My Comments About The Article Above No genius it might have been many more times tragic then it already was
Think Progress: ‘Good Guy With A Gun’ Was On UCC Campus At Time Of Massacre -- "By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom."
This whole "good guy with a gun" argument goes down the crapper real fast after police are called. Imagine if you will two or three teachers chasing the bad guy down the hall firing away. All the SWAT team sees are shooters trying to kill somebody. They have no idea whether these persons are the perpetrators or that they might very well turn around and fire back on them. Hence why once the SWAT team arrives they may very well shoot first and sort things out later.
Further imagine a church or crowded theater with a bunch of people firing away. Who should the police shoot? For that matter imagine another patron killing 'the good guy' believing they were the shooter instead. How the hell can they or anyone else know for sure who these supposed "good guys" are when the bullets start flying?
I realize the article goes back a couple of months, but it still applies for purposes of this discussion..
There are plans to add two more next year. At least those will also be capable of scanning license plates then sending bills to car owners. A few questions about that. How many from far western states passing through are going to ante up? Will those states make their drivers database available to Pennsylvania? Will they expect compensation for access to them?
It should also be mentioned the bills for the license plate read come with a 76% surcharge on motorists without E-ZPass.
A word of caution: There's little doubt scammers will try and take advantage by sending fake bills in the mail eventually.
The obvious goal is to get rid of toll attendants. The turnpike commission claimed back in 2012 eventually this will save $65 million annually on labor costs by eliminating toll collectors. However I question if there will be actual cost savings realized for years. Is this just another case of rearranging the deck chairs enabling the funneling of money to private firms they find favor with instead?
What people need to keep in mind is the 'Senate Banking Committee' is controlled by the majority of whichever party controls congress. In this case, the Republicans. Oddly Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (a Democrat from North Dakota) is not only the sole democrat who supports this bill but also helped sponsor the bill. This makes me wonder what the hell kind of craziness is going on down there in Washington.
After all wasn't it the Republicans who cried out against America's energy dependence on foreign oil?
How does exporting American oil contribute to furthering that goal?
Should the 'Senate Banking Committee' even be involved in foreign energy matters?
A big long one I hope you will take the time to read.
After the latest mass shootings in Oregon Obama addressed the nation calling for the crafting of new laws addressing gun violence. Predictably gun advocates jumped all over his remarks within minutes.
If we had a gun waiting period a Google search could have turned up these details. Waiting periods are good things. They can prevent angry impulse purchases. Anyone looking to buy a weapon for self protection, hunting or target shooting probably isn't in great need of a weapon in the next half hour
(3) Mikey none of the above is"destroying the second amendment". There's no reason why we can't close these gaps and still adhere to the 2nd amendment. That is unless Huckabee wants to go full tilt and strictly apply the 2nd amendment to everyone including felons and the crazies (since there's nothing specifically addressing them in the amendment).
The first thing coming out of opponents mouths against Obama is the huge amount of shootings in the city of Chicago where his career began. This even though Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws. This is another case of picking and choosing to focus in on certain cities rather then the nation as a whole. Critics fail to point out "Illinois is surrounded by a sea of states whose highest rating is a C-." when it comes to regulations on gun purchases. The cities of New York City, Detroit and several others complain about this as well.
The problem is each state is on a different page. There's no uniformity because the heavily lobbied cowardly congress members refuse to even talk about developing one. The constant excuse they use is citing states rights. They're not doing anyone any favors. In fact they are hurting more innocent gun owners then they are helping. If someone flies into JFK from Texas with a gun they're subject to arrest. If someone drives from Pennsylvania into New Jersey with their gun in the car they are subject arrest. Some states you can carry concealed weapons and not in others.
There's no excuse for not setting at least some sort of national policy so even innocent gun owners don't end up with a arrest record.
Another shallow argument is the one that states the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Oh if it were only that simple. Just who are these "good guys"? Everybody's a good guy, that is until they fire their weapon killing someone unnecessarily. Take for example the guy who shot and killed his wife, her boyfriend and critically wounded a Good Samaritan. Unfortunately no one knows when a "good guy" may lash out in a fit of road rage or act out becoming a jealous lover.
While I'm at it let me put to rest another bullshit argument that shooters target gun free zones. 'Mother Jones' in 2013 published, "Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns."
Some New Gun Regulation Suggestions (A) Opponents of increased gun legislation claim bad guys will always get their hands on guns no matter what we do. First off with nationally increased regulations they wouldn't be getting their hands on them at gun shows and through various loopholes as they presently are able to do as laws vary from state to state.
(B) According to a PBS 'Frontline' report "stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes.". The vast majority of criminals and gang bangers get them through "Straw Purchasers" or corrupt store owners. It may not be a perfect solution but dramatically increasing federal penalties against these two type of transactions would be helpful. Perhaps in addition making it federally mandatory they be charged with accessory to whatever crime was committed by the gun.
(C) Requiring gun owners to report their stolen weapons would be useful. These weapons then could listed on a database. If then a bad guy got a hold of a gun his/her penalty would be increased over having acquired it through a straw purchaser or corrupt vender. The logic in this should be obvious. Not only would he/she be charged for whatever crime was committed but so too the theft of the weapon. In others words an additional count would be added to the charges.
(D) No one needs high powered metal/vest piercing or hollow tipped bullets to either hunt, target shoot nor defend themselves. The second amendment applies to weapons. No mention is made to the type of ammo allowed or not allowed. At the time of the amendment this kind of ammo wasn't even thought of. Therefore regulating ammo should stand up in court over the question of constitutional legality.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I know this was lengthily. If you made it this far I thank you.
I've given just four suggestions that congress could consider. BUT THEY WON'T because they're too damned worried abut campaigning finances. I don't realistically believe anything will ever change even if Americans support some of these changes.
There are those who profit and others who will always believe government is out to get them. Even if it were, does anyone really believe the guns in their possession would stand a chance!
Either we can go on as we always have done and accept these shootings as a part of the way things will always be in our neighborhoods, churches and schools forever and ever. OR At the very least be willing to make changes to keep both none gun owners and gun owners just a little bit safer and free from arrests crossing state boundaries?
The question boils down to this. Are we "The United States of America" or similar to European nations just a collection of states who cannot agree on most anything?
According to the Pennsylvania Department Of Health people with HIV or AIDS are protected by the The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This is their position...
That may be, but I still feel uncomfortable not knowing if my food may have come in contact with someone salivating or exposed to a open wound of a infected individual (accidentally or otherwise). I can't find statistics or studies that back up the CDC position. Just exactly what does "little or no likelihood" mean? Statically speaking, even if someone were unfortunate enough to be only one in .00001%, it's still 100% if that person so happened to be you.
I do think I have every right to remain cautious. This is not to dissimilar to the hepatitis outbreaks that occurred in the past. These occurred when food handlers didn't report on their own or follow proper procedures. In the case of HIV like that of the hepatitis outbreaks we're relying on food handlers to do the right thing. Sorry but my trust simply doesn't extend that far.
No one should hold anything against someone who fell victim to HIV, but when it comes to the food industry.. well let's just say this is bad policy.
