text:
Five Federal Policies on Guns You've Never Heard Of
It's not just states that have relaxed gun laws. Federal lawmakers have come up with a few of their own.
1/7/2013: This story has been corrected.
U.S. gun policy is set by both state and federal law. We previously published an explainer on the ways states have eased gun restrictions. But federal policy, too, has become more gun friendly in recent years — and we're not just talking about the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that struck down the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and held that people have a right to keep guns in their homes.
Here, we outline five federal policies relating to guns you may not have known about:
1. A federal firearms trace database is off-limits to the public.
How often do federally licensed gun dealers sell guns that are then used in crimes? It's hard to know, because for nearly a decade such gun trace data has been hidden from the public. Even local law enforcement had been, until recently, barred from accessing the database for anything but narrow investigations.
Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, licensed dealers are required to record certain information about a buyer and the gun's serial number at the point of sale. When a gun is recovered from a crime scene, local law enforcement agencies can request The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace the firearm's origins. The retrieved information is compiled into a crime gun trace database maintained by ATF. A tool to catch criminals, the database in the early 2000s became a political flashpoint, as the Washington Post details. Outside research tying seized guns to a small handful of dealers spurred the federal government to impose tougher sanctions and inspections on gun retailers and manufacturers.
But those sanctions sparked a backlash: Since 2003, the Tiahrt Amendments, so named after the former Kansas Republican congressman who introduced the measures, have concealed the database from the public. Prior to 2010, local police could access the database only to investigate an individual crime but not to look for signs of broader criminal activity.
Despite the relaxing of some restrictions, parts of the original Tiahrt Amendment remain in place. The ATF can't require gun dealers to conduct an inventory to account for lost or stolen guns; records of customer background checks must be destroyed within 24 hours if they are clean enough to allow the sale; and trace data can't be used in state civil lawsuits or in an effort to suspend or revoke a gun dealer's license.
2. The military can't impose additional regulations on service members who own guns.
Following the November 2009 shooting at Fort Hood military base in Texas that killed 13 people and wounded more than two dozen others, the Department of Defense proposed guidelines that included, among other things, a new policy around private firearms. (The semiautomatic pistol used by accused gunman Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was purchased at a store off-base.)
Consideration of tighter gun regulations, such as the registering of non-military guns, sparked at least one new piece of federal legislation.
Less than a year after the shooting, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., introduced a bill prohibiting new regulations on Defense Department personnel's private guns. It also prohibited commanders from inquiring into private gun ownership. At the time, Inhofe stated that the measure would "prevent current and potential Second Amendment violations for those serving and employed by the Department of Defense."
There has been a recent revision: In the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act recently passed by Congress, a new provision does allow military commanders to ask about private firearms if there is reason to believe a service member is at high risk of committing suicide.
"It codifies the ability of military commanders to have a conversation with someone they feel is suicidal. This is all about conversation, not confiscation," said John Madigan, senior director of public policy at The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, which pushed for the measure.
3. You can carry a gun inside a national park or check a gun when riding Amtrak.
In 2009, Congress passed a measure, tucked into a larger credit card reform bill, to allow visitors to national parks and wildlife refuges to carry a loaded firearm. (Previously, the guns had to be locked, unloaded and stowed away). Under the amendment, which took effect February 2010, visitors can carry firearms only in those parks located in states that permit concealed guns in their own state parks. Although the U.S. Department of the Interior had lifted the 25-year ban the year before the law passed, a federal judge had blocked implementation after gun control groups objected.
Also in 2009, Congress voted to allow customers riding Amtrak to check guns and ammunition in their luggage. (Though airlines have a similar policy, the federally subsidized national rail service barred guns in any luggage, checked or carry-on, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.) In a statement shortly before the measure took effect, its sponsor, Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said it would provide "hunters, sportsmen, and gun owners with more choices for traveling."
4. The gun industry is shielded from many lawsuits involving criminal misuse of guns.
In 2005, Congress enacted a law that immunizes gun dealers and manufacturers from liability for injuries resulting in the "criminal or unlawful misuse" of a firearm. The law authorized dismissal of any applicable pending lawsuits and prohibited future claims.
During floor debate, the bill's primary sponsor, former Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, said the measure wouldn't provide the gun industry with blanket immunity, just prohibit "one extremely narrow category of lawsuits: lawsuits that attempt to force the gun industry to pay for the crimes of third parties over whom they have no control."
Indeed, the 2005 law provides for certain exceptions, including cases in which a gun dealer or manufacturer is aware the firearm will be used to a commit a crime and the suit is brought by the victim directly harmed. The law also allows suits based on a manufacturing or design defect, but not for lacking certain safety features.
Under the law, it would be much harder to obtain a settlement of the kind that families of the victims in the Washington-area sniper shootings of 2002 received. In 2004, those families won a $2.5 million settlement from the manufacturer of the Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle used in the shootings and from the licensed Tacoma, Wash., store from where the gun was stolen.
"The law has not stopped gun litigation, but it has created an obstacle for litigation," said Jonathan E. Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project at The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which filed the lawsuit, alleging that the defendants' negligence allowed the snipers to obtain the firearm. "Today, you would almost certainly face motions to dismiss by the dealer and manufacturer, and there is a significant number of judges who would dismiss the case," he said.
5. Congress has removed federal funding for firearms-related research.
Funding used to be set aside for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the impact of gun ownership — but that was taken away in the mid-90s.
The New York Times explains that as the CDC became "increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon," the National Rifle Association assailed its findings as politically skewed and lobbied to defund research.
One study commissioned by the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control found that the risks of keeping a gun in the home outweigh the benefits: "A gun kept in the home is far more likely to be involved in the death of a family member of the household than it is to be used to kill in self-defense," its authors wrote in 1993.
In 1996, an amendment proposed by then-Arkansas Republican Congressman Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the center's budget, the same amount earmarked for firearms research. When funding to CDC was later restored, legislation included the directive that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Critics charge that language had a chilling effect on CDC's support for gun-related research.
The CDC Injury Center today collects data generally on homicides, suicides and injuries in homes, schools and communities. But when it comes to firearms-specific research, "I never heard the money was replaced," said Dr. David Satcher, the former U.S. Surgeon General who served as CDC's director from 1993 to 1998 and now leads The Satcher Health Leadership Institute at Morehouse School of Medicine.
"I don't think this (1993) study was saying the government should take guns away from people. I think it was saying people should know what happens when you have a gun," Satcher told ProPublica. "A major benefit of that kind of research is, it keeps informing and updating people: What do we know about gun violence? What do we know about the benefits of owning a gun? I think those are the kinds of questions we need to ask in public health."
Correction: This story has been corrected to note that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives collects trace data only for guns involved in a criminal investigation. A previous version of the story incorrectly stated that the ATF maintains a general database of guns purchased from licensed dealers.
169 comments
"A gun kept in the home is far more likely to be involved in the death of a family member of the household than it is to be used to kill in self-defense,"
Self defense with a firearm rarely means killing. Most self defense incidents don't even see the gun fired.
Thanks to ProPublica for keeping the discussion alive. I actually was quite aware of most of these federal policies which continue to weaken our ability to track guns, gun violence, and hamper our ability to find means to reduce it.
What I haven't yet seen from you is a discussion about the heavy influence the "American Legislative Exchange Council" (ALEC) along with its NRA partner, has had in that weakening process.
Here's an idea for your next anti-gun tirade, why not do some actually research on this issue and speak with gun owners and people knowledgeable in the laws instead of turning your article into a link farm of anti gun websites and articles.
The most troubling aspect of the gun lobby pressuring Congress to block CDC funding was the presumption that such studies would be used to "advocate or promote gun control".
I mean, just as one example, what if an actual peer-reviewed study supported the often stated claims on defensive gun use? Unlike the widely-criticized and largely-debunked Kleck study, one backed by the CDC could lend weight to their arguments.
Unless, of course, the gun lobby—like the tobacco lobby—knows something we don't?
I read nothing here that the Feds have done which I feel is wrong to do. Was this tripe supposed to disturb me. I honest citizens are disarmed, the EVERYONE should disarmed, including the police. The gun lobby knows, like the tobacco lobby ( guns are not addictive, nor do gun makers try to make them more so @ Michael Long) that citizens should hold themselves responsible for their actions, unlike Liberal coddlers.
@ Carolyn
I just posted the comment below on the earlier Pro Publica story re state laws and gun control, but I am posting it here for you and others to read, as I believe it may save you some time in responding to the comments from those who want absolutely no limits or restrictions placed on the types or amount of guns they are allowed to own (aka gun nuts).
I hope you can now see how utterly futile it is to try to debate this issue with someone like John.
No matter what reasonable proposals you might come up that might lead to a solution to the problem, you will be met with endless "what if?" scenarios. (Some plausible perhaps but many of them mere speculation and/or paranoid fantasies.)
