Anyolduser

Ignoring any of the (very complicated) issues around human/elephant interactions there's a strictly ecological reason for limited hunting.

Herds have an issue where males past breeding age still try to edge out younger males. These older males can be destructive and violent and it's better for the health of the herd if they're out of the picture when they can't breed anymore.

Those are the elephants that hunting licences are issued for.

Hmmm methinks a good faith discussion will not be found here...

Did you write your representative like I asked or are you just here to vent?

Yeah, but if everyone is really cool about it maybe we can all pretend it didn't happen.

It will still be illegal for him to possess them or even try to obtain them.

The only way to purchase a firearm without a background check (that also isn't an express ticket to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison) is to buy a used firearm from a private individual in your state. That person also needs to not be a prohibited person themselves, cannot be a firearms dealer by trade, and the firearm must be legal to own in the state in which you both reside.

Online gun sales, new gun sales, and gun sales crossing state lines all require a background check be performed by a licensed dealer, known as an FFL. The ATF randomly audits about 10-15% of FFLs in a given year, which doesn't include the number audited as a part of investigations following up on complaints and tips.

Sorry for the wall of text. Whenever people bring up background checks the uninformed yet highly opinionated tend to come out of the woodwork.

P.S.: If any of said individuals would like to prevent cases that slip through the cracks please write your representatives to increase ATF funding for enforcement activities.

If and/or when they catch him he's going away for brandishing, menacing, maybe even attempted murder depending on how the case goes.

A felony conviction makes you a prohibited person, meaning no firearms or ammunition for life.

I am outraged that - let me check my notes - the EIC of The Verge has published an article partially generated by AI.

There are different challenges in early and late childhood. Things like peer pressure are a much bigger issue during late childhood.

In early childhood the kid wants the entertainment and it's incumbent upon the parent to deny them that and provide more enriching activities that have fewer strings attached.

The only reason it's controversial is because parents do not take responsibility for their children.

It seems like the big hangups are parents unwilling to face social backlash ("but all the other kids have phones") and parents trying to justify their lack of effort with their kids (setting a device in front of the kid to shut them up). Ironically these two groups are willing to throw all the effort they don't put into raising their children into defending their bad behavior.

Parent here, raising kids without smartphones until they're at least in high school.

I couldn't agree with you more.

I think you may be miscalculating the opinion of the American public. "It's European law" isn't exactly a selling point for a lot of folks.

Oh boy, I have some news for you ...