If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf.
How can you agree to something legally if you AREN'T an adult in the first place? So, as a minor, you can legally agree to state you aren't an adult and your mom agrees with everything you do on the site?
There is an amazingly easy way around this. Model rights are predicated on being able to accurately discern who the person is. If you shoot a bunch of people who are in the background and not personally identifiable, then you do not need model releases, even for commercial work (you might want to get them, it would give you some flexibility, but you don't need them).
All you need to do with the already modified, low resolution, out of focus, blurred picture that some clown uploaded to Instagram is to modify the facial features enough to make that person not 'readily' identifiable. Could probably do that automatically, certainly could do it manually in a few seconds. Poof. No model release needed.....
Speak for yourself, for some of us defrauding lonely and desperate people using an online profile only loosely grounded in reality is still the best way to get dates.
Yeah, and the rest of us end up using some obscure function like
You can also go to a gun show and bypass any and all checks (except the one you give the dealer). You can even act batshit insane - you fit right in with a significant part of the crowd.
Should get your shotgun out and run some rounds through it. Shotguns are arguably better self defense weapons than an AR-15. Lots of ammo available. Can be used by people without lots of training. Shotgun pellets are good at stopping people but stopping at wallboard and not going through the house to the other side. Shotgun slugs are good for stopping cars (and grizzly bears).
Put a short slug barrel on the 870 and keep it greased up.
Is that all? With such a low threshold for acquiring an easily operated killing device, how can there be any feeling of safety?
You can go to your local shopping mall and acquire lots of different things that could be "easily operated killing devices". You could probably make a bomb out of things found in every home. Focusing on the particular tool used is not the answer.
You could simply drive up on a crowded sidewalk....
Yes, that might actually do something useful. Unfortunately, it is the most difficult and most expensive of all potential avenues to mitigate violent crime. Not likely to happen in any coherent fashion.
- have the DEA rescind the Schedule I status of Marijuana. Pull it out of the scheduled drug list completely - like tobacco and alcohol. - get the Treasury Department to remove to marijuana tax stamp (or hell, leave it place, tax the crap to high heaven, make some free money).
As a physician, I really don't want Marijuana scheduled as a Schedule III drug (like marinol). I want it either decriminalized or legalized and controlled like (the much more dangerous drug) alcohol. I really don't want to spend my day writing out pot prescriptions - although I understand that one can make a reasonable living in Colorado writing out medical marijuana scripts.
We already have the framework to deal with popular, dangerous drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that don't involve the medical establishment.
I'm not suggesting we disarm the country - as you point out, it's impossible to any real extent so don't go around spending a lot of time and effort doing impossible things.
However, I don't think that the answer is fortifying schools, etc. Further, I don't think that having a large number of citizens carrying firearms at all times is going to actually make anything safer. Unless you really, really train those people, they are more likely to be a danger to others than a help. Just look at the number of bystanders that are injured when (highly trained) police fire their weapons. Yes, there would be some instances when a well placed armed civilian could save the day, but I am going to argue that more often than not, they'll create a problem when there wasn't one. Remember, crazed massed shooters are an extremely rare event.
Personally, I don't care if someone is carrying a firearm. If it floats your boat, go for it. It just don't see it as any sort of real defense against armed mental patients.
As to being able to find these people before they create havoc - good luck. Although it is possible at some point we will have some diagnostic tools that would enable us to determine lethality in the future, we are so far from that level of sophistication at present that it makes talking about what we could do if such technology evolved as useful as discussing holographic storage or fusion. Yes, mental illness is going to be definable chemically. However, we're at the point where psychiatry can barely describe mental illness, much less treat it.
You're going about it the wrong way. No, unless we get to 'Minority Report' style policing, we aren't going to be able to pull potentially dangerous persons off the streets. There is simply too much overlap between normal and dangerous. Perhaps if we drugged the entire population into oblivion (G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate anyone?) you might stand a chance, but not otherwise.
The hard part is you have to accept that Shit Happens. 40,000 people die in car accidents every year. All sorts of bad things happens, singly and in bulk. You can't solve it all and even when you can solve it (making schools and shopping malls into fortresses), there are good reasons why you would not want to.
There is no justifiable reason for anyone to carry around enough firepower to mow down dozens of people within seconds - certainly not self-defense. You don't see civilians driving tanks or carrying rocket launchers either.
Not seconds, moroon, minutes. Any.22 caliber semi auto pistol could have done that sort of damage. What you are trying to justify is making muzzle loading black powder guns the only legal firearm.
And, if she's that into it, she should have realized that her son wasn't such a good candidate for gun use and stored her weapons accordingly. Either way, she appears culpable (although she is dead so it will be difficult to tease all that out).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious, how do you prove that a death was directly related to car exhaust?
Statistics, of course. Statistics can prove anything.
You get a free iPod?
Cars want to be dominant form of intelligent life on the planet!
Just as soon as they get the bugs out of the in-dash entertainment systems, we're toast!
Sell if you can !!
That's gravity, you idiot.
Old news.
Wait. What?
If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf.
How can you agree to something legally if you AREN'T an adult in the first place? So, as a minor, you can legally agree to state you aren't an adult and your mom agrees with everything you do on the site?
