose of the second amendment has been lost.

This is mistaken in three ways. Firstly, there never was parity between any given individual and the state - that much is obvious. It was that collectively an armed populace could oppose the state. Secondly, you say that weapons such as the army has are "well beyond" the budget of 99% of the population. This is also false. If you have the idea that the army is buying some sort of super-guns for its standard troops that are game-changingly above what private citizens could afford, you are mistaken. The DoD will spend billions on the latest plane but infantry are issued regular weaponry. I'm not an expert on guns and don't own one, so someone with more expertise will have to support this if you want to challenge it, but I'm fairly sure that there's no radical shift in deadliness or capability between regular infantry weapons and what is affordable to average adult US citizens (let alone only 1% of them). You toss off a lot of numbers and assertions, but I believe you are mistaken.

Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, there are the things that the US army has that private citizens almost never have - the helicopters, the tanks, the bazookas and large machine guns. Yet, none of these are an "I Win" button for our hypothetical State vs. The People scenario. Look at Fallujah or Baghdad or any other recent urban conflict between a populace and the US army. An armed populace can and will challenge an occupying force even if they primarily have only regular firearms. The USA has a huge population. Additionally, the USA is a society that fetishizes its armed forces and has a very high proportion of people with military training. Large Population + Active Training. The US army also depends, as do all occupying armies, on a substantial network of support from the home nation; which would be quite precarious in this scenario. So now we have Large Population + Active Training + Enemy Lacking Secure Support Infrastructure. Also, a very high desertion rate / low morale when turned against a home nation.

So our final equation = Large Population + Active Training + Enemy Lacking Secure Support Infrastructure + Enemy With Severe Morale Problems.

You argue that the benefit of the Second Amendment, i.e. an armed populace can oppose the state / revolt / dissuade military occupation, no longer applies because the US army has weapons that "99%" of the population cannot afford. This falls down under examination. The high proportion of gun ownership in the USA would provide the populace with substantial ability to resist state aggression should the state ever be inclined to go down that path. And therefore is a dissuader to the State to do so.

So again, you can dislike it being the case, but you cannot state that "the purpose of the 2nd amendment is no longer obtainable".

You initially argued that the second amendment doesn't cover modern firearms because of their greater power than those at the time the amendment was made. This was false. You're now arguing that the second amendment's purpose is no longer possible. This also is false. Oddly enough, I even disagree with the one thing you said that supposedly justifies guns (that they can be used to shoot a deer), because I'm both a vegetarian and against hunting for purposes other than necessity. So it seems there is no common ground between us even there. Mainly I am refuting your arguments because I see them as logically flawed and because I have never seen a government check its own powers without some pressure or threat brought to bear on it from outside (e.g. the populace). Or at least so seldom that I choose not to rely on it.

 

[RI_Swamp_Yankee]

Statistical[/url]":25gayudl]

I fail to see why a modern antipersonnel infantry weapon like a Bushmaster AR-15 should be excluded from those precautions, or how the constitution prevents it. "Well Regulated" is right there in the amendment.

Because it isn't an infantry weapon anymore than a civic with a spoiler is a formula one car. Name one military which uses a semi-automatic rifle as an infantry weapon. True infantry weapons (like an M-16 or M-4) ARE tightly regulated and all but banned.

M4 isn't a full-auto. It's semi-auto select fire, limited to three round bursts. M4A1 is still available to special forces in "full rock'n'roll" mode for some missions, but the standard weapon will not have the ability. More, even the select-fire mode won't be used unless you're laying down covering fire. Studies have repeatedly shown that when it comes to long guns, aiming each round as it's fired kills more people in less time than "spray'n'pray" on full-auto, and removing full-auto from general issue infantry weapons reduces ammunition wasted, and increases kills.

It's the high-capacity magazines, not rate of fire, that does the most damage with these weapons, and we all know it. Or we should if we're being honest.

 

[AliceWonder]

Natt[/url]":2o2i2kfd]

AliceWonder[/url]":2o2i2kfd]

Natt[/url]":2o2i2kfd]
Oh course, of course! think of the children! It's always about the children...

It is the responsibility of adults to defend those who can not defend themselves.

So yes, I do think of the children.

But it's not just children.

Today's shooting in San Bernardino wasn't targeting a school.

Speaking of which, as i recall California has some very strict guns laws. I wonder what firearms they used? :/

We don't know, but I believe both Nevada and Arizona that border us have less restrictive laws. Unless there is just reason to search a vehicle entering California from another state, they can't.

That may be an argument for federal laws, just like many dangerous narcotics are controlled by the federal government.

 

[S8ER01Z]

AliceWonder[/url]"ugrl41z]

Natt[/url]"ugrl41z]

AliceWonder[/url]"ugrl41z]

Natt[/url]"ugrl41z]
Oh course, of course! think of the children! It's always about the children...

It is the responsibility of adults to defend those who can not defend themselves.

So yes, I do think of the children.

But it's not just children.

Today's shooting in San Bernardino wasn't targeting a school.

Speaking of which, as i recall California has some very strict guns laws. I wonder what firearms they used? :/

We don't know, but I believe both Nevada and Arizona that border us have less restrictive laws. Unless there is just reason to search a vehicle entering California from another state, they can't.

That may be an argument for federal laws, just like many dangerous narcotics are controlled by the federal government.

Well they have done such a wonderful job cutting off those dangerous narcotics... clearly if they make guns illegal like they do cocaine or heroin no one will be able to get them and we will all be safe from guns.

 

[AliceWonder]

S8ER01Z[/url]":2l94u7cc]

AliceWonder[/url]":2l94u7cc]

Natt[/url]":2l94u7cc]

AliceWonder[/url]":2l94u7cc]

Natt[/url]":2l94u7cc]
Oh course, of course! think of the children! It's always about the children...

It is the responsibility of adults to defend those who can not defend themselves.

So yes, I do think of the children.

But it's not just children.

Today's shooting in San Bernardino wasn't targeting a school.

Speaking of which, as i recall California has some very strict guns laws. I wonder what firearms they used? :/

We don't know, but I believe both Nevada and Arizona that border us have less restrictive laws. Unless there is just reason to search a vehicle entering California from another state, they can't.

That may be an argument for federal laws, just like many dangerous narcotics are controlled by the federal government.

Well they have done such a wonderful job cutting off those dangerous narcotics... clearly if they make guns illegal like they do cocaine or heroin no one will be able to get them and we will all be safe from guns.

Making something illegal doesn't make it go away. It can however make access more difficult, as mere possession becomes a crime.