...before this new "office" starts demanding access to not only the underlying data, but the specifics of the algorithms themselves. The amount of heavy handedness that focusing on the algorithms, as opposed to say the effects of the business practices themselves, that can be brought raises the bar on a government way too willing to be heavy handed.
The law is blatantly unconstitutional.
Actually, the law doesn't demand the password. The school districts are making it up because they don't know about or have police powers and are otherwise clueless. The real issue here is the law puts activity occurring outside of schools into the hands of school administrators.
PS: The constitutionality of demanding a password has never been finally tested, but this doesn't get us there either.
"I would first like to speak with an attorney before speaking with you."
For those in the US, learn it, love it, use it. If you don't, you lose it.
This will just be spun into an example of how Global Warming is to blame. Despite the wolf population doesn't predate the 1940s...
This. The cell phone providers are selling devices and subscriptions to fempto-cells and these boosters cut into that market and compete with their services. This isn't about the airwaves.
No, it's because I actually know what an MSA is and that is most certainly not a city. MSAs cover massive areas of land and include suburbia. If you want to hold me to my words, I will respond in kind. City != MSA. Also, the rates are for the entire state. The raw numbers are just that raw, and must be turned into rates for them to be in any way meaningful. But just look at MA. Not a single murder outside an MSA. NH is the next state over and it's a free for all compared to MA. The homicide rate is half that of MA. Even your misreading of the data is supporting my conclusion.
Back when I was in Brazil they had a fair amount of legal guns - that was 25 years ago, but they didn't even need a permit to carry, if they could legally buy one. They did need a license for that.
Major changes in Brazil in the last decade. Major changes. And as they clamp down on the guns, the crime rates go up.
A: in 1780s America, guns were typically flintlocks and muskets.
And we didn't have email, the internet and digital books. Your point? The gatling gun and the rifled mini ball were the advanced arms of their time and believe me, these same arguments were used in the 1800s...
B: Australia has virtually no legal civillian gun ownership and their firearms homicide rate has dropped 47% between 1991 and 2001. (nb. AU bought back guns from owners in 1996)
C: Provinces and Cities outside of the US with strict gun control regimes are some of the safest places to be in North America wrt gun related homicides. (n.b. CA ended casual gun ownership in 1997 with Bill C-51)
Homicides and violent crime are what matters, not "gun homicides". People who die and who are attacked but can't defend themselves are what, morally superior if they are not armed? Read John Lott's book and tell me that your handful of cherry picked examples matters...
Oh, BTW Lets see how Australia is doing these days...
By using manipulated stats you are biasing the conclusion. Canada has also been loosening it's firearms laws in recent years. More importantly Australia's violent crime rate is rising as the criminals learn how to work the system. The UK has a very high violent crime rate 5+ times ours because those who fight back get in more trouble than those who just suck it up and take it. The yobs run the show there.
D: just because someone is for reasonable limits on guns doesn't mean they don't know anything. Your arrogance is absurd when some of us think reasonable gun limits and gun rights can be reconciled.
The people in this thread are not trying to reconcile gun rights with anything. They are secure in their belief that certain things are not covered by the scope of the right and more importantly that any of this crap matters. The VT shooter used handguns and killed more people, all of whom where capable of fighting back (as opposed to kindergarteners) than the lunatic in CT but yet they demonize extra killy clips and black rifles. In CO the kid actually killed very few and had a 100 rd drum. Oh, it jammed. Yeah, that's what they do. They suck. The best thing the anti-gunners could do is given them away. They are jam-o-matics. So what is being reconciled here? How am I being arrogant? Because I actually know what I am talking about?
in the US, a concealed carry program that is rigorously administered as well as making manufacturers liable for advertisements and the gun culture they foster would be several ways to achieve these without infringing on a US citizen's right to self defence. We would have to compromise. you're willing to do that, right?
Compromise requires your side give something. All I see is people taking something. Everyone said 10 rounds was acceptable. See what happened in NY? 7 rounds is now the "safe" limit. There is no compromise here. It's all take and no give. If people would actually listen to gun owners, you would know we don't want people to die and that we know how to prevent it. Focus on dangerous people and not on us with no records. But really all people do is focus on plastic boxes and black colored rifles because they want to ban guns and are doing everything and anything to make it happen. Meanwhile lunatics in the subways will continue to kill a few people every month in NYC and the next lunatic school killer will be working on his pipe bombs. Don't believe me?
No, I am not. A large number of guns used in cartel violence in Mexico that come from the US are not civilian legal in the US. ie; the mexican army and police are letting them out the back door. You have a highly corrupt government there. Also, there are a lot of half truthes coming out of Fox/Calderon's government re: trace data. A lot of US arms supply the military and police and they only trace stuff that they think will actually be traced to the US. This is why 90% trace rates are being seen. But they don't trace everything for obvious reasons. A lot of stuff comes from Honduras and other SA countries. But again, it's not my bias here that is clouding the issue. My rights are not subject to punishment because of the bad actions of others. Just like it's absurd to punish two children because one of them misbehaved, it's absurd to punish me for the actions of others, especially when those others are corrupt foreign government leaders.
I don't have a problem with my argument. You assume you have actual facts and not lies perpetuated by a lazy media. The vast majority of guns illegally trafficked are stolen and very few, less than 10%, are bought new by straw buyers. The time to crime for a gun in the US is 10 years. That means on average, it takes 10 years from first sale before a gun is used in a crime.
If an RPG is not covered, then a nuke wouldn't be either and I didn't think I needed to draw that distinction. If it wasn't clear, I stated that defensive arms were. As for court cases, Us. v. Miller (1934) and DC v. Heller (2008). Read them and you will see that guns in common use (AR 15s are mighty common) for both individual and the common defense.
As for what a person would be faced with, it's the same as what a cop would be faced with. Here is a guy who needed it. He is not the only one.
What??? You don't know the law. While it's per se legal for someone to buy a bunch of ARs, it's a strong indication of a straw purchase and the FFLs are required to not sell them and these FFLs along the border . The FFLs were told by the ATF to proceed on the sales. The electronic tracker program was only one of the programs and that was not implemented on all 2500 guns but only a handful of them.
Learn the law and get your facts straight. The US government intentionally trafficked firearms so they could track those firearms to mexican crime scenes. In other words, the guns were needed to be used before they could be tracked.
I can't believe how many people believe the bull shit of the anti gun crowd like it's real.
I replied with data points that refuted his absolutist statement. I have a job and a volunteer position that I need to attend to and can do everyone's homework for them.
If you want to investigate this issue please do and you will realize that respected economists and others have found no correlation, much less causation, of gun control policy v. actual gun violence (eliminating suicides from the mix). Even ones who were originally antigun and who thought they would find the opposite. Start with John Lott.
B. Tens of thousands of guns end up in Mexico from the US. Mexico is actually pleading with the US to restrict sales so that a kid can't go in and buy 20 heavy weapons to smuggle across the border.
C. The guns are coming from the surrounding areas, they would be just as dangerous (or more) if they allowed guns. A (geographically) broader ban on guns would bring down the gun deaths.
Yes, The US government is actually supplying those guns to mexican cartels (google fast and furious cartel guns) and I am sure things will be peachy once all of us are disarmed in all of North america. It's not like the governments don't supply guns to bad people...
Sorry, distilling not fermenting. You are right there in my haste I didn't make the distinction.