As the saying goes, "the perfect is the enemy of the good", and I believe this is a very good example of that axiom.
I often encounter such thinking in regards to tobacco control. No matter what type of measures are proposed to curb tobacco use, opponents of tobacco control measures will criticize them and/or prevent their implementation because no single measure can be 100% successful. I call this, the "since we can't do everything let's do nothing" argument, usually used or promoted by those with a vested interest in doing nothing (e.g., cigarette companies, gun manufacturers, etc.).
While it is entirely appropriate to make the effort to have an intelligent debate with such people, at some point we just have to realize that they are not interested in compromise and, in order to promote the general health and welfare of society, move on with or without them.
As a gun rights person I am amused when a gun control person advocates "compromise" as this "compromise" always means more restrictions on gun rights. This is not the meaning of compromise. Compromise is when both sides give up something they already have for something they don't.
Come, let us reason together. As for myself, I would cheerfully give up high capacity magazines for a nationwide(and that means everywhere, without exception) Vermont-style concealed carry provision.
The reason that protections like the Tiahrt Amendment are so important is that law enforcement knows how to handle data prudently. When the public gets access, such as the Rockland Westchester Journal News did, you see the unintended consequences of law-abiding citizens put at risk. Incomplete or out of date data that only serves to foment fear by making it look like there are more guns in a place than there actually is, and more critically, approximately 8,000 law enforcement officials have been put at risk- with prison inmates now telling their guards that "they know where they live".
@ Walter
You say say that "compromise" to gun control advocates mean "more restrictions on gun rights", which apparently you find unacceptable. You then go on to give us an example of your version of compromise.
You would "give up high capacity magazines for a nationwide…Vermont-style concealed carry provision. (In other words, you want to trade one deadly poison for another.)
So it would appear that you are against compromise unless this compromise means you get exactly what you want which, of course, totally contradicts your own definition of "compromise". (But such flawed logic, of course, is to be expected from NRA troglodytes, trolls, and gun nuts in general.)
If my position on gun rights (especially in regards to the 2nd amendment) and gun control is unclear to you, then I suggest you take a look at the numerous comments I posted on the previous Pro Publica story re state laws and gun control, as it would be a waste of my time to post any more reasoned and/or rational arguments here. (I am reminded here of the saying about "pearls before swine" or perhaps what Mark Twain had to say about getting into an argument with an idiot).
One final thought: In regards to the often heard "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers", I think the only logical remaining response is "That can be arranged".
Well we are all "skewed" again. The comment about the NRA skewing the CDC data is a bunch of malarky. That statement by Propublica is an editorial comment for someones agenda. As noted by others there is no inclusion of university research on self defense statistics.
Mike Jackson, maybe people get tired of all the name calling by self-appointed intellectuals, and therefore become intransigent. Carolyn has been engaging, as well as others. I don't like some of what she writes but I read every word of it to ensure I understand her. The same cannot be said of some bloggers on these threads who intend to villify and demean. Rather than dismiss a contributor who has endless scenarios and "but-if" comments—I think it would be better to try and figure out why they object so strongly. Quit using sterotypes.
I really like what Ellen S., had to say today in light of the what is happneing after the publication of gun owners names. Bad timing for Propublica. In a modern electronic age we scream and shout for privacy from police monitoring of cell phone and internet traffic, citing privacy concerns in the face of logical concerns for terrorist activity. We have court precedents on protection of social security numbers. We have uncountable court records on illegal searches, and invasion of privacy. Police have to have warrants.
Yet self-appointed individuals now call for publication of gun owner information, and to what end? Be honest. It is not for public concern, it is part of the villification process that is so widely used in our modern and low-class political process to cast bad light on people that don't agree with the party line.
If you really think that publication of gun owners is good, then you should be ready for the blood shed that will follow as home owners fight against gangs breaking into their homes to steal weapons or valuables. I am not joking on this matter. In Houston, like many cities many gangs are highly organized and sophisticated in their intelligence gathering for home invasions and theft. They have scouts and conduct active profiling of neighborhoods. They understand alarm system deployments for the various companies, what room to break windows on, and how much time they need for evasion and escape.
Then there are crime victims, as some people have pointed out.
But as important, what about our Military personnel whose family homes have weapons. Has anybody thought through that problem and what that might expose the families too? Don't kid yourselves. Be honest.
Number 6. The CDC has (for all intent and purpose) been forbidden from investigating gun related deaths.
