Movie theaters, military bases (only the guards at the gate and maybe the MPs will have live ammo), and quite a few of the retail outlets you'd find in a mall explicitly ban the carrying of firearms.
Almost none of the retail outlets were gun free zones. I bothered to look up the facts, and they prove you wrong. That you refuse to recognize reality doesn't change it.
Sure. In much of the world, they aren't given to every officer anyway. The armed response teams get them, but the generic beat cop doesn't have them, and from those I've talked to, don't much want them.
Ah yes. When logic doesn't work, turn to FUD. Of course, since Australia and India are both in the Commonwealth, it's likely that an attack by China on Australia would result in India launching a ground war in China. So India does more to stop a Chinese invasion of Australia than gun ownership in Australia.
. It is already against the law for criminals to own and use guns to commit crimes.
No. That's the point. What gun laws did Adam Lanza break? It's not illegal for a family member to give guns to a minor, nor allow access to them, even if they are knowingly violently ill. So up to the point of killing his mother, what laws were broken? I've not seen anyone do an analysis, often because those involved are dead, so the exact details of how they got their guns is up to speculation, but many of the mass shootings look to be done by people who broke no laws before the first shot was fired. And the idea of laws as a deterrent or punishment for someone wishing to die at the end of their acts makes those laws meaningless in terms of prevention. And new laws that target those planning mass shootings would be the only thing that law enforcement can do to stop them.
Apple isn't a prime actor, but is a beneficiary. The Chinese phone makers are afraid to sell outside China. They are worried that the moment they sell a phone in a US-controlled country, the US will sue them into oblivion. So Apple is better off because of the large international expenditures by the US, whether they asked for them or want them.
And in the real world the difference between breaking the law and pissing someone off in a civil matter has a distinction that the civil matter is much worse and can have a bigger consequence for a corporation.
So the investors sue the corporation? No, the theory is they sue the directors or executive team directly, not the corporation (unless they sue the corporation for a specific act, like firing the aforementioned).
Now if you can't come up with a proper counter argument please take your condescending attitude and shove it up your ass.
If you stop being an idiot, I'll stop treating you like one. Deal?
Why is it that when income inequality is addressed that it's the 1% that tries to paint everyone into the 1%? I've seen the media (obviously owned by the 1%) indicate that more than 10% are in the 1%. No really.
When people discuss wealth inequality, the defenders of the privileged turn the discussion to income, and don't tell anyone. What does the global 1% have to do with US taxes and US 1%? Oh yeah, more deflection and deliberate confusion designed to change the subject.
The billionaire class in the US pays almost no taxes. Paris Hilton throws million dollar parties for herself and writes them all off as losses, making sure her base 15% rate is never reached. The "poor" can't write off parties. That's the point. The rich have a lower base rate, as well as more deductions. Trying to paint me into the billionaire class won't change those facts.
That's for long-term investments. Short-term investments (periods less than one year) are taxed as regular income tax.
You need to learn more about how the 1% operate. Everything is long term. When you have millions that's been held more than a year, you don't sell your new stock to buy a country. You sell some old stocks, and hold on to the new ones for a few more months to never pay more than 15%. The only time you bother to sell anything short term is when it's going to be a loss. And then, you can sell something that's a gain for a similar amount and pay no taxes on either. Though most will save up the losses and apply them against an expected future gain. You can lose money one year, and apply it to your taxes in a different year than when the loss was actually made.
Such activities don't work for the little guy, but when you are worth billions, you'd have to have some pretty incompetent accountants and investment managers to ever pay more than 15% (base rate, deductions should cut that significantly).
I'm not going to homework for you common knowledge. Search yourself. You don't even need to look far, the right keywords on the Slashdot search box alone will find you the evidence without even needing to resort to Google. Heck we covered an article on shareholders who sued their board of directors only last week.
And when you graduate from high school, you might learn that the world doesn't work in the manner that your teachers over-simplify for you. That someone sued someone somewhere doesn't mean there's a legal requirement to act in a specific manner. That your 8th grade teacher told you otherwise doesn't change reality.
