Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> You don't seem to understand how the law works. The Federal offenses are not prosecuted. The State offenses are. My statement is true.

It’s only true in a narrow technical sense. You were clearly trying to give the impression that people were simply getting away with these offenses, when what is actually happening is that the federal government doesn’t see the need to prosecute people who are already being prosecuted by the states.

> It's a sloppy way for the people in power to ignore equal application of the law by picking and choosing who deserves it, which to me undermines the very principle of rule of law.

Prosecutorial discretion definitely undermines the rule of law, and is a well known people, but it’s everywhere in every justice system and has nothing to do with the government’s approach to guns.


As for the Kendi definition, I was using black in this example because most gun control laws disproportionately affect black people. Substitute other races if you like.

I don’t need to refute your position with data - that’s not what’s wrong with it.

We’ve shown that your 3% claim was misleading as presented.

> Prosecutorial discretion definitely undermines the rule of law, and is a well known people, but it’s everywhere in every justice system and has nothing to do with the government’s approach to guns.

Prosecutorial discretion is an incredibly great thing, and is another element of the legacy bequeathed to us from the Romans by way of the English, through English Common Law.

The old statement de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles), alternatively, de minimis non curat praetor (the praetor does not concern himself with trifles) illustrates why justice must be tempered with wisdom, although not exactly the same thing as prosecutorial discretion.

The government does not have unlimited resources with which to pursue cases. When it does wield the terrible power of the justice system against a suspect, it should be in the right instances, and for the right reasons, for an example.

A good example of prosecutorial discretion is around a case where a father finds his daughter or son, actively being raped/molested. In some cases, it may go to grand jury if there is a death [1]. However, in other examples [2], a prosecutor declines to prosecute given all of the circumstances, and weighing what happened.

While there is such as thing as selective enforcement, where bias has entered the mind of some element of law enforcement and enables some to be pursued, or others not to be for some bogus reason, that is not what we are talking about here.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/us/charges-texas-father-beat-death-da...

[2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2700872/My-son-save...

"We’ve shown that your 3% claim was misleading as presented."

Lol where did you show that? The 3% claim is only misleading because you are applying a context to it that it was not intended for. The point is that additional federal gun laws will not be enforced because the government does not enforce the current ones, and doesn't even have the resources to do so. If anything, you have been the misleading one by presenting false information and failing to back up your (trolling) claims. You can go back to the root comment to see that they are approaching this from a light that additional federal gun laws would not be effective since the current ones are not being enforced.

"I don’t need to refute your position with data - that’s not what’s wrong with it."

Then, please, get to the point and tell me what is wrong with it. Stop draffing this out with unsubstantiated claims, twisting words, and flat out lies. Not all my questions were data related, but also conceptual - yet you ignore those as well (for example, you still haven't defined the 'illegal' gun purchases).

Good bye, troll.

Whoa, whoa. I'm not a mod, but I don't want you to get in trouble -- a friendly note to remember that this debate really isn't worth it, and calling people names isn't going to do anything positive for you or the site.

Not my place, but unfortunately there's no contact info in your profile, so I can't email you. I'd rather risk saying it here than watch you kick a hornet's nest. Being rate limited is no fun, but it's the inevitable consequence of such behavior; penalties only increase from there.

It's easy to get heated, so a quick edit + heading outside is often the cure, for me at least.

Are you talking to me or the person calling me a liar? Trolling is not allowed, and a preponderence of the evidence shows the other person to be trolling (using false statements and not correcting them, calling others a liar, not engaging in meaningful debate, avoiding legitimate questions while continuing to attack, etc). I have full confidence in the mods here.

The venom with which you've imbued your comment is toxic to the culture of the site. One of the most important ideas is the principle of charity, which means you must interpret each argument as if they're not trolling. Flat out calling someone a troll and a liar is a personal attack, and if you keep doing it I have no doubt the mods will be along to defend the site – which is their duty. Hence, kicking the hornet's nest.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26637365 is a surprisingly good primer for this, if you'd like to understand where they're coming from. Notice that "name-calling" is explicitly called out.

Having full confidence in the mods is actually a dangerous thing. I too had full confidence in the mods at one point. And, like you, I wasn't aware that I was using HN in a way that HN isn't designed for. This is a friendly reminder that you may get lucky and escape notice (HN is quite big now), but it's a matter of time before you'll get a stern talking to; the penalties only increase from there.

Don't take it personally, if it happens. It's not. And if I'm mistaken about any of this, I will happily eat crow and apologize, along with hanging up my hat of "issuing friendly warnings" in general. You could email them and ask, but the inevitable outcome is a "yes, calling people trolls and liars is off topic here; HN is for intellectual curiosity, which is a delicate thing," along with attracting attention to yourself.

In other words, don't let other people get to you. It's not worth it. Even if they are lying or trolls, you can simply say "That's not true because X" and leave it at that.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact