Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

civdef

Biden said he would ban "Assault weapons" on day one of his presidency, it'd be the first thing he would do. So he is already in breach of his promises.

So are we agreed then he didn't actually say he was going to ban "assault weapons" on day one of his presidency?
I'm not doubting at all he has clearly stated an intent to restrict them, just that he said it was happening on Day 1.

Incidentally he hasn't in his Day 100 list either.

Which 25 states exactly?? ATFE, Feds and local LE would want to know?
If you are selling at a gun show or its grounds, where it is being held,it is considered a dealer transaction irrespective, and it still must go thru the Brady instant check, which you can run at any dealers stand who is selling firearms.At least that was my experience on buying both long and short firearms in CA and AZ in the 1990s...

It's also why most "Buy a gun quick to protect ourselves and our toilet paper stash" newbies were woken up to the "gun-show loophole "MYTH last year Couldnt belive they were on a state waiting period from 5to 14 days depending,even with the instant check.

It's 28 states.

22 States (Plus DC) have private sale restrictions:

Background check by FFL required:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Maryland (Handguns)
Pennsylvania (Handguns)

State-issued permit required
Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
Iowa (Handguns)
Michigan (Handguns)
Nebraska (Handguns)
North Carolina (Handguns)

Not sure I can make it any clearer.

Rows Grower

I hope the Taoiseach gets the opportunity to visit President Biden and Co. on St. Patrick's Day.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/countries-would-give-their-right-arm-for-st-patricks-day-us-visit-taoiseach-says-1075683.html

Vegeta

Cass wrote: »

I read the article a few days back so correct any mistakes i may make.

If they're using data to monitor people's activity/distance from their home then they must have some data relating to the person and their home address in order to monitor/figure out how far the person has travelled. So how can it be anonymous if they need access to certain data to get the data?

If that makes sense?

Sorry hadn't seen this response, the data Three have on a customer is of course whatever they sign up with. Probably name, address DOB etc. etc. All very personally identifiable.

However, that's not what they say they are sharing with the government. They are sharing mobilty data, how much are their customers moving around in lockdown compared to some baseline pre-COVID or during the previous lock downs etc. You don't need any identifable information to calculate that or measure it, simply distance travelled (pings between cell towers I imagine, which they know the location of) in a given time frame.

They're not handing over where you started your journey or where you finished up at night, simply the distance travelled in a day, week etc. that's summarised for electoral areas and compared to another time frame to see if mobility is up or down.

Now that's what Three have said, but I wonder is it FOI'able or published elsewhere to see for certain?

civdef

Presumably an enquiry could be made from the Data Protection Commissioner?

Rows Grower

Anyone with an iPhone that hasn't done so already should go into Settings, Privacy, Location Services, System Services and then Frequent Locations.

Big brother is watching you, (Jaws music).

tudderone

Rows Grower wrote: »

I hope the Taoiseach gets the opportunity to visit President Biden and Co. on St. Patrick's Day.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/countries-would-give-their-right-arm-for-st-patricks-day-us-visit-taoiseach-says-1075683.html

The two of them standing side by side ? They'd look like what they are, a pair of tits.

Rows Grower

tudderone wrote: »

The two of them standing side by side ? They'd look like what they are, a pair of tits.

Trump is gone, they'll be 2 meters apart.

Cass

Vegeta wrote: »

Now that's what Three have said, but I wonder is it FOI'able or published elsewhere to see for certain?

I see what you mean about preserving anonymity however i fail to see the benefit of such data without other relevant data such as starting point and end point.

IOW, and again please explain this to me if i'm wrong, if they have me down as customer #12345. The data shows i've traveled 27km for the day. Without a start point or end point how does that data tell them anything relevant such as if i've strayed from my home, gone outside the 5km restriction, done so multiple times a day or not, etc.?

Sorry, probably being stupid or not seeing the obvious.

Grizzly 45

civdef wrote: »

It's 28 states.

