Just sayin ...
Look, I am old and all I want to say is this: I hate watching p0rn on a tiny screen.
Never mind the Feds. American police forces routinely "circumvent most security features" in smartphones to extract mountains of personal information, according to a report that details the massive, ubiquitous cracking of devices by cops. Two years of public records requests by Upturn, a Washington DC non-profit, has revealed …
My ex, who'd been in IT for a while, decided to go back to Uni to study Cyber Security, which included an optional module on basically cracking open mobile phones.
She really enjoyed it, so much so that she decided she was going to focus on digital forensics as a career path.
... will read your mail, browse your image library, and track your movements if they consider you suspicious. It does sound a bit like one of those historic fiction books. Only that the real-life authorities are not facist, would never lie to you, and have not always been at war with [drugs / axis of evil / communists] or allied to [Oceania / Eurasia / Eastasia].
But some of the reason that Big Brother Policemen can do it, is that Big Brother Corporations are doing it better and the police only have to tap in to that pre-existing source of information. Legally, with a warrant, or illegally.
The article fails to discuss the legality of the search without warrants - what percentage of 'evidence' is (correctly, IMHO) being thrown out of courts?
It doesn't come to court
Most of it is checking young women's phones for selfies / sex-tapes
Then a lot of finding something bad about a person after you shot them at a traffic stop / if they complain about you. It would just be a lot more convenient if you knew the dirt on everybody before you stopped them.
Well, probably not much. Data pulled from the phone without a warrant wouldn't make it through discovery, but there's a huge problem. What is to stop them from looking first illegally, then if they find something crafting a warrant request with 20/20 hindsight to convince a judge to issue a warrant after the fact? How would the judge know they had done this? There is no log of the cracking. There is no audit.
"The article fails to discuss the legality of the search without warrants - what percentage of 'evidence' is (correctly, IMHO) being thrown out of courts?"
You get into a world of dodging the illegal. If the filth rummage thru your phone without a warrant, they might not be able to refer the what they found in evidence, but if you were incautious about what you kept on your phone, it can tell them exactly where to dig up really good evidence that they will get a warrant for. All they are doing is violating your privacy and nullifying the phone as evidence. It could be a good trade off if it gets them a better haul elsewhere.
"Some absolutely will."
The obituary of a "successful" policeman pointed out that his downfall was due to an astute defence solicitor/lawyer. A respectable man had been arrested on a demonstration and charged with possessing a half brick as a weapon. The lawyer had the man's pockets forensically analysed - not a speck of brick dust. Turned out to be the tip of the proverbial in planted "evidence".
Reality in the US is that fleeing is resisting arrest in most jurisdictions and that resisting arrest allows officers to use force and the use of force includes deadly force.
Few jurisdictions require the officer to show that a fleeing person is a danger to the officer or the public.
And almost no prosecution of on duty officers has been successful.
It is a sad country I live in.
No, resisting arrest does not allow the use of deadly force. Deadly force is only legal if the subject continuing to resist or evade will seriously endanger officers or the public. And allowing it does not mean it is necessary, it is up to the officer's discretion.
Disclaimer: I am not defending reprehensible actions by authority figures. Because someone will surely assume that.
In the US it's almost impossible to successfully prosecute on-duty police for shooting someone, no matter how egregious their actions might be.
The Indiana Supreme Court just decided a case saying that officer testimony should be believed over VIDEO EVIDENCE! No wonder more and more people in the US have problems supporting the police when they are allowed to get away with lying despite video evidence to the contrary.
I guess that's the "law and order" side's answer to the question "how are we going to keep getting away with murder when we are forced to have dash cams, body cams, and every bystander has a high quality video device"?
If they are obviously armed with a deadly weapon, then yes, they might be a threat to the public. Might. Otherwise, no. In the military, I was given specific criteria when I could use deadly force. Often those shootings reported violate the criteria I operated under then.
If the perp is carrying a gun and could shoot you with it, it matters not whether that perp is 12 years old and/or suffering that episode you mention. As soon as they become a threat to you or someone else you shoot them.
Remember when you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrYtD7gSWsI
Way too late with that suggestion.
(although the planes were apparently small two-seaters back in the 1920s)
How else can a reasonably average cop expect to catch up with a perp without suffering a coronary, wheezing and overexertion?
It's important to keep up appearances and those doughnuts won't eat themselves.
As far as my phone is concerned the damning evidence is conclusive, there is sod all on it so I must be hiding a lot somewhere else.
Specifically, the USA has ~22x the number of firearms homicides per capita, and ~4x the overall number of homicides per capita, compared to the UK.
(the charts actually make for some interesting reading)
On a sad note, one of the main problems with access to firearms is suicide. The suicide rate is linked to the effectiveness of the means of attempting suicide. With firearms you rarely get a reprieve, as a bullet to the brain is generally fatal. When catalytic converters were introduced, the suicide rate came down because people were less able to suffocate themselves in a garage with a car engine running, so had more time to think and realise what they were doing. Considering gun ownership as a public health issue makes sense, except to the NRA, of course.
I love coming to a UK site and seeing people poo poo the 2nd amendment, which was put in place when the US was founded to allow the people to keep tyrannical governments in check (looking at you UK). The NRA used to be about sporting until the politicians decided to restrict the 2nd amendment. They saw a threat to their mission stepped up their game and made it their goal to defend it. They are no different than an organization defending the 1st amendment or any other in the US constitution. The rub is, people who know little or nothing about firearms swallow whatever the media and politicians tell them about guns (and other things) as gospel.
The mental health issue is real, but it isn't the guns fault people are messed up. And, a quick google search shows that the suicide rate per capita in the UK is 11.2/100k. US is only slightly higher at 14.2/100k. So, if guns are the evil culprit, but are banned in the UK, then how are folks there killing themselves? Quit drinking the koolaid
"So, if guns are the evil culprit, but are banned in the UK, then how are folks there killing themselves?"
They are hanging, suffocating or strangling themselves in over 61% (males) and 47% (female) of cases. Poisoning comes second, then further down drowning, jumping on moving objects, falling, and using sharp objects. Firearm related suicides exist but they're grouped in the Other category along with smoke, fire and unspecified.
UK Statistics Office has the suicide methods neatly broken down.
In the US firearms account for over 50% of suicides.
"So assuming the earlier stats, If we ttook away all the guns our suicide rate would be 30-40% lower than the UK. Wow."
The suicide rates would be lower, but I'm pretty sure most people determined to end their life would just find another method. Handgun probably is the quickest way to end your life, and if you have them readily available then a spur-of-the-moment suicide decision is more likely to end in death. If however you don't have guns (UK), the alternative ways of dying require a strong resolve.
I can understand a suicide when you're e.g. facing a slow and painful death, or for altruistic reasons, but there are young teenagers killing themselves for stupid reasons and they should be prevented from committing suicides.
"Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure... All these stats are anecdotal."
Your stats you mean. The figures I cited were researched.
