I did Google it, you ass, and said law is limited to a very narrow focus. And, as I said, such restrictions seem to apply only to including ethnic data within national statistics. It wouldn't apply to news stories or police reports about individual crimes, such as attacks on police stations. And again, a good example of this is how both the French press and law enforcement have been vary vocal about ethnicity and faith in the matter of legislation against burkas, and clearly not limited by any such prohibition. And yet, yet again, the story you linked from The Independent pretty much puts the lie to the notion of it being forbidden to identify groups by ethnicity/faith.
The linkage is that both are based on the same notions of a unifying national identity that never singles out people by race or religion lest the Jewish yellow stars return. So in positions of power and influence, among "polite" society, mentioning a person's national origin, ethnicity, or religion in a way that could possibly be construed as disparaging would get a person banished to the far realms. Thus, anyone who suggested that perhaps they were taking in too many immigrants from North Africa got branded a Nazi racist, just as we saw a few comments above likening the French National Front with Stormfront. So when angry young Muslims stage massive riots, sometimes demanding the death of all Jews, they're called "ethnic youths".
I have to say I don't consider this shooting to be an act of terrorism. Sure, it was wrong and it violated the Geneva convention but it was an attack on a military office and targeted military personnel so, by definition, it was not terrorism.
This just in! Six state governors are allowing their National Guardsmen to arm themselves. Some are encouraging their members to buy weapons, get the permits and carry. Before you jump to conclusions, let me lay this all out: National Guard centers are not Federal Property AKA an actual military base. Thus these readiness centers and armories are "off post" and can set their own rules in accordance with their state gun laws. That said an armed National Guard soldier cannot carry their own personal weapon onto a Federal Installation. They can't even carry an issued weapon unless they are under special orders as in law enforcement for example. As for active duty recruiters in strip malls, etc. if their commanders say "no weapons" then they cannot carry weapons, period. If National Guard soldiers want to patrol the sidewalk outside the recruiting station, more power to them, their help will be appreciated. Just putting this out before anybody thinks the military has finally allowed everyone to pack weapons wherever they go on military bases. Once outside the gate you can do whatever the state in which you are stationed allows. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/19/us-usa-florida-recruit-idUSKCN0PS0P420150719
Yeah, but there's always "that guy." That was merely the first hit on google. The article I read the day it happened said that the recruiter was showing a potential recruit his sidearm and he negligently discharged it when reholstering.
I predict a spike in suicides and shooting of family members. That is why they took the guns away to begin with.
Huh? How is allowing them to be armed at National Guard facilities going to cause a spike in the shooting of family members?
Lots of states have active guard and reserve forces. They are often adminstrators, logistics, or other support but they live in on base housing just like any other active people and, yes, many states have actual national guard bases.
Let them have the guns on base, but don't let them take the guns home. Its not their personal property anyway. That would help protect the base, and help keep suicides down.
2013 the number of vehicle deaths and number of gun deaths were almost equal per the CDC: Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,804 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 33,636 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
I think the raw numbers are misleading. How many operating hours per death? I suspect car use is orders of magnitude greater than gun use.
They can keep their own weapons in their homes, even in base housing - only in the barracks where you cannot have weapons. But you cannot carry your weapon around on base, so that doesn't protect the base at all. Thus as it stands, any married person who lives on base can kill themselves or their families in an alcohol fueled depression as we speak. So sorry Gul, that"spike" you are hoping for (to prove that guns are bad) may never happen. So this one recruiter was/is an idiot and most likely his recruiting career is over, and most likely his military career. Meanwhile thousands of other recruiters will not shoot themselves in the leg. Matter-of-fact I would very surprised if (in the case of the Army anyway) they will pull the plug on any recruiter bring a gun to work. Who knows, that Barney Fife recruiter may have been breaking a policy to begin with. Nice stats Deiurge on the auto deaths! How about some more fucking CAR CONTROL folks? If it saves one life it's worth it. Let's limit how far people can drive - no more large capacity gas tanks!
wait - Gul is from Boston! He's probably pissed that they fought The British in the first place - he could be living in a gun-free utopia right now.
The guard and reserve and active recruiters who live off post (most military do these days) just drive straight to the recruiting office where they work. If they ever wanted to they could just take their privately owned weapon to work. Leave it on their car if they can't take it into the office. Most likely this is against military rules, but I'm sure it happens more than the military realizes.
That's how it worked when I served. Your rifle was kept in the armory and the only time you were allowed to check it out was for rifle qualification or field ops. You were checked thoroughly before you left the range for bullets and always watched at all times while using the weapon.
