And here they come out of woodwork

[Rushie]

Yeah, but there are a lot of at-will employment states where no reason is required for termination. And why would a company want to be associated with someone who says something so repugnant?

Correct, you don't have a right to your job. Unless you're in a communist country and then you take whatever job they assign you but then spouting off on social media - indeed even just connecting to social media- can get you hard labor or a bullet to the back of your head.

 

[Palmpilot]

Politics are an extension of our understanding of reality. We want to shape the world towards our ideal, so it's natural that we see things as aiding or impeding movement towards that end. Opinions flow freely in social media and we're more exposed to those outside of our circles. I don't think we going to "come back together" until we stop assuming we all have the same goals.

People also fail to recognize that being willing to occasionally question one's own assumptions is a necessary step for staying in touch with reality. I see it as a necessary part of what Dr. Bruce refers to as "reality testing."

 

[Rushie]

I would say this is more a case of a senior employee getting fired for making their company look bad.

Yes, many companies quite properly expect a certain level of professionalism and decorum from their employees even while off duty. Nothing wrong and everything right about that. Although I personally find it beyond creepy that nowadays prospective employers will check out your online presence as one way to gather information about you. But putting myself in their shoes, I would too. Hiring someone is a big financial risk.

The massive interconnected cyber brain that has become us is reality now and we're not going back so deal with it. Assume anything you type to anyone on any device connected could potentially be seen by anyone and everyone.

 

[Palmpilot]

Sadly that is true. Had she made that comment while on a college staff she would be celebrated as an example of academic freedom.

Freedom includes the right to say dumb things. The Internet is one of the freest environments there is, and let's face it: people say all kinds of dumb things on the Internet.

This incident also illustrates one reason why I don't begrudge people for wanting to post under handles instead of their real names: This is not the first time that someone has faced negative consequences because something they posted got back to their employer.

 

[Stewartb]

Keep in mind that 100% of what we know about the Las Vegas tragedy has been reported by the media. Lots of stupid stuff has made the airwaves. The difference with the lady who was fired is her comments will cost her company money. If her comments brought profit? She'd have been praised. It has nothing to do with truth, morals, ethics, or anything noble. It's about money.

 

[Palmpilot]

...I really do feel that there is room for solutions that everyone can live with. Maybe not get everything we want every time but live with. I am really tired of constant tug of war and wondering if my world is about to get upended every 4 years.

Politics have gotten so polarized in this country that watching government at work reminds me of the way the needles wildly swing from one stop to the other when I try to fly an ILS.

 

[Rushie]

Freedom includes the right to say dumb things. The Internet is one of the freest environments there is, and let's face it: people say all kinds of dumb things on the Internet.

This incident also illustrates one reason why I don't begrudge people for wanting to post under handles instead of their real names: This is not the first time that someone has faced negative consequences because something they posted got back to their employer.

Agree 100%. Freedom includes the right to say dumb things. And it includes your employer's right to fire you for it. Something the leftist protesters do not grasp is that freedom to speak your mind does not mean protection from consequences if others don't like what you say.

Indeed this is a major reason people post anonymously and for good cause. It's not like the old days when your comment made at the local pub might get round to the rest of the village within a few days. Now, your comment reaches potentially billions within seconds. There is no shortage of examples of devastating real life consequences when the online community has decided to attack a person.

 

[Palmpilot]

Why is anyone surprised at something stupid and inflammatory coming from a media person’s mouth? Inflammatory and decisive is what American media is. They are the primary problem fueling our societal problems.

It's the invisible hand of the market at work. Whatever attracts the most viewers/readers is what gets aired/published. I'm not sure there's a solution.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Something the leftist protesters do not grasp is that freedom to speak your mind does not mean protection from consequences if others don't like what you say....

It's not just leftists. For example, consider the Google employee who posted politically incorrect comments about the capabilities of his female colleagues. I doubt that the people who complained about his firing were predominantly leftists.

 

[steingar]

These things happen in other cultures and other nations, too. Sometimes, but not always, a different method or weapon is used. I don't think the method really matters, and it certainly isn't the root cause.