@ John 104
I am quite interested in your understanding of statistics. The USA's suicide rate (according to your figure) is 27% greater than the UK's. Which you describe as "only slightly higher". Sounds like a lot to me, particularly as the USA population is so much larger than the UKs.
Thanks for the history lesson about the NRA. I am obviously under the spell of 'the media':
"NRA spokespeople like Dana Loesch routinely appear on TV in the aftermath of mass shootings to insist that the real enemy is the pernicious influence of the entertainment industry and that the solution is the sale of more guns, not fewer.
But the group has strayed a long way from its roots. Founded in the aftermath of the Civil War, the NRA was actually in favour of gun control until 1968.
First chartered in New York on 16 November 1871 by journalist William Conant Church and lawyer George Wood Wingate, both Yankee veterans, the NRA’s primary goal was to improve marksmanship. The men were shocked by official Union Army statistics from the war that estimated 1,000 bullets were fired for every Confederate soldier hit.
According to which article, the USA's politicians decided to restrict gun ownership due to the use of machine guns by Chicago gangsters in the 1930s (which law was supported by the NRA) and the assassinations of J F Kennedy, M L King Jr. and Robert Kennedy and others in the 1960s.
BTW, if the entertainment industry is responsible for the level of violence in the USA, why doesnt the NRA's have campaigns against violence in movies and on TV?
As for the argument that what the USA needs now is more gun ownership, not less, I always want to hear the NRA representatives answer to the following question:
"What weapon do you take on a night out, where you are going dancing, and drinking? How do you carry it? How much ammunition do you take, and what is your shooting accuracy like after a few beers and shots of whisky at 1:30 in the morning in a darkened bar with disco lights?" Because the guys who were gunned down in the disco in Orlando a few years ago could be alive today if they had the fighting abilities of a stone cold sober US Navy SEAL under those conditions. (I hope this is not too provocative.)
All the best.
Personally, I'm in favor of licensing with reasonable required training, just as with another deadly weapon, vehicles. However it should come with an automatic concealed carry permit and periodic testing as with other license renewals. Oh and they are banned in venues serving alcohol and other drugs (to keep up with legalization efforts). Alcohol and weapons has never mixed well.
I wonder if ammunition rather than gun control might be palatable?
Maybe the powder charge could be restricted to 1% of current levels and the projectile part of the bullet might have materials restrictions, eg no lead, no metal, no rigid plastics allowed etc. Maybe form a new group to fight for this, the National Executive for Restricting Fun Guns, Or NERF Gun for short.
Guns and alcohol are not a good combination. Most places have laws around carry and alcohol. Many places forbid firearms in establishments that serve alcohol, the rest generally forbid consumption. I know 5 people besides myself who routinely carry. Two do not consume alcohol. The rest of us would avoid handling a firearm while drinking,especially if going to a bar or 'out drinking'. No reponsible person, generally handles firearms while intoxicated.
If a meth-head breaks thru the front door of my house, after I've consumed a few floating around the homestead, ... The shotgun just needs to be pointed in the correct general direction. Acuracy is not parmount at that point, and hollow-ponts may not make him stop anyway. I don't live in the best neighborhood, and I rarely drink more than a beer or two even so.
At 25 yards free standing with the baretta, my shot group is the size of a fist. With iron sites on the carbine, free standing, the same or better at 50 yards. With the sub-compact 9, maybe a 5" ring at 15 yards. The point being, when you carry something it's usually small, for close quarters. You're not shooting at anyone 'running away'. James Bond can hit someone in the head the first shot at 100 yards with a Walther PPK, but nobody real can.
The greatest majority of 'gun violence' is aound street gangs, and drugs. Now if you want a discussion of stupid drug laws that feed the violence...
I agree that guns and drinking alcohol are a dangerous combination, but is there a law in the US that forbids people carrying a firearm from drinking? Or possibly if you are diagnosed alcoholic does that prohibit you form gun ownership? (I am asking for information, not to provoke anyone, frankly after this 'conversation' I am not going to mention the NRA in a post again, unless it was mentioned in the article, as I now have over 100 down votes!).
The issue is what should qualify someone to own and carry a loaded firearm (and what sort of firearms), and what should disqualify someone from doing that. I do not know the answer, but doubt that everyone can agree on a single set of self-consistent rules (heck we don't even understand who we can visit in the UK during an epidemic, and by "we" I mean senior Police officers tasked with enforcing the rules).
Apologies for provoking this contentious sub-thread.
Sleep tight everyone, and sweet dreams.
Heck - the average hit rate of a police officer is also very small and appalling. What SHOULD be required to own a gun is that you are forced to take glasses on gun safety AND learn how to shoot the gun. If an intruder that is armed breaks in, and you cannot hit the intruder but they shoot you right between the eyes, what good did the gun do for you?
"keep tyrannical governments in check (looking at you UK)"
How is that working out for you guys?
State backed-thugs killing unarmed civilians. People brandishing semi-automatic weapons at protestors. The article we are commenting on *right now* full of the stuff that needs to be kept "in check".
Do *you* think those BLM/Civil rights folk should be tooled up? If only for self defence from the All/Blue lives matter brigade? Then again, regular folk would still be shot for no reason, except this time with the excuse that they were armed. Even if its still in the holster.
As others have said here, soldiers on active duty in war zones have stricter rules of engagement than bog standard US beat cops. Its about time you held your police to the same standard.
You supposedly live in a democracy, (lets see how that election goes), you can have guns if you want, but folk who still claim the purpose is to stop tyranny clearly haven't been paying attention. Or worse - seem to be aiding and abetting those perpetrating the tyranny.
By all means. Move to the UK, and live there. Do not come to the US. I'm not (ahem) putting a gun to anyone's head making them live under the laws here. I'm not asking you to change your laws, nor am I ridiculing them. If you think it sucks in the US don't live here. I like the gun laws here, and if you just held up the liquor store, and you get shot running away, so be it.
If you get stopped by the police for any reason, be respectful, and cooperative. If you happen to have run into a cop having a bad day, it will do wonders to diffuse the situation. If you have done something wrong 'man up', then 'shut up', and call a lawyer, before you say *anything*, other than, 'I think I should speak to an attorney before i talk with you.'
Further, as bad as some of the incidences are, upon investigation, there is quite often a bit more to it than 'Jonny was innocently running down the street with a hoodie on, and droopy drawers.' If there are bad actors get rid of them.
If you happen to have run into a cop having a bad day, it will do wonders to diffuse the situation. If you have done something wrong 'man up', then 'shut up', and call a lawyer, before you say *anything*, other than, 'I think I should speak to an attorney before i talk with you.'
I expect this could work if you are white. I would be a bit more nervous if I wasn't.
" If there are bad actors get rid of them"
Possibly. You put shoplifters/fraudsters even muggers in jail, don't shoot them in the back because you cant catch them. If only there was some kind of organisation that could JUDGE what a fitting punishment would be.
The UK we have a comic about what happens then the police do it themselves.
That logic doesnt work. You measure gun deaths but then assume that makes people less safe. In the absence of guns other choices are on offer. A very difficult measure to take is how many deaths are reduced by the presence of a gun. It is difficult because the incident can stop before a crime.
