Slashdot Mirror
The NSA Leak Is Real, Snowden Documents Confirm (theintercept.com)
Sam Biddle, reporting for The Intercept: On Monday, A hacking group calling itself the "ShadowBrokers" announced an auction for what it claimed were "cyber weapons" made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software, part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide. The provenance of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered with the NSA's virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency. The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE. SECONDDATE plays a specialized role inside a complex global system built by the U.S. government to infect and monitor what one document estimated to be millions of computers around the world. Its release by ShadowBrokers, alongside dozens of other malicious tools, marks the first time any full copies of the NSA's offensive software have been available to the public, providing a glimpse at how an elaborate system outlined in the Snowden documents looks when deployed in the real world, as well as concrete evidence that NSA hackers don't always have the last word when it comes to computer exploitation.
I'm still waiting for major US news outlets to cover the story. Are they being censored? The story has major political implications, e.g. often proposed mandate to allow government to access encrypted private communications, etc. BBC seems have no problem reporting on this.
The real interesting thing will be when detection tools for this malware are created. Then we will see how many people -without warrants- the NSA is using this on.
Silence is a state of mime.
That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage!
seriously, when will government employess, contractor or not, realise that LYING should not be part of their job description.
Do you really need to ask if US News agencies censored? The current media puts the old Pravda to shame. If they were merely protecting State secrets I'd give them a pass on this, at least in terms of discussing details. They should however discuss concerns with the operations in general terms so that the public can debate and direct the Government. They are not however interested in protecting the State and have no concern for truth and honesty. Have not had such concerns for literally decades now. The fact that media claims to have different names makes it less visible to the unwary.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I would think that anyone who actually chose to work for the NSA in an offensive capacity would be quite dedicated to their job. Same goes for most intelligence operatives -- I can't imagine they get paid as much as they could make in a private business or a well-funded covert organization, yet there they are. By contrast, Snowden was basically a contract sysadmin who had access to what was going on -- he wasn't coming up with these plans/exploits. I'd guess anyone voluntarily working on these exploits would be pretty serious about guarding their work and wouldn't take copies home on the train with them.
So -- is it old fashioned espionage tactics, finding out who these people are and squeezing them in various ways? Did whoever is behind this just get lucky and happened upon unencrypted copies of these tools? Should be interesting to watch.
You obviously didn't even read the summary. That, or your English interpretation skills are subpar. It specifically says the Snowden leaks referenced a manual on how to track the malware. What they found is that what they use to track the software is ask over the new leak.
Snowden obviously did not leak any software, just the manual to use said software.
Betting the likelihood of the NSA reporting these zero days to their respective software vendors is zero.
What they found is that what they use to track the software is ask over the new leak.
I have no idea what you meant there.
But if you had read the article you would see the direct connection to the documents Snowden admits he stole and the code that ShadowBrokers is trying to sell today. His leak didn't "reference" a manual, it was the manual. The code existed before he headed to Russia.
The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, “ace02468bdf13579.” That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.
When stuff like this occurs I always wonder...is the super-snazzy NSA really just a bunch of knuckleheads or are they really slick and this is part of an elaborate and well planned disinformation campaign? Based on my life experience I'm pretty sure its the former...but TV/movies make me wish it were like the latter.
Doesn't matter, TSA nabbed it when he was flying out of DC.
When the paychecks stop coming.
Its very easy to ignore the truth when your salary requires it to not be taken into account.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
My favorite part is any argument the government makes now that they need access to everyone's devices, and weakened encryption. Sorry, but you can't even keep a lid on your own stuff. **** off.
Right, and government/law enforcement backdoors are going to be perfectly safe and will never, not ever, fall into the wrong hands, pinky swear! Just trust us!
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Dammit that's the combination to my luggage!
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
The NSA gives at least two shits, that's who.
And they have the ear of the guys with guns, so attempting to "fuck em" is likely to end up with the fucker becoming the fuckee. At best. At worst, the fucker may become the subject of interment. And these aren't just any guys with guns, either. These are the guys with the most guns.
