I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
She also can't provide any body of evidence that demonstrates her concern playing out in reality. She tried. All that can be presented is a few complaints across the entire continent (two countries) over 10 years. Complaints that are easily addressed with current laws.
In your opinion. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. As of yet, there isn't much. Solved the problem right there.
Current laws? Okay. Trans-women should use men's bathrooms because there is a law against rape. So if they are asulted, they should file a complaint.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
HiddenAngels said:
Terrible. When will this end
I think it will slow when we regulate the militia and invest in We the People (Healthcare, education, housing, income and wealth inequity, etc) rather than investing in war and the wealthy.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
Well, member and testicle is a good start. Perhaps someone who is very early in their transition. Full beard, body hair.
Many people in a locker room undress freely. Especially children. This doesn't apply to bathrooms as much. However I've been in plenty of locker rooms with naked women walking around.
However I think it would be inappropriate for a trans-woman to walk around fully exposed male genitals.
You are imagining that a man with a full beard might be living and identifying as a woman? Do you think that these are decisions and that transwomen just decide one day, as a bearded adult, that they should use a women's bathroom even though they clearly don't try to appear as a woman?
But you've never been in a locker room with a naked man parading around. Do you know if there's been a transwoman in bathrooms or locker rooms with you? Probably not, they tend to be private about that.
It is inappropriate and that's why the transfolk don't walk around naked.
Roitrn said:
You need to read the full comment before you start reacting. You were referring to someone who is not trans but dresses like a woman is someone wearing a costume.
I have not once said, I want a law, there should be a law. Not one time.
Yes. Assessing rusk is how we go about preventing it. I gave you examples. I guess you do not agree. Doesn't make them magically dissappear because of your opinion. You have provided no evidence that there is not a risk.
I made a solid point that both women/children/trans-women are being ignored while our political parties are too busy flinging mud at eachother.
Is it fabricated angst tho? You have not once said anything about women and children. Their safety or comfort. Seems the "right wing' notion is at least partially true in regards to you.
Yes. Anyone who has a different opinion is fascist according to you. Ironic. No one is advocating for firing squads shooting people in the bathrooms. Or persecuting and removing rights because of someone's gender choice.
Keep up with that hyperbole. You might incite some mostly peaceful violence.
Again, I don't need you to explain to me what I said. You can only explain how you interpreted my words or meaning. You often mischaracterize my meaning or actual words.
Whether or not you want a law is a strawman argument. This discussion is about republican laws which target transfolk. If you don't support the laws you should spend less time using the arguments that are used in defense of the laws. That is what might give people the impression that you can fund some logic in the laws.
You provided examples that there is no statistical risk...by only finding a few cases of criminal or unacceptable behavior reported in two large countries over a decade. That's how math works.
Yes, you tried to make that point about political mudslinging. There's this reality though; the only interests getting ignored are the interests of the transgender people forced into unsafe areas by republican culture war laws. The mudslinging is that which casts transgender folk in women's bathrooms and locker rooms as risky or a threat or predisposed to inappropriate behavior.... even though there's no evidence to support that.
Nonsense. I've said own plenty of times that women and children are not in danger because of transwomen using their bathrooms or shower areas... as evidenced by the relatively few incidents. The fact that there are very few incidents is evidence that this angst is fabricated. The evidence and history doesn't support the anger angst.
No. Fascism has a specific meaning. It does not mean anyone who disagrees with me. I'm pretty sure you know that and are just being combative. I wonder if you actually believe that fascism starts out with firing squad strategies or if you've ever even thought about how a democracy like Germany could have been turned into a cruel right wing authoritarian dictatorship?
In your knee jerk hyperbole did you forget that the republican laws ACTUALLY ARE "persecuting and removing rights because of someone's gender choice"?
What the heck.
Again... for the record... laws don't prevent crime, laws allow legal prosecution and punishment/consequences for committing crime.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
In your opinion. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. As of yet, there isn't much. Solved the problem right there.
Current laws? Okay. Trans-women should use men's bathrooms because there is a law against rape. So if they are asulted, they should file a complaint.
See how stupid that sounds?
Current laws only say that transwomen need to use those men's bathrooms in 19 or 20 republican controlled states. Only in those states would the transgirls risk assault in men's bathrooms that they would then need to report. (Because laws against assault don't prevent assault) That's what those Republicans want; transgirls in men's bathrooms.
Is that what you are referencing as sounding stupid?
You are imagining that a man with a full beard might be living and identifying as a woman? Do you think that these are decisions and that transwomen just decide one day, as a bearded adult, that they should use a women's bathroom even though they clearly don't try to appear as a woman?
But you've never been in a locker room with a naked man parading around. Do you know if there's been a transwoman in bathrooms or locker rooms with you? Probably not, they tend to be private about that.
It is inappropriate and that's why the transfolk don't walk around naked.
