English isn't a strong suit of most who speak it natively, unfortunately, which is why these types of error in understanding crop up more and more frequently as time goes on.
Yup. No different than posting abortion clinic doctor lists. Oh wait, those are done by right-wing crazies so it's bad. This was done by left-wing crazies so it's alright.
People who are interested in causing misery for others by proxy are bad, no matter their political affiliation. The editor was just hoping for plausible deniability because of the volume of information released. "Oh, it didn't have anything to do with me!" Nobody would believe the anti-abortion thugs; nobody should believe this asshole.
That it's public information is bad enough, and is because of lobbying by the same types of people as those who posted it. The class schedule of every child in public school is a form of public information too. Perhaps we should start a lobby to force that into public disclosure. After all, what could possibly be wrong with making that information public?
Just because collection of information is necessary for a public purpose does not mean its release is in the public interest. The fact that the law declares it to be public information simply means the law has been abused by people who have no business making that decision.
Or, due to the lack of a real police investigation, the paper is just engaged in more posturing.
Without evidence, nobody outside of the paper knows if there are actual threats. Even if there are, there's no evidence they come from people who are capable of legally purchasing a firearm (or, indeed, ever have purchased a firearm).
I know a lot of gun owners, and not a single one would make death threats for this. They will, however, publish the same information about the news staff as the news staff published about them. Unfortunately, there are crazies out there who seize on that information and do stupid things; the same sorts of stupid things they'd do to the published gun owners.
Painting a population of millions in broad terms based on the actions of a fringe is stupid. Consider yourself if you'd be happy with a characterization of the craziest elements of the craziest fringe left-wing animal-rights bomber. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick with the broad brush of mistrust, since it's as easy to paint you with it as it is for you to paint others. That sort of behavior is why politics in this country is broken, so a bit more solution and a bit less problem might be in order.
Yup. If there were credible threats the police would be launching an investigation. Since they had to turn to a private company, this is posturing to back up their previous posturing.
Because there still exists a thread of rule of law, and he was sentenced according to it. If you want ex post facto laws to exist, lobby for them. I'll be happy to vote to turn your traffic ticket into a life sentence if you're successful.
An AR15 is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is capable of either selective (burst) or fully automatic fire, and they are the most heavily-regulated firearms in the USA. They are also so expensive ($15k+) to obtain that they're not used to commit crimes. There have been only a couple shootings involving a legally-imported or -produced automatic weapon in the USA in the last 80 years, and a number of those were by police officers using official access to armories.
Well, we have a right to know that info about children. After all, public schools have those records, so they should be publicly accessible, right? I'm waiting for the Child Activity Database to go up any day now, and for not a single one of the asshats defending this to make so much as a single bloody peep.
A lack of substantive argument to back up his position is why we have idiotic posts like his. Unfortunately, there are fantastically stupid people on both sides of the argument, which is why we have the idiotic posts which aren't even couched in pretend-logic. They're easier to filter though. Lots of people can be conned with pretend-logic.
It's true gun sales/gifts/trades from individuals to individuals are not logged, so handguns needn't be " registered" or anything else for that matter. It's just that buying commercially sold arms puts you on public display for whatever ends.
That's not true in the locations, and regarding the guns, in question. There are States, like NY, where handguns are illegal to possess at all without being registered and permitted by a county. Doesn't matter if it's a gift from your mother or not. That's how people are able to put together harassment lists like this.
While I agree that harm extends past the physical, the below needs to be addressed:
(or you work in a "right-to-work" state)
The definition of "right-to-work" is a state which does not have a law requiring employers to either fire non-union employees or deduct union dues from their paycheck and remit them to a union if a union organizes at their place of business.
You are confusing "right-to-work" with "at-will" employment, a confusion which unions are more than happy to continue perpetuating.
With politicians and the media constantly lying by implication, it's something even some pro-firearms people screw up. I'm sure the term was chosen because the similarity would allow for repeated "accidents" so that they could eventually make everyone think any scary-looking gun was an automatic weapon.
Not complaining about the clarification, don't get me wrong. It needs to be done to fight the above influence of liars and manipulators in politics and the media.
Just a note, the term you wanted was "assault weapon." An assault rifle is well-defined: capable of automatic or select-fire operation. "Assault weapon" is a political term for a gun that looks like an assault rifle but is not actually capable of firing more than one round with a single trigger pull.
"Physically performing" doesn't actually bar the addition of time as an expense, unless the term is very explicitly narrowly defined within the body of the license. Anything with a first-order relationship to the physical performance can be included, otherwise the term "performance" could be used to exclude materials while "physical" could be used to exclude intangibles. As a result, nothing could be charged. That's why legal documents have definition sections when they wish to construe a term narrowly.
