Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

morganhilltimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#981

Post by scottlocklin »

baby wrote: post #975
scottlocklin wrote: post #961

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd assume that in these special cases.... You know, this situation is what we're talking about here. As for "special training" -you do realize that the special training police receive in firearms is more or less "how to kill people more efficiently," right? Exactly the same training given to civilian holders of concealed carry licenses in the US in states that require them. Seems kind of messed up that a guy with…

Well guess what, if enough people vote against guns then we'll get to decide that there's no gun for you : )

How's that working out for you?

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#982

Post by Schiendelman »

et-al wrote: post #928
fastball wrote: post #916

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is demonstrably worse in BA than in most other places in the US. Places like Japan don't seem to have much of a problem with it at all.

Places like Japan have negative birthrates and restrictive immigration policies. NIMBYism is a reaction to a sudden influx of newcomers to an area. As such, hot remote work spots like Bend, OR are very likely experiencing a similar NIMBYist mindset.

Tokyo has continuous growth, and almost no NIMBYism. While Japan as a whole has negative birthrates and restrictive immigration policies, Tokyo has neither.

The comment you’re responding to is a real, important difference between Japan’s response to growth (in the Tokyo area) and other cities and regions’ responses to growth. Handwaving it doesn’t help.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#983

Post by wl »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #973
mlindner wrote: post #962

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do in California. Please don't assume every state has the same laws.

No you dont. It would be silly if you needed a license to open or concealed carry on your own property. That would make it impossible for most Californians to perform gun maintenance at home or defend themselves from an intruder. Here's a decent summary from Gabby Giffords mentioning the right to carry at home and at work (requires permission of business owner but NOT necessarily landlord): https://giffords.org/lawce…

The problem is you're looking at one statute in isolation and not how courts have interpreted it in concert with other statutes.

Yes, sometimes you can lawfully open or concealed carry on your own property without needing a permit. But if it's open to the public, you need a permit.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php?title=Unlicensed...

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#984

Post by wl »

mlindner wrote: post #963
wl wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't require a CCW. The guards could easily get exposed firearms permits. They need the CCWs to carry concealed and off duty.

You do in California. Please don't assume every state has the same laws.

I was speaking specifically about California. Guards don't need CCWs to carry loaded and exposed. They just need a guard card and a firearms qualifications card issued by the BSIS.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#985

Post by Rebelgecko »

wl wrote: post #983
Rebelgecko wrote: post #973

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you dont. It would be silly if you needed a license to open or concealed carry on your own property. That would make it impossible for most Californians to perform gun maintenance at home or defend themselves from an intruder. Here's a decent summary from Gabby Giffords mentioning the right to carry at home and at work (requires permission of business owner but NOT necessarily landlord): https://giffords.org/lawce…

The problem is you're looking at one statute in isolation and not how courts have interpreted it in concert with other statutes. Yes, sometimes you can lawfully open or concealed carry on your own property without needing a permit. But if it's open to the public, you need a permit. http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php?title=Unlicensed...

Does Apple's campus meet that standard of being a quasi-public place? I think it's fenced in and access is by invitation only

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#986

Post by sgt »

joshstrange wrote: post #957
sgt wrote: post #956

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, when you put it that way...

Then help me understand. You have a shooting on the Apple campus, your ideal response is...? From your previous comment it sounds like you expected Apple employees who have their CCW and are carrying to handle it, was I mistaken?

In theory that could be a scalable approach. Citizens taking command and you will eventually have more armed people on Apple campus. But I tend to agree with your argument now. People just aren't trained for it.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#987

Post by maxerickson »

rkt88edmo wrote: post #971
maxerickson wrote: post #966

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's marketing is that the money is made in California. Designed by Apple in California has long appeared as a feel good on their products that are assembled overseas.

I would point you to all that cash sitting offshore that they can't repatriate back to the US, and can't seem to find productive use for in the countries where it sits. That is the direct result of tax planning. I haven't been keeping up with the cases, but I know Amazon won, and Coca-cola just lost, not sure where Apple's cases are in tax court. Hopefully they aren't an EY audit/tax client.

Okay. My belief is that their marketing is more indicative of their ethos than their tax planning though.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#988

Post by PEJOE »

rkt88edmo wrote: post #971
maxerickson wrote: post #966

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's marketing is that the money is made in California. Designed by Apple in California has long appeared as a feel good on their products that are assembled overseas.

I would point you to all that cash sitting offshore that they can't repatriate back to the US, and can't seem to find productive use for in the countries where it sits. That is the direct result of tax planning. I haven't been keeping up with the cases, but I know Amazon won, and Coca-cola just lost, not sure where Apple's cases are in tax court. Hopefully they aren't an EY audit/tax client.

They are in fact an EY client (as is Coke). Not sure about Amazon

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#989

Post by jki275 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #980
jki275 wrote: post #965

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly all gun control measures in the US are rooted in racism. Some in Jim Crow, some in other eras -- but most of them were to ensure that the "wrong people"* couldn't protect themselves.

The nfa wasn't, unless you're broadening anti-gang sentiment in the 30s to like anti Irish it italian sentiment. And it's dubious that this is true for other regulations against "assault weapons".

You don't think the 94 crime bill (AWB) was racist? Everyone else does...
Post reply on HN