"...a combined British rate of 0.48 per 100,000. In the US, the number for 2017 was 1,591, giving an almost identical rate of 0.49. So even amid a spike in British knife crime, Americans as a whole are at least as likely as to die from a stabbing. .."
"Yet the absence of gun deaths in countries with limited availability of guns, would lead one to conclude that the availability of guns does increase the number of gun deaths."
Which is not what he said. More guns = more gun deaths is right. More guns = less safe is what the original comment said. Hence the logical hole
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"For every time a gun kept in the home is used for a legally justifiable reason, four people are accidentally shot with it, seven people are criminally assaulted or killed, and eleven people try to, or actually, do themselves in."
Not sure you ment to say what you said. You dont mean 4 people accidentally shot with it otherwise people wouldnt have a gun in the home as the standard 2 adult 2 kids would all be shot by 1 gun kept for that houses protection.
"The reason I used the movie example, is that the idea of keeping a firearm for 'home defense' is so counter-productive as to be laughable"
You can laugh and be wrong, that is fine. Violent crime generally being higher in the states with tighter gun laws.
"Look, it's like religion, no-one can convince the zealot with any number of statistics."
Very much so. That is why a gun nut and an anti gun nut can never meet in the middle. Both think they are right.
"I'll wait until you go to hospital after inadvertently shooting yourself before I burgle your house!"
I am not in the US. But I do enjoy shooting. And for you to burgle the house suggests you are criminal which means breaking of the law is ok for you and so will probably come armed, hence justifying an armed defence.
Because if every islamist or IRA terrorist could pick up an AR-15 + ammo at their local Walmart (or local equivalent) they wouldn't have to resort to... *checks notes* knives, cars, and fake suicide vests or *flips page* taking potshots with a low calibre handgun.
The "largest ever" machine gun seizure in the UK was a 'massive' (sarcasm quotes) 22 (some other sources say 31) machine guns. What is the stock level of a regular sporting goods store in left-pondia?
My point being, that you talk as if firearms are a normal, regular thing in the UK, and that's demonstrably not true. Do you think the terrorists that are prepared to die somehow don't want to break the laws around owning firearms? No.
The first google hit from "uk terror gun" is an article titled The London Bridge terror attack shows why really strict gun control is a very, very good idea
"Because if every islamist or IRA terrorist could pick up an AR-15 + ammo at their local Walmart (or local equivalent) they wouldn't have to resort to... *checks notes* knives, cars, and fake suicide vests or *flips page* taking potshots with a low calibre handgun."
They dont need walmart, they can get this stuff supplied through their usual transport routes. The point is even in the US, Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else you can easily get this stuff it still makes more sense to them to blow things up.
"The "largest ever" machine gun seizure in the UK was a 'massive' (sarcasm quotes) 22 (some other sources say 31) machine guns. What is the stock level of a regular sporting goods store in left-pondia?"
And so 22 machine guns were seized which means the police actually found them and I can fairly guess from criminals. Vs left-pondia sporting goods store which tells you outright they are legal and being bought for legal activity.
"My point being, that you talk as if firearms are a normal, regular thing in the UK, and that's demonstrably not true."
That would need to be demonstrated. I went to legal ranges so firearms are normal. As for criminals using firearms, yes that is often enough in a country which tightly regulates them. And we are talking illegal firearms which are the pistols you deride as low calibre, they are affective. We only see it in the news when they pop off an innocent or you are local enough to hear of the incident nearby (the shooting through a door in broad daylight, gang related).
"Do you think the terrorists that are prepared to die somehow don't want to break the laws around owning firearms? No."
No but the gun sucks at terror. That is why they blow shit up. Criminals dont care about the laws either, which is why they shoot people even in a country with tight gun regulations that even our Olympic teams need special permission from the gov to train. How backward is that.
"The first google hit from "uk terror gun" is an article titled The London Bridge terror attack shows why really strict gun control is a very, very good idea"
Oh wow that article breaches the dumb barrier before the first paragraph.
"still makes more sense to them to blow things up"
Indeed, bombs are more easily hidden, and don't always require someone to be present to pull the trigger.
Counter points: The two Tower bridge attacks. They didn't have explosives. They didn't have guns. The Glasgow airport attack had them resorting to petrol bombs and propane canisters that they lacked the knowledge to use effectively.
From that we can infer that *at least* 3 terrorist groups/cells didn't have the "usual transport routes" or the ability to make their own explosives because they would have *used* them. Which implies that gun control in the UK has been at least somewhat effective in *multiple* cases - and those are just the cases of the top of my head. It would seem that would-be terrorists and gang members don't move in the same circles (with the possible exception of Northern Ireland)
"That would need to be demonstrated"
The fact that the "largest ever" machine gun haul was merely in the low double digits *demonstrates* how rare these items are.
If you are a farmer, or live in the arse end of nowhere, I get that a rifle or a shotgun is a tool of the trade, but in the urban areas where most people live, even *seeing* a gun (or something that looks like one) with someone not in a uniform will result in police getting called pretty quick.
"I went to legal ranges so firearms are normal"
Uhuh, and Gwyneth Paltrow and friends think its normal to spend $300 a day on food. That bloke earning 80k who thought he was in the lower 50% or earners etc. What you do in your sparsely populated bubble does not reflect on wider UK society. See also: Fox hunting as a 'sport'. (Distinct from *actual* hunting to eat/trade.).
"being bought for legal activity."..."Criminals don't care about the law either"
So which is it? You are contradicting yourself. I'm sure criminals promise not to use their legally bought weapons for criminal things honest 'guv. - or to steal those nice and legal weapons should the opportunity arise /s
Meh, the statistics speak for themselves. - as others have already stated.
I live in Birmingham. One of the "worst" places in the UK for gun crime, yet I have never even *seen* a gun IRL that wasn't in the arms of a policeman or a farmer - even then I can count those times on one hand. No, I don't live in a posh area. No, my experience is not unusual. I don't deny gun crime is a problem - but living in fear of an armed home invasion - as you seem to - is outright paranoia. or worse - a fantasy of 'justifiably' killing someone.
591,302 people held a firearm and/or a shotgun certificate in England and Wales year ending 31st March 2019. Source (pdf)
That's ( 591302 / (Eng 56.29m + Wal 3.15m)) * 100 = ~1% of the civilian population are legal gun users.
The number of firearms offences over that period is 6,759. Source (web)
If we assume each of those offences was done by a separate person (unlikely)
That's ( (591302 + 6759) / 59.44m) * 100 = *still* ~1% of the population. (0.01% criminal)
Guns (in England and Wales) are not normal. QED.
"That's ( 591302 / (Eng 56.29m + Wal 3.15m)) * 100 = ~1% of the civilian population are legal gun users."
That excludes air gun even though air gun is considered a gun yet requires no license. Second that is not the number of gun users as you can go to a range and use live ammunition guns without a license under the instruction of the qualified.
