That’s okay, I’ll ramp up my piracy of Amazon-exclusive shows in 2025 too.

Imagine trying to argue that DUI laws shouldn’t exist because when you have had one beer you’re fine

Eh, except you probably aren’t. Depending on the state, your size, the beer, etc., one may be enough to put you over the legal limit.

The big issue is that there’s no difference at all between a 3D printer that’s used to print cute little toys and useful household gadgets, and one that’s used to print a Glock-style frame. It’s the same printer. So it’s absolutely unreasonable to regulate all 3D printers as though they were firearms, but that’s what some states are pushing to do. The second big issue is that the BATF has had regulations for years about what part constitutes a gun, and what parts are unregulated. Now the ATF is changing the rules, and prosecuting people that relied on prior rulings before doing anything.

The ghost gun thing is particularly ridiculous. You’ve always had the right to make your own firearm, and for decades the BATF has said that if a receiver (or frame, or whatever) is only 80% complete, that it’s legally not a firearm (yet). The reason it’s an issue now is that it’s finally easy enough for a regular person to make their own. Once you start regulating a block of metal–or in the case of New York, a 3D printer–as though it was a firearm, where does it realistically end? If I can pay $20,000 for a Haas 5 axis benchtop CNC mill, then a plan block of aluminum is not a ‘gun’ since I can easily mill it to be such.

Katrina was notably bad because of the murders that happened in the name of “stopping looting”. We don’t talk about Hurricane Sandy, for instance, or the Galveston hurricane in the same way that we talk about Katrina, despite the fact that e.g., Galveston killed 4x as many people.

IIRC there’s one part on the Shadow II that’s known to fail at regular intervals, I think the extractor? It’s something that’s well known to competitive shooters, common enough that they keep spares on hand the same way that most competitors keep spare optics batteries on hand. I don’t know that I’d try running a Shadow or Shadow II for thousands of rounds without cleaning, just because it’s got closer tolerances than a CZ-75B. But that’s just me.

Oh, and if you like CZ, check out KMR Arms. KMR does some of CZ’s manufacturing, and also does their own line. Sadly, they aren’t yet generally available in the US due to the general difficulties in importing pistols, but I’ve heard they’re trying to work out distribution. These should be viewed solely as competition guns though rather than tactical or duty firearms; you should probably not be using any of them as a carry gun.

EDIT: A range can probably get away with a little less cleaning, because they limit the ammunition that people can use; they can only sell very clean burning ammunition that won’t leave a ton of powder and copper fouling. Most people that practice on their own use whatever is cheap, which may even be shitty Russian surplus Wolf ammo with lacquered steel cases, and corrosive Berdan primers.

Well, you’re definitely correct about many PDs using revolvers before switching to Glocks. That goes back to the Miami shootout with the FBI; FBI agents were still using revolvers at the time, and they were significantly outgunned b/c one of the suspects was armed with a Ruger Mini-14 rifle. As a result, the FBI started looking for a better sidearm, and the initially settled on 10mm before adopting the .40S&W. Glock managed to bring a .40S&W pistol to market before Smith & Wesson did (!!!), and then charged below cost for PDs in order to convince them to adopt the then-new firearm.

And after finding an article about it, it looks like the NYPD did want to match the pull of their old double-action service revolvers. Which is nuts.

As in, white supremacists and cops murdering unarmed black people that are looking for food and shelter? That kind of bad?

But… That is the safety. A safety is intended to prevent ADs/NDs. And that’s what it’s doing here. If you have your finger on the trigger, then yes, it’s going to do off, and maybe you shouldn’t have your finger on the trigger unless you’re pointing the gun at something you intend to shoot?

The NY Glock trigger is, IIRC, for NYPD, so that cops aren’t “accidentally” shooting unarmed people. Because clearly it was an accident that they shoot unarmed people multiple times…

Glocks are among the most popular handguns, period. That’s because they work, and they work consistently, even with poor maintenance and cheap ammunition.

If you try running your expensive Staccato 2011 without cleaning it every few hundred rounds, you’re going to be guaranteed to have jams. A Glock? You can get about 3000 rounds at a range between cleaning.

Kids die more often from gun-related deaths than car-related deaths.

Note that this is mostly suicide. You know how else you can reduce youth gun deaths? Improve mental health access.

Partial disagree.

Everyone should have the right, even if not everyone should exercise that right. Same with speech.

If you are going to say that some people shouldn’t have that right, then it’s no longer a right.

The fact that you need to make an encyclopedia to present a conservative point of view is just so, so telling. Just presenting facts should be sufficient, but facts are notoriously liberal, so…

AFAIK, no one has rights based on political beliefs. But in the US, people have religious liberty granted to them under the constitution, within some fairly loose limits, and discriminating against people in employment based on their religious requirements is not legal. There’s the issue of ‘reasonable accommodations’; if I’m Muslim, then a company denying me the ability to pray several times each shift is almost certainly religious discrimination.

Yes, I agree that we should view religion as a choice rather than an inherent quality, but that’s not the way the constitution is.

…Which is why I specified US. (Yes, I know where NB is.)

Most of the people here are arguing from a US perspective, esp. since the original source largely reports on US news, and reports on news from a US perspective.

Jesus christ, no, she can’t argue that it’s self defense. What is the imminent risk of physical harm to the mail carrier here? Self defense only applies to cases of immediate physical harm, and that’s just not this. At best there’s an argument to be made for very, very indirect harms.

This is every bit as dumb as arguing that someone waving a Nazi flag means that you can self-defense them to death because they’re going to hurt someone eventually.

It’s not my job to pull down Nazi sticker crap or clean it up, but I do.

Good, and you should. But that’s you acting in your personal capacity, not as an agent of the gov’t.

People with strong religious beliefs believe that it does. They believe that even allowing people to see that LGBTQ+ people can be accepted leads to an acceptance of sin, and risks condemning a soul to hell. Even if it’s bullshit, they still believe that real harms are being done.

Yes. Exactly. But that’s the original point: you accept the job with the understanding that, if you find a particular aspect of the job to be against your morals, and you refuse to perform your job due to your morals, that you may be disciplined and/or fired.

The wrinkle here is that pharmacists have some degree is 1a protections (in the US) because their objections are on religious grounds rather than humanist ones. That makes firing them difficult, because it can be argued that it’s religious discrimination. An obvious solution would be to require them to refer the person to another pharmacy, so that they aren’t violating their religion, but pharmacists are arguing that’s compelled speech that still violates their 1a rights.

Under US law, there is absolutely no “hate speech” exception to the 1st amendment. This has been ruled on repeatedly.