"Because they still have to pretend that copyright is meant to serve the public."
I think they stopped pretending that long ago. I can't ever remember ever hearing copyright supporters talk in terms of serving the public, only serving themselves. Some have genuine self-interest for their art, some are just greedy corporates and control freaks, but they never talk about benefits to the public.
Not really sure why this would affect your trust of them, unless you work of Apple of course...
A lot of comments here reek of skin in the game. Most of iFixit's readers would be happy to get an early peek under the hood of products. I'd be surprised if many felt the need to leap to Apple's defense.
Doesn't that then make them downloadable content? Of course it does!
You don't get to change the meaning of words to suit your own needs.
Calling these micro-transactions is actually far less accurate, since 'micro' means small, and is generally used to mean very small. The whole point here is that the price of these DLC items can't legitimately be described as very small, and in fact are grossly high for the value provided.
"What I AM SAYING is that all of you are cheering on the very organization that CAUSED the problem to being with!"
So what? The fact that they're making meaningful progress to improve the situation should be cheered. The FCC have copped plenty criticism for their past failings and nobody here has forgotten that, but according to you we should just keep on slamming them even though they have changed tack and made things better. Is that how you treat people too? That's pretty weird...
"Molotive cocktails, pipe bombs, cross bows, poison gas and many others things work well too and are even easier to obtain than a gun."
Not sure about the laws around crossbows, but there are quite restrictive laws in place regulating poisons and explosives, and the mass killing that take place with those are orders of magnitude less than with guns. Maybe there's a connection there...
"First, no one that I know would pull out their weapon without having a target in mind, as it makes you an instant target for the bad guy."
BS. If you go looking for an active shooter, you don't do it with your weapon still concealed. That would be absolutely insane.
"Second, everyone that I know takes the carrying of a gun really seriously, the consequences of shooting the wrong person are horrible,unless you're a cop."
"Taking it seriously" while talking with your mates is quite different to actually being confronted by someone with a gun when you're looking for an active shooter. If you both decide the other is a threat, the situation could escalate very very rapidly.
"...and what, pray tell, makes you such an expert that you can say what I and others are "Likely" to do?"
Right back at ya. You don't know better than anyone else how someone you don't know will react. Your acquaintance with some gun owners is irrelevant.
"Just because you may panic at the sound of a backfire does not mean that any other person will."
Considering that likelihood that nobody you know has ever been in a life-or-death situation with their gun, you have no idea how competently they will react. Practicing at a shooting range falls a long way short of military or police training for situations like this.
"But according to reports, by the time one of the individuals with a gun was aware of the shooting, the SWAT team had already responded. Concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated back into the classroom."
Smart guys like this are probably why you never hear about a shooter being taken down by an armed bystander. The "more guns on site" solution so often proposed after these events has the potential to make things even worse. You have multiple people walking around with guns looking for someone else with a gun. The potential for these armed "defenders" to start shooting at each other or be shot at by cops is huge.