"Guns (in England and Wales) are not normal. QED."
Except in your previous comment you mention your personal experience of people legally possessing firearms. Those being the ones you know about (because you seen em). Its amazing how the sporting gun shops in the UK stay open with so little business. Been at least one in short driving distance everywhere I have lived.
" personal experience of people legally possessing firearms"
Yes. As tools for work. Less than 5 times in my whole life. Whilst living in one of the worst places for gun crime in the country. I'm not trying to say guns don't exist. I'm saying (again) that the regulations in the UK successfully limit access to many of the people that would use them for ill. I've even given you examples.
"That excludes air gun ... requires no licence"
Why do you suppose that is? Would you like to include paintball markers as well? Nerfs? /s
Its amazing how the sporting gun shops in the UK stay open with so little business.
1% of people is still >500k people. Add to that the proportion of those that are likely to be rich (managed estates) and/or paying for the stuff through their business (e.g. Farm), and that's plenty to sustain many businesses. However, across the country, that is a very small proportion of people. Drilling down further into the figures reveals only "159,745 firearm certificates [are] on issue" - distinct from shotgun licences. So that's a minority within a minority using anything other than shotguns. Unless you are claiming the government's own figures are wrong?
"you can go to a range and use live ammunition guns without a license "
Even if you *triple* the numbers of legal gun users (doubtful), you are still only at 3%. Add to that the unlicensed folks will be under supervision in a controlled environment and you prove my point..
Out there *gestures outside* guns are not normal in the UK. They are not a part of our culture outside of violent gangs and the rich elite/farmers out in the countryside. That is a tiny proportion of the country. We all live in our own bubbles of life experience, but I've given data and figures that back up my claims. You have yet to present any figures/data that contradict them.
"Yes. As tools for work."
Hence legal as I said.
"I'm saying (again) that the regulations in the UK successfully limit access to many of the people that would use them for ill"
So the many who would not use it for ill are banned from them because of a few people who would. Except of those who would already do. While other tools are generally misused as well.
"Why do you suppose that is? Would you like to include paintball markers as well? Nerfs? /s"
I dont think you can hunt with a paintball gun nor nerfs. They also aint accurate enough for target shooting either.
"1% of people is still >500k people. Add to that the proportion of those that are likely to be rich"
And plenty normal folk too. Its a good hobby you should go check out your local range. The ones I have been to have also been kid friendly too, although they do stick to the air guns.
"They are not a part of our culture outside of violent gangs"
So coming back to the tight regulation leaving the undesirables misusing guns but getting in the way of legal ownership and use.
"You have yet to present any figures/data that contradict them."
So far I havnt needed to. Your conclusions being poor enough to pull apart. Arguing on facts and figures is fine if dealing with people working on those. But when it comes to flimsy reasoning you could probably pull about any poor excuse for your belief.
Like an idiot you have claimed terrorist attacks would be 'different' (I think you mean worse) if guns were more available. Except you concede that bombs are more popular even in places with widely available guns first and third world.
Then forgetting how wrong you were you claim gun control must work because terrorists (in your examples) used things other than guns. Duh, we already discussed this regardless of the availability of guns.
Then you try to argue that guns are not normal. Except you conflate this somehow with crime which is stupid. Somehow trying to compare legal gun stocks in the US to a single confiscation by police of illegal guns in the UK.
I quote this stupidity because it made me laugh-
"What you do in your sparsely populated bubble does not reflect on wider UK society."
Contrast with the comment I am responding to-
"We all live in our own bubbles of life experience"
Leaving us where we are now that "They are not a part of our culture outside of violent gangs" while somehow thinking terrorists are different?
This is the sum of this discussion with you so far. At no point do I need to argue with your figures, its your lack of sensible reason causing your argument to fall over.
Hence legal as I said
and rare.. As *I* said..
"So the many who would not use it for ill are banned from them because of a few people who would"
Yes. Like explosives - or driving. Its not just about intent, its about competence. Take lockdown/Covid restrictions as another example.. The idiots messing things up for the many is why we can't have nice things.
"Except of those who would already do"
Correction: *Some* of those who would already do. This is the point I keep making (and you keep ignoring), illegal guns are just not as easily available as you keep making out. That's a good thing.
So coming back to the tight regulation leaving the undesirables misusing guns but getting in the way of legal ownership and use.
*Some* undesirables misusing guns. 0.01% of the population (as referenced earlier)
I can't tell if you genuinely have that level of fear and paranoia, or if you're just parroting stuff you heard on the internet. Critical thinking skills do not seem to be your strong suit.
Your conclusions being poor enough to pull apart
Really? Where? You keep overstating how easy it is to illegally get a hold of guns (refuted through statistics), whilst complaining about "overregulation"..
any poor excuse for your belief.
Like you trying to make out that every criminal who wants a gun, has one? You're funny.
"claimed terrorist attacks would be 'different' (I think you mean worse) if guns were more available"
Then gave 3 concrete examples of attacks that did not have bombs, and would have been worse if guns were as easy to get hold have as you say.
Except you concede that bombs are more popular
Bombs are used 'as well as', not 'instead of'. Household chemicals can be got hold of. Knowledge on what to do with them is less easy to come by without ending up on a watch list. Getting hold of guns depends on location. Explosives are good for one and done, but there is a reason soldiers carry assault rifles. I could link to any number of attacks where both were used, or just guns (how many active shooters so far this year in the US?), but you don't care.
Then forgetting how wrong you were
Because you don't think 'active shooters' are a thing? It happens *so often* in the US that their schools do *drills* for it! That is messed up!
Duh, we already discussed this
Really? Where? You spouted a load of crap ignoring facts and reality, but that's just you continuing to be wrong.
Then you try to argue that guns are not normal.
By using the govs own figures, yes. 1%
Except you conflate this somehow with crime which is stupid.
Where? I added the offence figure to the number of gun users because *you* keep going on about all these criminals with guns. I used *actual figures* to show that its almost negligible. 0.01% of the population. 3% of homicides. Low figures thanks to our gun laws (and enforcement).
Somehow trying to compare legal gun stocks in the US to a single confiscation by police of illegal guns in the UK.
Yep. Comparing the general levels of availability between the UK and the US. Do you think those nice legal guns are somehow not available to criminals in the US? That's where you contradict yourself. You seem to think saying the word "legal" stops them being used in crimes. Then you admit that criminals don't care, but then those legal guns somehow don't count(?) or are not comparable to guns that criminals use(?) .
The single confiscation in the low double digits being heralded as the *largest ever* because of their *lack of availability* in the UK. In the US guns are generally available (state laws permitting), in the UK they are not. Unless those UK sporting gun shops you mentioned are breaking the law by supplying guns to people without firearm certificates? Or the nice 'legal' owners of firearms are, in fact, *gasp* supplying criminals!? That might call for even tougher laws! (Nah, I recon we've got the balance about right)
I quote this stupidity
I attempt to be charitable to your position by acknowledging that we *both* will have had different life experiences as to what we think is normal. The difference is that *I* defer to actual facts and data. You, it would appear, don't care about such pesky things...
while somehow thinking terrorists are different?
