yup. what if the standards of journalism return to the level before FN is often a quandary; would it be a boon or a bust?

i'd like it. 'tho many shepherds would lose their sheep.*

might take any news the same way a body would gather from people in their own lives. some folks are credible, some not, & some are a bear to get anything out of 'em. try that w/retail news sources.

personally, the FACT Hannity said this only underlines FN is a second-hand rag seller. poor quality product w/sales staff pushing the hard sale.

patrons get what they buy.

hope Murdoch & cronies get hammered for billions. they need to give back all those ill-gotten gains.



*the 'net has many CREDIBLE sources. some browsers have translation features built in, so impartial reports can be obtained if'n American media reviles yah so.

My understanding is that it is legal for anyone to purchase and possess lock picking tools. Seller does have to obtain info regarding purchaser, but just basic stuff.

Here are the California codes regarding such tools.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?chapter=3.&part=1.&lawCode=PEN&title=13.

Assault weapon bans. Effectively making illegal the most common rifle in the country (ar15) - even though it's statistically tiny in terms of gun killings.
(~450 people killed per year with all forms of rifle. Only some of that is ar15. That's the ~same amount of people as what die yearly from falling out of bed.)

Suppressor bans. Illegalizing an item that has been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning DIY non-commercial firearms. Illegalizing firearms that have been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning Private Sales (aka gunshow loophole). Effectively banning transfers between family and friends. Even though nearly all illegal arms are acquired by straw purchase at conventional stores by girlfriends.
And commercial sellers at gun shows have to do background checks anyways - this is much ado about old geezers trading collectible wild west / ww2 / antique shit.

Nearly all people are killed by pistols. Nobody is calling for a pistol ban. It makes things like an AWB look like a disingenuous effort - because you can pass all sorts of non-pistol-banning gun control laws and there will be no effect on gun death stats. Meaning you can just make more and more stuff illegal forever so long as you save what really matters (pistols) for last.

Between city, county, state, federal, existing gun laws are fat like an encyclopedia. Most people, unless they are 'gun folk', don't even realize the ways you can go to jail. Put a vertical grip in a pistol and posted it to instagram? Enjoy your time with the ATF. 10 years and $100k, assuming you're lax enough to not hire a lawyer to knock it down a bit. Literally volumes of ways to go to jail for shit you wouldn't even imagine would matter.

Many things people complain about aren't even a thing. Like complaining about buying guns online (you can't, not without an FFL involved), or crazy people buying guns (they can't, unless they've yet to be caught doing crazy shit).

Too many laws as it is. Erase a bunch first.

-scheherazade

OMG you moronic liar...how can you make so dishonestly imbecilic a claim? Thought I wouldn't check?

First;
BLM.com = The BLM Transportation Group-Safety & Compliance. The person behind the wheel is the key to on time service. Safeco Driver Services provides our drivers with an extensive orientation including updates on safety and compliance, as well accident ...
(Blm.gov = bureau of land management)
(Blm.org = biglife -SUPPORT DISASTER RELIEF. With people in place across the globe, Biglife is providing hope and resources to those who need it most. Please join our efforts. )

Obviously you didn't go to the site, you're taking someone else's word, cutting and pasting without rubbing two brain cells together and repeating the lie of someone who lies to you constantly.


Second; So obviously the actblue charities bullshit you spouted didn't come from where you cite, and is 100% lies you feculent liar....yep, sho nuff.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/donations-to-black-lives-matter-group-dont-go-to-dnc/

Actblue charities doesn't give money donated to Bernie to Warren, just as it doesn't give the money given to BLM to any other charity, campaign, or person. If it's donated to BLM, it goes to BLM. They are a facilitator for progressive candidates and charities, not a fraudulent charity (like the fake charities Trump ran stealing money from veterans, admitted to, and is why his family is banned from running any charities). What you dishonestly claim is like saying because 10 people on eBay used PayPal, you can attribute every penny spent through PayPal to those sellers, or that if you donate to any gofundme it goes to one of 10 projects they chose in secret, not the project you gave to.

So brain numbingly stupid a claim, of course you just bought it the second Inforwars put it out there without a thought.

Again, because I know understanding isn't your strong suit, what you claim is happening when you donate to Black Lives Matter is not happening, but is EXACTLY what Trump did with his charities when he raised money for wounded veterans and pocketed it all, then pleaded guilty and paid $3 million in penalties and was banned from charity work for life. LMFAHS!