22 States (Plus DC) have private sale restrictions:

Background check by FFL required:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Maryland (Handguns)
Pennsylvania (Handguns)

State-issued permit required
Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
Iowa (Handguns)
Michigan (Handguns)
Nebraska (Handguns)
North Carolina (Handguns)

Not sure I can make it any clearer.

Well not really making it any clearer at all.
What you are pointing out there are in the words" background check by FFL required" Has nothing to do wh a private sale between 2 individuals outside of a place designated as a gunshop, be it someone's garage or a convention centre.


Background check by FFL required" Means the National Instant Criminal Background Check System NICBCS or the former Brady check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System#Background
This includes sales at gun shows, whether you are a registered FFL dealer or a private individual on the grounds of the centre, fairground etc... IOW if you and me meet at a gun show and I have a gun you want to buy off me as a private individual walking about with it and a 4sale sign on it.
I am classified as an FFL seller in that point in time the moment you and I agree on the transaction. I don't have to have a shop or be registered as an FFL outside the gun show, but because the whole area of the gun show is classified on that day as "a gunshop and buying and selling of guns is taking place therein". Our transaction, even if I sell it to you out of my car boot in the parking lot, we have to go back inside and do a 4473 form and/or an instant check. after all one of us could be a Federal agent doing a sting operation. Ergo the gun show loophole is a MYTH!

IF however, we say let's go to a bar down the road and have a few beers and do the transaction in the bar parking lot...Then that's a wholly different matter,and then depending on state law for private firearms transactions is it legal or not?

State-issued permit required
Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
Iowa (Handguns)
Michigan (Handguns)
Nebraska (Handguns)
North Carolina (Handguns)

Should also have NYC in there
Those states issue their own permits to purchase [mostly ] handguns.
Kind of surpassed in those states that allow Concealed Carry Permits.
Which does allow you to bypass the NICBCS rigamarole. Except in those mostly Democrat-run states that don't trust their citizens to exercise their 2 nd amendment right, unless of course, you are some political bigwig or[like Trump who has/had an NYC concealed carry permit] some other media or entertainment luvvie . "All animals are equal"...and all that.;)

Rows Grower

civdef wrote: »

So are we agreed then he didn't actually say he was going to ban "assault weapons" on day one of his presidency?
I'm not doubting at all he has clearly stated an intent to restrict them, just that he said it was happening on Day 1.

Incidentally he hasn't in his Day 100 list either.




It's 28 states.

22 States (Plus DC) have private sale restrictions:

Background check by FFL required:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Maryland (Handguns)
Pennsylvania (Handguns)

State-issued permit required
Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
Iowa (Handguns)
Michigan (Handguns)
Nebraska (Handguns)
North Carolina (Handguns)

Not sure I can make it any clearer.

Looks pretty clear to me.

Grizzly 45

Rows Grower wrote: »

Anyone with an iPhone that hasn't done so already should go into Settings, Privacy, Location Services, System Services and then Frequent Locations.

Big brother is watching you, (Jaws music).

Better off just "forgetting" the high tech phone at home, and picking up a cheapo pay as you go phone and give out the number to those who really might have to contact you for whatever reason, and keep it switched off until you get wherever outside your 5 klick prison, and switch off b4 you reenter your jail?;)

civdef

Background check by FFL required" Means the National Instant Criminal Background Check System NICBCS or the former Brady check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...tem#Background
This includes sales at gun shows, whether you are a registered FFL dealer or a private individual on the grounds of the centre, fairground etc... IOW if you and me meet at a gun show and I have a gun you want to buy off me as a private individual walking about with it and a 4sale sign on it.
I am classified as an FFL seller in that point in time the moment you and I agree on the transaction. I don't have to have a shop or be registered as an FFL outside the gun show, but because the whole area of the gun show is classified on that day as "a gunshop and buying and selling of guns is taking place therein". Our transaction, even if I sell it to you out of my car boot in the parking lot, we have to go back inside and do a 4473 form and/or an instant check. after all one of us could be a Federal agent doing a sting operation. Ergo the gun show loophole is a MYTH!

