Husband of San Bernardino Survivor Calls for Stronger Gun Laws, Not Weaker Privacy

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/35547-husband-of-san-bernardino-survivor-calls-for-stronger-gun-laws-not-weaker-privacy

Perhaps the most powerful submission so far is a letter sent by Salihin Kondoker, whose wife is a survivor of the holiday party rampage that left 14 dead. She was shot three times.

But Kondoker isn’t mad at Apple for refusing to comply with the order.

“In the wake of this terrible attack, I believe strongly we need stronger gun laws. It was guns that killed innocent people, not technology,” he wrote.

He continued:

I believe privacy is important and Apple should stay firm in their decision. Neither I, nor my wife, want to raise our children in a world where privacy is the tradeoff for security. I believe this case will have a huge impact all over the world. You will have agencies coming from all over the world to get access to the software the FBI is asking Apple for. It will be abused all over to spy on innocent people. America should be proud of Apple. Proud that it is an American company and we should protect them not try to tear them down.

Reuters reported last month that some victims were planning to back the FBI.

Other parties filing letters and briefs include digital and civil rights groups, trade groups, cryptographers and technologists, and technology companies.

A collection of Internet service companies that includes Twitter, DropBox, Kickstarter, CloudFlare, and Reddit warned that the government’s demand “would set a dangerous precedent, creating a world in which the government could simply force companies to create, design, and redesign their systems to allow law enforcement access to data, instead of requiring the government to use the measures, and meet the requirements, of legislatively enacted statutory schemes.”

Cryptographers, including Harvard’s Bruce Schneier, explained that the software Apple is being asked to develop could easily be used on other iPhones if stolen or demanded by a foreign government. “If that happens, the custom code could be used by criminals and governments to extract sensitive personal and business data from seized, lost, or stolen iPhones, or it could be reverse engineered, giving attackers a stepping stone on the path towards their goal of defeating Apple’s passcode security.”

[Kang Colby]

1. With respect to the guns used in the San Bernardino terrorist

attacks...the guns were purchased illegally. The two murderers were willing to murder as many people as possible using illegally acquired firearms. I somehow doubt they would've been willing to follow some additional hypothetical firearm regulation. California already has some of the most prohibitive gun laws in the country.

And that's what I don't understand about gun control. On one hand we acknowledge murders are willing to committ murder....why would they follow gun laws?

[MillennialDem]

4. Because if guns are illegal, it makes harder to acquire either legal (now impossible) or illegal

guns.

If all guns are illegal, outside of stealing your own gun or making your own gun it will cost you 10x as much if not more on the black market. And it will be easier to bust people for having illegal guns. Can't buy ammo in stores. ETC.

Making all guns illegal will not stop all gun crimes but it will drastically reduce them.

Why do we have such a high gun homicide rate? It's the guns, stupid.

[Straw Man]

5. Thanks for the honesty.

If all guns are illegal, outside of stealing your own gun or making your own gun it will cost you 10x as much if not more on the black market. And it will be easier to bust people for having illegal guns. Can't buy ammo in stores. ETC.

Now that you have made it clear that you want to end private ownership of firearms in the United States, I hope you don't intend to talk about "compromise" and "reasonable gun laws" in the future. Because that would be ... hypocritical.

Why do we have such a high gun homicide rate? It's the guns, stupid.

Without guns, no one can be shot. That is a meaningless tautology. Shall we talk about rates of all homicide? Despite being far and away the world leader in per capita gun ownership, we are near the middle of the pack in overall homicide rates.

It's not just the guns, my erudite friend.

[Crunchy Frog]

7. What about legal sanctions on those they acquired the guns from?

People who sell, or otherwise provide guns to those not legally allowed to have them, need to be held accountable.

[eridani]

24. This is an entirely different matter from manufacturers

There are too damned many loopholes for sellers.

[Initech]

2. Amen to that! Our gun laws are way too lax in this country.

[Heidi]

3. Kick!

[Warren DeMontague]

6. what's the fun in that? The Feds want to get into iphones to bust drug users, not stop terrorrism.

Has anyone NOT figured that out, by now?

[Crunchy Frog]

8. Everything else must bow before the almighty gun.

Who needs privacy as long as you can still pack a manufactured killing implement in your pants.

[NutmegYankee]

9. Actually, the 2nd and 4th sink or swim together.

If one can convince themselves that the "right of the people" in the 2nd is a collective right, then it's easy to convince themselves that the "right of the people" in the 4th is also a collective right against unreasonable search and seizure.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. Have to agree to disagree on that.

[NutmegYankee]

11. The Bill of Rights isn't an A la carte menu.

One either supports them all or they support none. I find this true nearly every time I get into a discussion.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. I'm sorry. You may not believe that people have a fundamental right to their own opinion

but I do.