For any change of heart to occur in those who support unregulated gun ownership in this country, they would first have to:
1. Believe every human life has value.
2. Acknowledge we are only a small part of a very large diverse community in the United States, all of whom hold the same rights we hold.
3. Acknowledge we actually have a terrible problem with death from gun violence here.
4. Acknowledge that in comparing ourselves to the next 23 high income countries we lead with 80% of all firearms deaths.
5. Must actually be concerned enough about our level of gun violence here to take meaningful steps to reduce it.
6. Must be willing to agree that with their "rights" they also have responsibilities to the rest of us.
7. Must be flexible enough to forgo some of their unfettered "rights" in order to make life safer for all of us as a community.
Too many NRA supporters posting here don't seem to be able to acknowledge any of this, so I'm hoping those of us who do are in the majority as we move forward. We need to prefer "us" rather than "I", "me", "mine" and "them" if we're to hold together as a country.
Ellen S and Mike 1950's: For what it's worth, I agree with you about publishing gun-owner data publicly (updated, out of date, or whatever condition it's in). Not thought through very well, is it? - dumb idea not only for the sake of gun-owners including law enforcement officers, but offering information which used in reverse allows anyone to easily single out those of us who don't own guns.
@ Mike 1950s
You are a prime example of what I am talking about with your own unending "what if?" scenarios (e.g., "what about the military with guns in their homes?").
You say we need to figure out the reasons behind people's attachment to their position re gun rights and gun control. All right here it is a nutshell…
NRA troglodytes, trolls, and gun nuts in generals have a very strong emotional connection to their guns. (Hence, the "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers" mentality.)
People who believe in gun control are, for the most part, coming from a position of logic and rationality.
You cannot engage in a reasoned rational debate with people who are coming from an entirely emotional position (which is, by definition, unreasoning, irrational, and therefore not susceptible to logic) and attempting to do so is largely a waste of time.
The only reason those against gun control even pretend to engage in this debate is that they know that while it is going on no progress towards restricting guns in this country will take place. No matter what reasonable measures or restrictions are proposed, the NRA and gun nuts will continuously throw more "what if?" scenarios into the discussion and/or poke endless holes in any of these restrictions, pointing how that they won't solve this or that problem or will lead to another problem (remember, "the perfect is the enemy of the good"), thus endlessly delaying and stalling any and all hope of bringing the problem under control.
I'll give you an example of how this works using their own "skewed" logic.
Gun nuts argue that criminals will not break into homes if they know the owners are armed and willing to protect themselves.
Okay, fine. I can accept that argument.
But if a proposal somehow means it would become public knowledge which homes possess guns and which don't (e.g., some registration laws might), now the argument becomes that you can't do that because criminals would know which homes have guns and would target those same homes so they could steal the guns!
So does a home with guns present keep criminals from breaking in or, does it serve to attract criminals?
Who knows. But this should serve to prove my point that it is a waste time trying to debate with people who, not unlike the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, are capable of holding two contradictory thoughts in their heads at the same time! You'll never get anywhere with them.
And even should you somehow persuade some of these people with logic and reasoning, there are countless others who will never be persuaded or agree to any reasonable, rational proposals re gun control.
@ Mike Jackson
It would be difficult indeed for anyone to mistake your position on gun rights/2nd Amendment.
We get it.
And we appreciate your input even though, as you say, our continuing intransigence reminds you of the saying "casting pearls before swine".
I own a Glock 19, but I also believe that it's time to support common sense gun laws:
Block online, gun show, and private transaction loopholes by requiring all commercial or private sales or transfers go through licensed and regulated dealers, a BATFE agent, or the local police department.
All weapons sold, resold, or transferred will be registered via the existing 4473 process, the buyer will be required to pass a background check and undergo a waiting period, and if not on record, a ballistics sample will be taken at the time of transfer.
Move all "assault weapons" and high-capacity semi-automatic weapons and magazines into the same class (or a similar class) as existing Title 2 NFA weapons, and require similar checks for new purchases or transfers. Increase civil and criminal liability for owners or purchasers of weapons used in criminal acts.
Use the funds from the ammo tax to help institute a federal buy-back program for guns, ammo, and magazines. Set reasonable limits as to the amount of weaponry, ammunition, and magazines a given individual may be able to purchase over a given period. Flag exceptions.
Return to authorizing concealed-carry permits only on displayed need, only after a background check, and only after passing a standardized safety and certification course. That's for their own safety, and ours.