Nope, whether the sale is in a gun show or in a car park, if the seller hasn't an FFL, it's a private sale. Outside of the states listed, that private sale doesn't need a background check, even if it's in a gun show.

The definition of when it's not a private sale comes down to whether it's repetitive and for profit, not where it's carried out.

Some operators of gun shows apply their own rules requiring background checks for private sales in states where it's not legally required, e.g. Florida, but that's a commercial decision on their behalf, rather than a legal one.

Couple of sources to check what I'm saying if you still don't believe me:

US Concealed Carry Association:
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/the-gun-show-loophole-real-talk-about-a-fake-term/

ATF
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

Grizzly 45

Rows Grower wrote: »

I hope the Taoiseach gets the opportunity to visit President Biden and Co. on St. Patrick's Day.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/countries-would-give-their-right-arm-for-st-patricks-day-us-visit-taoiseach-says-1075683.html

Hope he comes back and isolates himself then as well for 14 days as a good example of leadership too.

Rows Grower

civdef wrote: »

Nope, whether the sale is in a gun show or in a car park, if the seller hasn't an FFL, it's a private sale. Outside of the states listed, that private sale doesn't need a background check, even if it's in a gun show.

The definition of when it's not a private sale comes down to whether it's repetitive and for profit, not where it's carried out.

Some operators of gun shows apply their own rules requiring background checks for private sales in states where it's not legally required, e.g. Florida, but that's a commercial decision on their behalf, rather than a legal one.

Couple of sources to check what I'm saying if you still don't believe me:

US Concealed Carry Association:
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/the-gun-show-loophole-real-talk-about-a-fake-term/

ATF
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

You know what you are talking about for sure.

No waffle.

Grizzly 45

civdef wrote: »

Nope, whether the sale is in a gun show or in a car park, if the seller hasn't an FFL, it's a private sale. Outside of the states listed, that private sale doesn't need a background check, even if it's in a gun show.

Some operators of gun shows apply their own rules requiring background checks for private sales in states where it's not legally required, e.g. Florida, but that's a commercial decision on their behalf, rather than a legal one.

OK..That makes now more sense then as to my AZ /CA experience.

S Concealed Carry Association:
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/the-gun-show-loophole-real-talk-about-a-fake-term/

Proving my point that the gun show "loophole" is a myth!

Grizzly 45

So it looks like the late Mr Kalashnikov is finally a movie star now as well.
Anyone spot the 1st big clanger about this story from the trailer here?:p

Rows Grower

Moving swiftly on....

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/teenager-who-wouldnt-stop-singing-fields-of-athenry-to-police-told-to-learn-whole-song-and-fined-610-40051137.html

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

I see what you mean about preserving anonymity however i fail to see the benefit of such data without other relevant data such as starting point and end point.

IOW, and again please explain this to me if i'm wrong, if they have me down as customer #12345. The data shows i've traveled 27km for the day. Without a start point or end point how does that data tell them anything relevant such as if i've strayed from my home, gone outside the 5km restriction, done so multiple times a day or not, etc.?

Sorry, probably being stupid or not seeing the obvious.

They aren't measuring distance travelled Knowing you've done 27km means nothing without a reference point, as you said. They aren't measuring your distance at all afaik.

It's the location variation based via cell tower pinging.
Eg. If they take a compile, over a week all the 5 different cell towers a phone pinged. And if all within a 10km radius of each other. They can say this person probably stayed local.
If the phone was pinging towers all over the shop. 30km radius. They can say that person probably did not.

It's an one or the other thing. All they did to make that assessment is the range of towers pinged per device. They don't need to track distance, movements, where and when you traveled. Then it's complied as anonymous statistics, not individual people.

Say I breach the travel restriction. It doesn't flag "Mellor: Traveled 30km[/]. I just become a "No" stat. Then they summarise for electoral areas.

So they can say
Carlow: 80% of people stayed local.
Nass: 10% of people stayed local.