Except, in those circumstances when a private citizen has been there with a firearm, things don't usually turn out this way.
So yes, when one is there, things usually do turn out differently. Those cases don't stay in the paper as long though, since "crazed gunman killed by citizen" doesn't sell as many papers (or sell them for as long) as "27 people murdered by lunatic."
Pretty much everyone is cool with bypassing the framework for legitimately changing Constitutional protections when the system is inconvenient for them. Doesn't matter if it's Republicans and privacy rights or Democrats and gun rights. Anyone willing to do so is in the same class as everyone else willing to do so, and none of those people should be allowed near government. Unfortunately, that's a pipe dream since government is full of people elected for their willingness to be corrupt by lots of people willing to look the other way when that corruption benefits them.
For example: Australia severely restricted certain classes of firearms after a particularly bad mass shooting. The number of mass shootings in the 16 years since the change dropped by at least an order of magnitude. Prediction, experiment, result.
Even if you go back to 1860 and include mass deaths which weren't committed with firearms, the number since Port Arthur (one) is not less than an order of magnitude than those preceding it.
The most logical starting point is in determining who has a propensity to violence and addressing the issues which create those people.
Multiple firearm ownership is not a sign of a person likely to commit violence; if it were, the area I live in would have one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world per capita, rather than the actual rate it has, which is amongst the lowest in any urban area in the world.
How about instead of banning things, we focus our resources on figuring out why people go nuts and try to kill children? Why don't we try to help the nutters before they kill our children? If someone wants to kill people, they don't need guns.
This needs to be repeated as often as possible. The root cause is not access to anything, it's in people. It's obviously also not intrinsic, because other cultures have fewer problems even when firearms are available. This shooting could have been committed in Canada or Australia with a rifle just as easily as it was here with a couple handguns. A legal rifle. The problem is a cultural one, and one which very few people seem to want to acknowledge, let alone address.
Oh, the physical costs are certainly less than $3.99, but time is also a legitimate cost. Burning and packaging at minimum wage plus physical costs will come out to more than $3.99.
The only people I've previously encountered who don't recognize time has some value are from the IRS, and then only when the lack of value positively impacts the taxes they collect.
Slashdot Mirror
English isn't a strong suit of most who speak it natively, unfortunately, which is why these types of error in understanding crop up more and more frequently as time goes on.
Yup. No different than posting abortion clinic doctor lists. Oh wait, those are done by right-wing crazies so it's bad. This was done by left-wing crazies so it's alright.
People who are interested in causing misery for others by proxy are bad, no matter their political affiliation. The editor was just hoping for plausible deniability because of the volume of information released. "Oh, it didn't have anything to do with me!"
Nobody would believe the anti-abortion thugs; nobody should believe this asshole.
That it's public information is bad enough, and is because of lobbying by the same types of people as those who posted it. The class schedule of every child in public school is a form of public information too. Perhaps we should start a lobby to force that into public disclosure. After all, what could possibly be wrong with making that information public?
Just because collection of information is necessary for a public purpose does not mean its release is in the public interest. The fact that the law declares it to be public information simply means the law has been abused by people who have no business making that decision.
Or, due to the lack of a real police investigation, the paper is just engaged in more posturing.
Without evidence, nobody outside of the paper knows if there are actual threats. Even if there are, there's no evidence they come from people who are capable of legally purchasing a firearm (or, indeed, ever have purchased a firearm).
I know a lot of gun owners, and not a single one would make death threats for this. They will, however, publish the same information about the news staff as the news staff published about them. Unfortunately, there are crazies out there who seize on that information and do stupid things; the same sorts of stupid things they'd do to the published gun owners.
Painting a population of millions in broad terms based on the actions of a fringe is stupid. Consider yourself if you'd be happy with a characterization of the craziest elements of the craziest fringe left-wing animal-rights bomber. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick with the broad brush of mistrust, since it's as easy to paint you with it as it is for you to paint others. That sort of behavior is why politics in this country is broken, so a bit more solution and a bit less problem might be in order.
Yup. If there were credible threats the police would be launching an investigation. Since they had to turn to a private company, this is posturing to back up their previous posturing.
Because there still exists a thread of rule of law, and he was sentenced according to it. If you want ex post facto laws to exist, lobby for them. I'll be happy to vote to turn your traffic ticket into a life sentence if you're successful.
Autistic Child Database coming up.
An AR15 is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is capable of either selective (burst) or fully automatic fire, and they are the most heavily-regulated firearms in the USA. They are also so expensive ($15k+) to obtain that they're not used to commit crimes. There have been only a couple shootings involving a legally-imported or -produced automatic weapon in the USA in the last 80 years, and a number of those were by police officers using official access to armories.
