Why doesn't an ADULT former student not have the right to communicate with a former teacher away from the prying eyes of ANYONE?

And...what if the parents are abusing the child? Do they still have the right to see everything the child does?

But it also says "former students"....so the 25 year old who is in the military/college/beginning of a great career who wants to connect with their favorite HS teacher who encouraged them to succeed is forbidden from doing so, even though there is no longer an active student/teacher relationship and both are adults. MAJOR violation of the 1st Amendment.

You give two examples of websites or groups that have ZERO power in the US. We also have Al Qaida supporters in the US, but they are not in any position to influence the country.

While the US has issues, they are NOT as you would imply.

She received the damages because McDonald's was found to have been purposefully negligent. That is they knew prior to this incident that the coffee was too hot (and had similar complaints/claims/lawsuits in the past), yet determined that the cost savings to them was less than the potential costs of medical bills (because the coffee was too hot to drink when initially given to you) than having to throw out and remake the coffee more frequently. THAT is what cost them, as the jury wished to send a message to the company that their profit margins mean less than the potential to injure.

The woman was parked (not driving), and was trying to remove the lid to add creamer and sugar when it spilled. If the coffee had been served at the LEGAL temp, no burns would have been caused, and if any had, McD's would have not been liable. The victim initially only asked for her medical bills to be paid, but was told to go away by McD's....which meant she had to sue to get recompense. And, McD's attitude cost them the large sum of money as a result.

Your supply side argument fails when EVERY Swiss household is likely to have a full mil-spec firearm inside it...unlike the US. This means the per household chance of coming in contact with a firearm is HIGHER than in the US. While the US may have 90 firearms per 100 people, many (if not most) of firearms owners have more than 1 gun. I, for example, own 3. I have friends whose collections number in the 100s. The likelihood of there being another house on my block with a firearm is statistically low....lower than the likelihood of them having a dog over 40lbs.

The Culture of the Swiss is not one where firearms are seen as for personal use...hence a lower issue with them. Also, the Swiss' penchant for being the "neutral" nation has caused outsiders who may agitate in some nations to leave the Swiss alone...so they can use Switzerland as the go between (or safe haven for their funds). If they caused issues in Switzerland, then that government may actually take a position on their activities and so become persona non grata.

It is a cultural issue, not a supply and demand issue. If there were a cultural want of firearms, there are plenty of people to supply them. See many parts of Africa, Northern Ireland, etc for examples of where these is a demand, there will be a supply.

While in the military, I discovered while deployed in various places around the world, weapons are cheap and plentiful if you want them. Hell, in some countries, their military will take you to their armory and let you pick out what you want for the right price! And the right price is a LOT lower than you would think!

The discussion was about availability of firearms per capita. If they are in the home (which they are in Switzerland), then they are available. If they wished to go on a shooting spree, what would prevent it? Simply because the source of the weapon is the government (who tracks who has what serial number) does not prevent the use of the firearm in illegal ways.

The culture of the Swiss is what prevents their use in crimes, which leads to the argument that guns inherently are not the cause of shootings.

And yet all adult male Swiss have a full-automatic military weapons at their homes, given to them by their government and they still manage a lower murder rate that the US.

Of course, more people are killed in the US by drunk drivers every year than by firearms, yet we still allow cars and alcohol. Knives are really good for killing, and you need little training to use them as well, and they are easy to purchase. A good chef's boning knife is real nice for killing. Willing to put some effort into it, a baseball bat has been known to be real effective, whether you go old school Louisville Slugger or more modern aluminum. And so on.

I've had my firearms (pistols and rifle..one revolver, two semi-auto) for years...two of them for over 20 years...and not killed anyone with them yet. But, with 22 years of military training, I am perfectly comfortable in their use for defense purposes, and would have no issue killing someone to defend my family. Hopefully, that will never be an issue....because, after all, criminals never try to harm people....

When you are 40 or 50 feet up on a maintenance stand, a method to raise the box 4' would not help. Same with working on the top of the T-tail of a large cargo plane...sometimes stuff happens!