Those two-or-more shits could get a lot of people killed.
Wikileaks? They have nothing to do with it.
Funny how the public keeps on electing people who have perfected lying to an art form.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Sounds like a Dollar Shave Club commercial in the making....
So have antivirus/antimalware vendors updated their definitions to detect the exploits that have been leaked so far?
That would be both useful and informative as to the scope of these programs.
The documents are still there. So Snowden didn't so much "steal" them as "share" them.
Its not surprising, as the signal to noise ratio is very low, and only a professional watchdog can begin to sort it all out. And even that doesn't help because there are also liars posing as watchdogs.
The internet only makes it worse, spewing like a fire hose.
Ralgha is probably an NSA plant meant to distract us anyway. He might not even know he is, they just fed him all the crap that he's "revealing" and it's either fake, or they don't care that we know. Think about it, has Ralgha actually told us anything that we didn't already know (or suspected at least)? Who gives a crap if the NSA got hacked, it's what they do, the hack, they get hacked, and the cycle continues.
Interesting point about the watchdogs. Who actually IS a watchdog these days?
When I was a kid, you could generally trust the media. However, since the repeal of the "fairness doctrine," every media outlet is biased, and is really more of a propaganda machine than simply news.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
The "fairness doctrine" never really helped, because it just caused the media to water down the problem in order to not piss anyone off. For example:
Congressional Republicans decide that the world is not a sphere, and must be flat.* Congressional Democrats send 180 Congressmen to give speeches from the Well in the US House of Representatives about how idiotic that is.
The headline? "Democrats and Republicans disagree on geometry of Earth"
That's what the so-called Fairness Doctrine gets us. When did we get the idea that facts were unfair, or biased?
I agree that the media is a fucking joke today compared to past eras, but that's more a function of corporate profitability and shrinking newsrooms than pandering to a specific audience. You can't write an investigative piece about something if you don't have any investigative journalists left working for you.
*note that I am not Republican bashing here - I'm just giving an absolutely ridiculous example meant to make the point very clear.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
When I worked for the federal government in the 80's, I had to break federal laws every day just to get my job done.
It is not an efficient system.
Where did I point out that he didn't steal the code? He admitted that he stole the manual, and now the code which goes with the manual turns up. How obvious does it have to be that he took the code at the same time he took the manual.
Facts are not unfair or biased. However, media can (and often does) choose which facts need to be reported.
As a quick example, homicides are down over 50% since their peak around 1992 or 1993. The last time homicides were this low was 1957 (facts, based on FBI statistics). However, I have actually seen articles about "What (insert candidate name here) is going to do about gun violence?" This already assumes several things, and it is possible that NONE of them are true:
1) Gun deaths are somehow worse than knife deaths
2) A criminal without a gun will suddenly stop being a criminal
3) That doing something will automatically make the public safer, instead of just disarming the honest people.
4) Gun laws will actually affect criminals, whose job actually involves breaking the law.
Each of those points could be a discussion by itself, and yet some "news" pretends that all assumptions are already decided.
That is now news, that is propaganda. It is actually shaping the discussion to stack the deck in your favor.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Being labeled as authentic will certainly raise the bidding price on the auction. Is Snowden actually ShadowBrokers? Does he get a cut from the auction?
Why else is he engaged in a timely marketing campaign to authenticate the software? I would think he could have waited until after the sale, unless we really wanted to boost the price.
*drops the mic.*
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
No, the Fairness Doctrine didn't really cause this at all. Your knowledge of history is weak.
The result you cite hypothetically above is the result of three things:
1. Corporate media, sometimes called "journalists" aren't really journalists at all, and feed from a very narrow set of supplied "facts".
2. Public media journalists are routinely castrated, and create very little "journalism" on their own. They're scared of: CPB funding losses, and the barely breathing budgets of PBS and NPR affiliates.
