kelpdiver

That's much more information that published here, or seemed like to be obtained. But as you probably know, our news is easily distracted and not great about follow through. But it, and your notes about the existing population of illegal weapons, doesn't lend itself to an obvious solution. Particularly with the open borders within the Eurozone, what can block a lone actor like this? That said, with 5-50M weapons out there, why do you think shootings remain so rare within your country? That number doesn't seem that different from the illegal gun population of the US, and obviously with different results. (the bulk of the 300M+ are legally held) Is the drug trade more restrained? Is drug use much less prevalent?

ability to misuse Twitter is not being aware of current tech. And to repeat - it was Trump whose speech was obtained, published, fact checked and mocked, 4 hours before giving it. It's a glorious glass house for that guy.

There may be a window of opportunity - the CEO that is on the tail end of the growth cycle of the big company, but before going to the sustain phase and getting too confident and set in ways. Once the empire is formed, they don't hear 'no' a lot. And they can afford to be wrong and stick to it. Arthur Blank of Home Depot - someone that went from literally a single store to an empire - at some point there had to be a great candidate. Perhaps the Southwest founder. I'm less convinced by Perot - his empire was built on a lot of service contracts for sticky customers (including government, iirc). Not quite the same competitive pressures to do right by the customer.

those 3 in the middle - yep. Harding is consistently rated among the worst (lowest quartile) and the other two are 50/50 between the 3rd and 4th quartiles. How was Truman a business exec? He was a judge and senator before getting picked to replace an unpopular VIP. He had a hat business apparently that failed in the early 20s. Or Lincoln? He was a lawyer, then a House Representative.

This is besides the point. You continue to suggest that gun murders are more important than murders by any means. Germany doesn't have a lower murder rate because they make guns harder to get. They have a lower murder rate, period. But despite all these measures, this 18 year old still managed to obtain one. Just breaking is that some disgruntled worker in Japan used a knife to kill 15 and wound many more. Your focus on the tooling only guarantees the problem continues. If it were merely about gun availability, then the US should be seen surging numbers of deaths, not a 50% reduction. The AWB was demonstrably pointless. The Brady Bill has resulted in a pretty metric about sales stopped, but since the Feds (under multiple Adminstrations) don't bother to prosecute - no benefit. It's like they want to fail. BTW, there's nothing trivial about the availability in California or Chicago. I know you like to blame Indiana for your city's troubles, but that line doesn't work so well here. It's a long drive to Nevada or Arizona from the urban cities of LA or the Bay Area.

This being the same board that gives them lavish contracts and golden parachutes? The board hasn't been an effective check in decades...usually they're in bed together. Bloomberg seems like a valid example. (Can't think of any others) NYC is more populous and challenging than 39 states, so "mayor" should be translated to "governor," the primary feeder for Presidents in the last century. However, he would have hit more effective checks on his powers in DC. This is unlike the working environment for the CEO as well - the person loses the authority to act unilaterally, executive orders notwithstanding. OTOH, Fiorina was not a successful CEO, and Perot ran for a third party. I believe he's the most successful (in terms of vote) third party candidate in modern history. But being batshit crazy, he would not have been a very good President.

He could be a Democrat, a Republican, a RINO, a fool, or all 4 at the same time, depending on which personality is active. I was a bit surprised reading the Wikileaks is starting a series on HC. Is this because they have a vendetta against her, perhaps for the actions of the Administration against them? Assaunge certainly believes the Swedes have been acting as American stooges in their BS rape charge against him. A love for Sanders? Or is it merely about releasing any truths they come across? Or simpler mischief - like the guys threatening to take down Pokemon on Aug 1st, for no reason other than to fuck with a few million users? There's of course no need to hack Trump's infrastructure - the man has no filter to start with. We do know that it would be easy to break in and get any secrets, as shown by his acceptance speech.

