this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
720 points (95.5% liked)

Technology

59979 readers
3794 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The gun is planted. They just found a crazy guy in order to convince everyone that they actually found the culprit.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

To my knowledge, he claimed specifically the money in his bag was planted. Specifically they said there was US and foreign cash in his bag. The fact that Luigi is denying the cash but admitting to the gun and manifesto. To me I think he knew he was going down... but I would be far from supprised if the money was planted either to raise it up to 1st degree murder... or while I'm very far from legally qualified... if they could try and claim he was doing a job for an enemy of the US, could they buypass the trial?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I find that kind of unlikely. If they wanted to frame someone just to have a killer, they wouldn't be talking about a "3D printed ghost gun", but just use a regular gun. I, for one, haven't known that it's possible to 3D print a pretty well working, and silenced, gun. And that might inspire someone - acquiring weapons is the harder part of any such murder, assuming you don't want to get caught, and the fact that you can get it without anyone knowing about it makes it way easier.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

People misunderstand 3d printed guns. We use mostly normal gun parts bought anywhere, but legally the pistol handle is considered the gun, and the most popular commercial ones have been plastic for decades. So 3d print that glock frame and put a glock slide on it and you've got a cheap glock (and outside of like 3 States, that's totally legal).

There's fairly large 3d printing gun communities, mostly because it's just fun to build things.

3d printed silencers are much more rare / fragile because those are illegal to make without ATF approval and silencers need to withstand heat and pressure, so the typical plastic can't withstand prolonged use.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

They know the guy is a engineer. They came up with the 3D printed gun because it fits with the character, and gives politician an excuse to ban 3D printers all together, "for our safety!".

I'm speculating and being a conspiracy theory, but in theory this could make sense. Nobody will ever find out the truth, I'm afraid.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Just yesterday this video of Mike Shake popped in my feed: https://youtu.be/tHzuz09l41U

Essentially a sniper rifle with compressed air able to propel a 3d-printed bullet at sub-sonic speeds able to break a simulated skull. And it penetrated hard enough to for sure cause major complication for the target. Not to mention that lead slugs can easily be made DIY without much complications and skill. Lead can be melted pretty easily so lol.

Not much to do besides being able to cut a pipe, make a release mechanism and compile it all with a projectile to shoot. Done is your makeshift weapon.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If they did that and the real killer killed again, what would that achieve? Or is this a one-and-done thing?

[–] doomcanoe 15 points 1 week ago

Not that I'm fully on board with the theory, but you might be surprised how often "solving" a high profile case is placed above actually getting the right man.

This is a publicity nightmare for the police, and getting someone in custody "achieves" placating the public and key stakeholders.

Repeating things about this kids views on the Uni-bomber and referring to his writings as a manifesto "achieves" diminishing his status as a folk hero.

So while I won't endorse any particular theory until more evidence comes out, it wouldn't be the first time putting a scapegoat in jail was deemed more important than letting people think the "perp" got away. Even if the hypothetical real shooter kills again, controlling the narrative can be it's own goal in cases like this.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If they did that and the real killer killed again, what would that achieve?

More dead CEOs, I guess. I'm down with that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I doubt you will be when the costs of everything go up due to all the corporations hiring massive security teams.

Something that doesn't seem to occur to so many of you and something most of you have no response to. In fact, the only response I occasionally get is that it's worth the cost, which seems to go against the whole reason for the assassination in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

How much do you think it costs to hire a security detail? I'm pretty sure security for the entire C-suite would be a tiny drop in the bucket for most mega-corporations.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Whether it costs a dollar or a billion dollars, who do you think is going to pay for it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If they could squeeze out an extra dollar then they would already do so. They don't need to justify it as "increased security costs".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

When have they ever rased rates without giving a justification? Please show me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

please show me.

Nah, I'm good. Clearly our opinions differ. It's of no interest to me to collate a bunch of sources just for you to dismiss in bad faith.

Feel free to find sources to support your own argument though if you like.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

In other words, you can't show me because you can't back up your claim. Got it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Dude, you're the one asserting that healthcare costs will rise due to increased security requirements.

I don't quite follow why the onus is on me to backup my retort.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Because you said they don't need to justify raising rates. Do I really need to show you that insurance companies give reasons for raising rates?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

No, neither of us need to do anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

But only one of us has said that they won't back up their claim. I just said I would if you needed me to. Maybe because you can't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You're a very strange person.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

I'm sure you find it strange that people dare to suggest you back up your claims in case you might be wrong, but I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that you're not always right.