3. The public gets their news from bias-side publications in the extreme, these days, and neutral, fact-filled sites are eschewed, in favor of their personal bias and so actual facts are difficult to find, and tougher still to verify and understand in context.
There is a journalism problem, as you cite. However, it's best to follow the money for the true answer, and go to the sites where the clickbait is comfortable for you.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I did not INTEND this to be a gun thread. I was just pointing out how the media can make ASSUMPTIONS that are not actually true!
Facts for you, besides the ones showing that the homicide rate is DECREASING. Quick! The streets are safer every year. DO SOMETHING TO REVERSE THIS HORRIBLE TREND!
We tried an "assault weapons ban" for 10 years. No noticeable affect on crime.
Over 300 millions guns in the US. 8,124 gun homicides in 2014. That means that for every gun used in a murder, there are were 37,000 that killed nobody. Yes, that means 0.027% of all guns are the problems.
In general, reducing the total number of guns will affect very little. Taking guns away from HONEST people will accomplish exactly NOTHING, and may even make things worse, since the honest can no longer defend themselves. There have been studies on this. Defensive gun use numbers vary based on the politics of the person doing the study, but even low-ball numbers are in the hundreds of thousands of incidents each year. High end ranges in several million, but around a million times a year seems to be the media. Yes, a million times a year guns are used to prevent or deter crime.
Some of the most violent places have the most strict gun laws! You may say that the guns come from areas with looser gun laws, but I will respond that those areas with looser gun laws have LESS VIOLENT CRIME. The net effect is that with strict gun laws, only the criminals are armed. If you have two cities: one with horrible crime and one that is doing OK, the obvious solution is to take the laws from the city that is failing and forcing those laws on the city that is doing great. That is like saying that a business that is making money should copy the business that is going bankrupt.
And please don't tell me that honest people don't stop crime with guns. An attempted mass shooting happened about one mile from where I live right now, and a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy.
So, you have proven my point. Don't make Assumptions that are not proven.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Sure its possible that none of them are true, but its likely that they are -- or at least they're closer to true than "ignoring a problem will magically solve it," which seems to be the route the NRA and friends would like to take.
1) Gun deaths aren't worse than knife deaths -- dead is dead. Its just a hell of a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife. This should be fairly obvious. If it wasn't true, then the army would use kitchenware rather than assault rifles.
2) They won't stop being a criminal. They'll stop being a criminal who can kill you from 20+ feet away with little chance of defending yourself.
3) and 4) are fairly interrelated. Basically the logic is that if there's less guns in the world in general, then there will be less guns for criminals to get their hands on. And if the criminals don't have guns to attack honest citizens with, the honest citizens have less need of a gun to defend themselves.
Obviously if you made a law tomorrow that required for the immediate surrender of all firearms, you'd be a bit of a moron. All of the honest weapons would be removed but the criminals by definition don't really care about the law so they'd still have their existing stashes, even if not a single new gun was ever produced.
If such a thing were to be implemented sanely, it would require a fairly extended (years.. possibly even decades) ramp-up to slowly reduce the existing public supply of firearms across the board rather than just suddenly disarming only the honest citizens and leaving the criminals to have a heyday.
A: The hackers do.
By the way, you are right about more gun deaths than knife deaths. However, it would be extremely foolish to think that by removing guns, that those killed by guns would still be alive. Most of those would just turn into knife deaths. And, once again, I point out that people killed by knives are JUST AS DEAD as those killed by guns. How many people were killed by a TRUCK in France last month? Do you think that all of those grieving relatives are happy that their loved ones were not killed by a gun? Shifting murder from one weapon to another does nothing.
Get rid of the guns, and you still have murderers who will use another tool. Get rid of the criminal, and there will be no murders, no matter what tools are available.
By the way, did you know that there is VERY LITTLE correlation between the availability of guns and the homicide rate? On the other hand, there is a VERY BIG correlation between poverty and violence. Chicago has the same gun laws throughout the city. However, some zip codes have no homicides each year, and some zip codes have quite a few! The difference is the poverty in each zip code. If you want to save lives, try doing something about the poverty. Provide jobs.