While this is correct, firearms increase the level of carnage considerably.

 

[murphey]

Sadly that is true. Had she made that comment while on a college staff she would be celebrated as an example of academic freedom.

While I do not agree with her statement, I'm offended at the blatant assumption that academic freedom is a license to say anything. It's not. Unfortunately, the only time "academic freedom" argument is derided is when someone objects to either the speaker and/or the comments being made. Works both ways folks.

 

[Mike Smith]

While this is correct, firearms increase the level of carnage considerably.

This is true. The problem is that anyone with a brain knows that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are no gun control measures that will even hinder the continuation of these types of attacks. There are simply too many firearms in circulation for any new law to be effective. Everyone knows this. The only measure that "could" work is confiscation, which is what the proponents of gun control legislation really want. The opposition knows this as well and will fight tooth and nail to keep the camels nose out of the tent.

 

[murphey]

So a person got fired for having a "wrong" opinion on Facebook? ("wrong" being subjective based on the readers' beliefs and political and musical orientation)
I always said that FB was full of sh** but was always silenced and ridiculed. *shrug*

I wonder if this will start a new trend of HR departments reading FB cr*p all day to find employees to fire for comments they choose to disagree with.

This is common, and has been for years in the initial hiring process. Why do you think I used my dog on social sites (very few, too) and only use my real name on legit professional sites ( and very few of those, too)?

 

[Half Fast]

While this is correct, firearms increase the level of carnage considerably.

No, they don't. A bomb or a motor vehicle can produce the same or greater carnage. And instantly. A firearm produces carnage one victim at a time, even if it is sometimes rapid. This can allow time for defense or counter-attack.

Had the Vegas shooter, who was also a pilot, chosen to fly an aircraft into the crowd the death toll may well have been much worse. Pure speculation, of course, but it's a fallacy to think firearms wreak greater havoc than any other weapon.

 

[steingar]

This is true. The problem is that anyone with a brain knows that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are no gun control measures that will even hinder the continuation of these types of attacks. There are simply too many firearms in circulation for any new law to be effective. Everyone knows this. The only measure that "could" work is confiscation, which is what the proponents of gun control legislation really want. The opposition knows this as well and will fight tooth and nail to keep the camels nose out of the tent.

I genuinely don't understand where this invective is coming from. Firearms are more American than Apple pie (German), hot dogs (also German) and possibly baseball, which is played in Japan. There are no gun control measure likely to pass a Congress run by Conservatives and an Executive run by, oh lets not go there.

 

[weilke]

While I do not agree with her statement, I'm offended at the blatant assumption that academic freedom is a license to say anything. It's not. Unfortunately, the only time "academic freedom" argument is derided is when someone objects to either the speaker and/or the comments being made. Works both ways folks.

I am offended that you would think that I would see it that way.

Sadly, in the last couple of years a number of minor league academics have said similarly offensive things in the face of tragedy and all they ever had to do was giving a half assed 'i am sorry it offended you' excuse.

 

[Half Fast]

This is true. The problem is that anyone with a brain knows that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are no gun control measures that will even hinder the continuation of these types of attacks.

Even if it could, no one considers the down-side of strict gun control. Read a few articles about the recent election in Spain if you'd like to see how a modern civilized government deals with an unarmed populace trying to conduct an election that the establishment doesn't like.

Then google "Battle of Athens" and read about how armed US citizens dealt with an attempt at rigging an election shortly after WWII.

You might also study some of the genocides that have happened in the last century or so. And if you think our enlightened, benevolent, government "of the people" would never treat any ethnic group that way, go have a conversation with an American Indian or two.

Large scale attacks will happen from time to time in the US, as elsewhere. Whether the attacker uses a van full of fertilizer and fuel oil, an airliner, envelopes of anthrax, or a firearm, really doesn't make much difference. Those bent on mass murder will find a means to carry it out. If the laws forbidding murder don't stop them, it is silly to think that any regulation of weapons or materials will slow them down even slightly.