Gullible isn't in the dictionary either, Bob. Made you look.
Fuck, you make me so worried for humanity.

Has Beck told you any of these "known" cases of massive democratic voter fraud? I'm still waiting. Why don't you want to tell us about the bad bad liberals, daddy?

Anybody else remember the faux outrage over the ridiculous claims that Democrats were human traffickers and baby sellers, culminating in an armed attack on the pizza restaurant that was supposed to be the headquarters of the child slavery ring?
I member.
Odd the same outraged morons are silent now, when there are actual victims and charges levied and not just paranoid delusions.

What say you to those who grow their own food, produce their own power with microhydro, solar, and or wind, (or only buy renewable energy, possible in California) and drive electric vehicles or bicycles when they drive?

What about those who still pollute, but offset their carbon usage by buying credits/planting trees?

Can they blame the problem on the companies who supply destructive products and the junk science that tricks gullible ignoramuses into believing they aren't destructive...or do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

I mean, your position seems to be if you assholes wouldn't buy the lead painted products, we wouldn't be selling it to toy companies and producing studies claiming it's safe....so it's your fault your child is brain damaged....or the same argument over opioids, your fault you listened to your doctor and got addicted, then turned to heroin, not your doctor who told you the pills weren't addictive, certainly not the drug company who told your doctor they were safe, right?
Fortunately, courts don't think that way, just ask Johnson and Johnson.

Yes, customers bear some responsibility for what they buy, but not nearly as much as the sellers, especially true when the sellers advertise by lying about the dangers. When companies lie about their products dangers, they make themselves 100% responsible for their damages.

You guys think that vegans are lying?

It's a shame you do not scrutinize the sellers of these products, as much as you do with vegans - Where is the *they lied to us* comments from the meat eaters about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83q9oamxmvQ

Clearly blatant number fudging, but people are happy to overlook it because vegans are the annoying ones right?

Every single study that shows animal products are good, or neutral are funded by the people that sell them. I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO FIND A STUDY THAT SHOWS ADDING ANY ANIMAL PRODUCT TO A DIET MAKES IT HEALTHIER - WHICH ISN'T TIED/LINKED TO THE INDUSTRY. In 5 years I'm yet to find one, and almost all of them have very audacious number fudging and statistic manipulation like the above egg study.

Now compare that to the 400 studies that came out last year showing meat has detrimental effects for us...... not coming from vegans. (and this happens each and every year, since 1970).



(There are also plenty of doctors who aren't vegans (like John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Dean Ornish) who all make very strong points about avoiding animal products.) These guys still eat meat on special occasions, so clearly not vegan.

I think there are 3 real issues with 3D printed guns that are genuinely new dangers worth being concerned about.

1. They completely avoid background checks.

2. They're untraceable to a gun seller.

3. They could lead to relatively inexpensive and unregistered fully automatic weapons.

It does seem that plastic guns are not worth worrying about because they're so terrible. But, metal shaping CNC Mills aren't that expensive and can do a decent job of printing guns at home.

I can't really buy the argument that no one will be interested in printing out machine guns because of the existing criminal penalties. If someone is planning a murder or bank robbery or terrorist attack, they're already expecting a life sentence if they're caught. And, even if they plan to get away with it, a gun that can do the job really well, has no history to trace, and can be destroyed or disposed of right after could just make the crime easier to get away with.

Hilarious.
I hope they deny the water girl in SF.

A girl and her mom set up shop in front of a residential building they don't live at and all day screamed their water selling slogans at passersby. They were repeatedly asked to move by building security, and they refused. Eventually, a resident came out and asked them to move and called local police (not 911) to see if they needed a permit. She is being portrayed as another BBQ Becky (the woman who called police about people illegally charcoal grilling in a public park annoying park users) as if there's something wrong with calling police on people breaking the law.
She, not the water sellers, should have access to free legal advice.
It's disgusting to me that so many have jumped on the 'lets call them racists and viciously mob them if they're caught in public because they are white and they called police on black people....people who were actually breaking the law and being exceptionally rude and disruptive about it when asked to move to a legal area.' bandwagon.

