Mass Murder Is a Choice. The Gun Industry Made It
krayj @ krayj @sh.itjust.works Posts 0Comments 295Joined 2 yr. ago
krayj @ krayj @sh.itjust.works
Posts
0
Comments
295
Joined
2 yr. ago
Draft dodging piece of shit tries telling me, a left leaning veteran of the US Marine Corps, that I am vermin...on veteran's day. Yeah, get fucked, asshole.
Please define your new take in the interpretation of the word "sole".
The actual sole purpose of what most people refer to as an "assault rifle" is just to be a modern, reliable, modular platform that can be customized to fit the needs and use cases of the owner. It's good at that, and so it's good at being customized for a lot of different uses.
The hunting argument you make is dumb. You would need to turn around and argue that any advancement of any produce anywhere that allows it to perform even marginally better than absolutely necessary needs to be undone. The fastest posted speed limit in the united states is 85mph, and yet every modern vehicle can exceed that by a lot...some of them by double. It doesn't mean the sole purpose of the car is to break speed limits.
If you break it down by time used for any one specific purpose, then the primary use case of an assault weapon is to be stored in a box or a case, unused (that is what the vast majority are doing the vast majority of time). I would argue the primary purpose is synonymous to the use case of an insurance policy (something you have in case you need it but don't actually ever use it). The next most common use (by time spent performing in the role) is to exist solely as a show-of-force without even being fired -and that seems to work pretty well because just imagining the appearance of one tends to get people upset and agitated. For the rifles that actually get used regularly, practice is another common use (using it to maintain proficiency with marksmanship skills) and also shooting for fun (which isn't always/necessarily practice) is a common use case. In the past, I have used mine for both hunting and for protection against potentially dangerous wile animals while hiking through the vast wilderness of the pacific northwest - I personally don't like the idea of having to mess around with a clumsy bolt action in the event I might need to fire multiple shots.
From the gun manufacturer's perspective, the 'sole purpose' of "assault rifles" isn't to "kill people as fast as possible", it's to: sell weapons and make profit. The "sole purpose" of a thing is defined by the user...and at least in the united states that means a lot of things other than killing people.
Hey, you're right. I also use my butter knife for a lot of things other than butter, such as: brie, jelly, jam, nutella, spreading mayo, cutting my over-easy eggs, etc. Yeah, it turns out it's useful for a lot more than just butter. It's almost as if it's a multipurpose tool that has many different and acceptable uses. I think you're on to something.
The sub-headline of the article claims there is no purpose for "assault weapons" other than killing people.
each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible
Is this article trying to tell me I'm using mine wrong? Because I use mine only for things that don't involve killing people.
Yeah, this was predicted by everyone, long in advance. The surprising thing here is how long they've managed to cling to life. I expected them to be deceased by now. I didn't think they'd last another three years, let alone five.
There were two races in my local school district that I just voted on. I don't even have kids of my own, but it's important to me that the next generation gets the best education possible. Since I didn't know any of the candidates, I was digging up their backgrounds and endorsements and a couple of them were proudly affiliated with "Moms for Liberty"...and that is an automatic 'nope' from me. That group is a toxin with a carefully chose name to sound reasonable. They aren't.
You Have a Right to Know Why a Health Insurer Denied Your Claim. Some Insurers Still Won’t Tell You.
Jump
I don't even understand why there is a burden on the part of the insured to have to make a written request for this.
If you have a claim that is denied, the insurer should be required to provide the full details and reasons for the denial automatically at the time of the denial.
State population of California is roughly 39 million. State population of Florida is roughly 22 million. That alone covers 18% of the US population.
For California: see California Family Code, Chapter 2, Section 6250, Paragraph (A) here: https://studentaffairs.fresnostate.edu/survivoradvocate/documents/CA Victim Protection Statutes.pdf
Excerpt from the 'requirements' section:
a person’s allegation of a recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse
For Florida: see 2023 Florida Statutes, Title XLIII (43) Domestic Relations, Chapter 741, Section 740.30. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0741/Sections/0741.30.html
Relevant excerpt describing the requirements and process:
(a) Any person described in paragraph (e), who is either the victim of domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28 or has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of any act of domestic violence, has standing in the circuit court to file a sworn petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence. (f) This cause of action for an injunction shall not require that either party be represented by an attorney.
In both states, all it takes is the unsubstantiated claim of the accuser on a sworn petition to 'claim they feel afraid'. Funny that you lead with "I'm an attorney" when the process doesn't even require an attorney in Florida. I'm not going to waste my time looking this up for each and every state, but I'll assert that Florida is not alone on the lack of requirement for an attorney to file the motion. I'll also assert that neither California nor Florida are alone in the fact that neither require any evidence beyond the say-so of the accuser claiming they feel threatened. But since you do claim to be an attorney, I invite you to read those state statutes, tell me I'm wrong, and assert that the process cannot be weaponized by the accuser just to make life a living hell for the accused. When was the last time you even heard of someone suffering any consequences at all for filing a falsified petition for restraining order? I'll bet never. I've witnessed several instances of this happing with zero consequences, not against me, but against friends and family) and even after being proven false later in an actual court proceeding, there were zero consequences for the falsified petition even when the financial and reputational damage caused to the accused was substantial.