Whilst there is an overlap, jostling with other gangs day-today for control of an area is *very* different to being strongly motivated to plan and prepare and attack one specific target over weeks/months/years. A gang member could spend years getting into many altercations with varying levels of violence. A terrorist martyring themselves only gets to attack once.
At no point do I need to argue with your figures,
The figures show that guns in the UK are not the norm. That undermines quite a lot of what you've said. You keep trying to refute it without addressing the underlying fundamental truth. If you had figures about how many at the gun club are cert holders vs not you could give alternative numbers. But the best you have is "plenty". Here, let me help you. From the gov report I posted earlier:
In the year ending 31 March 2019, 2,016 people were covered by individual or group visitors’ permits for firearms, representing a 6% increase of 120 compared with the previous year. In the same period, there were 7,177 people covered by individual or group visitors’ permits for shotguns representing a 0.7% decrease of 54 compared with the previous year
Sooo that would be an extra 0.02% of the population. I'm surprised myself how low that figure is. If you have a source for other figures fell free to come back with them. Otherwise you are just chatting shit without evidence.
Its the old climate denier schtick "There is no credible evidence" *presents evidence* "That isn't credible" ad nauseum.
I think we are going to have to come to an end on our discussion, this is beginning to feel unsporting. I am starting to feel mean having you tear apart your own points because I can see you are really trying to apply reason. I didnt realise at the time but your personal attacks suggest you were having difficulty with the discussion.
"having you tear apart your own points"
Where? Which points do you believe have been torn apart? Be specific. What-abouting is not contradiction.
"you are really trying to apply reason"
Reason is something you have demonstrated yourself impervious to. Pesky "official government statistics", and "facts" used to back up the assertion that in the UK, GUNS ARE NOT NORMAL. You simply have no response to that. Well, other than "Nuh uh" which seems to be the sum total of your argument.
"your personal attacks"
You tried to say I thought killing people with knives was fine. That makes you a cretin. If you lack the mental capacity to figure out why (on account of being a cretin), that's not something I can help you with. You admitted you thought those intruders were fair game to shoot/kill "duck hunt style". That would make you - should you ever act as you imply you would - a murderer. As ruled by a court of law Saying "Nuh uh" to a jury - or claiming self defence - doesn't work when the evidence is against you - as it was for Tony Martin. Hell, if it should ever happen (Hawking forbid), this very comment thread could be used as evidence against you - as it shows premeditation.
having difficulty with the discussion.
Not at all. I have made my case, cited authoritative sources, and have had no substantive contradictory response.
Not including the attackers, The 2017 Westminster attack killed 5, the London Bridge attack the same year killed 8. The 2019 London Bridge stabbing killed 2.
Just to reiterate my original point: Saying that additional firearms would most likely have caused the above death tolls to be higher should not be a controversial statement. If they'd had fully automatic weapons (still obtainable by civilians in the states - with varying degrees of legality) the death toll could have been a *lot* higher. Also not a controversial statement. If you believe knives are equally effective weapons to firearms, the militaries of the world would beg to differ. Pointing out that bombs are *even worse* is simply deflection.
Attackers having access to those kind of weapons is related to their availability, and as I have shown, they are much more difficult to get hold of in the UK thanks to our gun laws. Again, not a controversial statement.
*shrug* You seem to need the final word in these sort of exchanges, so I doubt you'll be able to leave this without replying.
So till next time...
"Indeed, bombs are more easily hidden, and don't always require someone to be present to pull the trigger."
I would have thought a hand gun easier to hide. Or machine pistol. Longer range guns available too and you dont need to be up close to indiscriminately kill/injure. Yet even with this capacity the various other options seem more interesting to terrorists. Even with household items to make explosives.
"Counter points: The two Tower bridge attacks. They didn't have explosives. They didn't have guns. The Glasgow airport attack had them resorting to petrol bombs and propane canisters that they lacked the knowledge to use effectively."
You dont seem to be helping your case, these terrorists chose weapons. As they do in various countries regardless of the availability of the gun. But you think they would have got a gun to do this because you dont like gun? Eh? Kids get guns, but terrorists cant?
"Which implies that gun control in the UK has been at least somewhat effective in *multiple* cases"
No it doesnt. Otherwise for all the cases of other weapons in the US used by terrorists clearly implies guns dont factor.
"If you are a farmer, or live in the arse end of nowhere, I get that a rifle or a shotgun is a tool of the trade, but in the urban areas where most people live, even *seeing* a gun (or something that looks like one) with someone not in a uniform will result in police getting called pretty quick."
Murder of Lee Rigby. Took 15 minutes for police to arrive to deal with the situation and the 2 guys stood there chatting with pedestrians. That is 15 minutes after the call.
The Cumbria shootings where the initial call took a few minutes because the caller was asking neighbours what she should do.
Those are 2 big news ones off the top of my head.
"What you do in your sparsely populated bubble does not reflect on wider UK society"
If only you could apply that to yourself. Again the Olympics which is world wide yet in the UK requires special permission to practice or host because of over tight gun laws.
"So which is it? You are contradicting yourself. I'm sure criminals promise not to use their legally bought weapons for criminal things honest 'guv. - or to steal those nice and legal weapons should the opportunity arise /s"
Eh? If you see contradiction you need to reread. A criminal will misuse whatever tool regardless. You were talking about the vast stock of legal guns in a country where they are legally bought in sport stores vs a tightly regulated country where the police found some guns (aka there will be a lot more they dont find) which are entirely illegal.
"Meh, the statistics speak for themselves. - as others have already stated."
They do, you just have your interpretation.
"I live in Birmingham. One of the "worst" places in the UK for gun crime, yet I have never even *seen* a gun IRL that wasn't in the arms of a policeman or a farmer - even then I can count those times on one hand."
What did you say about little bubbles? Obviously seeing a gun isnt a problem in legal use and if you live in an area of higher gun CRIME and not seen any then why do you assume thats because of the over tight regulations? A lot of people in the US have seen legal guns and no gun crime.
"I don't deny gun crime is a problem - but living in fear of an armed home invasion - as you seem to - is outright paranoia. or worse - a fantasy of 'justifiably' killing someone."
Eh? Is your position so poorly thought through that the best you have is to claim I am paranoid and fantasise killing someone? This is the second comment you said something wildly stupid about me as if you know me. Maybe you should go talk to someone about your weird fantasies.
"Yet even with this capacity... various other options seem more interesting to terrorists"
My point being that in the UK, they have not *had* that capacity... because our gun laws mostly work.
In Afghanistan, they have that capacity *and use it* as a follow up to the bombs. Shootings are so common over there as to not be news worthy. Bombs make the headlines because of their size..
you dont need to be up close to indiscriminately kill/injure
and yet that is what our terrorists have had to resort to - because our gun laws mostly work.
But you think they would have got a gun to do this because you dont like gun? Eh? Kids get guns, but terrorists cant?