Same can be said for Trump, and fairly for the Tea Party members as well. Bernie won the primaries in 22 states - the eligible voters didn't have a problem with his history for party affiliation. Between the undemocratic Super delegates and this leaked interference by the Party leadership, the Burners have a right to be pissed. The same youth demographic that supported him were a key part of Obama's surge to take the nomination and then the White House.

Germany certainly has a nicer murder rate, which is all the more impressive given how recently unification with the Soviet controlled East occurred, and continued pockets of neo nazis v immigration conflict. But... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Germany - 0.9/100k USA - 3.9/100k 4.3x is certainly better, but it's far less than the 49x ratio you trumpet. Ask the families of the victims in Nice if they feel any better that it was a truck that killed them. The people badly injured by the Syrian bomber can be grateful it was a poor execution, but that's more luck than the choice of weapon. It should be troubling that a young man who didn't appear to have any ties to terrorist networks was able to obtain a gun at 18 and with a history that is clearly disqualifying. Certainly can't blame it on the NRA. With the S/N filed off, it will be difficult to determine how he obtained it, and if there is a failure in process that can be addressed. But in the face of a surge in attacks all over Europe that did have external support, it may be a tragic outlier and better effort is spent dealing with these others threats. But how? you can't ban trucks and knives, and you don't want to close down the public. Trying to make peace with ISIS (often suggested here in SF) is cry out loud stupid. It seems a bit disrespectful to pollute this thread with the usual babbling about the Constitution. Make your point once and then STFU, start another thread.

Not really. You can't fly a jumbo jet without many years of specific piloting experience. A flight sim pilot could manage the in air cruising and simple turns, but takeoffs and esp landings - no chance. Emergency situations - no chance. Layman have done simple surgery when no one is available, but the probability of killing the patient grows quite fast with complexity. But anyone can (and has) been President or governor. The ones that lack experience either rely heavily on others (GW) or aren't all that effective (Arnold as gov of CA). But the nation or the country doesn't crash and burn, killing all aboard. It just continues along on momentum/inertia. Obama was not sufficiently experienced when he took office, and it showed. And yet given a choice of him, HC, and DN, he would almost certainly be the choice of the people. Hell, he's likeable enough that Trump stole material from the First Lady. -- As for this false choice of one candidate = good, one = bad....they're both terrible, and both parties failed the people. Clinton's actions seem to rise to a criminal violation, since lack of bad intent or incompetence is not a valid defense. In any case, were she merely a State staffer, she'd lose her security ratings for years for the civil violations, if not forever. This would require her to find a position that doesn't require clearance, or to resign. How could she act as President? I had hoped the Dump Trump movement would have succeeded, and after the rather stark assessment by the FBI at the last couple years of lying by Clinton, I hoped the DNC might be forced to pick another. Neither were realistic hopes - history says that each has a better shot staying pat than trying to shuffle the deck at the last hour. And it's clear that she and Justice have managed to stall the matter long enough to get past November. Should the Donald somehow win (I can't see how), I would put the over/under on impeachment at 16 months. He could grow into the position as the current President did, but his history doesn't show a man that learns from others.

Thank god the 2nd amendment kept this guy safe from the government. http://www.citypages.com/news/graphic-video-shows-black-man-bleeding-after-police-shooting-in-falcon-heights-video-8415016 So in your mind, will issues around police overreach get better or worse if the LEOs are the only ones with guns? Might want to look into the formation of the Black Panthers, and why they sold Mao's books to buy guns. Or more broadly, the history of racism in regards to gun control legislation. The current offerings are very much like the GOP voter ID bills - intended to discourage minority exercise of their basic rights.

Yes I did. You cannot deny that she lied point by point - her statements lined up against his statements . . . Just watch Wednesday's Daily Show as NT does exactly that...and no one will try to claim that Noah Trevor is out to get her. She did it to herself with the same arrogance she has shown for decades. The odds of a GOP convention coup shot up dramatically. As Noah notes, these two candidates only have a chance of beating each other.

The PRECENTAGE of households with guns is going down. (well, taking these poll values at face value) The number of households with guns, otoh, is not. 50% of 229.5M (1981) = 114.75M 36% of 318.9 (2016) = 114.8M

So why will it work in the parallel war on guns?

