Proof-Variation7005

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jeevm7j wrote

>Why do we have to pay for their burdens??? Makes no sense.

The next business that doesn't pass on their costs to their consumers will be the first. They'll also be the last since everyone else will see how quickly they fail after and not repeat the same mistake.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jeem6hm wrote

Reply to comment by iCaligula in Random as hell by GoneGirl11

I'd imagine a random weekend afternoon is the worst time. I've only gone a few times on Thursdays and it wasn't empty, but it wasn't a sea of divorced Dads trying to bond with the kids one last time before dropping em off at Cheryl's.

2

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jea5rwl wrote

>It helps to a point but it still doesn’t stop a teen from taking the weapon their parents obtained legally. Or from someone driving across state lines.

I think pretty much any steps done in the name of security can be described that way. Locking your front door can help to a point but won't guarantee you won't get robbed. All that TSA bullshit at airports helps make it harder to hijack or blow up a plane but it's not impossible. Having a complex unique password can help you not get hacked but it still can happen, etc, etc.

The only blanket stuff that's guaranteed to be effective are pipe-dream ideas that are just impossible in modern american society. Even the most fervent gun-haters who wish we could melt em all down and outlaw them aren't stupid enough to think there's any chance of that happening.

I think the only people who really believe in the plausibility of that kind of scenario are the ones who use their paranoia as justification to oppose every common sense restriction that the majority of the country supports like federalizing standards and making it so states with shitty gun laws aren't the source of weapons in states with tougher gun laws.

4

Proof-Variation7005 t1_je9xmq9 wrote

>That doesn’t matter. California has much stricter gun laws and there have been plenty of shootings there. One thing we have learned is that these shootings happen all over the country. Stricter gun laws via state doesn’t change much at all

Ultimately, the solution has to be federal and every super lax state can and will undermine the stricter laws. States surrounded by likeminded states, like us, do benefit from that collective mindset making it that much tougher. RI's gun laws benefit from NY/NJ/CT/MA being strong too.

Outside of Alaska and Hawaii, every state's laws are always gun law efficacy is going to be limited by its neighbors. That being said, i strongly disagree with the implication that state level laws are somehow not effective or useless. That's disingenuous logic and usually only invoked as an excuse for inaction.

And FWIW, California ranks 44th in gun deaths per capita. There's still room for improvement but the states with notoriously lax gun laws in the country see a LOT more violence. Their neighbor Arizona has an F rating from most gun control advocacy groups and their firearm death rate is over twice as high as California.

−2

Proof-Variation7005 t1_je9uq1q wrote

Apologies in advance for how long this is...

GoLocal is a whole different beast than any traditional newspaper. Overall, the slant is right-wing (part of why I don't trust any pearl clutching about political donations), but I think the guiding editorial principle has mostly been spite.

For local crime, they repeat (not report, repeat) anything the police FOP feeds them verbatim and uncritically and it's really clear in word choice, phrasing, and the insistence on linking every possible story they can.

For local politicians, figures, and business, there's been countless examples where they (the entire operation is mostly Josh Fenton and his wife, they try to hide this by using anonymous bylines on 99% of their content) have done hatchet jobs on figures that were critical of them.

Some figures, like Raimondo, Elorza, and Cicilline in particular, have been constant targets where coverage is framed in the worst possible light.

When a city councilor questioned a no-bid contract where the city pays them $35k per year to post PDFs for public notices, which is based on antiquated law from the 1930s where governments were required to post things in a newspaper, they went after him pretty relentlessly for years.

Hell, they once did an attack piece about a Facebook joke one of their former writers, who'd moved on acrimoniously and freelanced the occasional ProJo piece. The terrible joke in question was indifference at a Columbus statue being vandalized.

As for the substance of this latest effort? Right off the bat, you have to remember that they give zero fucks about Ron DeSantis or any right-wing contributions. Context clues would probably say that Fenton and his wife are both conservative anyway. I don't think there's any sincerity in any of this and I think the only motivating factor is either an existing advertising relationship with RI Energy or just the general "the right will do literally anything to try and squash green energy options", similar to how you'll see people claim to care about wildlife impact from wind turbines. More to the point, I think there's no such thing as a utility company in 2023 that isn't guilty of some of this same shit, whether it's shitty donations, pushing for deregulation, etc, etc.

There's areas in life where you can be a conscientious consumer, but as a person who needs electricity? It's basically pick your poison from a limited list of bad actors.

8