There's a thing we do as a society which I think is unfortunate. We decide the someone ought to get help, that part is totally reasonable. But then instead of providing that help out of our collective resources we instead pass a law requiring random third parties to provide it.
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.
Or just pass another law forbidding the 'depriving [any] passengers of the flight experience that they bought and paid for'. I see no compelling reason for taxes to subsidize companies just to help them follow the law, i get no subsidies to help me not steal things or to obey traffic lights. And I'm not posting millions in profits.
There is a huge difference between laws that require you not to do something, and ones that require you to spend limited resources providing affirmative benefits to people.
No there isn’t. You can logically construct one set from the other.
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.
From the politician's point of view there is a very important difference. If you raise taxes and then use that money to pay for something then you are responsible for a tax increase. Opposition politicians can point to your tax increase and complain that this is costing the average taxpayer $N per year.
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.
By forcing airlines to allow horses, that means the airlines have to expend effort for that. That means they have to raise prices. That means all airline fliers are paying for it. I don't see a reason why all US citizens should pay for it instead of all US fliers paying for it.
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.
The set of all US citizens, not the subset of US fliers, is the set that democratically elected the reps that enacted this law. They should be willing to pay for it.
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.
When the government pays for things, it distorts the economics, because the true cost of that thing is being hidden from the consumers. By including the cost of enforcement in the cost of the service itself, the market can balance better.
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[1], so it's not like filers are some tiny minority.
There's a difference between getting help, and getting enabled.
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?
Probably a doctor and not an airline should make the call? It seems like a useful principle that airlines should not be in charge of medical decisions, which would imply that airlines should never question traveling with a horse (besides checking the doctor's authorization) - if we think that someone is being overprescribed a horse, we-as-society should follow up with the prescribing doctor and perhaps medical licensing boards, but we-as-society shouldn't put indirect pressure on the doctor via the patient themselves via a flight attendant.
> I think it's reasonable for a doctor to prescribe a horse
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.
My mom is scared of dogs, and I dislike dogs and cats due to their smell, bad owners, and possibility of being attacked by certain breeds (which may or may not be due to bad owners, but that doesn’t matter to me). The physical disability service animals, I was okay with due to it being easy to verify legitimate use and being rare enough. But this ESA nonsense is out of hand, where it’s very easy to make something up or even make yourself believe you need a pet and subject everyone else to it.
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.
Sure, that's a reasonable argument, but that's different from the argument of "should we, as society, try to wean people off horses". If airlines want to discourage passengers who need horses for practical reasons / for the good of the airline, that's one thing, and we can discuss what the airline's needs are (and even whether there's a way that the airline would be happy to accommodate it, e.g. with some flights designed for pets or something, which I'm sure a lot of pet owners without medical needs would be delighted to pay for). If they want to discourage those passengers for the alleged good of the passengers, that's quite different.
I agree. I wonder if any doctor has ever been disciplined by a licensing board for his or her substantive judgment in one of these accommodation cases. (That is for an inappropriate decision rather than for some procedural lapse like not doing an examination or something.)
They're apparently calmer, require less social contact, and cause fewer allergy problems, in addition to the lifespan benefit, which is considerable. And, as the article mentions, if you need mobility/stability assistance, a horse can be more helpful than a dog.
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.
Allergies require exposure to the allergen, and since far more people have significant dog exposure than have significant horse exposure, dog allergies are much more common. That's why there is very little online about horse allergies; there is also very little online about panda bear allergies.
Airport officials will sometimes ask for Cali’s official “horse ID,” Ms. Ramouni said. Unaware of any organization that offers such a thing, she and a friend eventually made a card themselves.
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.
Someone I know relayed a story to me once wherein, at the passport gate into England she, a Canadian citizen, was held up by the passport control agent for not having a visa document. "Where's your visa?" "I don't need a visa, I'm a Canadian citizen. Your queen is my queen." "So you don't have one?" "Yes, because I don't need one."
Fun fact: there is exactly one situation in the United States in which you are required to fly with non-TSA approved locks on your luggage. That situation is when there's a gun in your checked in bags. The easiest way to meet that requirement is with a flare gun. Some perfectly reasonable people that are concerned about theft and privacy will travel with a flare gun for no reason other than it lets them lock their luggage.