The Heller decision says otherwise. Citizens have a right to self defense and the handgun cannot be banned. Restricting it to 2 rounds would neuter its ability for protection against bad guys without such limits. And this, in a nutshell, is why magazine limits are pointless. Good guys carry the single magazine in the gun. Maybe a second one, but it's hard to carry that concealed and yet accessible. Bad guys bring as many guns and magazines as they need for their intent, can buy full capacity magazines illegally, and can reload so quickly that it doesn't matter. As I noted, as well as the person from London, knives readily replace guns when there's no other choice, and the SF numbers show it's equally deadly. Note that no magazine limit ever applies to Law Enforcement - why do you think this is?

Look up the number of prosecutions against people who failed Brady checks. Compare to the number touted as proving the success of the Brady check. This is plan C, the one we're on.

"Thomas was joined in part in his dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor" A bit different than the more common Thomas-Scalia dissents. Suggests there's a fine line between the 6 and the 2 in the decision. The suppression of rights for misdemeanor convictions should be concerning. Felons (as in felonies) lose their rights. Not for every infraction, misdemeanor, or TRO. A misguided friend of mine plead guilty to trying to pass fake store credits - it was a misdemeanor burglary event. CA rates that as a violent crime that results in loss of gun rights. She deserves her punishment, but that's an inappropriate add on. Good effort by Derek to try to spur real conversation, but sadly I see the exact same arguments I saw for a decade before I moved the hell on. But it's simple- angry man, potentially closeted, strikes out against gays in an enclosed, defenseless space. No proposal suggested would have stopped that, unless you're willing to completely throw away the Constitution and accept Feinstein's 5 year blocker for anyone even suspected (or having similar name) of being a bad guy. And that would have done nothing for the people in LA. In either occasion, swapping out that light rifle for a 9mm (or two) with 17 round (or 10) magazines leads to the same result in a crowd with no legal effective forms of self defense. The next day, another sexually confused white man was arrested in LA. He had driven all the way from Indiana and seemed to have a similar intent in mind, and thankfully was pointed out and caught. How do we stop someone that's willing to drive half way across the country to do harm, without fundamentally altering our society? You can slightly change the tools, but if the intent is there, the person uses the best tools available. San Francisco has seen 27 murders to date in 2016. 10 or 11 of them involved stabbing, and that weapon dominates in the area in the Tenderloin where the underbelly can't afford the high prices of guns in our region. It's a pretty clear predictor of what would happen if we successfully eliminated guns. Guns deaths down, stabbing deaths up. Either way, the citizens are at their mercy, unable to carry an equalizing force. Tragically (or perhaps positively if you feared the GOP beating Clinton in November), it was a shooting last year that elevated Trump for joke to serious contender. A LEO (federal, I believe) left his gun in his car- it was stolen, made its way to an illegal alien who had just been discharged by the city under its Sanctuary policies, rather than sent to ICE, who then shoots women on a tourist bridge while she walked with her parents. We've seen a ridiculous number of guns taken from LE's cars in the last year.

Actually, it is you who is not. I'm saying it's ridiculous to frame this as a situation where she should have done more to avoid the outcome. Why the fuck is the onus on her to move to fucking Uruguay for a year? Skydekker is under the delusion that this was a random event, and her merely coming home 10 minutes later would have meant she'd be fine. This could be true of a mugger looking for a score, but absolutely wrong for a jilted lover who knows where she lives and works. None of these ninja suggestions are as effective as her having an equalizing force. And her getting the gun doesn't preclude her for doing some of those as well - to my knowledge, no evidence has been provided to support this narative of 'stupid gun crazy bitch.' It's as popular as the argument that if the gun doesn't 100% guarantee success, that it's not worthwhile.

no, the argument is that she COULD be alive if she had a gun. But without it, she didn't stand a chance. And Windsor, perhaps you could help explain to women how they can prevent a lethal confrontation with ex boyfriends and husbands that don't respect restraining orders. Continue to date the loser? Never date in the first place? Live as a shut-in?