Go look up the other side. Whole Foods, and Ben and Jerry's are two examples I've seen where they've explicitly acted in a manner they know won't maximize shareholder profit, and were untouchable despite it. Because the corporate philosophy held value, and that value is no less important than shareholder value.
The idea that a director or CEO can be sued for a bad decision is absurd. In practice, it doesn't happen. CEOs have golden parachutes, and directors are voted out in a few voting cycles.
The idea that the law somehow requires a corporation to act in a manner to maximize profits is simply false, and is perpetuated by people who want to abuse the public perception for their own uses.
That'd be true, so long as the US doesn't spend trillions of dollars influencing global policy and laws, and making stronger IP laws that benefit them. When the US government spends billions to ensure Apple profits, why wouldn't Apple owe on that service?
At least it's $1 less of debt. Spending by "the government" doesn't ever decrease, even under the "small government" party", so the best I can hope for is a personal share of the national debt that's $1 less than it'd have otherwise have been. And more taxes collected has that effect.
Corporations run at whatever profit, period - Apple being prime in the case of simply setting prices high enough to get the margins they desire, and people paying them whatever.
So if a coporpation is running at 50% profit and taxes are increased, they'll jack up prices to make a 60% profit margin? No, in reality, increased taxes decrease profit.
If they keep prices the same, it means less investment by them in jobs, or higher prices for us, period.
Nope. "Profit" means it's not invested in jobs. You don't even know the basic definitions of the words used, yet lecture everyone on the subject.
It's dangerous to live in a world of flat-broke spendthrift governments who use words like "fair" to mean "gimme more of your money to buy your votes with" - whether a company or an individual.
Yes, we get it, you hate the government. You want to starve the beast. Which, in practice, means borrow more and spend more, leaving a bigger mess for those who come later. There are countries in the world with more services than the US, and a lower tax rate. Yet anyone calling for an efficient government is labeled socialist. The "starve the beast" conservatives have won, and we have an unsustainable debt. We just haven't admitted we have a problem, like a good alcoholic.
You don't actually understand why capital gains are taxed at the rate they're taxed, do you? The percentage can, arguably, be discussed but first you should understand the reason that the rates are as low as they are.
They are so low so as to cap the tax rate for the 1% at 15%, while the rest of us pay 40%. The published justification for why isn't the real why.
The US police sued to get the right to never enforce the law or protect anyone. That's an abberation. Most countries have the police explicitly tasked with protecting the people, not the interests of the politicians. The US is the exception, not the rule, though Americans seem to think the opposite.
The obvious gotcha in those statistics is that a large majority of the mass shootings happen in "gun free zones".
Nope. Almost none of them happen in gun-free zones. You are watching too much mainstream conservative news. They even reported Umpqua Community College was a gun-free zone. It isn't, and wasn't. School shootings get all the coverage in mainstream conservative news to push the "gun free zone" myth. But school shootings are a small portion of all mass shootings, and aren't even all gun-free zones.
It's no coincidence that the vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones!
Umpqua Community College was called a "gun-free zone" by the Conservative media in the aftermath, trying to promote the pro-mass-shooting agenda of getting more guns in more hands to reduce gun deaths. But, like everything they say, it was all lies. It is not a gun -free zone. Most mass shootings don't happen in gun-free zones. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mass+shoo...
The list of school shootings that are gun free zones is long. But "mass shootings" is a different category than simply "school shootings". Mass shootings almost always happen in gun-allowed zones, unless a school. Malls, churches, and such are mostly not gun free zones, and have more mass shootings than schools.
Try looking at the facts sometime. You'll find that you are 100% wrong. And not just on that point, but it's one of the few facts you posted, and was easily debunked.
The shootings on military bases and schools like Umpqua Community College, which aren't gun free zones have the same results as those in gun free zones. So logic would indicate that gun free zones is an irrelevant red herring pushed by the pro-mass-shooting lobby.
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that somebody desiring to kill others would somehow obey gun laws.