I should also point out that, yes, guns make it easier to kill many people -- like in France, where they have very strict gun laws, where the killers had guns. However, the odds of being the victim of a mass murder are approximately the same as being struck by lightning -- extremely rare and not a good enough reason to restrict the rights of MILLIONS of honest Americans who have hurt nobody.
Simply stated, there are people (like you) who want to tell everybody else how to live. There are people (like me) who just want to be left the hell alone to live my life without people like you poking your nose into my business.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Ahhhh, another person who elevates assumptions to the level of facts.
1) Yes, guns are more powerful. However, the VAST majority of murders are in ones and twos. Mass murders are actually hardly a blip on the statistics. So can a person kill another person with only a knife? YES. In fact, it is possible to commit MASS murder with a knife. A couple of years ago, a guy near a college campus killed several people. He killed just as many people WITHOUT a gun as he did WITH a gun. Also, the army faces ENEMIES who are also armed, not innocent victims. A guy with a knife against an unarmed person still has a powerful advantage.
2) They will turn into a criminal who can kill you from three feet away with little chance of defending yourself.
2a) If the victim is armed, they might stand a chance. If you disarm the victim and the criminal still has at least a knife, they are still pretty screwed.
3) Less guns for the criminal to get their hands on comes about by disarming the VICTIMS. Yeah, right. Explain to me how disarming me makes me any safer. I have killed zero people. I have shot zero people. I have stabbed zero people. Disarming me only makes things safer for criminals that would seek to harm me or my family.
So, yeah, thanks of proving my point AGAIN that the media can make assumptions that sane people will still disagree on.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
You're assuming the code and the manual that went with it were taken in separate attacks? Why would you assume that?
1) Its not about possibility, its about probability. Sure you indeed can go on a spree with a knife, but its a lot less likely. Not in any small part because of:
2) 20 is quite a bit bigger than 3. I have more than 6x the amount of time to realize the situation is shitty and can attempt to flee before defending myself (or not) is even in question. And 20' is already a fairly low estimate depending on the attacker's weapon and skill with said weapon.
3) Way to not read to the end. I explicitly said you need to reduce guns for _everybody_ by making it a slow drain rather than an sudden forced surrender (which yes, the criminals would happily ignore.) Disarming you makes you safer by also disarming your attacker at the same time. It has to be done in a way that affects all people, not just the ones you feel like cherry-picking to "prove" your point.
A good start would be to just significantly limit the sale of new weapons. Criminals' guns break down and go missing just as much as anyone else' and have to be replaced. Lower supply means making that much harder. Black market weapons would have the same lack of supply issue (because there's no significiant production period,) so that's at best a temporary measure for the criminals to fall back to.
Wow. Soooo much fail in one post.
Let's assume that we DID get rid of all guns. What would be the result? Criminals tend to be young males. Victims can be anybody, including women, and the elderly. Statistically speaking, in a physical confrontation, elderly and women are at a disadvantage compared to men. So you are clearly in FAVOR of criminals having an advantage. How very nice of you to make the streets safe for murderers and rapists. What chance does a 100-pound woman have against a crazy-ex? If she armed herself, at least she would have a chance. How sad that people like you want the woman defenseless. If I had to choose, I would much rather see the woman alive and her stalker dead, rather than the way that you would prefer. OK, you might not prefer that the woman die, but if you refuse to allow her the tools to defend herself, you are not really giving her much of a choice.
Studies have shows that guns are used approximately a MILLION TIMES A YEAR to prevent or deter crime. There are a lot of studies on this subject, and many of them are done to prove a point (pro-freedom or anti-freedom), so the numbers vary wildly. However, the median (aka probably most accurate) number seems to be around 800,000 to 1,000,000 times per year (think Olympic scoring -- discard low and high numbers and average the rest). So, you actually think that it would be a great idea to NOT deter crime a million times a year? Wow, how can anybody be that stupid?