Me liking or not liking guns has nothing to do with it. Any competent terrorist will have investigated the possibility of getting guns because it is an easier way to kill/maim people (than knives), you can drop multiple targets in rapid succession, well out of arms reach. A man with a big knife, I can potentially fight/outrun. I can't outrun a bullet.
The fact that the Tower bridge attackers *didn't* use guns, when these attacks will have been in preparation for a good long while implies they *couldn't* or were deterred enough by our gun laws to not even try. If they had guns, they could have killed and injured many more.
"Murder of Lee Rigby....The Cumbria shootings
How is that relevant to regular people calling the police *on sight* of an air-soft gun? Trying to go open-carry in broad daylight will get you "SWAT"-ed in most built up areas... eventually. Crappy police response times is a separate issue. (Tory Austerity Cuts)
If only you could apply that to yourself
I did. That's why I linked to official government figures to back my statements up - as opposed to your "annecdata". You try to state I'm wrong, but you can't refute the data. You don't even offer a *different interpretation* of the data..
"vast stock of legal guns... vs a tightly regulated country"
Yes. That's the point. Much wider availability here would be a problem. Having them widely available without the checks the UK currently has in place, would make them easy targets of illegal use. As opposed to the current hoops criminals are forced to jump through where converted replicas are being used (to varying degrees of danger for the user).The contradiction I mention is where you say the "vast stocks" are for "legal use" (where self defence counts as legal) yet acknowledge that criminals don't care about such legalities.
you just have your interpretation
You haven't given an interpretation that references actual data
Obviously seeing a gun isnt a problem in legal
Indeed, because In the UK, so few circumstances are legal..
why do you assume thats because of the over tight regulations?
Because if guns where easy to get hold of, they wouldn't have to resort to knives.
A lot of people in the US have seen legal guns and no gun crime.
And many see lots of crime. That's why we refer to the statistics. The reality of the situation doesn't tell the same story you are trying to: 4 times the murder rate per capita? Within that, 73% involving a firearm in the US vs 3% for the UK? (source). Firearms in the home more likely to harm a resident than an intruder? Data and facts don't seem to matter to you.
"best you have is to claim I am paranoid and fantasise killing someone?"
In another post you LITERALLY ADMITTED you thought the burglars were fair game. The courts ruled that makes it murder. Do *you* have an abusive past to hide behind, or are you just a killer?
"My point being that in the UK, they have not *had* that capacity... because our gun laws mostly work."
Which seems moot as they use varying means worldwide regardless of the laws. We covered this.
"and yet that is what our terrorists have had to resort to - because our gun laws mostly work."
Bollocks as per out discussion.
"Any competent terrorist will have investigated the possibility of getting guns because it is an easier way to kill/maim people (than knives)"
Which is why they roll up with bombs. In the US. And various other countries. And with knives. In various countries. If the gangs can get em why do you think terrorists cant? Where is the reasoning?
"The fact that the Tower bridge attackers *didn't* use guns, when these attacks will have been in preparation for a good long while implies they *couldn't* or were deterred enough by our gun laws to not even try. If they had guns, they could have killed and injured many more."
Had they used bombs they could have killed/injured more. Again you dont have any actual reason beyond hatred/fear of guns.
"You try to state I'm wrong, but you can't refute the data"
As I have already said, I dont need to try and refute the data, its your conclusions/lack of reasoning that is vastly flawed.
"Much wider availability here would be a problem"
You claim. Yet violent crime is generally reduced by wider availability of guns. Removing guns from legal ownership didnt help reduce violent crime.
"You haven't given an interpretation that references actual data"
I have entirely shot down every bollocks statement you have made concerning terrorists and guns based on facts you dont refute. Then you repeat your wrong statements. My issue isnt with data, its with the bollocks you seem to interpret from your beliefs that you seem to think somehow relates to the data.
"Because if guns where easy to get hold of, they wouldn't have to resort to knives."
So its ok to use a knife to kill someone but not a gun? Hope you tell the gangs that so they stop shooting people.
"4 times the murder rate per capita? Within that, 73% involving a firearm in the US vs 3% for the UK?"
Awesome. So per state (each having their own gun laws) how do they compare? Typically it seems lower violent crime in less restricted states. And how does the murder rate for that state change with regulation changes?
"In another post you LITERALLY ADMITTED you thought the burglars were fair game."
Interesting you equate not believing someone should be terrorised by multiple burglaries (10 wasnt it?) as a bad thing? That I think his defending his property from repeated attacks as the police refused to do anything about it is somehow me fantasising about killing people.
It is that lack of reasoning which makes your responses such tripe.
"Do *you* have an abusive past to hide behind, or are you just a killer?"
And again you have no leg to stand on so resort to pretending to know anything about me. Is it projection?
"Which seems moot as they use varying means worldwide regardless of the laws. We covered this.". .. Which is why they roll up with bombs.
Bombs are only part of the story, as stated in the other post.
You seem to think that because some terrorists favour bombs, our gun laws don't work/matter? Utter drivel
Yet violent crime is generally reduced by wider availability of guns.
Citation needed. After all, Afghanistan and Iraq are such peaceful places.
"Had they used bombs they could have killed/injured more"
You seem to be implying that because they *could* have used bombs, making it easier for them to have guns would have been... fine and dandy? Worth the risk? Countered in other thread (School shootings). Stop trying to use bombs as a justification that giving greater access to *your* favoured method of killing things is anything other than a terrible idea.
facts you dont refute
I have refuted them. We seem to be writing replies while the other is answering the previous post.
I will add that trying to limit the conversation to terror attacks is quite blinkered. That said, do you want me to link to terror attacks that used guns? Its not like they are difficult to find.
My issue isnt with data, its with the bollocks you seem to interpret from your beliefs that you seem to think somehow relates to the data.
and yet you tried to imply that the number of gun users in the UK is much greater than the figures suggest. Sounds like you have a problem with the data to me.
Left handedness is also not the norm, yet there 10 times as many left handed people as gun users in England and Wales. *shrug* If you consider 1% to be normal, perhaps you also consider the estimated 1% of folk who are Trans to be equally normal? I've certainly met more Trans folk than gun users..
So its ok to use a knife to kill someone but not a gun?
Your cretinry is getting tiresome.
So per state (each having their own gun laws) how do they compare?
Dunno, you haven't given any figures, or cited any sources, but while you are there, how do you suppose each individual state compares with the UK per capita?
Interesting you equate not believing someone should be terrorised by multiple burglaries (10 wasnt it?) as a bad thing? That I think his defending his property from repeated attacks as the police refused to do anything about it is somehow me fantasising about killing people.
Defending ones property does not require someone to be killed unless there is another life at stake. There wasn't. It is matter of public record that the court ruled that there wasn't. Yet he shot at them - as you imply you would have done. That act was ruled to be murder. By a court of law.
When I asked you if you thought they were fair game "duck hunt style", you said 'Yup'. That's not my projection, that's your admission.
The only reason the charge was reduced to manslaughter was on the grounds of diminished responsibility. What would your defence have been? Feel free to say you misspoke and that you didn't mean to imply that you would kill (murder) the lad... But I don't think you will.
