champu

The above seems very reasoned to me; it would be about as much as you could ask of a crap situation. If you can get away, great, if you have to hole up then it'd be really really nice if at least one of the people you're holed up with has a CCW. CCW holders shouldn't play superhero and by and large they don't (yes I'm aware of the guy at the gas station in Houston.) California just (signed yesterday) banned CCW holders from carrying on the grounds of a K-12, college, or university unless you're retired law enforcement. It was already illegal to get within 1000 ft of any school with a loaded gun without a CCW and California is one of the most restrictive states when issuing CCW permits (or in the case of LA and SF when not issuing permits; the civilian CCW rate for those two counties are 17 and 2.4 ppm respectively.)

I don't decide what I can and can't afford to spend money on based solely on the median household income in the United States. I started jumping a camera when I had about 450 jumps and I started jumping a Velocity when I had 1800 jumps. (and, obviously, I started jumping when I had zero jumps.) When I jump with a camera or with a Velocity or at all I am not simply rolling the dice against the injury and fatality statistics of all jumps made with a camera, Velocity, or at all. Likewise, when I keep firearms in my house I am not simply rolling the dice against injury and fatality statistics of every house with a firearm in it.

What are some firearm or firearm-related regulations we have in this country either at the national level or in one of the states that you think we should (or at least could) do away with? All I ask is that it not be some archaic unenforced nonsense like, "In state X there's an 18XX law that says everyone must be armed in church."

Where're you from? Chicago. Oh? Where in Chicago? Outside Chicago. Oh? Where outside Chicago? Milwaukee.

Two things... 1) If someone in your house "has a mental condition" (I would just say, "is a prohibited person") I would suggest firearms can be stored safely away from them without being in another house. I don't think it's substantially different from locking your guns in a safe and not giving your children the combination. If someone is so dangerous that they can't even be near a locked safe with firearms in it, then you need to do more with that person than move the safe farther away. 2) While I agree that, say, storing all your firearms in a safe loaded and with a round chambered is a bad idea, I don't much care for the "ammo locked up separately" requirement while storing (or transporting) firearms idea. This question comes up a lot in CA where someone will ask in a forum, "How should I transport firearms to the range?" And there's always one person who wants to put a cable lock through the action, a trigger lock on there, lock the thing in a hard sided case, wrap the boxes of ammo in packing tape, lock that in another hard sided case, and make two trips. At some point you need to get a grip. There are pros and cons unrelated to security with storing ammunition in a gun safe with guns but you'll be hard pressed to convince me that taking the ammo out of the safe and putting it behind a padlock 20 ft away, just so that they're separate, makes things more secure.

In California the parents would be facing felony charges (see P.C. 25100 et seq) and I wouldn't have a problem if that law were more widely adopted in the country. I would also point out, however, that a couple CA city councils (guess which two) have passed ordinances whose purpose is to strike 25105 (a) and (g) from the above code. (And (c) in the original versions but police unions got them to take that out) Ordinarily one might think state law would preempt things like this, but SCOTUS let it stand. So to recap... a) something can be done (demonstrably) b) it is a slippery slope (demonstrably) c) the second amendment isn't going to stop the slide until you're at the bottom of the hill (demonstrably)

I don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility to determine if you had been issued a permit at the time you're convicted of a disqualifying crime and demand you surrender the card and weapons (perhaps a manditory consignment sale at a gun dealer or something.) I'm not sure there's a particular way I'd like to handle people who "lost" their card and then committed a disqualifying crime, but I'd be open to suggestions. Regarding ownership permit vs. CCW they are two different things in California. The ownership permit is just a written test and there's a study guide online. Mostly basic safety questions and then a few, "did you read the study guide" questions. A bit like a written drivers test or USPA license test. You can take it at any dealer and it's good for five years. I think it's pretty reasonable. The first requirement for CCW permits in California is that you not live in LA, SD, or SF as the sheriffs in those counties simply don't issue them. After that it varies by county but usually involves classroom time, fingerprinting, and shooting qualification with each gun you want listed on the permit. Blatant violations of the 14th amendment by a handful of sheriffs notwithstanding, it isn't a bad system.

I think a "clear to buy" card, as we've discussed here in the past, would be an easy to implement and minimally intrusive measure. In states where you currently have to go to a dealer for all PPTs, it would actually be an improvement. A pleasant side effect of implementing it would be that the gun control crowd wouldn't be able to lead off their list of suggestions with demanding universal background checks anymore, they'd have to jump right in with all the less sensible things they want to do and I think fewer moderate people would fall for it. I would also like to point out that I don't think implementing this will do much of anything to prevent violence. At this point it's just a small, worthwhile price to pay to get people to shut the hell up about it. As far as other types of laws, I don't have much to add to this: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4482149#4482149

I suppose it depends on what happens after you receive the treatment or service you're entitled to. I think there was an episode of Last Week Tonight recently where Oliver was discussing this, and how it can go wrong, as it relates to public defenders. You could always ask him to clarify, he is right there (but maybe don't suggest he has a brain injury this time.)

So which one is "more of a right", to use his own words? i think his observation is that positive rights are inherently "more of a right" in practice than negative rights. Being allowed to do something is a weaker mandate than being entitled to it. Further, his comment points out that healthcare is indeed a positive right in this country via emergency rooms. That's not to say ERs are a great way of implementing healthcare as a positive right, it's just to say that they do.

What makes you say that? He just illustrated one of the differences between positive and negative rights.