 

[wsuffa]

I am just a worker-bee, so whatever I do online is only limited by my employers general social media policy. It says common sense stuff like you can't disclose confidential information etc. Interestingly, the policy doesn't say: 'dont say anything stupid'.

Maybe not yours, but some do. Especially a high-profile media company where the person involved states publicly who she worked for.

At some point, contract or no, you do something that embarrasses the company and they're going to find a way to terminate. Especially if you're with a company that's dealing with the perception of a particular point of view and has the reach to influence others.

I would guess that there's an employment contract that spells it out for her. Every time I've been bound by such a contract it has had a standard for-cause termination provision along these lines:

" 'Cause' in this agreement means:
.....

(viii) willful conduct by you that is demonstrably and materially injurious to company, monetarily or otherwise."

Given that her profile included position and title with employer, and that it went viral, pretty much makes this provision apply.

 

[Gerhardt]

Steingar is spot-on that guns are a effective and efficient killing tools. I wouldn't try to argue that they are not, nor deflect to other things that are more effective. Address the issue directly, that mentally unabalanced people have used guns and will continue to use guns. They do it because guns are easy to acquire and easy to use. Remove guns from the equation and they'll simply find another tool. Making guns illegal doesn't solve the problem.

 

[Ravioli]

IBTL

<--- what does that guy usually say about politics and thread moderation?

 

[Rushie]

It's not just leftists. For example, consider the Google employee who posted politically incorrect comments about the capabilities of his female colleagues. I doubt that the people who complained about his firing were predominantly leftists.

True. I had in mind the current antifa protesters and the NFL kneelers but it's true for anyone on all sides it's just that the left are the ones making more of a fuss right now.

 

[Caramon13]

Steingar is spot-on that guns are a effective and efficient killing tools. I wouldn't try to argue that they are not, nor deflect to other things that are more effective. Address the issue directly, that mentally unabalanced people have used guns and will continue to use guns. They do it because guns are easy to acquire and easy to use. Remove guns from the equation and they'll simply find another tool. Making guns illegal doesn't solve the problem.

Gun control doesn't necessarily include making things illegal. It means more regulation. There's a difference.

I will agree that SOME weapons should be illegal outright...but generally speaking we need more, not less regulation...

 

[Mike Smith]

IBTL

<--- what does that guy usually say about politics and thread moderation?

Rob, this thread may indeed get locked, but there is no way that thinking people aren't going to talk about this. You may say "do it elsewhere" but this is "our" community.

 

[Rushie]

Steingar is spot-on that guns are a effective and efficient killing tools. I wouldn't try to argue that they are not, nor deflect to other things that are more effective. Address the issue directly, that mentally unabalanced people have used guns and will continue to use guns. They do it because guns are easy to acquire and easy to use. Remove guns from the equation and they'll simply find another tool. Making guns illegal doesn't solve the problem.

True. Remove guns from the equation and you don't remove guns from the equation, you just put them into the black market and you disarm the innocent. The criminals and nutters will still get them.

The problem with the argument that it worked in the U.K. or where ever is that those places are not the U.S. Trying to eradicate guns in the U.S. would be like trying to eradicate alcohol during prohibition. It's seen as literally a God given birthright here, actually enshrined in the highest law of our land. The U.S. is completely unique in that way and plenty of our citizens, both good people and criminals, would die rather than allow their guns to be taken. Any attempt to do so would result in immediate civil war and possible breakup of the nation.

The best thing is to remember that for every person killed by a criminal with a gun, including all these in Vegas, there are thousands saved by guns that you never read about in the news. Crime goes down just by having conceal carry when the criminal knows he will face a gun, he is more likely to leave a place alone.

IBTL?? I am not trying to be argumentative or partisan just pointing out what I perceive to be reality. Imho.

 

[Half Fast]

..but generally speaking we need more, not less regulation...

Really?