Again, I don't need you to explain to me what I said. You can only explain how you interpreted my words or meaning. You often mischaracterize my meaning or actual words.
Whether or not you want a law is a strawman argument. This discussion is about republican laws which target transfolk. If you don't support the laws you should spend less time using the arguments that are used in defense of the laws. That is what might give people the impression that you can fund some logic in the laws.
You provided examples that there is no statistical risk...by only finding a few cases of criminal or unacceptable behavior reported in two large countries over a decade. That's how math works.
Yes, you tried to make that point about political mudslinging. There's this reality though; the only interests getting ignored are the interests of the transgender people forced into unsafe areas by republican culture war laws. The mudslinging is that which casts transgender folk in women's bathrooms and locker rooms as risky or a threat or predisposed to inappropriate behavior.... even though there's no evidence to support that.
Nonsense. I've said own plenty of times that women and children are not in danger because of transwomen using their bathrooms or shower areas... as evidenced by the relatively few incidents. The fact that there are very few incidents is evidence that this angst is fabricated. The evidence and history doesn't support the anger angst.
No. Fascism has a specific meaning. It does not mean anyone who disagrees with me. I'm pretty sure you know that and are just being combative. I wonder if you actually believe that fascism starts out with firing squad strategies or if you've ever even thought about how a democracy like Germany could have been turned into a cruel right wing authoritarian dictatorship?
In your knee jerk hyperbole did you forget that the republican laws ACTUALLY ARE "persecuting and removing rights because of someone's gender choice"?
What the heck.
Again... for the record... laws don't prevent crime, laws allow legal prosecution and punishment/consequences for committing crime.
It seems I imagined this right on to Google. Ample examples .
Actually. I did have an incident in a locker room, however that's non of your business.
How do you know transpeople do not walk around naked? Have a friend of a friend for this too?
I can't use a argument that is the same or simular to laws?
Only women have been permitted in their locker rooms for most of history. So there is no evidence to your claim other than "you know of someone". Find a FBI report on it? You have a statistical risk evaluation? No. Not anything conclusive because I'm pretty sure there's no studies on who strips naked in locker rooms.
Yes I know your adherence to what you think a fascist is........
They are not "rights" just because you say so. There you go, disregarding everyone's righs. Only interested in special interest groups. Probably due to your media consumption.
I know laws do not prevent crime. However it deters many.
The same argument can be made about guns laws. "laws don't prevent crime, laws allow legal prosecution and punishment/consequences for committing crime. "
Current laws only say that transwomen need to use those men's bathrooms in 19 or 20 republican controlled states. Only in those states would the transgirls risk assault in men's bathrooms that they would then need to report. (Because laws against assault don't prevent assault) That's what those Republicans want; transgirls in men's bathrooms.
Is that what you are referencing as sounding stupid?
Your own comments in this thread suggest something different. You said yourself that you were not taught about racist tropes in school while claiming ignorance of racist strategies in our history (some of it reasonably recent). Yeah... you ignored the expert discussion of the tropes to make the right wing argument as if it was simply my opinion. Oops.
Now you are offering a different story about what you know about history and racism. I'm just going to go with the evidence provided by your words in these threads. I'm mean, you justified your preference to call some people insects rather than animals, remember?
I consider abhorrent criminals and Nazis' as insects. Worse actually. So that's the only thing you read and comprehended correctly.
It seems I imagined this right on to Google. Ample examples .
Actually. I did have an incident in a locker room, however that's non of your business.
How do you know transpeople do not walk around naked? Have a friend of a friend for this too?
I can't use a argument that is the same or simular to laws?
Only women have been permitted in their locker rooms for most of history. So there is no evidence to your claim other than "you know of someone". Find a FBI report on it? You have a statistical risk evaluation? No. Not anything conclusive because I'm pretty sure there's no studies on who strips naked in locker rooms.
Yes I know your adherence to what you think a fascist is........
They are not "rights" just because you say so. There you go, disregarding everyone's righs. Only interested in special interest groups. Probably due to your media consumption.
I know laws do not prevent crime. However it deters many.
The same argument can be made about guns laws. "laws don't prevent crime, laws allow legal prosecution and punishment/consequences for committing crime. "
Oh, I see. You were talking about transwomen in India and their activism against their mistreatment in that society? And you found examples of women with beards... it's so sinister and unusual, a bearded lady. LOL.
I dunno... maybe the lack of reporting of instances of transwomen walking around naked so that people can see their memberes gives me the impression that it's not an actual problem in our society.
If transwomen were/are breaking laws in bathrooms there would be reports and data. That seems self evident. I think we all know that it's not abnormal for some people to take off all of their clothes in some locker rooms. That's why there are lockers and showers and privacy curtains, etc.
I'm very clear as to what fascism is, I've read a couple of really good books on the subject and studied it after high school. But thanks for your opinion about my knowledge.
Your words about rights is just nonsense that I can't respond to... please try to organize those thoughts and try again.
