under cook fish, also jail

Any time I read "free range" anything I'm reminded of Hustle Man from Martin who sold "free range chickens" during a snowstorm. Martin asked what free range chickens were and the answer was "for me they were free, for you they gonna cost in the range of 15 dollars"

Right? He's afraid prison would make someone willing to cut a throat worse.....like maybe he cuts their throat AND says something to hurt their feelings?

In my personal record book, he has no oscar wins.

Its an important discussion, I'm glad we're having it

Pay the whales

what I was thinking as well. Not surprised he didn't believe she'd tell the 'truth' because who the hell knows what he even believes is true

I won't pretend to be able to unravel all the layers of that stinky onion. There are costs, reimbursements, different costs based on insurance or not, private vs public, subsidized vs not, etc. A man's gotta know his limits, and untangling medical costs is where I tap out.

https://www.the-caa.org/assets/docs/Calif-EMS-Safety-Net.pdf

and

https://www.talktomira.com/post/how-much-does-an-er-visit-cost

Like I said the ambulance part could easily be more considering his injuries, but I can't see how it would be the most expensive part of the entire thing.

Edit: Oh that is just the private ones, 911 probably would go thru a municipality which could be more than the average, but I still don't think it would 10k plus like the ER visit could.

Doubtful in this case. The average ambulance cost in CA is around $600. Granted his could be more given the severity of the injuries. But the average cost for an ER visit in CA is nearly $3k. Considering this was a life threating gunshot wound he'd need x-rays, surgery, blood, etc. He could easily be $10k+ for the hospital bill. I just can't see any way his ambulance ride would be more than the ER.

SC here. fights weren't uncommon, but it was usually just 3-4 people engaged, and thankfully no shootings. Usually it was kids though from other schools, and younger kids getting heated over playing ball during the game. Don't recall parents ever getting into fights, though some were escorted out for yelling and screaming like a lunatic

Its not so much the cops won't let them come in, its more a policy they have to wait for the scene to be secured. EMTs don't want to run into an active shooting scene anymore than you or I would.

I doubt no insurance was a reason. If it was, he wouldn't have even gone to the hospital at all. Avoiding the cops is possible, but I doubt it was because he was afraid they'd shoot him. He could have been involved or had warrants or something like that. Or just prioritized his health first and didn't want to play 20 questions with the cops before getting medical help. My guess is he or someone else thought he'd get medical care quicker by driving him to the hospital rather than waiting on an ambulance. Not that uncommon for people to drive to the hospital vs waiting on an ambulance if time is of the essence.

The judge deserves a medal for her patience. I think she feared he was just trying to delay everything by getting a contempt charge and removing him as his own counsel and she wouldn't do it. For anyone who hast followed the trial, It's worth taking a look at his antics to see how out of control he's been

I couldn't say if it works or not, but in theory any delay is better than nothing. I doubt it would stop anyone who's determined, but it might help with some. The farther they have to go, if they need an extra step to get a key to unlock the gun, get the ammo, etc. they all add time for someone to change their mind. While the delay is slight, it might make a lazy person just say nah. And locks are cheap, so even if it only stops the laziest of the lazy, seems worth it.

>Massachusetts was being MUCH more logical when they ruled that the Constitution doesn't say "guns," so "arms" doesn't just mean guns

Mass outlawed stun guns. A lady was arrested for having one for protection from an ex.
It went to SCOTUS. Mass courts argued they weren't covered because they were not in common use when the constitution was written. But SCOTUS already ruled in Heller that it covers all Bearable arms and not just those in common use at the time of the constitution. So her conviction was tossed, and Mass had to change the laws, stun guns are now legal in Mass. You may think it was logical, but Mas didn't view it as arms vs guns, they viewed it as arms used during the time the constitution was written. it was a very narrow view and SCOTUS overruled them.

Edit: oops terrible typo, stun guns are NOW legal

>It's meant to do just that

They aren't trying to stop mass shootings, they're trying to keep guns out of everyone's hands, not just potential mass shooters.

>This is just fear disguised as innocent concern

I wouldn't say fear, more like history repeating itself. MLK was denied a permit to carry a firearm because he wasn't of "good moral character". Of course it was because of who he was and what he was saying, but they disguised it by claiming morality. It was a bad idea then, its a bad idea now. The only difference in the two is who they want to deny, but its still the government deciding who can exercise a right.