To exercise a constitutionaly protected right, I have been photographed, fingerprinted, had background investigations by both the FBI and local law enforcement, and completed a state-sanctioned training course. Each time I purchase a firearm I have to complete another form, show ID, and undergo another background check. If I want to own some specialty items, like a short-barreled shotgun or a shoulder brace for a pistol, I have to go through an additional federal background check and pay a $200 tax for each item.

A criminal will do none of these things.

Why do I need to be regulated further than I already am, when no regulation will slow down a murderer?

We already have tons of gun laws on the books. Why should we think that a few more will make any difference?

 

[Gerhardt]

We have to know the mods are contemplating locking the thread, and so far we've done a great job of keeping this civil. Sweet! Let's keep politics out of it and keep it civil.

My stance has never been a secret on here. And some of my best friends are anti-gun people but we still manage to get along great in real live with not a single raised voice. We can do the same here.

 

[azblackbird]

I will agree that SOME weapons should be illegal outright...but generally speaking we need more, not less regulation...

I'd really like to hear your viewpoint on which exact guns should be made illegal.

I'd also like to hear your view point on which type of regulations you would impose on gun owners that you think would help deter or curb crimes that are committed with guns.

 

[Norman]

While this is correct, firearms increase the level of carnage considerably.

Bombs and IED's are just as efficient if not more so.

 

[Half Fast]

It's seen as literally a God given birthright here, actually enshrined in the highest law of our land. The U.S. is completely unique in that way ...

This is more profound than many realize.

In the UK, sovereignty rests in a monarch. Here in the US, sovereignty is held by the people themselves, collectively. Sovereignty and arms are inseperable for both philosophical and practical reasons. Disarm the US citizenry and we are no longer sovereign, but are reduced to subjects.

The US Founders understood this, and they had the practical experience of finding it necessary to take up their personal arms, overthrow a monarch, and establish a new sovereign power within the citizenry.

Arms are so deeply part of who we Americans are that if they were to be removed, we would cease to be the USA.

 

[azblackbird]

Arms are so deeply part of who we Americans are that if they were to be removed, we would cease to be the USA.

Ditto!

 

[deonb]

Crime goes down just by having conceal carry when the criminal knows he will face a gun, he is more likely to leave a place alone.

There were quite a few guns carried by both the spectators and performers in Vegas. This wasn't any kind of deterrence.

Out of curiosity - what kind of weapon would the concert-goers had to carry on them in order to have been able to successfully return fire to the shooter? Would that be even practical to carry around?

 

[steingar]

Bombs and IED's are just as efficient if not more so.

Bombs and IEDs take no how that isn't common knowledge. Most folks can figure out how to pull a trigger.

But a little factlet I'd like to insert into all the ranting here. If you factor in all the mass shootings in the last few years, still the vast, vast majority of firearm deaths occur between people who know each other very well. Roughly half are suicides. You are far more likely to drown or be poisoned (and far, far more likely to overdose on opioids) than die from a firearm. If you own a firearm your odds of dying from one increase substantially. Them's the facts. these mass shooting make really sensational news, but they're rare. The more common things that happen are also mundane.

 

[Norman]

While there is an irony to that gathering coming under gunfire, it in no way diminishes the tragedy. The bad thing is our culture makes these things happen, and they will continue. Firearm ownership is more American than just about anything else. It is part of the fabric of our nation. The sad thing is because of it there will be occasional tragedies like this one.

Steingar,

If I may respectfully disagree it is not about firearm ownership. The vast majority of firearm owners are law abiding citizens who posses them for target shooting, hunting, or self defense. I possess only one gun and it for the latter. I may not win and will not go down willingly at the hands of a bad guy. If guns are outlawed those who for various reasons such as mental instability and general hatred of others who disagree with them will not be stopped.

I carry because I don't want to be a victim and hope, like my deputy friends, I never have to use it. It is to me simply an 'insurance policy' I hope I never have to collect on.

 

[Caramon13]

Really?

To exercise a constitutionaly protected right, I have been photographed, fingerprinted, had background investigations by both the FBI and local law enforcement, and completed a state-sanctioned training course. Each time I purchase a firearm I have to complete another form, show ID, and undergo another background check. If I want to own some specialty items, like a short-barreled shotgun or a shoulder brace for a pistol, I have to go through an additional federal background check and pay a $200 tax for each item.