Sandy Hook (and others) were done with guns directly "stolen" from someone who bought them legally. Though, it's quite possible that the Sandy Hook shooter got his guns legally. His mother could have given him permission to use the guns, which would make it a legal posession. Though, we'll never know, because the myth that the criminals get the guns illegally, so gun laws wouldn't work is so ingrained that when the false thief and the non-victim were both dead, so the authorities assert that they were stolen with no proof (or evidence at all) to that effect.
If the investigators assumed they guns were obtained legally, then that's what would be found. That you believe the lies isn't evidence that the lies aren't.
Plus, the laws that are always proposed after a shooting would, in general, have done nothing to stop the incident that actually caused the law to be proposed.
Nope. They often would help for the specific event, but the pro-mass-killing lobby asserts that there exists at least on mass shooting that wouldn't have been stopped by it, so nothing should be done. For Sandy Hook, I heard many proposed plans to increase the security of purchased guns. The False Timeline of Sandy Hook is that the shooter broke into his own home and stole a gun from his own house. The reality is that he lived in a house with unsecured guns. He grabbed one, and started his killing spree with killing his sleeping mother. Had she locked up her guns, he never would have been able to get them. So people that proposed laws about gun safes (as required in many countries with gun control where someone can buy and own a firearm at their home), were shot down because he "stole" them, and would have even if they were properly secured, even when the facts show the exact opposite.
The facts never matter to the pro-mass-shooting lobby.
Adam Lanza obeyed all gun laws, up until the first murder. So the argument that shooters don't obey the law is provably false.
Also Columbine shooters bought their guns from legal sources. Again, the myth that all shooters illegally obtain their guns doesn't hold up.
The kid never claimed it was a bomb. He was accused of speaking, and the right to speech is illegal in the USA. The "criminal charge" was making a joke. No more, no less.
Slashdot Mirror
Movie theaters, military bases (only the guards at the gate and maybe the MPs will have live ammo), and quite a few of the retail outlets you'd find in a mall explicitly ban the carrying of firearms.
Almost none of the retail outlets were gun free zones. I bothered to look up the facts, and they prove you wrong. That you refuse to recognize reality doesn't change it.
The laws don't do this to themselves. The voters vote for people who do it. I blame the voters, and those who didn't vote.
Sure. In much of the world, they aren't given to every officer anyway. The armed response teams get them, but the generic beat cop doesn't have them, and from those I've talked to, don't much want them.
Ah yes. When logic doesn't work, turn to FUD. Of course, since Australia and India are both in the Commonwealth, it's likely that an attack by China on Australia would result in India launching a ground war in China. So India does more to stop a Chinese invasion of Australia than gun ownership in Australia.
There was quite a change from 2005 to 2006. Why so big a change in a single year?
. It is already against the law for criminals to own and use guns to commit crimes.
No. That's the point. What gun laws did Adam Lanza break? It's not illegal for a family member to give guns to a minor, nor allow access to them, even if they are knowingly violently ill. So up to the point of killing his mother, what laws were broken? I've not seen anyone do an analysis, often because those involved are dead, so the exact details of how they got their guns is up to speculation, but many of the mass shootings look to be done by people who broke no laws before the first shot was fired. And the idea of laws as a deterrent or punishment for someone wishing to die at the end of their acts makes those laws meaningless in terms of prevention. And new laws that target those planning mass shootings would be the only thing that law enforcement can do to stop them.
Apple isn't a prime actor, but is a beneficiary. The Chinese phone makers are afraid to sell outside China. They are worried that the moment they sell a phone in a US-controlled country, the US will sue them into oblivion. So Apple is better off because of the large international expenditures by the US, whether they asked for them or want them.
And in the real world the difference between breaking the law and pissing someone off in a civil matter has a distinction that the civil matter is much worse and can have a bigger consequence for a corporation.
So the investors sue the corporation? No, the theory is they sue the directors or executive team directly, not the corporation (unless they sue the corporation for a specific act, like firing the aforementioned).
Now if you can't come up with a proper counter argument please take your condescending attitude and shove it up your ass.
If you stop being an idiot, I'll stop treating you like one. Deal?
Oh, I'm quite well within the 1% metric.
So you have a net wealth well above $15M?
Hell, you're in the 1% on a global scale.