They seem to be just taking all deaths together. I would imagine that as there are more hours using a gun that n umber would blow up. In a statistical meaning it suggests that even the short time of use of guns makes the same amount of fatalities as the broad use of cars. I would think that eventually there would be a saturation point with guns where having more would not yield such a spike. I would also think it indicated that if people used their cars a lot less that they would become much safer than guns.
There you go, everybody wins! Walking more and driving less can save lives (fewer cars on the road, and less time behind the wheel in the danger zone AKA the roadways) AND people get some fucking exercise. Who knows eventually the US would stop....building...subdivisions and structure things so everything is within a reasonable walking distance - one arena in which Europe has us beat six ways from Sunday IMO.
Absolutely. Vehicle deaths are looked at not per thousand miles driven, not per million miles driven, but per 100 million miles driven! That number per state ranges anywhere from 0.74 to 1.96: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
The government has ordered Army recruiting centers to, well, keep their heads on the ISIS chopping block by running off any Americans who try to keep disarmed servicemen from being slaughtered for sport. Stars and Stripes article Army to recruiters: Treat armed citizens as security threat WASHINGTON — The Army has warned its recruiters to treat the gun-toting civilians gathering at centers across the country in the wake of the Chattanooga, Tenn., shooting as a security threat. Soldiers should avoid anyone standing outside the recruiting centers attempting to offer protection and report them to local law enforcement and the command if they feel threatened, according to a U.S. Army Recruiting Command policy letter issued Monday. ...<snip>... Recruiters were ordered not to interact or acknowledge the armed civilians, who have been greeted by a mix of concern, indifference and gratitude by the public. “If questioned by these alleged concerned citizens, be polite, professional and terminate the conversation immediately and report the incident to local law enforcement …,” the command advised. As the incidents crop up around the country, police could be asked to confront the civilians with guns on the Army’s behalf. “Ensure your recruiters clearly articulate to local police the civilian may be armed and in possession of a conceal/carry permit,” it told the centers. The command said recruiters should also immediately fill out an Army security report. Meanwhile, it turns out that one of the survivors of the Chattanooga shooting, along with one of the victims, returned fire with personal side-arms that they weren't allowed to possess. No word on how fast the survivor, a lieutenant commander, will be cashiered out of the service for protecting his fellow service members from a jihadist terrorist attack.
I support your choice - sadly I don't have that option. I love "the country" which is defined by my being able to take a piss off my back porch and start hunting as soon as I hit the woods adjacent to my yard. I love "the city" meaning the subway is within walking distance and.....hell anything is within walking distance! The in-between of the subdivisions sucks, but I don't run the show. Anywho back to the Army response - they never fail to disappoint! This surprises me not in the least. "The Army" as a ruling faction/faceless corporate entity are always out of touch with their constituents AKA the soldiers in the trenches. If they could conduct an anonymous survey of 100 percent of the Army and 99 percent of their members said having security outside recruiters offices is a great idea, they would STILL say they were shocked when soldiers publicly complain that chasing away security is a bad idea. I think the problem is they have the "we know what's best for you"attitude and "you are safe with us - only we can protect you" attitude. They will never admit there is a threat that is out of their control. Remember, the Army was bound and determined to call the Fort Hood shooting "workplace violence". Officers Hassan worked with tried their hardest to tell the Army that they indeed "saw something suspicious" in Hassan they were too worried about promoting tolerance and diversity to listen to them. "In Arizona, Gov. Doug Ducey signed an executive order Wednesday allowing Guard personnel to carry personal handguns in both military installations and while on duty." Here's the reality- if the installation (Federal property) has a "no gun" policy that's the bottom line. You get caught walking around Fort Gordon for example with a gun and you aren't authorized and say "it's okay, I'm in the National Guard and the governor said it's no problem" your ass would be handcuffed and thrown in the hoosgow faster than you could say WTF.
They can still build subdivisions for folks who like that (different strokes for different folks) but it would be nice if we really concentrated on revitalizing urban cores. There is tremendous value in making those places attractive and livable again especially since they tend to be the most dynamic (economically, culturally, and relationally) in the country. Since the 1990's several cities have done a good job of revitalizing their core but too few.
There's a traffic engineer who advanced the theory that the major highway and road improvements of the 1960's and 1970's "revitalization" of the urban cores is what killed them. To make cities handle more traffic all the pull-in store front parking was switched to parallel parking, meaning only about half as many cars can park downtown, while increased traffic made parallel parking extra stressful, so people just stopped frequenting downtown businesses. In many cities the planners focused on moving as many cars as possible as fast as possible, so everyone quit stopping and shopping. Businesses began to close, and so most people quit shopping downtown, instead flocking to strip malls and large malls that guaranteed them a convenient parking space instead of a long random walk after parking six blocks away because they can't find one of the few remaining spaces near their destination.