This issue with the law is it creates a purely subjective measure in reviewing social media accounts before allowing someone to exercise a right. Sure, it would be nice if was just used to stop mass shooters. But one could just as easily decide you're not of "good moral character" because you are a Mets fan and not a Yankees fan, you're a Democrat instead of Republican, you disagree with a mayor's policy, you talk about smoking weed, you claim you once had an abortion, you prefer chocolate to vanilla, whatever that person finds immoral. Subjective criteria to exercise a right is never a good idea.

The states can set whatever reasonable objective criteria they want...training requirement, BG check, etc. Once that objective criteria is met, they issue the permit.
What they can't do is let one person, in their own judgement, decide who is worthy despite the objective criteria being met.

Well, you linked it…it showed firearm homicide rates declining from 91-95, sharp rise in 96, then declining 97-01. Your own link refuted your claim that they were not declining before the NFA. The only reason spiked was an anomaly that vastly drove the number in 96. But sounds like you don’t want to acknowledge it was an anomaly, which I find disingenuous so yeah, guess we’re both done

It was your source. Are you saying the numbers are wrong?

>You are most assuredly reading it wrong if you're using the second source I just cited

I used the first link, it showed specifically firearm homicides/suicides. You claimed firearm homicides were not trending down, but they were until 1996 when they spiked, because of the mass shooting. But I was wrong, that one event didn't inflate the homicides by 10% it was more like 30%.

>The overall homicide rate was more or less constant until a few years after 1996

Fair enough, point conceded. I was going from memory and got it wrong. Might have been thinking of non firearm related suicides, they seemed to go up but either way I was wrong about homicides shifting to other causes. But I was refuting your claim that FIREARM homicides were not declining before 96, more so than trying to support my claim of the shift. the first link you provided shows they were declining prior to 96 (table 2). Keep in mind, you initially said firearm homicide rates, I replied to that.

>They simply insert the word "only" to diminish the importance

So one study says yes, the other studies say 'not sure', but we're supposed to take the one study and ignore the others? Also they didn't use the word to diminish the importance, they used it signify there was only one study that supported the claim of a causal effect, the others did not.

as far as your issues with the conclusions they came up with or their methodology, or language, etc. take it up with them. I'm sure you trust your sources, over me. And I'll take Rand over you. And they say that only ONE study showed a causal link, the others did not. That was the heart of my argument when you said the results were obvious. Yes they saw a decline post 96, but they were already seeing a decline so you can't say the NFA caused the decline.

>the firearm homicides were decidedly not

Unless I'm reading it wrong, firearm homicide rates went from .44 to .23, from 91-95 then a sharp increase in 96 probably driven by the mass shooting that killed 35 people...which was about 10% of total gun deaths for that year that prompted the change. So .44 to .23 in 5 years prior to the change, then .28 to .14 in 97-01. So a .19 drop in 5 years prior, and then a .14 drop in the 5 years after.

Thing is, you're looking at aggregate numbers while ignoring prior trends and other factors to force a causal relationship. Problem is, not everyone sees this....so its not as obvious as you claim.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html

Here's a snippet:

"Most other studies have examined the NFA in its entirety and have examined changes in the trend of outcomes and whether the NFA caused a change in the trend. From these studies, it is difficult to estimate a causal effect of the law."

The data I saw did show a reduction in those categories, but two things to keep in mind...they were also reducing before the change, so it could have been the trend they were already seeing. And they saw an increase in other causes of death other than firearms as well. There just isn't enough to say their buy back program was the cause of the reduction.

you wouldn't reduce gun deaths by 20%, you'd reduce legally owned guns by 20%. assuming the ratio of deaths to guns would remain the same (which I'm doubtful it would since most gun crimes are done with illegally owned firearms), it would be closer to 2000/year, or 5% reduction. But then you'd have to look at deaths from other things to see if you're really saving lives or you're just shifting them to a different cause of death.

Australia did this. They spent around 600M and got 630k guns, which represented about 20% of total firearms.

If we did the same thing and recovered 20% at the same cost/gun, it would cost us 40B. That 40B would take us from 400M guns to 320M guns....I just don't see any politician championing spending 40B to barely make a dent.