The rules around flying are weird and full of perverse incentives that are easily hacked.
Flying with a declared flare gun in your checked baggage photography gear cases was a trick I heard some professional photographers use.
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).
Can confirm that this works with a real firearm. You need to put non-TSA locks on the case, and it's kept in custody of the airline at baggage claim (does not go on the carousel). You must provide ID to retrieve the case.
I use a cheap 1911 frame. This is a 48.5-state solution; don't try it in Illinois or NYC.
A starter pistol with a non-bored barrel is purported to be legal in Massachusetts, so that's an option too. Just don't bring ammunition, that's a problem if it is a type usable in a regular firearm.
>Non-residents with a valid Massachusetts non-resident hunting license do not need a firearm license to possess or carry rifles and shotguns and ammunition during the hunting season.
>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.
> (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.
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
Yes, there is a federal preemption law (FOPA) that permits travel through a restrictive/prohibitive state if the origin and destination permit the carrier to lawfully posses the firearm. However, meeting the FOPA criteria may be treated as an affirmative defense in some states. IANAL so YMMV.
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.
I'm afraid that I unaware of evidence that mass murders are a Christian problem whatsoever. Nor does it seem to be a political "radicalization" issue, as would be similar to what the UK saw during the Irish troubles, to take one of several possible examples. But I think that people might better describe it as serious mental health epidemic of as yet poorly understood origin. (Pick your poison: drugs, social media, social climate, etc.)
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.
Your idea is similar to MA gun license requirements - you need two non-relatives to sign your application before you submit it to your local police to decide if you meet the requirements to hold a gun license
> I am not sure what the race of murder victims has to do with gun death rates, the race of the gun using murderer is more important...
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".
The article you cite references a study that looked at mass shootings from 2006-2016, I am sure Las Vegas shootings and other more recent ones would changes the statistis. It also breaks down shootings into a category called "public" - which is the one most people are interested in. Non-black perpetrators committed 70% of these public shootings
Which lends support to the claim that the shooters are not disproportionately white. Searching for a variety of sources on percentage of population that is white in America out the figure at 74-76%.
I described the variance between public and other mass shootings above: "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?
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)
Lower availability of guns does not influence murder rates (much?).
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).
But Massachusetts is middling (20/50) on the gun murder rate ('''includes murders and willful manslaughters, but excludes "deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident" and justifiable homicides.'''). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...
Yes, the only thing the Mass laws do is stop gun deaths "caused by negligence, suicide, or accident" and justifiable homicides - self defense or police shootings
I looked for it, but there are lots of confounding factors, particularly that statistics don't really distinguish between accidental poisoning/overdose and attempted suicide by poisoning/overdose.
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."
Pretty much everything in that article is the opposite of my numerous experiences. You goto ticket counter just like normal and declare the firearm, they look at it, stick a card in the outer bag and verify you have the only key. You also can travel with ammo as long as it's in 'original package'. Then after that it depends on the airport, some you just walk it over to tsa just like an oversized bag. All in all it takes about 10min extra. Very easy, never been hassled at all. Each airline has their own rules which are clearly spelled out on their websites. I've never tried sticking a bunch of camera gear in the pelican but it wouldn't be difficult, they just look in the box, at no time do they touch it so you can have whatever under it. Xray might pickup on it and they ask you to open, which is why you walk it over to them.
I've traveled with a sword and tried to get a security screen but TSA wouldn't do it for me. I'm curious if a rifle bolt would be enough to get the added security.
Legally, the lower receiver of a firearm is the piece that’s subject to background checks and other firearm-related laws. Presumably that’s all that would be technically needed.
For purposes of ownership anyway, but not for purposes that the TSA likely cares about in keeping planes safe. Pretty much any recognizable gun part is going to get the gun treatment at the airport. Guarantee you couldn't just waltz through with a complete upper.
The guidelines for traveling with firearms only mention a "hard-sided container", so if your regular suitcase is sufficiently hard it should qualify. For ammunition, they do require a box specifically designed to carry it.
The question of whether the case or bag is secure enough will vary by the TSA inspector. I flew from Austin to SC and had no problems with the case leaving Texas, however the TSA agent on my return flight wouldn't accept it. I ended up mailing my pistol back to myself [0]
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.