That's useful information without any private information being handed over.

civdef

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

OK..That makes now more sense then as to my AZ /CA experience.


Proving my point that the gun show "loophole" is a myth!

I agree totally the "gun show loophole" term is a myth and a largely loaded term. It's an entirely open facet of the law in the US. It also highlights the weakness of the gun-lobby in the US though. The vast majority of pro-gun people will state they've no problem keeping guns out to the hands of violent criminals and the mentally unstable. The problem is that if you allow private sales with no background check that becomes totally impossible.

The 2A lobby argument against universal background checks is that it inevitably brings registration, which inevitably brings confiscation. So they feel obliged to oppose the measure that would probably take the biggest heat off legal ownership - the terrible acts carried out by people who should never have had guns in the first place.

I reckon with a bit of imagination, trust and common sense a way round the background check / registration issue could be found, but the issue has become way too partisan for that to happen, and too many lobbyists make a good living out of shouting about it.

So instead they'll fart around worrying about banning bayonet lugs and folding stocks like that will have any effect at all.

civdef

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So it looks like the late Mr Kalashnikov is finally a movie star now as well.
Anyone spot the 1st big clanger about this story from the trailer here?:p

The seem to have left out the fact Hugo Schmeisser designed it!

And he's got an AKM?

Cass

I realise the information is anonymous and no person will be identified in any way, shape or form.

The 27km figure was just pure example and if, as you said, it pings of two towers within 10km of each other and i rack up 100km in side that 10km bubble they assume i'm staying within the restrictions. I get that much.

I just didn't under the importance of it. IOW its only going to be used as data sets for each region/district, etc. to gauge compliance. To what end?

Mellor wrote: »

That's useful information without any private information being handed over.

However i still fail to see the importance of the information. In the article it said those in Dublin have the greatest compliance. Well everything you need is within that 10km bubble. Try further out from Dublin. Where i am its 7.6km to the nearest village (and thats a generous description). 12.7 to the nearest town and 26 to the nearest large town (where i have to go for shopping).

Anyone within 10km of me is also in the same boat and go out west, south and north and you'll find more people in the same boat (based on their position to the towns), There is not one person in that circle that could keep to the restrictions so when the data set is compiled it'll show a large margin of "No" (as you put it) without context. IOW its not "wilful disobedience", but necessary.

So if An Gardaí were interested in setting up checkpoints based on this data they will still have to allow for the fact its very rural and travel cannot be limited to 5km in any direction (10k bubble). Or would that be considered already?

Cass

On another note i see chuck schumer announced plans today to try and push for $50,000 of loan "forgiveness" for all students calling loan debt racist, and disgusting. Odd that because over 90% of student loans are federal.

That aside there is approx 1.6 trillion dollars loaned out to 45 million people. $50,000 is actually too much, given the average debt is $32,000-ish, but its going to open a host of problems and in the end this "forgiveness" is not fre money and someone is going to have to pay for it.

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

I realise the information is anonymous and no person will be identified in any way, shape or form.

The 27km figure was just pure example and if, as you said, it pings of two towers within 10km of each other and i rack up 100km in side that 10km bubble they assume i'm staying within the restrictions. I get that much.

I just didn't under the importance of it. IOW its only going to be used as data sets for each region/district, etc. to gauge compliance. To what end?

I was aware that you knew that it was anonymous, I was just trying to be complete with the info.
I think here will be no record of total distance. So somebody that racks up 100km in a bubble, and 20km in the bubble will register the same.

As for to what end. It's information and statistical information. That is useful way to assess what's happening on the ground. It can be related back to cases in the community. and could lead to a situation where they can say in a rural area, moves with a 8km radius, are not causing issues. (As an example.

However i still fail to see the importance of the information. In the article it said those in Dublin have the greatest compliance. Well everything you need is within that 10km bubble. Try further out from Dublin. Where i am its 7.6km to the nearest village (and thats a generous description). 12.7 to the nearest town and 26 to the nearest large town (where i have to go for shopping).