Note that the majority of the above laws are designed to close the "gun show" and private sale loopholes, and would help keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and those who shouldn't have them in the first place.
Law-abiding gun owners can still own weapons. No one is going to visit and take away your guns. You can still hunt, shoot, and protect your families.
We are, however, questioning the need to do so with weapons designed to kill 15 or 30 people as fast as you can squeeze a trigger.
@Chuck: The argument isn't that guns are "addictive", but that ownership may lead to a dramatically increased risk of death. (Re: the first CDC study).
@Ellen: The biggest issue with the Tiahrt Amendment is the prohibition from using the data to track and prosecute gun store owners who sell weapons below the table and/or without the proper background checks.
@Walter: I'd grant you a nationwide permit in exchange for eliminating all HC magazines sales and transfers. However, such a CCP would be granted only after a thorough background check, and only after passing an annual standardized safety and certification course.
@Michael Long: You should run for public office. You're cutting to the chase and giving us nuts and bolts solutions.
Funding? Shouldn't the underfunded ATF be funded by those who purchase alcohol, purchase tobacco, and sell, purchase, and own guns? When (not "if") we enact more sensible gun regulations here, the costs and personnel needs of the bureaucracy will explode and the remedies made into law will be on the federal level as is the ATF.
I am proud of the evolution of great changes in American society. Increased freedom and "a more perfect union" has resulted from the following: 1)We have abolished slavery in our land. 2)We have allowed women to vote. 3)We have progressed in civil rights for blacks, women, gays, and the disabled. 4) Although in dispute in some areas, womens reproductive rights will increase. 5)The poisons in cigarettes have been exposed to the public and smoking is greatly reduced.
The next freedom we need to build a better society, is the freedom to go about our lives without fear of getting shot. I look forward to the bright future when this occurs.
Those seeking to thwart a burglary with guns need to remember two things: If you don't work at home the odds are that the guns are there, but for a bit of handiwork to get through locks (tools usually provided by homeowner) to be lifted most hours of the day, and there are three things thieves want to find: cash, drugs, and guns; because all of them are portable and either inherently valuable, or easy to sell with no questions asked.
With a good pistol going for over $600 and rifles over $1000, and consumer electronics becoming self-securing and ever cheaper, the most valuable objects in a house are now the guns.
Why aren't we organizing to repeal the second amendment? It was effectively repealed by the Civil War anyway, but just never taken off the books.
Not allowing gun regulation, especially as regards those gun owners\users who are not serving in any "well regulated militia," is the very heart of the problem and solely a result of not having removed it following that war (and, of course, the realization by the gun manufacturers and retailers that the NRA was a perfect lobbying vehicle).
The widely held belief that repeal of the second amendment is tantamont to seizure of guns is nothing but NRA driven paranoia. With over 300,000,000 guns in American homes now the idea that legislators would attempt to seize them is laughable. And the myth that repeal is impossible is nothing more than a mantra used by gun advocates to keep us from the attempt.
The moment my gun quits being a problem is the moment you people let go of it and focus on the real problem, mental disease. You can treat symptoms until the cows come home and not solve the problem. You can paint a pretty picture, rationalize and justify your distorted uninformed position, but that will not erase what our founding fathers knew when they assembled the constitution. Each and every individual has the innate (born with it) right to protect them self, their family, property and friends from ALL takers, weather individual or government. Some say, "That was when they only had muskets"! Well the oppressing government only had muskets too! The individuals arms were EQUAL to the governments!
Move on to the real problem and let go of the drama.
At the time, "A well regulated militia", meant, well practiced to perform as one cohesive unit. It did not refer to having the government foot firmly on its neck, as is the popular or PC interpretation.
@ MMS Dave
You might want to learn a little U.S. history before you start making such statements re "well-regulated militia", as your explanation of what that term meant is completely wrong.
You are right in one regards, however, and that is that when the 2nd amendment was written the people more or less had access to the same weaponry as did the government and therefore had the means to resist tyranny through armed conflict.
Unfortunately, this is no longer true and hasn't been for a very long time. That argument was pretty much laid to rest when the Union, i.e., federal government, put down the armed insurrection of the Confederacy during the Civil War.
If you think you can now take on the government's armed forces with whatever firepower is available to you, well all I can say is good luck to you as not only are you seriously deluded but your story will probably not have a very happy ending.
Unfortunately, in the meantime society must suffer from the delusions of you and others like you.
