So in this case we decide that disabled people ought to be able to take their assistance animals on planes. Fine. But then we the people should be paying the airlines to carry the disabled person and their service animal without depriving other passengers of the flight experience that they bought and paid for. We've collectively decided to help and we should collectively bear the cost.
If you are unable to run a business that provides equal access to the level required by regulation, then your business is unsustainable and cannot function. This is the same situation as running a business that cannot afford to provide a service while meeting environmental regulations.
However if you make a regulation which does the same thing then the cost does not cross the government's books, so nobody can say that you are costing anybody anything in particular. Its much better politics, regardless of the economics.
As far as depriving other passengers, it's up to the airlines how to do that. They are incentivized to provide a good experience to fliers in order to keep people willing to fly with them.
Too many laws are enacted on the basis that they will be popular only because a majority of people will not have to pay for them and thus see no downsides.
For example, when allowing horses, that means the plane uses additional fuel. Usually the cost of the fuel is included in the ticket, so as fuel becomes scarcer, prices go up, and less people fly. But when the government starts paying for some of that fuel, it will hide that price increase from consumers, so they will fly more than they should, and use fuel faster than they should.
Also, almost 90% of Americans have flown, so it's not like filers are some tiny minority.
People with mental illness often make terrible decisions, but there's a trend to say we have to tolerate these terrible decisions because that's helping them, when it might do the opposite.
OK, so service animals might be effective. But for a non-permanent disability, couldn't travelling without one be a milestone to work towards, rather than an unalienable right? Obviously it depends on individual circumstances, but who should make the call?
More generally, I don't think all of society needs to be forced to accommodate any possible prescription by a doctor.
And that's where you and I disagree. This therapy animal business seems to be exploding in popularity, and maybe there's something to it, though it seems too popular too quick to be properly vetted. But even if animals are the ultimate therapy, this idea that any and all animals should now be accepted as therapy is over the top.
I guess my big problem is there’s no standards, and I have no security in knowing that someone sitting inches away from me or my family has an untrained pit bull that they’re claiming is an ESA, and I can’t do anything about it until after the damage is done.
Really, once you learn that there people who could reasonably prefer mini-horses to dogs, the article has answered the question it sets out to.
I have a very hard time believing that. Do you have a source? It's all anecdotal, but the few people I know with dog allergies, seem to be very mild cases. While horse allergies seem to be fairly common and much more severe.
OK, that's awesome. We should all make our own ID cards.
Cali is used to going for long stretches without urinating...
This is typical of horses, especially females like this one featured in TFA. They like to really stretch out their legs while urinating (I guess they don't like splashes?) and are only comfortable doing so in particular situations. Whereas they will defecate anywhere, so it's impressive that this animal has been trained not to do that.
If you are asking for ID even though you don't know what ID should be provided or even if any is required then FU, you get the one written in crayons.
The rules around flying are weird and full of perverse incentives that are easily hacked.
Reportedly, that activates some chain of custody-like procedures, including that it's unlikely to be lost, and that the case isn't opened at potentially arbitrary points of time by unknown workers in between (damage, theft).
I use a cheap 1911 frame. This is a 48.5-state solution; don't try it in Illinois or NYC.
>Non-residents do not need a firearms license to transport their firearms in or through the Commonwealth, provided the firearms are unloaded and enclosed in a case while traveling.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
This seems to indicate that a MA firearms license is required if
a. You are staying in MA
b. You don’t have a MA hunting license and/or it is not hunting season.
Here the exemption is for:
> (h) Possession of rifles and shotguns and ammunition therefor by nonresidents traveling in or through the commonwealth, providing that any rifles or shotguns are unloaded and enclosed in a case;
I'd think that it would be hard to argue that "traveling in or through" doesn't include staying in some sort of accommodations during your trip.
This specifically does not mention handguns. Handguns have much narrower exemptions:
IANAL but a starter pistol with no ammo is probably ok, but hey, it is only 2 1/2 years in jail if you are convicted.