Anyone within 10km of me is also in the same boat and go out west, south and north and you'll find more people in the same boat (based on their position to the towns), There is not one person in that circle that could keep to the restrictions so when the data set is compiled it'll show a large margin of "No" (as you put it) without context. IOW its not "wilful disobedience", but necessary.

Yes, more urbansied areas will be much easier to maintain a shorter radius.
Rural area it is obviously harder. The area with the lowest "Yes" was Mayo.
But it's not claiming that more movement = more disobedience. That's a subjective opinion. Data is objective.

Nobody should expect the same level of movement Dublin vrs Mayo. On the flip side, they shouldn't expect the same occupant density in venues between the two.

It's not Dublin vrs Mayo. It's Mayo in Dec vrs Mayo in Jan.
The data might tell us that in December, only 50% of people managed to stay in the radius. But in Jan, it increased to 80%. Made up numbers, but this is the biggest benefit. To see how a given area is comparing with itself.

So if An Gardaí were interested in setting up checkpoints based on this data they will still have to allow for the fact its very rural and travel cannot be limited to 5km in any direction (10k bubble). Or would that be considered already?

it wouldn't simply be a case of checkpoint in the areas with the highest %. There would be many other factors, such as population, and facilities.

Dublin might have the lowest %. But this could also be the most people due to the population. So might sense to target dublin anyway.

But honestly, Garda are resourced into districts anyway. They would restructure their distribution and travel based on this data.

Vegeta

Cass wrote: »

I see what you mean about preserving anonymity however i fail to see the benefit of such data without other relevant data such as starting point and end point.

IOW, and again please explain this to me if i'm wrong, if they have me down as customer #12345. The data shows i've traveled 27km for the day. Without a start point or end point how does that data tell them anything relevant such as if i've strayed from my home, gone outside the 5km restriction, done so multiple times a day or not, etc.?

Sorry, probably being stupid or not seeing the obvious.

They don't care about individuals is the first point that is important I guess. They are looking at some summary statistic for each region (maybe average, median etc. etc.) Whether you've strayed from home or not is not of interest, they only care how much everyone in a given region are moving around and how that compares to pre-lockdown or previous lockdown periods.

Any mobility data I have seen before has been presented as a percentage compared to a baseline (18 months ago, this time 2 years ago etc.)

For example, here is a plot for all of Ireland versus the UK:

Vegeta

The assumption is of course, the more people are moving around the more likely they are to be interacting and potentially spreading the virus.

Grizzly 45

civdef wrote: »

The seem to have left out the fact Hugo Schmeisser designed it!

And he's got an AKM?

Correct on the AKM,that showed up in the early[?] 1950s:D

Did Sccmeisser have anything to do with the design? One of those never-ending arguments like 9mmVs 45ACP

My take on it; There are certainly enough similarities between the two systems to make an argument but the historical time frame and location of where both men were working in Russia doesn't fit. I reckon Kalashnikov got hold of or was given some of the Mp44 blueprints,the Russians got 10,500 sheets of various designs of German guns, but didnt have the German skill or equipment to make proper stampings, hence the first AKs were milled receivers and made enough changes to call it his own. Either that or a long holiday in Siberia courtesy of Uncle Joe,if he was lucky.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

On another note i see chuck schumer announced plans today to try and push for $50,000 of loan "forgiveness" for all students calling loan debt racist, and disgusting. Odd that because over 90% of student loans are federal.

That aside there is approx 1.6 trillion dollars loaned out to 45 million people. $50,000 is actually too much, given the average debt is $32,000-ish, but its going to open a host of problems and in the end this "forgiveness" is not fre money and someone is going to have to pay for it.

The whole college thing is a joke in the western world. Too many parents want their offspring to have degree's, even though a lot of degree's are not worth the paper they are printed on. They end up in debt for something thats just not worth it.

Having worked in two colleges in Dublin, i seen first hand final year students doing engineering degree's who were really clueless. Maybe one in ten might make the grade in the outside world.

