Find an alternative technology that will stop a threat as quickly and reliably as a 9mm hollow-point, with significantly less danger of permanent harm to the target, and is as portable as a compact pistol, and the discussion can meaningfully continue. Tasers don't do it. Pepper spray doesn't do it. Other lethal weapons can do it, but fail the "significantly less danger" test and/or the "as portable as a compact pistol" test. I'm not aware of anything that meets all four requirements.
My intent isn't to do more harm than necessary to an attacker, but I'm also not going to compromise protection of myself and my family in order to reduce the risk of harm to someone who's trying to harm us.
I'm not trying to obscure anything. When you shoot a person, the odds are very good that you will seriously injure, and possibly kill, that person. But the objective is important. The objective is not "kill the target." The objective is not "wound the target." The objective is "stop the threat." The wounding/killing are unfortunately-necessary means toward that objective, not the objective itself.
The "OMG hollow-points!!1!!" reactions are surprisingly numerous and ignorant.
Basically 0 value is placed on stopping a threat without harming them more than necessary
That's correct. Once you're shooting a gun at someone, you've already made the decision that lethal force is warranted--which means that (you reasonably believe that) you, or someone else, is facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that lethal force is necessary to stop that. Under those circumstances, you're right--I place zero value on minimizing harm to the person I'm shooting at. Further, any value I do place on that is offset by the fact that minimizing harm to that person directly means that effectiveness is reduced. Guns are effective for self-defense because they seriously hurt, and often kill, people. If they didn't, they wouldn't be effective.
Yeah--having watched The Room, it's hard to believe that Wiseau had ever interacted with another human being before writing/producing/directing/"starring" in that movie.
Hollow-points are neither meant to "wound" nor to "kill." They're designed to stop the threat as quickly as possible. Which is what anyone using a gun defensively, whether a police officer or a private citizen, should be trying to do.
No, you're not the only one, but you're no less ignorant than the others. Hollow-point ammunition is designed for self-defense and police use, and is almost universally what's used for those purposes.
Hollow-point ammunition is standard police issue, and is most commonly carried by private citizens for self defense as well. The main reason is that it's more effective on the target, and "maximiz[ing] the amount of damage made to the target" is almost exactly the point of shooting that target (more accurately, the point is to stop the threat posed by that target, but the two overlap almost exactly). The second is the reason you identified--they reduce the risk to bystanders, because the bullet expends more energy in the target.
What provision of which constitution does it violate? It certainly doesn't violate the federal constitution--there's no federal requirement for states to have public records laws at all, much less any requirement on what must and must not be released.
No, that is "on thing" (presumably "one thing") people do not need to "remember" about lawyers, because it simply isn't true. Lawyers aren't allowed to lie. They aren't allowed to lie to the court, to their clients, to opposing parties, or to witnesses. They aren't allowed to lie directly, through intermediaries, or by presenting evidence they know to be false. This is one of the many reasons poor little Joseph Rakofsky got a mistrial for his first client.
Do some lawyers do it? Sure they do. But no, it isn't part of the job.
Free speech belongs to everyone. The right to use someone else's platform for your own speech belongs to nobody. These truths do not contradict each other, but neither is relevant to this story.
Re: But you hold that Twitter has the right to do it!
Whether Twitter has the right to do it (they do), and whether it's a good idea for Twitter to do it, are two very different (and perhaps completely unrelated) things.
You're right, really--government regulation here is suboptimal. The ideal situation would be a truly competitive marketplace, where customers had their choice among several broadband ISPs (although seeing how eagerly people are lapping up the "free" zero-rated stuff on cell-phone plans, my faith in the marketplace is limited). The problem with this is that building out the infrastructure to support broadband (at least fixed-location broadband) is both expensive and disruptive. Since we don't want three cable companies tearing up our streets (etc.), we decide we'll award a monopoly contract to one, and in theory we'll regulate it--except the "in theory" doesn't really work so well.
The principle of net neutrality is right--ISPs should carry packets without discrimination, except as required for network maintenance (yes, if you're part of a DDoS botnet, they can and should cut you off until you get it fixed). I'd prefer that the market be competitive enough that no regulations were required to enforce this, but that isn't the case. I'm open to the regulating body being someone other than the FCC, but the FCC really does seem like the logical agency.
it's even more troubling when you find out that the company views the service as a profit center:
Of course it does. If it's a private company, and it's providing a service by contract, it's doing so to make a profit. Which leads back to the question of whether a private company should be running this hotline at all, but if you accept that, of course it's going to be for profit.
Both the link in the article text, and the embedded document at the end of the article, go to the wrong document--you've linked to an affidavit by an FBI agent, not the complaint in the case you're talking about.
Your Anti-SLAPP thing will likely fail, as you are in the wrong jurisdiction.