Plus, if you did get rid of the guns, you still have the criminals. People will STILL DIE, so with guns gone, you then have to move on to the next bogeyman -- evil, terrible knives! I wish that I were joking, read this Snopes article:
http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/...
The fact that people have to ask "is this satire" and the answer is "sadly, no." should be telling. So, yeah, if you really want to get rid of violence, you can do two things:
* Figure out what causes violence (socioeconomic factors) and try to address that.
--OR--
* Get rid of guns.
* Whoops, people are still killing each other. Get rid of knives.
* Darn, people are still killing each other. Require proof of athletic league membership to buy a baseball bat, and you had better be a professional carpenter before buying a hammer.
Sadly, you would choose path #2. Re-read that Snopes article and then try to tell me that course is what you would want for America. I carry a Leatherman Wave on my belt at all times. You would be surprised how many times a day I need a knife, scissors, or screwdriver. Do you think that I want to live in a country where carrying a simple, common multi-tool can get me arrested?
Also, getting rid of guns will also remove hunting. Hunting is NECESSARY -- simple fact. Apex predators are mostly gone (like wolves). Vegetarian animals generally survive by running away and breeding a lot. It is the breeding thing that causes problems. Animals like deer and elk will breed like crazy in the absence of predators, until their numbers lead to destruction of habitat, starvation, and disease. I know that if I were a deer, I would rather have a happy life and live with a 10% chance of being shot, rather than a 100% chance of starvation, and hope that I was one of the ones strong enough to survive. I live close to Rocky Mountain National Park, and the rangers are having to shoot elk to keep their numbers down! True -- look it up.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
1) Gun deaths are somehow worse than knife deaths
If I had to kill someone, I would select a gun over a knife. A gun would allow me to achieve the goal at a greater distance and probably in less time and with less practice.
I also suspect that the memory may be less traumatizing due to the difference in mess and due to the length of time that I could have stopped myself before completing the horrible actions.
The NSA and GCHQ expected the world to just keep using junk weak standards crypto every decade.
The academics, corporate structure, staff, legal departments, political leaders seem indifferent, obvious or unable to to cope with their junk crypto product they promote as a standard..
An expensive product sold as very secure VPN then becomes nothing more than the cheapest server that can be totally collected on.
Crypto standards get set in a race to be the most easy to revert to tracking users and getting plain text back.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
A gun is certainly a better tool for killing than a knife. However, if denied a gun, you certainly CAN kill with a knife, and the victim will be just as dead.
A guy in France managed to kill close to 100 people without using a gun.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
That first paragraph.. I have no idea what the fuck you're going on about. That's taking everything I said to an extreme, then pulling out your gun, shooting the extreme and continuing on well past absurd. "Safe for murderers and rapists?" I don't recall ever stating that the police should be disbanded. I'd also like to find out your source for determining that shoot-outs are somehow safer for a woman (never mind any children or bystanders that might be nearby) than just running away and calling the cops like a sane person.
Studies have shows ... MILLION TIMES A YEAR
Well for starters, some sources would be good. You're telling me that one in every 350 Americans are having to defend themselves in a way that a) requires a gun as opposed to less lethal options like calling the damned cops and b) would still require a gun if the attacker didn't also have a firearm? That seems a bit of a high statistic to be quoting without references (and preferably ones not sponsored by the NRA since you know, bit of a conflict of interest there.)
People will STILL DIE
Yep. Fact of life. But you can do things to reduce the amount of people who die without resorting to a black and white "if its not zero then we may as well not bother at all" anti-logic.
move on to the next bogeyman -- evil, terrible knives
Yeah, its such a shitty world when we have to only worry about the second most deadly weapon. If only they'd start shooting each other more often then we could stop worrying about knives! That's like saying we shouldn't bother curing cancer because then we'd just be worrying more about heart attacks.
* Figure out what causes violence (socioeconomic factors) and try to address that.
Nobody said we shouldn't do that as well. These things aren't mutually exclusive and in fact are complementary in a lot of ways.