If you really are an attorney, you must practice in a jurisdiction with stricter requirements. Lucky you. The topic we are discussing is a national issue, not a local-to-you one, so you must consider the reality that not all jurisdictions are like yours.
What do you even mean? Preponderance of the evidence is the standard used in most jurisdictions.
You're wrong.
or put someone in fear of imminent serious physical harm.
What do you think the legal test for this is? It's nothing more than someone claiming they are in fear.
Most jurisdictions will issue a restraining order solely on the claims of the filer. But if you want to save yourself some time verifying this, just look up state of California (biggest jurisdiction in the US). Word of the accuser is all it takes. Then go look up the state of California guide for bench judges which requires judges to also revoke gun ownership rights for anyone who is the subject of a restraining order.
The restraining order process can be (and regularly is) weaponized, without evidence, by people who just want to make life a living hell for their ex who pissed them off, with no repurcussions for false accusations.
Some people actually believe you shouldn't have your rights trounced without due process of a trial.
The democratic party thought it wasn't relevant in 2015/2016. Turns out they were pretty damned wrong about that.
So yeah, I'd say it's very relevant.
In 1000 years from now (if humanity survives that long, which is increasingly unrealistic), historians will look back on this time period and study it as the largest scale mass occurrence of Stockholm syndrome the world has ever ever seen.
The people supporting trump have somehow been convinced to fall in love with their oppressors. It's mind blowing to be witness to it.
The vote was an attempt to expel without waiting for due process to run its course. There is an ethics investigation that will wrap up in under 2 weeks.
Many of the democrats who voted not to expel did so because they didn't want to see a new precedent set in congress where the body can expel a member without some form of due process. If all it takes is a vote to eject someone, then the party in power would be able to expell at will, and that would be bad for everyone.
Also, republicans were trying to get rid of him as a publicity stunt to look better for the Nov 2023 elections running across the country and wanted to be able to pull this stunt off to make themselves look better to help their regional elections.
The democrat holdouts are eager to expel just as soon as the ethics investigation is complete. Those holdout democrats are playing 4d chess and winning. They made the right call.
Rep. Jeff Jackson explains it nicely here:
The vote was an attempt to expel without waiting for due process to run its course. There is an ethics investigation that will wrap up in under 2 weeks.
Many of the democrats who voted not to expel did so because they didn't want to see a new precedent set in congress where the body can expel a member without some form of due process. If all it takes is a vote to eject someone, then the party in power would be able to expell at will, and that would be bad for everyone.
Also, republicans were trying to get rid of him as a publicity stunt to look better for the Nov 2023 elections running across the country and wanted to be able to pull this stunt off to make themselves look better to help their regional elections.
The democrat holdouts are eager to expel just as soon as the ethics investigation is complete. Those holdout democrats are playing 4d chess and winning. They made the right call.
Rep. Jeff Jackson explains it nicely here:
"The Thing" (1982)
I first saw this movie at the age of 13, in a very dark and creepy unfinished basement. It was terrifying.
Even after all these years, this movie still holds up very well to modern standards and stands out as one of the best sci-fi horror movies of all time. I just watched it again in October (my designated horror movie month) and it still never fails to make me uncomfortable and on edge while watching.
In the US, copyright is implicit. All work is instantly protected by copyright the moment it is created. Registering with copyright office is optional/voluntary. I think the judge's comments that you are referring to was probably referring to the works where copyright protections were waived by the artists for works placed into public domain (which, on Deviant Art, covers a vast amount).
My standard breakfast (for years) is: 1 hard boiled egg, a large spoonful of cottage cheese, and some fruit (usually a small banana or a mandarin orange). Assuming you hard boiled the eggs in advance, the prep time is however long it takes you to peel an egg.
I'm not aware of anything proven other than diet & exercise. There are a few trending weight-loss drugs hitting the market right now, but from what I've seen they are expensive and come with their own side effects...so for me, it's just doing it the proven old-fashioned way: diet & exercise.
My system significantly exceeds all the performance requirements for Win11, but it doesn't have the Trusted Platform Module 2.0...and therefore cannot run Windows 11. It's disappointing that my system can run circles around a lot of newer devices but can't upgrade because it's running on an older motherboard. It's dumb that Microsoft made TPM 2.0 a deal-breaking requirement for Win11.
Visceral fat builds up slowly over time (years) and the changes can be very subtle and unnoticeable until one day you just notice it.
For Kwashiorkor - I really don't know. It's just something I'd heard of before, so I found a link to a description and dropped the reference. There are probably lots of other things it could be that I just haven't heard about.
I, personally, am affected by visceral fat and have been taking steps to lose it and that process is also very slow going, so I currently look like an average guy, but with a pronounced belly. It makes me look like shit in a t-shirt and has caused me to suffer from high blood pressure.
Your making this into an argument about what the legal status of guns should be, and that is a good and separate argument to have, but the entire point of my original comment was just pointing that the article's use of the words "sole purpose" is opinionated and inflamatory (and objectively wrong). "Sole" means "one and only" and so that's obviously ludicrous given that the vast majority of gun owners aren't using them for their supposed "sole purpose".