Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Because NYC is exactly where they are needed most.
NYC is one of the safest cities in America. The per-capita crime rate speaks for itself. While the presence of racial minorities may make it may *feel* more dangerous to people from rural areas, it's still a very safe place to live.
You might be shocked to learn that the 2nd Amendment has exactly zero to do with hunting.
Anybody who thinks that they "know" what the second amendment means is deluding themselves. The historical record is crude at best. Even if it were better, the amendment was passed when weapons technology and popular conceptions of individual liberty were very different than they are now. The law was drafted without punctuation, and indeed several states ratified versions of it with different numbers and placement of commas. There are perfectly legitimate arguments in favor of interpreting the second amendment to either permit tanks and assault rifles or to allow for the banning of handguns. The amendment means what the Supreme Court says that it means, not because they're right, but because there is no clear answer and somebody has to figure it out.
Personally if it proves true I'd prefer razing every population center >1million
So when did we pass an Amendment authorizing the FDA, DEA, etc? Thus was the 9th and 10th Amendments voided without a vote being needed.
Oh yes right wing troll. Please return us to the good old days when meat wasn't inspected for e-coli. Please burn the homes of millions to the ground.
Only on slashdot does this get modded "insightful"
Bwahahaha! And you're that former high school football player driving a forklift at the WalMart distribution warehouse for $12/hr at age 40, while I'm working for Google! Who's laughing NOW?
The former high school football players working at Google. You can be smart, physically fit and well socialized. It just requires more work than the average "lazy jock" or "lazy geek" is willing to put in.
There are around 180 ABA accredited US Law Schools and a few dozen more provisionally accredited and unaccredited schools in states (like Cali) where you can sit for the bar without a degree from a certified school. They pump thousands of lawyers into the market every year.
Students at the top several schools and students at the very top of their class at a dozen more will have the ability to make significant amounts of money in the private sector upon graduation. The top firms in NY (where salaries have traditionally been higher) pay around 190k to start once bonus is factored in. These jobs are not easy; the hours are long and the overwhelming majority of people leave within three years. Those that stay may eventually make millions, though the hours will always be far worse than any normal job (though better than banking).
But those opportunities are only available for a small minority of newly minted lawyers. The overwhelming majority will be forced to take jobs paying barely 40-50k... perhaps a reasonable starting salary for a person with only an undergraduate degree, but crushing for a person who has paid over a hundred thousand dollars for their legal education and may have close to 200k in student loan debt. Many turn to temp work, where they can make 30-40/hour on an irregular basis with no benefits while sitting in warehouses reviewing thousands of pages of documents for business deals.
The law is an excellent profession if you like to work around the clock or are already independently wealthy. It is not a way for most people to get rich. And I'm not even going to touch the "everybody sues everybody nowadays" myth. That's a creation of the tort reform lobby and has no basis in fact.
You are complaining because you only made $5 for sitting on your ass. This passes for insightful on slashdot?
Class action lawsuits make a lot of sense in cases where a company inflicts small amounts of damage on large amounts of people. Let's say that a printer manufacturer advertised that their product came with a USB connecting cable but never included it in the box. Collectively the impact is huge, but nobody is going to sue to get the cost of a $10 cable. Without the threat of class actions, companies could make millions by pulling this kind of shit all of the time.
And you don't have to go along with class actions if you are a member of the class. If you don't feel that a $5 settlement is sufficient, you can opt-out and sue on your own behalf. You didn't, because you don't care enough. Would you have preferred that the company got to screw you over for free? The benefit to class action lawsuits is not that individual plaintiffs get rich, but rather that the defendant companies think twice before releasing a defective product or contaminating groundwater.
People throw out the idea that "frivolous lawsuits are clogging the court system" and "undeserving plaintiffs are making millions" because they've heard it repeated frequently by people who sound like they know what they're talking about. But it's just not so. BS lawsuits get filed, but they don't go anywhere. The reason that public perception of litigiousness is high is because it suits the interests of companies lobbying for "tort reform." They absolutely want to curtail class actions and cap damages because doing so will make them virtually immune to suit. I'm sure that you'd like to be limited to "wig expenses" if your shampoo made you permanently bald, but the rest of us would prefer a tort system that actually works.