Maybe you can support the notion that punishment or consequences prevent lots of crime with actual data or evidence. Maybe not. We have lots of people languishing in jail and prison... how is the crime trend reflecting that punishment prevention theory?
Laws which limit/monitor/slow access to guns for men with history or report of domestic violence most definitely MIGHT prevent some of the mass shootings. That's a great consequence to regulating who can own which kind of weapons in the well regulated militia. The intention is to try to keep dangerous implements out of the hands of people who have already demonstrated propensity for personal violence. Keeping transgender women or girls out of safe bathrooms doesn't prevent any crime. The intention is to force them out of the bathrooms for no good reason.
Well. It would seem that while we argue back and forth about trans-topics, A trans-person took it upon himself to kill 3 children and 3 adults this morning at a elementary school. Sad and ironic that we were going back and forth at the exact time it was happening. And this is an example how real people are getting hurt and will continue to get hurt, even killed while citizens and politicians refuse to come together and find solutions.
I can just imagine how the media and our politicians are going to use and exploit this tragedy for their political agenda. Christianity, Transgender, and fire arms. 3 highly politicized topics.
I have a few predictions. I will refrain out of respect for the victims and their families. It's only a matter of time that this will be forgotten and then on to the next....
Oh, I see. You were talking about transwomen in India and their activism against their mistreatment in that society? And you found examples of women with beards... it's so sinister and unusual, a bearded lady. LOL.
I dunno... maybe the lack of reporting of instances of transwomen walking around naked so that people can see their memberes gives me the impression that it's not an actual problem in our society.
If transwomen were/are breaking laws in bathrooms there would be reports and data. That seems self evident. I think we all know that it's not abnormal for some people to take off all of their clothes in some locker rooms. That's why there are lockers and showers and privacy curtains, etc.
I'm very clear as to what fascism is, I've read a couple of really good books on the subject and studied it after high school. But thanks for your opinion about my knowledge.
Your words about rights is just nonsense that I can't respond to... please try to organize those thoughts and try again.
Maybe you can support the notion that punishment or consequences prevent lots of crime with actual data or evidence. Maybe not. We have lots of people languishing in jail and prison... how is the crime trend reflecting that punishment prevention theory?
Laws which limit/monitor/slow access to guns for men with history or report of domestic violence most definitely MIGHT prevent some of the mass shootings. That's a great consequence to regulating who can own which kind of weapons in the well regulated militia. The intention is to try to keep dangerous implements out of the hands of people who have already demonstrated propensity for personal violence. Keeping transgender women or girls out of safe bathrooms doesn't prevent any crime. The intention is to force them out of the bathrooms for no good reason.
I'm not responding to this today. Far more worthy news today to spend time on......
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
Since 2019, heavy news coverage re rape kit testing backlog and reasons for it ---with improvement noted in news reports afterward. Many report not processed due to FUNDING.
North Carolina has between 14,000 and 15,000 untested rape kits
Quote
Law enforcement has had "a growing recognition that this is something where we need to change the way it's been done in the past [and put] a greater emphasis, a greater prioritization on addressing these crimes," Stein said.
'The funding didn't show up'
But more funding is needed to get through the rest of the backlog.
It can cost as little as $600 and as much as $1,500 to test a rape kit. According to Ilse Knecht, Director of Policy and Advocacy for the Joyful Heart Foundation, the cost of rape kit testing depends on the nature of the case. The more DNA profiles involved, especially if one of those is of one or more consensual sexual partners, and the more orifices involved in the assault, the more complicated the testing and therefore, the more expensive.
Overview of Federal and State Programs to Support Victims of Sexual Violence
Quote
...The scope of coverage required by states is particularly unclear when it comes to lab testing, drug testing, pregnancy testing, and STI testing. For example, although MFEs typically include urinalysis, some states choose to specify that they cover these services as part of the kit, but many others do not. Because the services included in a rape kit are not explicitly defined in statute or by federal regulation, it is unclear whether states consider these services a part of the forensic exam (which they are required to cover in full per VAWA) or if they mandate them through separate state laws.
Furthermore, 17 states cap how much the state will spend on services per victim. For example, Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania all limit spending to $1,000 per victim....
.... Drawing upon observational, interview, and archival data, the study found that although practical concerns regarding resources available for forensic analysis were clearly a factor, as Detroit did not have the funding or staffing to test all SAKs and investigate all reported rapes, focal concerns regarding victim credibility and victim cooperation were more influential in explaining why rape kits were not tested. Implications for the criminal justice system response to sexual assault and rape kit testing legislation are examined. (publisher abstract modified
Roitrn
618 Posts
In your opinion. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. As of yet, there isn't much. Solved the problem right there.
Current laws? Okay. Trans-women should use men's bathrooms because there is a law against rape. So if they are asulted, they should file a complaint.
See how stupid that sounds?