A criminal will do none of these things.

Why do I need to be regulated further than I already am, when no regulation will slow down a murderer?

We already have tons of gun laws on the books. Why should we think that a few more will make any difference?

Yes...really. Yours is the typical argument for gun owner rights. You are a (I presume) law-abiding citizen and you're following the process. So you argue it needs to be easier because its too tough to buy a gun when you "want" one. The criminals don't do it, so it should be easier for me.

It's a juvenile argument that has run its course.

There is no good reason for any American to own an arsenal. Protection, yes. Hunting, yes. A sidearm, a non automatic long gun and a shotgun. There you go. No more for you.

The right to bear arms doesn't mean the right to wield an arsenal. It was a practical and useful clause for a specific point in time and with SOME applicability to protection and food today. NRA and so many others are perverting it into an excuse to be able to buy a .50 caliber "toy" because..the constitution lets them..

All I hear from gun owners are "I want, I want, I want". Regulation laws should be telling them what they "get" based on what they "need" and qualified by what they already "have".

 

[azblackbird]

Out of curiosity - what kind of weapon would the concert-goers had to carry on them in order to have been able to successfully return fire to the shooter? Would that be even practical to carry around?

If the guy had been in the crowd. Chances are he would have been taken out after his first magazine dump by either a citizen or security. Since he was more strategically placed, only a trained sniper would have been able to directly take him out, unless they knew his exact position (which they did later on) and could breach his position directly.

If you own a firearm your odds of dying from one increase substantially.

Same goes for owning an automobile, motorcycle, or an airplane.

 

[Gerhardt]

Half Fast, I know what you're saying. It took me 9 months to get the tax stamp for my last suppressor. I'm able to listen with an open mind to people who don't like guns because I have a similar stance on another issue. I hate cigarettes and cigarette smoke. I went to visit someone in the hospital recently and had to walk through a 50 ft cloud because a dozen smokers were gathered by the door outside the building. You can't breathe in that.

So when someone says they don't like guns and think they should be illegal I get where they're coming from. In Joe's mind, why is it fair that others get to have something that can kill Joe and his family? In my mind, why is it fair that Joe gets a say in whether I can have something that has never affected him at all? I've owned guns since I was in elementary school and have never used one illegally, as have tens of millions of others. So when something like this happens I 100% understand why people who don't like guns don't want the Paddocks of the world to have them. It's Paddock we should ALL be angry with, not people on the other side of the issue, regardless of the side you're on.

 

[azblackbird]

Regulation laws should be telling them what they "get" based on what they "need" and qualified by what they already "have".

How would you propose to enforce these regulations?

 

[Caramon13]

Here's option B. Leave guns alone and regulate ammunition. Without bullets, they are just fancy bashing devices..

 

[azblackbird]

Here's option B. Leave guns alone and regulate ammunition. Without bullets, they are just fancy bashing devices..

I make my own bullets (along with many other thousands of gun owners), so now what are you going to do?

 

[Mike Smith]

Yes...really. Yours is the typical argument for gun owner rights. You are a (I presume) law-abiding citizen and you're following the process. So you argue it needs to be easier because its too tough to buy a gun when you "want" one. The criminals don't do it, so it should be easier for me.

It's a juvenile argument that has run its course.

There is no good reason for any American to own an arsenal. Protection, yes. Hunting, yes. A sidearm, a non automatic long gun and a shotgun. There you go. No more for you.

The right to bear arms doesn't mean the right to wield an arsenal. It was a practical and useful clause for a specific point in time and with SOME applicability to protection and food today. NRA and so many others are perverting it into an excuse to be able to buy a .50 caliber "toy" because..the constitution lets them..

All I hear from gun owners are "I want, I want, I want". Regulation laws should be telling them what they "get" based on what they "need" and qualified by what they already "have".

You do realize that that same logic could be applied to General Aviation?