Private background checks is full of privacy, communication, and liability issues, true, but that could be solved in various ways.
In gun store private sales, that's how California does it.
Does it stop all criminal sales? Clearly not. Does it minimize them and hold illegal sellers who ignore the law accountable for what others do with the guns they illegally sold, making illegally selling a criminal your gun insane? Yes.
If it was the law nation wide, would it severely curtail the illicit gun trade, and have a positive impact on gun crime rates? Absolutely, zero question.
Would it stop it altogether? Duh, no, no law is a panacea, the death penalty doesn't stop all murders, but it definitely stops most. That is not how law works. No law has EVER stopped the crimes they regulate altogether except those that legalize the crime out of existence....like legal marijuana eradicated illegal pot smokers completely.

The obvious solution would be to allow anybody to access and put a request into the NICS system. There's no reason they couldn't do this, and any private seller would use it unless would sell a weapon to a prohibitive person anyway.

Donald Trump toilet paper would be a hot seller.

Daaaaaaaamn! I ain't been "You're the wizard stoned" in AGES!

Every now and then, I get a little misty-eye'd for the days of yore when ultra-high-grade pot wasn't available at every corner store.

I recall the days of lurking narcs in city parks; being out in the middle of a drought; going to a head shop to buy a bong then getting kicked out 'cuz I asked for it wrong (the magic word was "Tobacco", not "pot", you twat!)

The pot was stemmy, the sellers seedy, and I didn't care because I was hella needy.

But once a year, just 'fore November, would come the time I most remember because it was in those shortening days when I'd hear a rumor of Purple Haze, Ghost Train OG -- I'd be stoned for DAYS! Finally, the good stuff came from coastal plots, a plethora of the finest pots; time to dance and restore my stash: shit, I might even score some HASH!

My friends would come by and we'd all get high, never aware of time passing us by. We laughed, we munched, we floated along with hits from the joints and pulls from the bong. We never imagined dabs or wax, we were satisfied with bud: nothing wrong with those facts.

Now I buy an a gram or two -- Dirty Girl; Gorilla Glue -- and satisfied that my wife's in bed, I once again become a Head. I remember all those days gone by when there was no greater goal than just getting high. I recall them fondly -- if somewhat hazy -- and know that life without pot is just a little too crazy.

He didn't have full auto, he used a bump fire stock.
Full auto fires around 20hz. Well practiced bump firing is around 10hz. Well practiced semi auto pull is around 6hz.

Bump firing also sprays so bad it's not aimable beyond a few feet distance. The gun community is even more surprised than other people, most considered the bump stock as a joke doo dad for making noise and wasting money.





All vendors, even at a gun show, must do background checks.

All private sellers, regardless of where (at home, gun show, on the street, wherever), are not required to do checks - but are in practice held liable for subsequent gun crimes if they can't prove they had no idea the buyer was shady.

There is absolutely nothing special about gun shows. The gun show loophole is an entirely imaginary issue (I explained this earlier).




A traceable gun is just as capable of shooting a person as an untraceable gun.



Yes, anyone can put together that arsenal.
Especially anyone with a squeaky clean record who qualifies to be a gun owner no matter what the restriction - like the Vegas shooter.

Hence why *nothing proposed* would have had *any impact* on the Vegas events, short of confiscation raids nation wide and capital punishment for possession.





The reply was to : "You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't."

I have two interpretations of that chart

1) (my initial thought)
Assault understood as the legal meaning (brandishing, threatening, not necessarily killing).
Discharge understood as firing.
This is what the original math was based on.
But yes, it seems senseless because how can you die to brandishing?

You are correct regarding the "per year".
The original math does include the mistake of thinking it was cause of death, not per year chance of death.
That alters the result from 350'000 lifetimes for a 50/50 chance, down to 350'000 years for a 50/50 chance. AKA 4600 lifetimes worth of years for a 50/50 chance in the next year.

2) (your [likely correct] thought)
Assault understood as being fired upon.
Discharge understood as accidental (what else could it mean?)
This variant is computed below.
However, this challenges conventional assertion, because the common assertion is that accidents kill more than intentional. Maybe that assertion is crap.

1/24974 as caused by assault
That's a 99.995995835669095859694081845119% chance of dying by a cause OTHER than firearms.
Which requires around 17'000 trials for the chance of the next death to be 50% by firearm.
I.E. 99.995995835669095859694081845119% ^ 17'000 = 50.625%, or about 50/50.
AKA 226 lifetimes worth of years to have a 50/50 chance of death by firearm in the next year.

Referring to the study I linked earlier :
http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life
#2 version has a similar death chance to the polstats link, so the #2 variant is likely the appropriate understanding (not my initial understanding).

-schehearzade