That's the thing, *you* seem to think that he shouldn't have been locked up because the burglars were fair game, duck hunt style. The "self defence" defence was *rejected* by the appeal court.
"It was claimed that he had a long standing paranoid personality disorder and suffered depressive illness in the months leading to the shooting."
The *court* ruled that that kind of paranoia (that you seem to share) came from his mental illness. Do you agree? Or do you think he was just working an angle to get away with murder?
"his mental state could have made him react more violently than the average person"
Something you wish to talk about codejunky? Doesn't have to be to us, but talk to *someone* before you hurt someone.
"That's the thing, *you* seem to think that he shouldn't have been locked up because the burglars were fair game"
Yup. In my opinion (and thats all it is) the police should have done their job and stopped him from being burgled repeatedly. Since the people who should protect him didnt he did it himself. I dont think he should have to put up with being robbed over and over again. That would be terrifying and cruel.
"The *court* ruled that that kind of paranoia (that you seem to share) came from his mental illness. Do you agree? Or do you think he was just working an angle to get away with murder?"
No idea. I have no qualification to know this nor know the guy. I just dont think people should be repeatedly robbed, I dont consider that a good way to live and if it escalated it would be him suffering not the police nor criminals.
"Something you wish to talk about codejunky? Doesn't have to be to us, but talk to *someone* before you hurt someone."
Aww dont be scared little bunny. Go wrap up in your blankie and watch some cartoons. Idjit.
"Since the people who should protect him didn't he did it himself. "
Uhuh, and if he'd just chased them off with a warning shot, or if they were coming at him, I'd agree with you. But that's not what happened. He shot to kill.
As a counter example - here is an example of *actual* self defence:
"Uhuh, and if he'd just chased them off with a warning shot"
Repeated robbery. About 10 if I remember right. They kept coming back. Police did nothing. I assume you wouldnt be concerned for your safety? What would they do next time they come back? What would they be armed with? What would they do to him and his property?
Maybe you think he should have called the police again?
"The quote is quite clear."
Actually it obfuscates. The way he worded it is a gun in the home kills 4, 7 are criminally assaulted or killed and 11 do themselves in. So a 2 adult 2 child home wouldnt exist for long with those numbers. So what is wrong with those numbers? It is talking bollocks about the gun in the home, it is talking about criminals doing their thing and people killing themselves in various ways (11 suicides 1 gun, cults?).
So a brain just thinking that through can see 1 gun being poorly correlated with the rest of the comment.
"In hhe usa, is there a correlation between gun carrying and mask wearing?"
I have no idea.
"In the absence of guns other choices are on offer."
Yeah, but you have to admit that guns make suicide and homicide a lot easier. Just pull a trigger and you've killed someone or changed lives forever. Guns make killing easy like smartphones make communication (and distracted driving) easy. And like that drunk 3AM text to an ex, pulling that trigger isn't something you can take back, and with far worse repercussions.
With a knife or other means, you have to put a bit more thought into it or at least have some more guts and get up close and personal. I'm not sure that the argument about crimes being prevented by gun owners is all that valid. Certainly some crimes are prevented, but often those crimes are being committed by another person with a gun, so it sort of cancels out. And for every crime prevented, it seems like a child gets a hold of some idiot's unsecured gun and kills him or herself or a friend.
I'm not advocating against gun ownership, in fact I am a gun owner. Just stating some things that should be obvious if a bit of critical thinking was applied. There must be some way to do better without trampling on personal liberty.
"Yeah, but you have to admit that guns make suicide and homicide a lot easier."
For suicide I dont see why a persons right to their own life should be taken away from them. For homicide firebombs and pointy/blunt objects are pretty easy.
"With a knife or other means, you have to put a bit more thought into it or at least have some more guts and get up close and personal"
It requires more strength and capability which is why our old people easily get overpowered while there are a few good US stories of the disabled and elderly stopping kids from killing them.
"Certainly some crimes are prevented, but often those crimes are being committed by another person with a gun, so it sort of cancels out."
Bollocks. The criminal with whatever weapon being stopped by the victim having a gun yes. The group of thugs with the muscle backing off because of the victim with a gun yes. Robbery with a gun? Criminals would do that with or without the law on guns because they are criminal. In the UK not far from where I lived there has been a firebomb incident and shooting incidents. The shootings in daylight I believe.
"And for every crime prevented, it seems like a child gets a hold of some idiot's unsecured gun and kills him or herself or a friend."
With scare stories it can seem that way. It could seem like people are dropping like flies from Covid, but the reality is a lot different.
"I'm not advocating against gun ownership, in fact I am a gun owner. Just stating some things that should be obvious if a bit of critical thinking was applied. There must be some way to do better without trampling on personal liberty."
The problem with the personal liberty bit is in the states with tighter gun laws they tend to have more violent crime. The places getting shot up are typically the gun free area's. I do however think more effort to drive gun owners to regular visits to the gun range would be good.
Personally, I feel it is the apparent lack of medical care or a social welfare net for the populace that adds to the problems of the USA. The gun fans on here should be aware that states that allow "concealed carry" have fewer muggings than states that have gun retrictions. Eg, Texas v New York. However, there are so many other differences that could be causal factors.
Interesting country. I may visit again one day. But I have no desire to live in a 2-party state that is so corrupt.
Fairly comprehensive work has been done on this. The author set out to prove the opposite.
If ducks could shoot back, there wouldn't be very many duck hunters. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were armed, I'm thinking it would have been very difficult to get them all out and into the gas chambers. But, you know, it wasn't really my problem. I'm not Jewish, and it will improve safety if we take all the guns away from them, I don't like guns anyway. They will never come for me.
If it was only a tiny minority of ducks that shot back, everyone would be arming themselves to fight the perceived duck danger.
"I heard Shirley got shot at by a duck. Well... there was a bang and a duck was nearby. That one time a duck looked at me funny. You can't trust 'em"
Or maybe a duck merely quacked in a way a park ranger didn't like, so they decided to kneel on the ducks neck for several mins until they stopped quacking.
Should the rest of the Ducks respond in kind and return fire? Or is the escalation going to cause more harm and distrust over the longer term?
I find your reference to the Warsaw Ghetto the most offensive thing I have ever read in the Register, or come to think of it, in any of the serious media purporting to report news. (Yes I know / hope you were attempting sarcasm.) Over 300,000 human beings murdered.
Try reading up on it:
Whether you support or despise America's 2nd Amendment, there are so many guns in circulation that you could never, ever get rid of them all, no matter what strategy you adopted. I don't personally object to gun ownership, but all you need to do is look at the news to find many people that should not have been allowed to own a gun, and at the least should have had a better background check. And I'm not even taking illegal guns into consideration. I'm talking about domestic violence, delusional idiots with AR-15s that are in Q-anon, road rage incidents, etc. And there is no way I'm aware of to prevent events where people are seemingly normal then one day blow a fuse and go on a shooting spree.