If you think that the right to pack a piece of metal in your pants is more fundamental than the right to hold your own personal, private opinion, then I have absolutely nothing to discuss with you, and would appreciate if you would not respond to my posts anymore.

[NutmegYankee]

14. That response makes no sense.

Everyone has an opinion, even those in police states. I also do not believe in carrying around a gun in pants. But that isn't a right - it's distinctly a privilege.

What I have issues with is people will disregard the rights to free speech and privacy to satisfy their false sense of security.

[randome]

13. So no more warrants served for searches of private residences.

No more warrants served for computer searches. After all...privacy!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Oh, the poor dears. Someone is making it harder for them to bust pot smokers. Waaah.

Hey, I went to costco and bought this nefarious device that could theoretically be used to destroy criminal evidence.



now, obviously, the makers of this device need to alter it so that it will not destroy evidence in such a way that law enforcement can't recover it, right? They can't sell something that makes cops' jobs more difficult.

I think Shredder-makers have a built-in responsibility to weaken their cross-cut paper shredders so that if a lawful order comes in from law enforcement, they can recover whatever documents were shredded. Maybe only sort of half-shredding them. A 'compromise' between security and privacy, amirite??

[madokie]

16. I want us as a nation of law abiding people

to have some sensible gun laws that allows one to be an owner but at the same time keeps the guns out of the hands of as many nuts as possible. I want my privacy more than anything at this point. Register the bastards, guns that is, and then hold the owners accountable when one is used for nefarious purposes. I know I'm asking for a lot but I'm always hearing the argument that cars kill more than guns so my argument is this. One time in the past we didn't have seat belts nor air bags but today 90 some odd percent of the vehicles on the road have one or in most cases both. What happened? As the old ones wore out they were replaced with newer ones that had the newer safety features, registrations in this case. Ok I know guns don't wear out like a car does and it will take a long time to ever get there but in time we can get there. Every time a gun is used and confiscated it goes to the furnace at the steel foundry like we used to do here in OK and at some point it will make a dent in the number of dangerous unregistered guns. Once a gun owner realizes that that gun of his/hers is their responsibility they'll be a lot more aware of keeping it in a safe place, maybe even at a local armory rather than at home. I believe I've read that some other countries do this very thing, the armory thing that is.
I agree I don't have the answers but I do have a lot of questions as well as a lot of us non as well as some responsible gun owners. We can do this, make it harder to get them if we try.

I live in a pretty rough neighborhood and I don't feel threatened enough to feel a need for a gun. In fact years ago I've read on many occasions that the chances of being harmed with ones own gun is greater than from the gun of intruder. I don't know if any of that is true because I chose to not own one and to be honest in my 67 years I've not known anyone personally who were killed in their own home by an intruder with a gun, or without a gun so maybe I'm basing my thoughts on this on flawed information. All I know I worry with so many guns in the hands of too many criminals. Oh and Criminals, we need to lift all boats so there won't be as many criminals rather than let a few who has figured out how to game the system to have it all leaving a lot of people with no hope. Hopelessness can cause all kinds of bad decisions.

I don't know, all I do know is I'm worried with the ease of getting a gun, legal or not today.

OK gunners have at me...

Have you noticed how many of the rich and powerful live in gated communities where they have security protecting them, not having to rely only on the LEO's that most of us have to rely on.

[hack89]

17. "I want privacy so let's put people's names on a government list".

You broke my irony meter.

[madokie]

18. Your name is on a lot of government list bro'

one more to identify who the rightful owner of a gun is not a problem for me and if you find that ironic have at it. Its no skin off my backside.

[hack89]

19. You do know that criminals cannot be compelled to register their guns?

seems like a big loophole, don't you think? Especially considering there are 300 million unregistered guns in America.

And you should also check out what happened in CT when they mandated registration of "assault " weapons. Not pretty.

[madokie]

20. I pretty much covered that

when I said that as guns are used for nefarious reasons and confiscated to send them to the foundries to be melted down. Plus I also mentioned this is a long view, not an immediate solution

I guess I need to spell it all out but hey I give most people the benefit of the doubt and think they can figure it out for themselves. Of course I did recognize that there would be those here who would take the bait as you have.

Peace

[hack89]

21. Fortunately registration will never happen

I don't give it too much thought to be honest. Peace yourself. It is not an issue to get angry over.

[madokie]

22. Then please don't

I remember when people used to say the same about seat belts and emissions controls but yet here we are 50 years later and we have both. Of course I'm still using the automobile analogy.

[hack89]

23. When cars are added to the Bill of Rights I will be appropriately concerned. Nt