But I guess all those thousands of maimed and murdered children, mothers, fathers, etc., are just the price we must pay for freedom, right?
In the meantime, the NRA and gun manufacturers are laughing all the way to to the bank.
Micheal Long says he owns a gun that can fire 15 shots as fast as he can pull the trigger, but then he says he wants to question other guns that do the same. Who's side is he really on? He will help line the pockets of firearms manufactures with every proposed idea he posted driving up the price of firearms at the same time putting them out of reach of the poor. The rich get armed, and richer. While the poor become even more defenseless.
I think that if you are arguing that people need unfettered access to guns with no regulations, then you have some type of mental issue. Gun control is needed. In fact, more gun control is needed. However, if you think that publishing gun owners names, arguing that 'confiscation' is the answer, or think that only gun control advocates are coming from a place of logic - then you have mental issues as well. The posts that people are placing in regards to this article are embarrassing. Embarassing for BOTH sides of the issue. I own about 18 firearms. I own an AR-15. I believe that more regulation on guns IS needed, but not to the point that people cannot buy firearms that they want. It is ridiculous and sad to me that foolish, crazy, homicidal maniacs in states like CT, CO, and IL are having an effect on responsible gun owners in MT, NV, FL, and my state of NC. Gun control IS the answer. But responsible gun control and laws seem to just be OUTRAGEOUS and IMPOSSIBLE to both parties. I'll leave you so more senseless arguing with my $0.02. This was written by a U.S. Ary Ranger in response to a question regarding his poinion on new gun laws.
"I will support any law that prevents inappropriate people from owning firearms, as long as it does not limit the choices of individuals who are capable of making mature and responsible choices for themselves. I realize that such laws will not stop all violence, and criminals will still find ways to obtain the weapons, but if even one killer is thwarted by the law, it is worth enacting it – as long as it doesn't deny choices to others who are capable of owning firearms responsibly."
Our society needs to legislate a variety of First amendment restrictions, imposed upon all media sources - with regard to false information, fraudulent use of the First Amendment to shield print propaganda and misinformation. Media sources should be required to print two articles side by side ( one pro and one con ) both well researched and factual.
@ carolyn
I believe your latest series of tit-for-tats with John (or whomever) should only serve to reinforce my point regarding the futility of engaging these NRA togs, trolls, and gun nuts in a meaningful debate that actually leads somewhere.
All they want to do is tie you up with an endless stream of misguided trivia, misleading statistics, misinterpretations of the 2nd amendment, on and on and on ad nauseum…such that nothing ever gets accomplished.
In the meantime, people who have not only experienced the horrors of gun violence themselves but fought for our country and our rights, Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly, have decided to go after the root of the problem, which is the incredible amount of political clout the NRA possesses and which is seriously skewing the debate re gun violence in this country.
Their website is americansforresponsiblesolutions.org.
I believe you will find that not only can you engage in a meaningful conversation there re gun control but also contribute to finding a solution to this horrific problem.
As far as this Pro Publica comments board goes, I'm sure you would agree that its expiration date has now passed.
Mike Jackson
You refer to those who disagree with your stance as "NRA troglodytes, trolls, and gun nuts" and wonder why it is difficult to have a rational discussion. Ordinary people such as myself, the aforementioned Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly are also gun owners. The tragic killings which occurred in Tucson, Auroroa, CO and Sandy Hook were perpetuated by very sick individuals who slipped through the mental and legal cracks leaving them able to perpetuate these heinous acts. Arizona's mental health system suffered a huge funding loss within the last few years which left many without the ability to receive medications they need. Problems persist in every realm of these crimes, not just with guns. I for one think it is far to easy to purchase guns in AZ, it's a joke. lets have rational gun control, tighten up those areas that have become too lax and make people work harder to prove they are able to be responsible gun owners. The majority of gun owners are normal everyday people who believe in their right to have the means to protect themselves and their families.
@ Mike Jackson
You criticize my interpretation, but give no clarification. I found Franklin's biography most entertaining and refreshing, if that is the history you are referring to. Or are you talking about the history where millions of Jews and other peoples were disarmed before being exterminated.
As to your NRA rant, they lost my support years ago.
And to lining the pockets of manufacturers, guess again! Last gun I bought new was 3+ years ago for $140. The rest of my collection came to me used, some over 100 years old. (I'm heavy into recycling. Anyone know where I can pick up a good used A-10 real cheap?)
So if we are going to address senseless killings, lets talk about automobiles. Or doctors.