Answers, I have none. It's a scary world out there. Covid has actually damped down some of these incidents IMO, though there has also been plenty of mayhem in countries that have strict gun laws. Things just seem to be getting crazier with no end in sight.
The better method would be to make the ammo prohibitedly expensive and accountable.
Yes, there would be people making hand loads, but how many would do so?
Also as time went on and ammo stocks ran low, it'd become less and less of an issue over time.
Even better, release counterfeit ammo with corrosive rounds to damage the guns rendering them inoperable..
Crazy ideas I know but possibly an interesting way forwards.
I look forward to the Supreme Court trying to decide if
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
implies a right to bear arms, but not ammo, or perhaps where a firearm without ammo can still be considered a firearm (which might have interesting implications for other controls if it cannot).
"Make the ammo expensive and accountable"
You mean like having a pandemic so all the SHTF crazies buy up all the common calbres (much of it online so accountable to a point). Many of those crazies seem to be showing up at a lot of demos, I am amazed that all that firepower hasn't gone loonytoons yet.
Still, it's not over yet.....
> So what happens if you manage to get rid of, say, half?
If you get rid of the half that's owned by law abiding citizens and cops, gun deaths and crime rates go up hugely.
If you get rid of the half that's owned by criminals, gun deaths and crime rates go down hugely.
Just make a law that does the latter and you're golden.
Teach certain 'undesirable' segments of society that police cannot be trusted. Y'know, by letting them getting away with murder. Then only go through the motions of investigation long after footage of any incident is all over the internet. Then if/when that segment exercise their 2nd amendment right to fight tyranny, brand them criminals who are "acting suspiciously" then shoot them.
That's what you meant right?
The 2nd Amendment applies to arms you can "bear". That doesn't include cannons, although private cannons WERE a thing at the time.
I heard that the Florida chapter of the ACLU studied the issue in the '90s and came to the conclusion that it DID cover nuke ownership by the states. Which goes along with the idea that it is not an individual right.
Well, in a sense that's very true, it's the user that is the problem. And precisely because of that there is a valid discussion to be had about which users should be allowed to have access to the tool and under which conditions...
I mean, a passenger plane is just a tool too, but we're kinda picky about who is allowed to use that tool especially after 9/11.
You had that battery problem then? (battery dies at 20%-60% charge) I replaced it with a cheap battery, but that ended up bricking the phone after a few months. (bootloop - couldn't get to recovery mode)
I bought a second (used) 6P and ended up with the same battery problem. Eventually I bought a not-as-good-but-at-least-it-works phone. Would go back to the 6P in a heartbeat if I could get a trustworthy replacement battery.
Hive Mind - Are there any trustworthy battery suppliers?
Likely because these tools probably don't work so well on the newest models / latest software revs which may close up the hole they rely on. At a guess, probably any iOS rev that can't be jailbroken yet also can't be accessed by these tools.
If they work by cracking the phone's password like some schemes did a few years ago, by avoiding the delay between attempts, they might work well for 4 digit PINs, but not at all for alphanumeric passwords.
Somewhat misleading article.
Here's the reality: a relatively new (~2 years or less) android or iPhone can not be cracked by the tools except via pin brute forcing or via the "services" - basically the companies using 0-days and cracks. And while $1950 isn't a lot for some people - it is a lot for a police department to spend and generally won't be done unless there is a strong need.
Secondly, the report doesn't mention how often the subjects give up their pin. A lot of people will when asked.
For a person who has installed 2FA and also enabled the full security features on the phone, security is going to be good.
To be clear: there is no way to protect anything electronic from an attacker with time and money. The phones can be disassembled and their SSD memories copied - at which point all you need is to know the software architecture and you can run parallel attacks on the cloud against virtual copies.
At the moment, this is true.
In reality, the storage doesn't require a big VM to mimic. In theory, you can do it with micro.
In addition - if we're talking law enforcement, there are many other ways to crack the nut.
For example: serve an order to the telco. You can protect the phone all you want, but the telco ultimately has 100% access...
My house is in plain view from the street, so it's OK to search it without a warrant.
My filing cabinet is in plain view once inside, so it's OK to search it without a warrant.
My hidden safe is in plain view once you've found it, so it's OK to search it without a warrant.
So the fourth amendment only holds for things that cannot be seen and are not contained within things that can be seen.
We put the "mock" in "democracy".
I can't agree more. Sometimes freedom has costs. Sometimes I think we offer protections to criminals that go too far. But the government should not have the right to search your phone without cause. Self-incrimination rules imply you cannot be forced by law to provide any keys or passwords. We must stay vigilent tonavoid the slippery slope. Anyone willing to give up freedom for security will have neither.
It seems obvious, but lots of people have their whole life on their phone. Bank accounts, credit card details, mobile pay, etc. They then go on to have them out constantly and unlocked while they digitally play with themselves. If somebody, or a pair of people, can nick your phone while it's unlocked, it's trivial to keep it awake while they give it a good ol' rummage before pitching it, or if it's expensive, flogging it off to a person that sends nice phones in bulk to a family member in some former eastern bloc country to be "recycled". It might wind up in a Schengen market as parts. That's the big worry, not the fuzz.
There are tons of idiots that film themselves doing stupid things than then post them online. Some rapper in California was boasting on social media about how he was able to get a bunch of relief money he wasn't entitled to. It's not too bright to be walking around with the evidence of your crimes in your pocket. The coppers may just have a squizz at your phone off the record before they bother to write up a proper warrant request to be robo-signed by some judge. The official record will then show it was all done properly. If the evidence gets tossed for some reason, it may have pointed to even more evidence that doesn't get thrown out.
My phone has very little on it. A cut down list of phone numbers, no email, no text(got that shut off at the telco) and I used a dedicated satnav rather than the phone. If you want to see photos of my cat doing funny things, have at it. Looking just now, I also have photos of biz cards, prices for things at the DIY, quick snaps of things before I take them apart, blah blah blah. Time to do a big clear out. My tablet is the same way. No SIM and only my photo portfolio and an app for the drone and camera remote control. I see no need to keep my retirement account and investment info on a mobile device. Most of that lives on a drive that isn't contained in my desktop machine.
Stop and think about pain or the anticipation of pain. All pf us have cut our self's at one time or another so we are familiar with the results. Few have been shot to know that it hurts BAD but all of us have been exposed to cinema where the good guy takes a couple rounds to the torso, grabs some piece of clothe to tidy up a bit then conquers the bad guys the only exception is when the good guys partner being just days away from retirement in which case win one for the gipper speech is made prior to the slump. No when I’m going to be holding hostages I want a Zwillig Pro slicing knife. Familiar enough to bring back bad memories and compliance to orders. Of course for a stand-off device nothing beats a trebuchet loaded with incandescent globes filled with a flammable substance.
Why or how this moved from Cops deep probing phones has at this time of day slipped past me and all that I see is the same meaning shouting as done in the 16th century. None shall gain a willing convert to the Holy Cause but still the fight will go tooth and nail because God is on their side
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021