951–960 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The wide availability of guns seems to be one of the major underlying reasons for the evil police. Taking them away wouldn't magically fix things, but it would help keep things from regressing after fixing the more direct problems
>The wide availability of guns seems to be one of the major underlying reasons for the evil police. What? Wrongful police shootings may dominate the headlines but they are a rounding error compared to asset forfeiture abuse, discriminatory enforcement, lesser forms of police violence and good ol' influence peddling. For everyone that's shot for no good reason there's hundreds of people who are unnecessarily roughed u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The wide availability of guns seems to be one of the major underlying reasons for the evil police. Taking them away wouldn't magically fix things, but it would help keep things from regressing after fixing the more direct problems
Show me a gun control law that doesn’t explicitly exempt police.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd assume individuals who want a permit vs campus with concentrated amounts of high-net-worth individuals is a different problem. I can't fathom why anyone would want to live in a place where they themselves need a CCW permit to feel safe.
Appropriate handle. Some people live in the woods. Some people are head of security for large corporations that run into all manner of physical threats, potential kidnappings or literal geopolitical adversaries (head of security at apple; probably needs to carry a pistol more than the average cop). Some people are former police or some other kind of sheepdog. Some people have crazy exes who might kill them.
They can probably use a very limited type of weapon, none of the crazy weapons you can buy nowadays are necessary
> Some people are head of security for large corporations that run into all manner of physical threats, potential kidnappings or literal geopolitical adversaries
I'd assume that in these special cases you'd have highly trained individuals who would hold very expensive licenses instead of... anyone being able to take such a job.
> Some people are former police or some other kind of sheepdog
I'm not sure why you would need a gun
> Some people have crazy exes who might kill them
You definitely don't need a gun
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do Apple guards need to carry guns in the first place? Those guards should just be monitoring and alerting real law enforcement if a break-in happens. If someone goes postal, then I guess there should be several normal folks at Apple already carrying and able to protect the general public.
> If someone goes postal, then I guess there should be several normal folks at Apple already carrying and able to protect the general public. So your solution is other, probably lesser-trained, individual Apple employees should be concealed-carrying so they can respond to a workplace shooting? Let's ignore that Apple probably doesn't allow this in the first place but even if they did I would not want to work in an en…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If someone goes postal, then I guess there should be several normal folks at Apple already carrying and able to protect the general public. So your solution is other, probably lesser-trained, individual Apple employees should be concealed-carrying so they can respond to a workplace shooting? Let's ignore that Apple probably doesn't allow this in the first place but even if they did I would not want to work in an en…
Yeah, when you put it that way...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the latter, it's the FCPA. For the former, is there a specific act that's violated, or is it just part of the US Code?
The US Code is for bribing Federal officials. This one would presumably be the California felony bribery law, CA Penal Code § 67: "Every person who gives or offers any bribe to any executive officer (any public employee who is authorized to use his or her own discretion to carry out his or her lawful duties) in this state, with intent to influence him in respect to any act, decision, vote, opinion, or other proceedin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a reasonable policy position to take. "You shouldn't live anywhere where you think CCW is a good idea" is not a policy position; you're just attacking someone else for either where they live or how they feel about their personal safety. Neither of those are terribly polite, and both are counterproductive towards your stated policy preferences. Nobody likes being looked down on.
I disagree, by being pro-guns you make everybody's lives less safe around you IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd assume individuals who want a permit vs campus with concentrated amounts of high-net-worth individuals is a different problem. I can't fathom why anyone would want to live in a place where they themselves need a CCW permit to feel safe.
Appropriate handle. Some people live in the woods. Some people are head of security for large corporations that run into all manner of physical threats, potential kidnappings or literal geopolitical adversaries (head of security at apple; probably needs to carry a pistol more than the average cop). Some people are former police or some other kind of sheepdog. Some people have crazy exes who might kill them.
This is not OK.