That's rather presumptious. That's the best outcome you could see? If my last action was to wound my killer, I'd prefer that to him walking away. You can't just walk into a hospital to receive care for a gunshot wound without questions being raised, law enforcement being involved. If he thought that it might end with him taking a round, do you think he'd be as likely to attack her? Unless you want to assert that he was suicidal, the answer is no. And having a restraining order against him, the mere sight of him is grounds for pulling out her gun and signalling intent to defend herself. Now that doesn't mean he couldn't consider trying to surprise her, but if she's armed, he doesn't have minutes of time to attack her/ break into the house/ whatever, knowing that she has no means of defense. If she had the gun, she could be practicing with it. Please don't repeat this falsehood that non LEOs are incapable of learning basic markmanship. I've taught Canadians that in a single afternoon. The people you see at the range practice more than the typical LEO. and now we're back to blaming the victim for not engaging in Hollywood like thinking about how martial arts will make up for a greater than 2X weight differential and a knife. Bullshit. Those self defense moves can be effective on a random mugger/assailtant who wants an easy score. A murderous ex is not so easily deterred. Guns are a far superior equalizer for smaller women. And running shoes are no more effective than a holstered gun - if the attacker is already close, he can sprint to close the gap before you can run away. I guess it's better for her that she got killed. Come on. We know what actually happened. She was killed. No circumstance with her being allowed her 2nd amendment rights would have worsened the outcome. Many many reasons to think the opposite. The law on approvals within 30 days is equally clear, and was not met. (Though that's still 30 days too long for someone with a restraining order)

This would be one of those rather liberal definitions of "friend." Acquintance would be the proper word, but even that suggests a positive relationship, not that it's a member of a rival gang member who you know as Crackerjack. As funny as kallend's usual distortions are, it's troubling that at least two of you go on to blame the victim for not "doing something" to protect herself. She did, and the police and our failed concept of waiting periods failed her. Were she a FRIEND of mine, I'd lend her a weapon for the wait, along with the important element of taking her to the range. This is why you get a gun before you actually need one. 10 days or 30/2-3 months is too long if someone else threatens you.

Are you really confused, or are you being literal just to be argumentative? I mean, I could let you sit outside by doorstep, getting beaten to death by thugs without bothering to call 911. I *could* do nothing. But the odds of that are about 10,000:1, so it's accurate to say I *can't*. Farmers could choose to kill the children and use the bodies to fertilize the almonds trees as well. But why don't we stick to reality. New and existing almond trees represent a long term water use commitment. Single season crops do not.

So they can let it die, it'd just be bad for business Why would expect a farmer to do something that is bad for business? The state really cannot mandate what the farmers grow, so they logically will look for higher revenue products (be it for local consumption or for export to Asia, which is the case with these nuts). So long as their water rights entitle them to nearly cheap water, there are no economic incentives to do anything but what they've been doing. An almond tree takes 3-4 years to produce at all, and 6-7 to reach full production. Very similar to wine grapes. So again, as I wrote, your only choice for a drought year is to either give up ~5 years of normal production and kill the tree, or to keep watering it at least enough to stay healthy. No one is taking option A, since you 1) don't know the drought is a one year or multi year event and 2) you don't have any incentive to care. Best case (and fantasy) scenario is that farmers pay the same cost of water as anyone else, but crops for state (and nearby) consumption are encouraged with subsidized rates. Then they will make economic choices that are compatible with the supply of the resource.

a key, and fair knock against almonds is that when you plant those trees, you're made a commitment to that high water use forever. But you can choose to not plant alfalfa during a drought year. You can choose to slaughter your cattle and sell the beef, which is what happens when feed prices are high. But you can't let a producing almond tree die.

In my part of SF, it is a mandate to have landscaping. Those who would pave it over to create a parking space can be directed to tear it out. A good mandate to me - I don't particularly want to live in a concrete jungle.