If plane crashes and school shootings happened as often as auto fatalities, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
We already have more than 10,000 laws on the Federal books alone. Our own government can't even tell us how many there are. Add to that all the state and local laws. And we as citizens are supposed to know each and every one by heart. Did you consult your attorney before leaving your front door today? Laws don't make us a safer people. Education does. Better healthcare does. Not more, not free, BETTER healthcare. Laws only serve to make the rich richer, and the poor slaves.
@Mike Jackson, good advice, and thanks for the link!
I seriously have to question the knowledge of any 'gun owner' that says CCL holders need to pass a background check and a safety test. If you knew anything about what it takes to get a CCL in ANY state, you would know that those two things are required.
Funding the ATF strictly through taxes on gun owners and makers is an unfair and rather obvious attempt to make gun ownership, a RIGHT, in to a PRIVILEGE of those who have money to spend. We don't ask military families to pay for the military, we don't ask needy families to pay for SNAP- we pay out of the common treasury because these programs are there for the good of the public. The same goes for the ATF.
It seems to be common that anti-gun supporters don't know much about their target. Maybe a reason gun control isn't better.
Right on! So true, nobody has the right answers if we can't compromise, and the ones who think they have the right answers need to really evaluate the goal they are trying to accomplish.
Gun control is needed, I'm pretty sure the majority agree. There are many ways to accomplish this. If you look at the numbers, banning one type of gun is ineffective in reducing gun crime overall. Lets focus on the additional restrictions that will actually accomplish prevention of guns getting into the wrong
It's funny to me that individuals who think they know the right answers are pushing to ban a type of weapon that makes up 2% of violent crime (more people are killed each year with hammers and knifes, every study shows that the prior ban had no effect on the crime rate, etc)
because it was used in the latest 3 tragedies.
No other reason.
If a lever action 30-30 was used in all three of those instances, they would be trying to ban those with their current logic.
Mike Jackson is just a bitter non gun owner and I bet he doesnt even vote. Beyond that, When presented undisputable evidence, he ignores it and writes it off as "tying you up with misguided trivia". Yet provides no input into what could help, nor supporting evidence. If this is what we are against, there truly is nothing to worry about.
The issue is, there is a lot of emotion behind both sides, but it's transparent when someone is fueled by emotion vs. fact.
Reading it is pretty ease to see the lines.
Gun Nuts, or anti Gun Nuts.
What all of you anti seem not to get is.
Any dictator ship takes weapons away from the civil population.
See Former Soviet Union, Cuba, Venzuala, Any current dictator ships fear a armed civil population.
You think our esteemed Congress and senate members do not fear an armed citizens, bet on it they do. It may be a low level fear but it is there.
Need to do better back ground check for mental but that is prohibited data restricted by FED Govt. They need to be identified.
Get rid of (kill frre zones), like no guns allowed here. Guess where the mass murders take palce; in these (kill free zones)..
Non of these killers went to a police station and started shooting, they go to gun free (Kill zones)They are sick but not stupid.
They do not go to Gun Shows, nor weapons ranges. just places where they can kill and kill; gun free ( Kill Zones).
2nd amendment will not be changed so change laws about mental pateints, and get rid of the (kill free zones)..
Too many peole own guns for this law to change. Obama and Bill Clinton caused Gun sales to go up more than any president we have had; check stats; google it your self..
Like fire free zones in Vietnam, if your arse was in one chances are you would get killed, for me same as a gun free zone = Kill free zone with impunity until the local law shows up. If they know it is shooting most want drive fast, too dangerous..
@MMS Dave: What, exactly, is the mental health solution? Lock up anyone who might be a potential threat? Go door-to-door administering psych exams? Restrict the freedom of those who fail the test so that some other, presumably stable individual can keep his precious AR-15 or AK?
I also find it interesting that the NRA thinks we need to keep a national database of those potentially mentally ill or taking medication, and use that to block gun purchases, but in the next breath absolutely forbids keeping track of firearm sales and ownership. Apparently trampling over the rights of others is fine, just as long as we don't trample over theirs.
At any rate, it's not an "either / or" issue. We can work on improving mental health and we can work on better gun laws, registration, and safety.
Saying that we should look only to the failings of the mental health care system is little more than a diversionary tactic, and a feeble one at that.
@TRUTH: Every proposal? Mostly I want to close the loopholes through which 40% of all firearm sales are made with no background check whatsoever. And I want people to secure their existing weapons.