How does that work?
There is an amazingly easy way around this. Model rights are predicated on being able to accurately discern who the person is. If you shoot a bunch of people who are in the background and not personally identifiable, then you do not need model releases, even for commercial work (you might want to get them, it would give you some flexibility, but you don't need them).
All you need to do with the already modified, low resolution, out of focus, blurred picture that some clown uploaded to Instagram is to modify the facial features enough to make that person not 'readily' identifiable. Could probably do that automatically, certainly could do it manually in a few seconds. Poof. No model release needed.....
Speak for yourself, for some of us defrauding lonely and desperate people using an online profile only loosely grounded in reality is still the best way to get dates.
Yeah, and the rest of us end up using some obscure function like
#include
struct tm *getdate(const char *string);
kinda lonely but it works every time.
Please note that the parent's comment is child to a thread specifically about strip joints.
Think of the children!
No more bath salts for you!
Apparently that's incorrect. Later stories indicate that he used the AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine (which jammed).
You can also go to a gun show and bypass any and all checks (except the one you give the dealer). You can even act batshit insane - you fit right in with a significant part of the crowd.
Should get your shotgun out and run some rounds through it. Shotguns are arguably better self defense weapons than an AR-15. Lots of ammo available. Can be used by people without lots of training. Shotgun pellets are good at stopping people but stopping at wallboard and not going through the house to the other side. Shotgun slugs are good for stopping cars (and grizzly bears).
Put a short slug barrel on the 870 and keep it greased up.
Is that all? With such a low threshold for acquiring an easily operated killing device, how can there be any feeling of safety?
You can go to your local shopping mall and acquire lots of different things that could be "easily operated killing devices". You could probably make a bomb out of things found in every home. Focusing on the particular tool used is not the answer.
You could simply drive up on a crowded sidewalk....
Yes, that might actually do something useful. Unfortunately, it is the most difficult and most expensive of all potential avenues to mitigate violent crime. Not likely to happen in any coherent fashion.
Thinking that owning a couple of guns is a paranoid delusion is a paranoid delusion.
Hell, I've got one of those in my refrigerator.
Just wait until this information hits the Internet. It'll go viral for sure.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
(If this was a tweet, it would likely not be true.
The president would need to do two things:
- have the DEA rescind the Schedule I status of Marijuana. Pull it out of the scheduled drug list completely - like tobacco and alcohol.
- get the Treasury Department to remove to marijuana tax stamp (or hell, leave it place, tax the crap to high heaven, make some free money).
As a physician, I really don't want Marijuana scheduled as a Schedule III drug (like marinol). I want it either decriminalized or legalized and controlled like (the much more dangerous drug) alcohol. I really don't want to spend my day writing out pot prescriptions - although I understand that one can make a reasonable living in Colorado writing out medical marijuana scripts.
We already have the framework to deal with popular, dangerous drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that don't involve the medical establishment.
I'm not suggesting we disarm the country - as you point out, it's impossible to any real extent so don't go around spending a lot of time and effort doing impossible things.
However, I don't think that the answer is fortifying schools, etc. Further, I don't think that having a large number of citizens carrying firearms at all times is going to actually make anything safer. Unless you really, really train those people, they are more likely to be a danger to others than a help. Just look at the number of bystanders that are injured when (highly trained) police fire their weapons. Yes, there would be some instances when a well placed armed civilian could save the day, but I am going to argue that more often than not, they'll create a problem when there wasn't one. Remember, crazed massed shooters are an extremely rare event.
Personally, I don't care if someone is carrying a firearm. If it floats your boat, go for it. It just don't see it as any sort of real defense against armed mental patients.
As to being able to find these people before they create havoc - good luck. Although it is possible at some point we will have some diagnostic tools that would enable us to determine lethality in the future, we are so far from that level of sophistication at present that it makes talking about what we could do if such technology evolved as useful as discussing holographic storage or fusion. Yes, mental illness is going to be definable chemically. However, we're at the point where psychiatry can barely describe mental illness, much less treat it.
You're going about it the wrong way. No, unless we get to 'Minority Report' style policing, we aren't going to be able to pull potentially dangerous persons off the streets. There is simply too much overlap between normal and dangerous. Perhaps if we drugged the entire population into oblivion (G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate anyone?) you might stand a chance, but not otherwise.
The hard part is you have to accept that Shit Happens. 40,000 people die in car accidents every year. All sorts of bad things happens, singly and in bulk. You can't solve it all and even when you can solve it (making schools and shopping malls into fortresses), there are good reasons why you would not want to.
There is no justifiable reason for anyone to carry around enough firepower to mow down dozens of people within seconds - certainly not self-defense. You don't see civilians driving tanks or carrying rocket launchers either.
Not seconds, moroon, minutes. Any .22 caliber semi auto pistol could have done that sort of damage. What you are trying to justify is making muzzle loading black powder guns the only legal firearm.
Nice try. Next time work on the real issues.
And, if she's that into it, she should have realized that her son wasn't such a good candidate for gun use and stored her weapons accordingly. Either way, she appears culpable (although she is dead so it will be difficult to tease all that out).
Forgot to add:
Do Not Taunt Happy Fun Ball.