Yes...but. Be prepared to spend up to an hour extra at the airport to try to find the one person at the TSA who actually knows the rules and will OK everything. It took several hours for some folks to get out of McCarran (LAS) airport at DEFCON just last week.
This isn't always the case, sometimes it's only a few minutes. But it does add some "unpredictability" to air travel.
How do airlines accommodate passengers who have allergies to these animals? Do they let them know before the board that there will be an animal they're allergic to on board? Do they have to wait for the next flight, or does the passenger with the animal have to wait?
This may sound dickish, but as someone who always has to pay extra for more legroom because the length of my thighs is longer than the standard seat pitch, when is being tall going to be declared a disability?
I'm pretty average height so I can't personally relate to this experience, but it does logically seem like you have a point. After all, it's not your fault you're so lanky; you were born that way (well.. you know what I mean.) Isn't that equally deserving of accommodation?
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.
Disability law gives people that have been dealt a strictly shit hand by life--like eyes or legs that don't work--a bit of a less shitty day to day life.
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.
If eating to the point of obesity and losing a foot to diabetes is worth accommodating, I don't see why having exceptionally awkwardly long legs shouldn't be accommodated either. In either case it's an unusual physical attribute that causes trouble for the afflicted, but in the later case the afflicted has no blame.
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.
You can probably accommodate yourself by folding your legs up a bit. Sure that's uncomfortable, but economy-class commercial flight is uncomfortable. No one wonders why airlines charge very wide passengers for two seats. If your legs are so long that you can't fit in your seat, buy another seat or buy a first-class seat.
I think OPs point is that if you have a disability and need more room than a standard seat gives, the airline will assist you and give you a different seat.
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)
That isn't correct. Overweight people who need two seats are typically charged for two seats or for business class.
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'm 6' and consider myself average, airline seats aren't particularly problematic for me. But there are some people who are much much taller than me, such that they legitimately don't fit in those seats. And unlike the massively obese, it's not a condition inflicted on them by over-eating..
Flying with 2 dogs in the same row in a few weeks for the first time and I know I am going to get some stern looks from others on the plane. They have their ESA documentation and everything is set to go, we're in first class at the bulkhead (yay points), and they are extremely well behaved.
I cannot even fathom trying to get a horse onto a plane since I am already playing mental gymnastics with my two dogs.
How do you honestly function day to day if you need to have two dogs with you at all times? Do you work from home? How can you drive without being an emotional wreck?
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?
One is mine, one is my wife's. We both suffer from anxiety and depression.
> 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?
I'm not the parent, and I'm guilty of being exasperated at people calling their purse dogs "support animals" to get them on planes, BUT...
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!
This sort of comment does no favors to the people who rely on ESAs. Of course every airline is completely competent at the mundane task of keeping living things alive. In fact air travel is safer than certain other forms of travel.
Also, flying is a particularly stressful experience for many people. Specially when you are afraid someone may lose your dog or leave it behind. Being without their dog for a few hours in other situations may be completely fine, though.
What are you talking about? Surely you've seen people who keep dogs as pets. They lead entirely normal lives, for the most part. And you must have also seen people who have not just one dog, but two or more, and they still have a normal life. If you understand that, is it that big of a leap to imagine that some of those people may also have $50 to certify their pets as ESAs?
I cannot even sit in a normal plane due to my height, and yet people fly with a horse???? I really want to find some way to fly with a Pygmy Hippo. Or how about a friendly Caiman?
These look a lot bigger than a medium sized dog. Their bodies seem way bulkier. I'm only slightly taller than average, but couldn't fit a chihuahua in front of my knees in a plane, let alone a medium sized dog or miniature horse.
Did the article ask and then mostly dodge the question, How do you fit a horse in front of your seat?
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."
But if that's not available? (Typically? What happens atypically?) The paragraphs after that question seemed to be mostly about making sure the horse didn't pee on anybody, not how it physically fit. Also, it looked like the horse is longer than a single seat wide. Does she always travel with a companion?
Unfortunately the times seems to have decided I'm only allowed to read this article once and now it won't load.
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.