I'm unaware of any political parties whose national platform includes limiting cars to no more than two forward gears and 50 horsepower. Everything else is a "street dragster" and we all know speed kills. You can keep the vehicles you already have but you can't sell them or drive them within 1000 ft of a school. Likewise there's no political party that thinks speed limits and drivers license revocations are fundamentally bullshit. Nobody here really even acknowledges how poorly anti-gun politicians that they support behave when their reins are off (as demonstrated by the legislatures in a handful of states and as left largely unchecked by federal courts.) Even if we do agree on what might be reasonable measures our actual political choices are "nothing" and "every bit of pig-headed idiocy they can get away with" so long as we don't actually communicate ideas to representatives. Right now the only ones doing it are the NRA et al. and Bloomberg et al.

Just great, now we'll have to suffer invasive product placement in recruitment videos as they try to supplement their income with sponsors. Queue guy breath stroking up to a dock in broad daylight with a balaclava over his head and a knife in his teeth like a moron trying to sneak up on the Worst Guard Ever (tm). After he dead-fishes himself onto the dock and stands up the camera snap-zooms to show his (somehow dry) pair of New Balance, just before he grabs the guard by the forehead and puts a knife to his throat. ... ...okay now queue the New Balance fans objecting to my suggestion that they would sponsor ISIL.

This is a statement, along with its variations, that comes up fairly frequently in these arguments. "Police have it hard and they just want to go home at the end of the day." Food for thought: At my work we have a cafeteria. Most of the people that work there are cool. I see them regularly and we shoot the shit when we interact. However, I will say, one of the guys that works there pretty clearly "just wants to go home at the end of the day." (That's not exactly a very endearing way to speak about someone, particularly if you're trying to defend them.) I think many police officers have priorities that rank above "just wanting to go home at the end of the day" and, as I've said before, that's why the profession is supposed to be revered. As a constructive exercise, can you think of some examples?

It pains me to say it but... http://tinyurl.com/o26ty56

Well, I'll just say it'd be nice if the pendulum didn't swing that far. Kids will be kids which is why if this story was about 5-year olds, I'd be more upset. At some point you're an adult, you keep your hands off other people, and assault is assault. In between are teaching moments. It's the phase when stressing rehab/fixing people over punishment/isolation from others is the most critical imo. Whether the school does this or the county does it I don't really care as long as we're not talking sex offender registries and felonies on adult records. Doing nothing to speak of about this kinda of behavior is dong the same thing and expecting different results with respect to people growing up to be real pieces of work.

Are you calling me a liar? The idea that you would follow such an objection with criticisms of other posters' reading comprehension is pretty funny. The statement that you'd have to be lying about having been a cop in order to think that suicide by cop wasn't a thing (regardless of whether the other poster misunderstood your thoughts on suicide by cop) is clearly just a construct for emphasis. Equally funny is that other posters point fingers about how this kinda nonsense has degraded the quality of discussions around here in any direction but yours for your incessant spinning of just about any topic off in the direction of goading others into getting warnings from the mods.

For reference: http://www.assaultandbattery.org/maryland/ On the bright side, he did it on a dare and is being charged as a juvenile, so that checks out. On the not so bright side, he didn't sneak up and give her a peck on the cheek, he grabbed her and pulled her in a direction which, at least in Maryland, would appear to be second degree assault. Maybe someone here who knows thing one about juvenile court cases can correct me, but my understanding is it is the sentencing that's most tailored to the person being underage, not so much the laws. So as long as we're talking community service or probation/counciling (or have McFly tell him to get his damn hands off of her and punch away his inner Biff so he's not a complete asshole come 1985) then I'll reserve my over-reaction outrage.

Most of your post is fine, but this line stands out like a sore thumb. If anyone, LEO or otherwise, raises or swings a baton at another person, it is completely unreasonable to expect them to do anything except to try and grab the baton if they are capable of doing so. This reaction is, frankly, completely independent of the events leading up to the situation.

I already knew what that meant, but only owed to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

That's not a suitcase bomb. I would debunk it myself but thanks to the internet I can be lazy and just provide a link. Turns out it's a tradeshow/demo case made by Honeywell to show off products. A bomb isn't going to have that many electronic components in it. You don't actually need any electronics. As far as electronics go, a bomb is going to be have either a small project breadboard with a few DIP components, a small commercial micro controller board like a PIC, HC11, or an Arduino (if they want to get really fancy), or cell phone (See my linked post in post #24, that was a roadside IED) Here are two actual, actual suitcase bombs: http://i.imgur.com/LjV3TGs.png https://ellisonblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/suitcasebomb.jpg

Is the kid hypothetically a comic book super villain or something? Who builds a bomb with the intention of setting it off in a public place but first shows it off to numerous authority figures?

That's neither here nor there. You can simply refer to it as a "hoax device" or something of that nature and just like that it's terrifying and wrong to have brought in to school again.

The picture of the nerdy kid wearing glasses, a NASA t-shirt, and handcuffs is priceless. I made a couple posts about my thoughts on "fake bombs" eight years ago here, and my thoughts haven't changed much. If you want to prevent an attack of some sort you do have to empower people to report things they find suspicious. That we seem to have in spades. Now we need to work on better understanding that this will lead to false alarms, and get a hell of a lot better at ramping down reactions to them. The, "oh shit! it's happening!!!1one!" response seems to be very contagious, and people go all wing attack plan R when they tell the next level of authority what's happening.

That was awesome. g'ahn lilly hilly hunta jan soothing putta rife enmal ham senmel hoff tula forni anne toboggan ill, the pillow yeah!