I know that slashdot is one big circle jerk by computer nerds who pretend to understand everything from quantum physics to constitutional law, but please don't just repeat things that you heard on Fox. It's bad for America.
Slashdot Mirror
NYC is one of the safest cities in America. The per-capita crime rate speaks for itself. While the presence of racial minorities may make it may *feel* more dangerous to people from rural areas, it's still a very safe place to live.
You might be shocked to learn that the 2nd Amendment has exactly zero to do with hunting.
Anybody who thinks that they "know" what the second amendment means is deluding themselves. The historical record is crude at best. Even if it were better, the amendment was passed when weapons technology and popular conceptions of individual liberty were very different than they are now. The law was drafted without punctuation, and indeed several states ratified versions of it with different numbers and placement of commas. There are perfectly legitimate arguments in favor of interpreting the second amendment to either permit tanks and assault rifles or to allow for the banning of handguns. The amendment means what the Supreme Court says that it means, not because they're right, but because there is no clear answer and somebody has to figure it out.
Personally if it proves true I'd prefer razing every population center >1million
So when did we pass an Amendment authorizing the FDA, DEA, etc? Thus was the 9th and 10th Amendments voided without a vote being needed.
Oh yes right wing troll. Please return us to the good old days when meat wasn't inspected for e-coli. Please burn the homes of millions to the ground.
Only on slashdot does this get modded "insightful"
The former high school football players working at Google. You can be smart, physically fit and well socialized. It just requires more work than the average "lazy jock" or "lazy geek" is willing to put in.
Ha!
There are around 180 ABA accredited US Law Schools and a few dozen more provisionally accredited and unaccredited schools in states (like Cali) where you can sit for the bar without a degree from a certified school. They pump thousands of lawyers into the market every year.
Students at the top several schools and students at the very top of their class at a dozen more will have the ability to make significant amounts of money in the private sector upon graduation. The top firms in NY (where salaries have traditionally been higher) pay around 190k to start once bonus is factored in. These jobs are not easy; the hours are long and the overwhelming majority of people leave within three years. Those that stay may eventually make millions, though the hours will always be far worse than any normal job (though better than banking).
But those opportunities are only available for a small minority of newly minted lawyers. The overwhelming majority will be forced to take jobs paying barely 40-50k... perhaps a reasonable starting salary for a person with only an undergraduate degree, but crushing for a person who has paid over a hundred thousand dollars for their legal education and may have close to 200k in student loan debt. Many turn to temp work, where they can make 30-40/hour on an irregular basis with no benefits while sitting in warehouses reviewing thousands of pages of documents for business deals.
The law is an excellent profession if you like to work around the clock or are already independently wealthy. It is not a way for most people to get rich. And I'm not even going to touch the "everybody sues everybody nowadays" myth. That's a creation of the tort reform lobby and has no basis in fact.
Class action lawsuits make a lot of sense in cases where a company inflicts small amounts of damage on large amounts of people. Let's say that a printer manufacturer advertised that their product came with a USB connecting cable but never included it in the box. Collectively the impact is huge, but nobody is going to sue to get the cost of a $10 cable. Without the threat of class actions, companies could make millions by pulling this kind of shit all of the time.
And you don't have to go along with class actions if you are a member of the class. If you don't feel that a $5 settlement is sufficient, you can opt-out and sue on your own behalf. You didn't, because you don't care enough. Would you have preferred that the company got to screw you over for free? The benefit to class action lawsuits is not that individual plaintiffs get rich, but rather that the defendant companies think twice before releasing a defective product or contaminating groundwater.
People throw out the idea that "frivolous lawsuits are clogging the court system" and "undeserving plaintiffs are making millions" because they've heard it repeated frequently by people who sound like they know what they're talking about. But it's just not so. BS lawsuits get filed, but they don't go anywhere. The reason that public perception of litigiousness is high is because it suits the interests of companies lobbying for "tort reform." They absolutely want to curtail class actions and cap damages because doing so will make them virtually immune to suit. I'm sure that you'd like to be limited to "wig expenses" if your shampoo made you permanently bald, but the rest of us would prefer a tort system that actually works.
I know that slashdot is one big circle jerk by computer nerds who pretend to understand everything from quantum physics to constitutional law, but please don't just repeat things that you heard on Fox. It's bad for America.