* Get rid of guns.
Yep.
* Other stupid shit
Once again taking logic past the extreme and into the absurd. I don't know why you didn't suggest cutting off peoples' hands to prevent strangulation the way you were going at it.
Re-read that Snopes article and then try to tell me that course is what you would want for America
Yep. I much prefer being mocked for worrying about knives than being legitimately worried about guns.
getting rid of guns will also remove hunting
This is true, and it does remove the possibility of taking ALL guns out of society. But then that possibility doesn't really exist anyway since you still need police and military and other armed personnel.
Once again though, I'm not advocating black and white "get rid of all guns," as I'm well aware that that's unlikely to the point of impossible. I'm advocating reducing the amount of guns. And if you want to be really specific, certain types of guns (especially handguns that are easy to carry and conceal) should have more emphasis on reduction than things like hunting rifles that have actual legitimate uses outside of the vague claim of "self-defense."
Though since you like absurd extremes, there's nothing stopping hunters from picking up a bow and arrow or a spear. We survived for many thousands of years before guns were invented. Not that I'd especially advocate for that but it does indicate that guns aren't as necessary as you want to believe.
rangers are having to shoot elk
Rangers would fall more into the same category as police and military -- people authorized and (presumably) trained to use specific weapons for specific purposes and trusted not to abuse that power. Yes, that trust will occasionally be broken but once again its not about zero its about reduction.
Wow, once again, you COMPLETELY FAIL TO GET THE POINT. I don't know if you are TRYING to be obtuse or if it just comes naturally.
When I say "safe for murderers and rapists," are you REALLY so dumb that you don't realize? Police generally come when (if) called, and they take time to get there. We have police, and over 11,000 homicides in 2014. Police CANNOT prevent homicide. They show up AFTER the murder and try to catch the criminal. If somebody tries to kill you, and you happen to have a cell phone on you, do you think that you could stay alive the 5 to 10 minutes for the police to arrive? Maybe, maybe not. Try your luck!
Criminals can run from the police. However, criminals ARE afraid of armed victims.
Where is your proof that it isn't? Seriously, running away and calling the cops is always your FIRST option, but it should never be your ONLY option. What if you can't run away? What if the woman is at home on the 2nd story and can't get past the bad guy on the stairs? The woman is MUCH better off locking the door and aiming the gun at the door. Try to tell me otherwise and make yourself look like a fool.
If a woman goes up against a man in a purely physical confrontation, the woman is at a disadvantage. The average woman will be smaller and weaker. The average man will be larger, stronger, and quite possibly have a background in sports and other physical activity. There are corner cases (God help the man that tries to attack Ronda Rousey), but, in general, what I have said is true. However, if the woman is armed, she stands a MUCH BETTER chance against those that would try to hurt her. It only takes about four to six pounds of pressure to pull a trigger, and, statistically speaking, woman actually make better shots than guys. Women are among the best sharp-shooters out there.
Like I said, about two miles from my house was a case where a good GIRL with a gun stopped a would-be mass murderer.
Here is a case where a woman had a restraining order against her ex. She had applied for a gun permit, but was still waiting. However, her ex killed her while she was still waiting... Gun control killed her. Here chances would have been MUCH better if she was armed...
http://freebeacon.com/issues/n...
OK. Granted. Given the quality of your thinking so far, I am not surprised that you can't use Google. Let me help you. Here is one great link. Yes, it is Wikipedia, but they have links to the various studies, so you can read them for yourself. This is from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... :
So, yeah, like I said, lots of these studies are biased one way or another. Throw out the lowest and highest scores and average the rest. However, even the ones AGAINST guns still have "estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year." Get rid of guns, and get rid of those tens of thousands of cases of using them defensively. "Using" can be just
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Here are three people who are alive because of a gun. A grizzly attacked some fishermen in the Alaskan wilderness. Do you really want to tell those people that you would prefer that they be dead right now because guns are evil?
https://www.americanhunter.org...
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."