Well, we have a right to know that info about children. After all, public schools have those records, so they should be publicly accessible, right? I'm waiting for the Child Activity Database to go up any day now, and for not a single one of the asshats defending this to make so much as a single bloody peep.
A lack of substantive argument to back up his position is why we have idiotic posts like his. Unfortunately, there are fantastically stupid people on both sides of the argument, which is why we have the idiotic posts which aren't even couched in pretend-logic. They're easier to filter though. Lots of people can be conned with pretend-logic.
It's true gun sales/gifts/trades from individuals to individuals are not logged, so handguns needn't be " registered" or anything else for that matter. It's just that buying commercially sold arms puts you on public display for whatever ends.
That's not true in the locations, and regarding the guns, in question. There are States, like NY, where handguns are illegal to possess at all without being registered and permitted by a county. Doesn't matter if it's a gift from your mother or not. That's how people are able to put together harassment lists like this.
You present a textbook example of a false dilemma, as explained in part by fredgiblet.
While I agree that harm extends past the physical, the below needs to be addressed:
(or you work in a "right-to-work" state)
The definition of "right-to-work" is a state which does not have a law requiring employers to either fire non-union employees or deduct union dues from their paycheck and remit them to a union if a union organizes at their place of business.
You are confusing "right-to-work" with "at-will" employment, a confusion which unions are more than happy to continue perpetuating.
With politicians and the media constantly lying by implication, it's something even some pro-firearms people screw up. I'm sure the term was chosen because the similarity would allow for repeated "accidents" so that they could eventually make everyone think any scary-looking gun was an automatic weapon.
Not complaining about the clarification, don't get me wrong. It needs to be done to fight the above influence of liars and manipulators in politics and the media.
Just a note, the term you wanted was "assault weapon." An assault rifle is well-defined: capable of automatic or select-fire operation. "Assault weapon" is a political term for a gun that looks like an assault rifle but is not actually capable of firing more than one round with a single trigger pull.
"Physically performing" doesn't actually bar the addition of time as an expense, unless the term is very explicitly narrowly defined within the body of the license. Anything with a first-order relationship to the physical performance can be included, otherwise the term "performance" could be used to exclude materials while "physical" could be used to exclude intangibles. As a result, nothing could be charged. That's why legal documents have definition sections when they wish to construe a term narrowly.
That's certainly a pertinent question, one which an anti-gun person would answer "more" or would (more likely) evade the question entirely.
Except, in those circumstances when a private citizen has been there with a firearm, things don't usually turn out this way.
So yes, when one is there, things usually do turn out differently. Those cases don't stay in the paper as long though, since "crazed gunman killed by citizen" doesn't sell as many papers (or sell them for as long) as "27 people murdered by lunatic."
Pretty much everyone is cool with bypassing the framework for legitimately changing Constitutional protections when the system is inconvenient for them. Doesn't matter if it's Republicans and privacy rights or Democrats and gun rights. Anyone willing to do so is in the same class as everyone else willing to do so, and none of those people should be allowed near government. Unfortunately, that's a pipe dream since government is full of people elected for their willingness to be corrupt by lots of people willing to look the other way when that corruption benefits them.
... magnitude (lower) than ...
For example: Australia severely restricted certain classes of firearms after a particularly bad mass shooting. The number of mass shootings in the 16 years since the change dropped by at least an order of magnitude. Prediction, experiment, result.
Even if you go back to 1860 and include mass deaths which weren't committed with firearms, the number since Port Arthur (one) is not less than an order of magnitude than those preceding it.
The most logical starting point is in determining who has a propensity to violence and addressing the issues which create those people.
Multiple firearm ownership is not a sign of a person likely to commit violence; if it were, the area I live in would have one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world per capita, rather than the actual rate it has, which is amongst the lowest in any urban area in the world.
How about instead of banning things, we focus our resources on figuring out why people go nuts and try to kill children? Why don't we try to help the nutters before they kill our children? If someone wants to kill people, they don't need guns.
This needs to be repeated as often as possible. The root cause is not access to anything, it's in people. It's obviously also not intrinsic, because other cultures have fewer problems even when firearms are available. This shooting could have been committed in Canada or Australia with a rifle just as easily as it was here with a couple handguns. A legal rifle. The problem is a cultural one, and one which very few people seem to want to acknowledge, let alone address.
It's your non-violent culture working for you, not your laws.
Oh, the physical costs are certainly less than $3.99, but time is also a legitimate cost. Burning and packaging at minimum wage plus physical costs will come out to more than $3.99.
The only people I've previously encountered who don't recognize time has some value are from the IRS, and then only when the lack of value positively impacts the taxes they collect.