(edit - fixed typo)
Interesting, though, that their FAQ page says “firearms” are allowed while the code only provides an exception for rifles and shotguns (excluding handguns). Seems dangerously misleading considering the penalties for violations
I am a Mass resident and know not to mess with Mass gun laws - they carry a minimum of 2 1/2 years in jail.
Total coincidence - MA has the lowest gun death rate at <1/3 the national average and <1/6 some of the most dangerous states:
Boston is your big city, right? It had 56 people murdered in 2018. Here are their pictures. https://www.universalhub.com/2018/boston-murders-2018
As near as I can tell from the available pictures, the victims are largely or entirely black. They make up 23% of the city, according to wikipedia, or 159,754 people. So that is about 35 black victims per 100,000 black residents.
In 2018, Chicago is about 40 black victims per 100,000 black residents.
This is comparable to black victim rates elsewhere. I don't think that your gun rates are helping so much as the fact that you are a mostly white state without many urban centers.
Seeing the faces of the victims really hammers home the reality of murder in the United States: something that's much worse for black men (and the black community) than it is for everyone else.
Some people have put forward decent ideas on how we could restrict firearms from such individuals. (I personally think that everyone purchasing a firearm should have to find a longtime acquaintance to swear under penalty of perjury that this person is fit to own a firearm. Maybe others have better ideas.) Regardless, I hope that that situation can be improved somehow.
The race of a murderer is strongly correlated with the race of the victim. "As with homicide in general, most victims are the same race as the offender(s)....More than 80 percent of all crime involves victims and perpetrators of the same race. Whites and African Americans of course can and do attack each other, but they are the exception, not the rule. "
> young white Christian men have a mass murder problem, somehow they are being radicalized.
There is definitely a mass murder problem, but it isn't particularly biased toward young (mean age 31) or white (54% of shooters out of 60+% population share). It is overwhelmingly male (especially for perpetrators - 98% of mass murder perpetrators, but also for victims - 75% of murder victims).
Not sure where you're getting the idea that Christians in particular are committing the shootings - there doesn't seem to be a lot of data or discussion of the religion of the perpetrators.
"Despite the widespread perception that mass shooters are overwhelmingly white males, researchers have found that white men are not overrepresented among mass shooters. In other words, white men are no more likely than other male demographic to engage in a mass shooting. Daniel Engber, writing for Slate, noted that mass shooters are not disproportionately white male. He writes that “the notion that white men of privilege are disproportionately represented among mass shooters—indeed, that they make up ‘nearly all’ of them—is a myth.” A widely referenced analysis by Mother Jones (mentioned earlier) found that “white people weren’t overrepresented among mass shooters. "
Statistics change if you include other types of mass shootings (family more white, felony more black) which are much more common than the "public mass shootings".
> Non-black perpetrators committed 70% of these public shootings
So you're bolstering your argument that public mass shootings are primarily white by claiming that blacks (14% of the population) commit 30% of the public mass shootings?
Statistics and context matter.
And yet Massachusetts' murder rate of 3.2/100k/yr is right about the median for the US. Who ever would have thought? (Granted, the suicide rate of 8.8/100k/yr is pretty impressive, and some of that might be assignable to their gun control efforts)
Murder is when one human wants to kill another and that's not hard, humans are as dedicated as they are fragile.
What availability of guns influences most are homicides. Where you don't necessarily want to kill another human but you want their stuff or you want to teach them a lesson, also accidental deaths and I think suicides (probably quickness and decisiveness draws people).
Do background checks help prevent suicides or accidents?
On the other hand, waiting periods, permit to purchase, etc., may be more helpful in preventing suicides (or minimizing fatal suicide attempts).
What were the statistics and trends in Massachusetts before the laws were in force?
It's important to look at the intent and effect of proposed (and on-the-books) legislation, and at the context of statistics.
There is a good discussion of various factors (duration of suicide crises, availability of means, opportunity to abort the attempt or be rescued, and the lethality of the mechanism).
"Nine out of ten people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die by suicide at a later date."