The rest would be better training in something more practical, doing an apprenticeship, or taking up a trade. But the government is also complicit, they want to boast to the voting public that everyone leaving school goes on to third level.

Grizzly 45

[Q

UOTE=civdef;116170963]I agree totally the "gun show loophole" term is a myth and a largely loaded term. It's an entirely open facet of the law in the US. It also highlights the weakness of the gun-lobby in the US though. The vast majority of pro-gun people will state they've no problem keeping guns out to the hands of violent criminals and the mentally unstable. The problem is that if you allow private sales with no background check that becomes totally impossible.

The fact is that there is already more than enough legislation on the US law books, on federal, state and local level to deal with this problem like about 22,000 laws nationwide, is that they are not enforced or unenforceable due to various other reasons or how the US judicial system works,if someone is caught.
So the counter-argument is how will further legislation or backround checks solve this problem? Criminals dont really go and buy guns in gun stores or off private sales.So it is seen as a "just one more law to solve everything"
Plus if it did work those states should have a very low gun crime rate,but in fact have the highest gun crime in the US IE Washington DC and Chicago

The 2A lobby argument against universal background checks is that it inevitably brings registration, which inevitably brings confiscation. So they feel obliged to oppose the measure that would probably take the biggest heat off legal ownership

Again, they can point to the global and historical precedent of that being a fact. So if it could happen in places like the UK, that actually had at one point more liberal gun laws than the USA itself, and that within literally 100 years this year,is one of the most paranoid anal countries on gun-ownership in the Western world,why would it not happen in the US?

- the terrible acts carried out by people who should never have had guns in the first place.

A topic in itself,that the big pharma lobby in the US, as well as State and Federal mental health experts, have some explaining to do as well.Like why 95% of mass shooters have been found to be on or off Lithium-based medications

I reckon with a bit of imagination, trust and common sense a way round the background check / registration issue could be found, but the issue has become way too partisan for that to happen, and too many lobbyists make a good living out of shouting about it.

Not going to happen, as there have never been any concessions from the anti side of things. Why should they start now? And why would we trust them? Simple really.

So instead they'll fart around worrying about banning bayonet lugs and folding stocks like that will have any effect at all.

That was pure emotivism in the Clinton "crime control " act and just showed that this issue is not "common-sense gun safety" just banning them irrespective.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

The whole college thing is a joke in the western world. Too many parents want their offspring to have degree's, even though a lot of degree's are not worth the paper they are printed on. They end up in debt for something thats just not worth it.

Having worked in two colleges in Dublin, i seen first hand final year students doing engineering degree's who were really clueless. Maybe one in ten might make the grade in the outside world.

The rest would be better training in something more practical, doing an apprenticeship, or taking up a trade. But the government is also complicit, they want to boast to the voting public that everyone leaving school goes on to the third level.

Colleges are definitely to blame too. Peddling junk degrees like Gender studies or critical race theory,or women's studies or the like is hardly or ever will be relevant or on par with a degree in engineering or medicine or something useful to mankind.
So putting yourself in hock for 35k with a degree and majoring on medieval Lesbian dancing is hardly going to qualify you for a high paying job in NASA.

Not only that "degree snobbery" is a thing as well. Some companies only want recognised colleges of note" people in their company.
So too bad if you majored in law,top of your class and wrote in Podunk Cow college, you are somehow not as good as Mr Average here who has his degree from Yale.
As Thatcher said and she was 100% right. "Socialism is fun until you run out of other peoples money to spend" A lesson that utter Shmuck Schumer needs to learn,if he could ever be bothered representing his constituency of NY:rolleyes:

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Not only that "degree snobbery" is a thing as well. Some companies only want recognised colleges of note" people in their company.
So too bad if you majored in law,top of your class and wrote in Podunk Cow college, you are somehow not as good as Mr Average here who has his degree from Yale.

Same thing happens here. I seem to remember some company advertising a role where the person had to have a 2.1 if they did their degree in Trinity, and it had to be a 1.1 if it was in UCD or the other colleges.