Why is it that when income inequality is addressed that it's the 1% that tries to paint everyone into the 1%? I've seen the media (obviously owned by the 1%) indicate that more than 10% are in the 1%. No really.
When people discuss wealth inequality, the defenders of the privileged turn the discussion to income, and don't tell anyone. What does the global 1% have to do with US taxes and US 1%? Oh yeah, more deflection and deliberate confusion designed to change the subject.
The billionaire class in the US pays almost no taxes. Paris Hilton throws million dollar parties for herself and writes them all off as losses, making sure her base 15% rate is never reached. The "poor" can't write off parties. That's the point. The rich have a lower base rate, as well as more deductions. Trying to paint me into the billionaire class won't change those facts.
That's for long-term investments. Short-term investments (periods less than one year) are taxed as regular income tax.
You need to learn more about how the 1% operate. Everything is long term. When you have millions that's been held more than a year, you don't sell your new stock to buy a country. You sell some old stocks, and hold on to the new ones for a few more months to never pay more than 15%. The only time you bother to sell anything short term is when it's going to be a loss. And then, you can sell something that's a gain for a similar amount and pay no taxes on either. Though most will save up the losses and apply them against an expected future gain. You can lose money one year, and apply it to your taxes in a different year than when the loss was actually made.
Such activities don't work for the little guy, but when you are worth billions, you'd have to have some pretty incompetent accountants and investment managers to ever pay more than 15% (base rate, deductions should cut that significantly).
I'm not going to homework for you common knowledge. Search yourself. You don't even need to look far, the right keywords on the Slashdot search box alone will find you the evidence without even needing to resort to Google. Heck we covered an article on shareholders who sued their board of directors only last week.
And when you graduate from high school, you might learn that the world doesn't work in the manner that your teachers over-simplify for you. That someone sued someone somewhere doesn't mean there's a legal requirement to act in a specific manner. That your 8th grade teacher told you otherwise doesn't change reality.
Go look up the other side. Whole Foods, and Ben and Jerry's are two examples I've seen where they've explicitly acted in a manner they know won't maximize shareholder profit, and were untouchable despite it. Because the corporate philosophy held value, and that value is no less important than shareholder value.
The idea that a director or CEO can be sued for a bad decision is absurd. In practice, it doesn't happen. CEOs have golden parachutes, and directors are voted out in a few voting cycles.
The idea that the law somehow requires a corporation to act in a manner to maximize profits is simply false, and is perpetuated by people who want to abuse the public perception for their own uses.
They are not U.S. profits.
That'd be true, so long as the US doesn't spend trillions of dollars influencing global policy and laws, and making stronger IP laws that benefit them. When the US government spends billions to ensure Apple profits, why wouldn't Apple owe on that service?
At least it's $1 less of debt. Spending by "the government" doesn't ever decrease, even under the "small government" party", so the best I can hope for is a personal share of the national debt that's $1 less than it'd have otherwise have been. And more taxes collected has that effect.
Corporations run at whatever profit, period - Apple being prime in the case of simply setting prices high enough to get the margins they desire, and people paying them whatever.
So if a coporpation is running at 50% profit and taxes are increased, they'll jack up prices to make a 60% profit margin? No, in reality, increased taxes decrease profit.
If they keep prices the same, it means less investment by them in jobs, or higher prices for us, period.
Nope. "Profit" means it's not invested in jobs. You don't even know the basic definitions of the words used, yet lecture everyone on the subject.
It's dangerous to live in a world of flat-broke spendthrift governments who use words like "fair" to mean "gimme more of your money to buy your votes with" - whether a company or an individual.
Yes, we get it, you hate the government. You want to starve the beast. Which, in practice, means borrow more and spend more, leaving a bigger mess for those who come later. There are countries in the world with more services than the US, and a lower tax rate. Yet anyone calling for an efficient government is labeled socialist. The "starve the beast" conservatives have won, and we have an unsustainable debt. We just haven't admitted we have a problem, like a good alcoholic.
But making the corporations behave ethically is SOCIALISM. Why do you hate capitalism?