"A number of studies have indicated that when lethal means are made less available or less deadly, suicide rates by that method decline, and frequently suicide rates overall decline. This has been demonstrated in a number of areas: bridge barriers, detoxification of domestic gas, pesticides, medication packaging, and others."
$40k worth of camera optics is worth it.
Also, with regular firearms, they have to be in case specially designed for the firearm. You can't just lock it in your regular suitcase.
The criteria seemed to be that the case or bag can't be pried open enough to dump any of the contents out (gun, magazine, ammo, etc). Which makes sense until you realize that a thief is just going to take the entire thing and open it when they get home...
Experiments showed that even a Pelican brand case isn't sturdy enough to prevent this. The only one I've found that works are the cheap stamped steel pistol cases (with the easily picked wafer locks). You can't pry open a corner on them with just hand strength.
This isn't always the case, sometimes it's only a few minutes. But it does add some "unpredictability" to air travel.
I wish whoever downvoted you could explain themselves to help me understand why they think tall people shouldn't be reasonably accommodated.
The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
(2) Major Life Activities
(A) In general
For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.
Are all the people endlessly whining about airplane seats really going to make the case that being tall is a strictly shit hand in life? Given all the data about better pay and relationship outcomes and everything else? It's an obnoxious and the posters deserve all the downvotes they get.
It shouldn't matter if you think tall people are lucky for being tall, or whatevver your hangup is. All that should matter is if their physical condition is causing them trouble.
As a tall person (I'm only 6ft though) I have no idea what the seat is going to be like until I get onboard. Some aircraft (even on the same airline and route I've had differences) have plenty of room, others have my knees squished against hard plastic for three hours, forcing even my spine to not be straight. I try to get an emergency exit row or at least an isle seat, but that's not always possible. It also usually means I need to sit separate from my family (as kids can't go in emergency exit rows).
Plus airlines don't always know or advertise which seats have more leg room.
One of the European low cost airlines charges you extra for emergency exit row seats, but in one configuration I've been on only the outer seat has extra legroom.
A few years ago I was flying with some friends on a national airline, one of whom is taller and bigger than me. At the check in desk he was assigned emergency exit row 13. It turns out the aircraft didn't have a row 13, and the only spare seats were the smallest seats in the last row.
(Also I'm my experience busses/coaches are usually much worse than aircraft regarding leg room)
ITT 6' has been described both as "tall" and "pretty average height". I'm also that height, and like any other arbitrary measure of humans it depends on context. Among typical commercial flyers in mainland USA or northern Europe? No, 6' is not particularly tall in that group. That is a privileged group, so tall dudes fit right in. Somehow tall dudes even felt comfortable inserting themselves into this conversation. TFA is about blind people and how they fly commercially. Whether ignoring blind people or hating on fat people, tall people haven't represented themselves well here.
I cannot even fathom trying to get a horse onto a plane since I am already playing mental gymnastics with my two dogs.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but I see your post and it causes my brain to short circuit. I don't want you confined to your house, but if you are so fragile psychological and emotionally that you can't function for a few hours without your two dogs at your side should you really be flying?
> I'm not trying to be a dick [...] if you are so fragile psychological and emotionally that you can't function for a few hours without your two dogs at your side should you really be flying?
1) The obvious answer to your first questions: lots of people do work from home, and/or work in dog-friendly locations. Also, lots of people take their dog with them on all car trips including local errands.
2) Re: "can't function for a few hours without your two dogs" -- the FLIGHT is a few hours but unless the dogs are beaming there via transporter, they still need the dogs at the destination!
Except emotional support animals are more than just your average pet.
These are no bigger than a medium size dog.
It didn't dodge the question at all. There's a photo, and the article talks about the photo extensively.
"Airlines that have engaged with miniature horses before typically put Ms. Ramouni and Cali in the bulkhead row, which has more legroom and no seats in front. Throughout the flight Cali stands at Ms. Ramouni’s feet."
Unfortunately the times seems to have decided I'm only allowed to read this article once and now it won't load.