It isn't that simple; courts in one state apply the laws of other states all the time. How and when to do so is a complicated subject, and I'm not familiar with all the nuances that go into those determinations, but it's definitely not as simple as "we don't do that here."
Mike says that other circuits have held that the laws of the speaker's jurisdiction (especially anti-SLAPP laws) are to be applied, but that the First Circuit hasn't yet addressed that question. If that's the case, it will be a good, and a fairly strong, argument to make.
Both about his "low caste" status, and about his national/racial origin. The latter is particularly amusing--there are an awful damn lot of people of Indian extraction working in IT, and a good number of the tools and standards that are used throughout the industry were authored or co-authored by Indian individuals. The community has no trouble at all recognizing their work. The community doesn't recognize Shiva's claim because he's lying, not because of his race or status.
The sad thing is that he can justly be proud of what he _did_ accomplish--to have developed such an involved software package at such a young age is quite an accomplishment. But he isn't satisfied with that, wanting instead to claim something he didn't do. As a result, he's a laughingstock among whoever knows anything about the relevant history.
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My intent isn't to do more harm than necessary to an attacker, but I'm also not going to compromise protection of myself and my family in order to reduce the risk of harm to someone who's trying to harm us.
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "OMG hollow-points!!1!!" reactions are surprisingly numerous and ignorant.
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
Re: Re: Re:
That's correct. Once you're shooting a gun at someone, you've already made the decision that lethal force is warranted--which means that (you reasonably believe that) you, or someone else, is facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that lethal force is necessary to stop that. Under those circumstances, you're right--I place zero value on minimizing harm to the person I'm shooting at. Further, any value I do place on that is offset by the fact that minimizing harm to that person directly means that effectiveness is reduced. Guns are effective for self-defense because they seriously hurt, and often kill, people. If they didn't, they wouldn't be effective.
On the post: Creator Of Arguably The World's Worst Film Loses Injunction Against Unflattering Documentary
Re:
On the post: Creator Of Arguably The World's Worst Film Loses Injunction Against Unflattering Documentary
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
Re: Re:
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
Re:
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
Re:
On the post: Miami City Attorney Tries To Erase Photos Of Fired Firefighters From The Internet
Re:
On the post: Miami City Attorney Tries To Erase Photos Of Fired Firefighters From The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
What provision of which constitution does it violate? It certainly doesn't violate the federal constitution--there's no federal requirement for states to have public records laws at all, much less any requirement on what must and must not be released.
On the post: David Boies Accused Of Running Horrifying Spy Operation Against Harvey Weinstein's Accusers
Re: Lies, Damned Lies and David Boies
Do some lawyers do it? Sure they do. But no, it isn't part of the job.
On the post: Don't Cheer For The Twitter Employee Who Deleted Donald Trump's Account
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Don't Cheer For The Twitter Employee Who Deleted Donald Trump's Account
Re:
On the post: Don't Cheer For The Twitter Employee Who Deleted Donald Trump's Account
Re: But you hold that Twitter has the right to do it!
On the post: A Public Focused Approach To Net Neutrality
Re: Re: "Free and open access to the Internet
The principle of net neutrality is right--ISPs should carry packets without discrimination, except as required for network maintenance (yes, if you're part of a DDoS botnet, they can and should cut you off until you get it fixed). I'd prefer that the market be competitive enough that no regulations were required to enforce this, but that isn't the case. I'm open to the regulating body being someone other than the FCC, but the FCC really does seem like the logical agency.
On the post: Australia's National Rape Hotline Run By Insurance Company, Who Demands All Sorts Of Private Info
Of course it does. If it's a private company, and it's providing a service by contract, it's doing so to make a profit. Which leads back to the question of whether a private company should be running this hotline at all, but if you accept that, of course it's going to be for profit.
On the post: Another Ridiculous Lawsuit Hopes To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For Terrorist Attacks
Wrong documents
On the post: Harvey Weinstein Tries Every Possible Response To Explosive NY Times Story
Re: Yet you pirates still want his products.
On the post: The Latest On Shiva Ayyadurai's Failed Libel Suit Against Techdirt
Re: My opinion
It isn't that simple; courts in one state apply the laws of other states all the time. How and when to do so is a complicated subject, and I'm not familiar with all the nuances that go into those determinations, but it's definitely not as simple as "we don't do that here."
Mike says that other circuits have held that the laws of the speaker's jurisdiction (especially anti-SLAPP laws) are to be applied, but that the First Circuit hasn't yet addressed that question. If that's the case, it will be a good, and a fairly strong, argument to make.
On the post: The Latest On Shiva Ayyadurai's Failed Libel Suit Against Techdirt
Re: Re:
The sad thing is that he can justly be proud of what he _did_ accomplish--to have developed such an involved software package at such a young age is quite an accomplishment. But he isn't satisfied with that, wanting instead to claim something he didn't do. As a result, he's a laughingstock among whoever knows anything about the relevant history.
Next >>