This sounds less like an easy solution, and more like a feedback loop....

Slashdot:

Also Slashdot:

The USA's non-gun murder rate is also substantially higher than those same "developed" nations. Meaning: even if we could magically erase the guns and the crimes that went with them, the USA is still more bloody... and that's before you account for our lack of magic

Maybe the relevant factor in "gun violence" is the violence, not the gun?

Too lazy to find link, but in the CDC-commissioned report "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence" (after Newtown) examined several studies on defensive gun use. They concluded that defensive gun use seems to occur *at least* as often as criminal use, if not more often. Even the low-end estimates from the antigun crowd had over 100k defensive gun uses per year...

Defensive gun use only seems rare if you try to pull statistics of perpetrators killed by their victims. But as you might imagine, a lost of defensive gun uses don't even require the gun to be fired to end an attack...

Question: why would you expect a ban on ammunition (or ammo components) to be any more effective than a ban on drugs? Drug cartels already have an importation and distribution network in place, would it be hard for them to add a new product?

I wouldn't be so sure about that. After all, the worst school attack in US history wasn't a shooting, it was a bombing. The worst night club attack in US history wasn't a shooting, it was arson. The worst terrorist attack is US history wasn't a shooting, it was a hijacking. Why assume a knife, when rental trucks have proven so popular lately?

Indeed: the UK has less violent crime. For example, the USA's non-gun murder rate exceeds the UK's total murder rate. Which means even if you could wave a magic wand and remove all guns in the USA, and somehow magically prevented those criminals from switching weapons, the USA would still have more murder. Same with most other "developed" countries. And that's with the use of *magic*...

Of course, most historical sources seem to agree: the UK was drastically less violent than the USA even before they instituted gun control. It makes one wonder: if the UK was always less violent than the USA, with or without gun control, what do we hope to achieve with such comparisons?

When you add this to the other fact you pointed out (countries with high gun ownership rates without the same gun crime rates), I have to ask: why do you think guns are a relevant factor at all?

If you focus on the gun part of "gun violence", won't you be left with violence?

Ok, putting aside the fact the USA's non-gun murder rate exceeds the total murder rate of those same countries, and obviously Americans are simply more violent regardless of means...

My solution would be to stop treating "gun violence" like a separate and unique phenomenon. It's just violence that happened to include a gun. If you focus on the gun, you're guaranteed to be left with violence. If you focus on solving violence, however, you won't really need to worry about the guns...

But I'm not sure the problem is as "obvious" as you think though. From the early 90s for over 2 decades, violent crime including gun crime declined... despite gun sales soaring, carry permits becoming shall-issue, and assault weapon bans expiring. We reached a level of safety not seen since the '60s, while simultaneously loosening many gun laws. Why should such a long-term downward trend be treated like a spiraling epidemic?

Responsibility and accountability as you've described are also general concepts, not a tangible action. In order to make sure actions "not for the public good" have consequences, we'd have to agree on what "for the public good" means. At which point, we have the same problem with "freedom": what some believe is for the common good others believe is to the public detriment. What others would feel is an adequate consequence, others will feel is inadequate or overkill.

The concept of American Freedom was never anarchy, or doing whatever you want. It was about having intrinsic rights, and a government who's job it was to protect those rights. Sometimes the concept of American freedom involves NOT passing rules and laws that could benefit us, in order to give us the freedom to find our own way...

After all: if someone didn't have the freedom to decide a course of action, how could you reasonably hold them responsible or accountable for it?

If it was unpaid time off, I doubt many would complain. If they were just using their regular PTO and FMLA, I doubt many would complain either...

But some companies give out paid maternity/paternity leave as a perk, which is what I think the original complaint was aimed at. Which effectively means, those who choose to have a child get more PTO time than those who do not. In other words: pay discrimination based on parental status...

Until such time as college is freely and readily accessible to all, the University Quad will no longer be known as a public square...
Until such time as admission and parking is no longer charged, the county fairgrounds will no longer be known as a public square...
Until such time as transportation is freely and readily accessible to all, the literal public square will no longer be known as a public square....

The reality is, there are lots of "public squares" that happen to be run by publicly traded corporations. Or require an expense to utilize them. Privately owned public spaces commonly include plazas, arcades, small parks, and atriums. Many cities worldwide, including Auckland, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, Seoul, and Toronto, have privately owned public spaces.

To say that the Facebook Platform (which is NOT a publicly traded corporation, it's the product of one) cannot be considered a "public square" simply because it is owned (or requires an expense) seems ridiculous given the public squares that already fit that description. Full stop.

Trade secrets are intellectual property that is not generally known to the public, confers economic benefit on its holder because the information is not publicly known, and where the holder makes reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

The pages of "internal research" this person copied were Facebook's intellectual property, not simply "choices that they made". Judging from the complaint, it seems to have conferred an economic benefit. And Facebook has attempted to maintain its secrecy. This would appear to be a trade secret. To say otherwise would be a bit like saying I didn't steal a trade secret by stealing the KFC original recipe, because that's just some choices a Kentucky Colonel made...

Further, by the whistleblower's own admission, much of what Facebook was doing wasn't illegal. Certainly not the internal research that was copied. The only thing anyone is suggesting might be illegal is lying to investors, and the only evidence of that is "they lied to the public, so they must have.... right?"

And imagine what today's world would be if protesting regardless of subject matter had no consequences....

How are they supposed to "know" their communities to this extent while respecting things like the 4th Amendment and privacy? Especially when we demand the cops remove their surveillance systems (rightfully) citing privacy concerns?

A mail truck was torched in Minnesota...

Supposedly this is why they started monitoring protests last spring: because of the potential threat to Postal Service workers and buildings. An uptick in threats against Postmaster General Louis DeJoy probably didn't help either...

I wonder what sort of interesting things will suddenly be called "proactive fraud prevention"...