You don't actually understand why capital gains are taxed at the rate they're taxed, do you? The percentage can, arguably, be discussed but first you should understand the reason that the rates are as low as they are.
They are so low so as to cap the tax rate for the 1% at 15%, while the rest of us pay 40%. The published justification for why isn't the real why.
The US police sued to get the right to never enforce the law or protect anyone. That's an abberation. Most countries have the police explicitly tasked with protecting the people, not the interests of the politicians. The US is the exception, not the rule, though Americans seem to think the opposite.
The obvious gotcha in those statistics is that a large majority of the mass shootings happen in "gun free zones".
Nope. Almost none of them happen in gun-free zones. You are watching too much mainstream conservative news. They even reported Umpqua Community College was a gun-free zone. It isn't, and wasn't. School shootings get all the coverage in mainstream conservative news to push the "gun free zone" myth. But school shootings are a small portion of all mass shootings, and aren't even all gun-free zones.
You mean the Umpqua Community College shooting? Where the gun free zone resulted in lots of dead? http://www.oregonlive.com/educ... Care to try again?
3% of mass shootings are stopped by a "good guy with a gun", and almost all mass shootings happen outside gun-free zones.
When the facts prove your opinion wrong, the rational response is to adjust your opinion, not to lie about the facts.
It's no coincidence that the vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones!
Umpqua Community College was called a "gun-free zone" by the Conservative media in the aftermath, trying to promote the pro-mass-shooting agenda of getting more guns in more hands to reduce gun deaths. But, like everything they say, it was all lies. It is not a gun -free zone. Most mass shootings don't happen in gun-free zones. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mass+shoo...
The list of school shootings that are gun free zones is long. But "mass shootings" is a different category than simply "school shootings". Mass shootings almost always happen in gun-allowed zones, unless a school. Malls, churches, and such are mostly not gun free zones, and have more mass shootings than schools.
Try looking at the facts sometime. You'll find that you are 100% wrong. And not just on that point, but it's one of the few facts you posted, and was easily debunked.
The shootings on military bases and schools like Umpqua Community College, which aren't gun free zones have the same results as those in gun free zones. So logic would indicate that gun free zones is an irrelevant red herring pushed by the pro-mass-shooting lobby.
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that somebody desiring to kill others would somehow obey gun laws.
Sandy Hook (and others) were done with guns directly "stolen" from someone who bought them legally. Though, it's quite possible that the Sandy Hook shooter got his guns legally. His mother could have given him permission to use the guns, which would make it a legal posession. Though, we'll never know, because the myth that the criminals get the guns illegally, so gun laws wouldn't work is so ingrained that when the false thief and the non-victim were both dead, so the authorities assert that they were stolen with no proof (or evidence at all) to that effect.
If the investigators assumed they guns were obtained legally, then that's what would be found. That you believe the lies isn't evidence that the lies aren't.
Plus, the laws that are always proposed after a shooting would, in general, have done nothing to stop the incident that actually caused the law to be proposed.
Nope. They often would help for the specific event, but the pro-mass-killing lobby asserts that there exists at least on mass shooting that wouldn't have been stopped by it, so nothing should be done. For Sandy Hook, I heard many proposed plans to increase the security of purchased guns. The False Timeline of Sandy Hook is that the shooter broke into his own home and stole a gun from his own house. The reality is that he lived in a house with unsecured guns. He grabbed one, and started his killing spree with killing his sleeping mother. Had she locked up her guns, he never would have been able to get them. So people that proposed laws about gun safes (as required in many countries with gun control where someone can buy and own a firearm at their home), were shot down because he "stole" them, and would have even if they were properly secured, even when the facts show the exact opposite.
The facts never matter to the pro-mass-shooting lobby.
Adam Lanza obeyed all gun laws, up until the first murder. So the argument that shooters don't obey the law is provably false.
Also Columbine shooters bought their guns from legal sources. Again, the myth that all shooters illegally obtain their guns doesn't hold up.
The kid never claimed it was a bomb. He was accused of speaking, and the right to speech is illegal in the USA. The "criminal charge" was making a joke. No more, no less.