And I fully recognize that I and others already own the weapons in question. I, however, at least passed a background check to obtain mine, and believe that everyone who wants a firearm should be required to do the same.
@Louis: You're trying to dodge the issue by attacking my credibility. And you're wrong.
Constitutional carry states like Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. The requirements in states with "Shall-Issue" laws vary widely by jurisdiction.
Hence my assertion that all states should require a background check and all states should require the individual to pass a standardized safety and certification course. Note ALL and STANDARDIZED in that sentence.
@John: Nice rant, and by the way that's dictatorship. One word.
That said. the "take your guns" crap is extremist rhetoric. It's a desperation card thrown into the mix to shortcut any reasonable, rational discussion.
The fact of the matter is the the government already regulates what you can and can not own. They already mandate extremely strict procedures for obtaining weapons deemed too susceptible or likely to be abused, like fully automatic weapons. We already require background checks on new sales.
So don't pretend that your 2nd amendment rights can not be abridged or regulated… because we do so daily.
New firearm sales already go through the 4473 process. If we're going to require background checks on weapons to weed out felons, why are we not doing so on all purchases, sales, and transfers?
Its also seems like some anti-gun supporters on this site ( I won't stereotype and say all of them are like this, I know better than that.) act as if their cause is more noble than pro-gun supporters, therefore they must be more sensible. Simply using the word "sensible" seems to make them think it equates to the user falling under its definition.
How come some of the anti-gun supporters on this site ignore a clear effort by pro-gun supporters to proclaim the need for effective gun control? Nobody want's to have these tragedies happen.
That's right, both sides are working toward the same goal, yet some anti-gun supporters on this site would rather not listen to facts and attempt to focus on one aspect of gun control that is proven to not be effective, or discredit the poster by labeling them a "gun nut".
Why not put emotion aside, exchange reliable and accurately interpreted information, and work toward determining a strategy that effectively stops maniacs from getting guns. Is it not clear that's the collective goal?
@ Micheal Long
you said it all right here brother
"The fact of the matter is the THE GOVERNMENT ALREADY REGULATES what you can and can not own. They already mandate extremely strict procedures for obtaining weapons deemed too susceptible or likely to be abused, like fully automatic weapons. We already require background checks on new sales."
All legal gun owners with 100% agree that every gun purchase should require a background check. 40% not getting checked is ridiculous and it should be 0.
Required background checks on every firearm purchase is a great initiative to get guns out of the hands of criminals!
Don't remember saying anything about locking anyone up.
Right now our society still looks at people with needs as weak, when so often all they need is an environment to safely express their feelings without being judged by others. Like a car with a small oil leak, if taken care of in a timely fashion, amounts to little more than an inconvenience. Right now the socially accepted method for dealing with problems is to self medicate.
Right now there is an obvious group with a mental, (not physical) dis-ease, with my owning firearms.
And because we are still a democratic Republic, bound by a constitution, they cannot just gang up and take away my rights without due process. (Lynch mob)
As to the people who would lump me into one category or another and put words in my mouth, I say, "Get Well Soon". Find a 12 step program and work it with at least half as much energy as you waste trying to control my life.
John Smith seems to be on the right track.
@John Smith: I'm one of those who ask for "sensible gun regulations" and I've used it as a quick modifier in hopes it separates me from more unrealistic gun control advocates: those who want a mirror of the UK system implemented here. I'll probably continue using it. The word, "rational" might be even more offensive. I agree. We need to limit gun ownership to "responsible" people who won't endanger the lives of the rest of us.
@Tod: In view of LaPierre's unyielding position regarding any chiseling away of the NRA position on "gun rights" - instead, offering his solution to arm teachers - I support Mike Jackson's hyperbole (though it's clearly not meant to change hearts and minds). The NRA does not acknowledge a problem with our daily carnage due to using guns. I'm pleased you believe we have a problem and are offering us solutions.
@MMS Dave: Yep, we have a lot of laws, contradictory laws, and huge gaps in laws between states. My (probably unrealistic) hope is that through our process in creating "sensible" gun regulations through the federal system, we can simplify and streamline some of the mess.
@Michael Long: More accurate and concise comments/replies from you. Being a non-gun owner, I didn't know what a 4473 was. In reading it I found this:
"Q: Does an unlicensed person need an ATF Form 4473 to transfer a firearm? No. ATF Form 4473 is required only for transfers by a licensee."
Are there any means to turn an unlicensed gun into a licensed gun? (my google searches have been unsuccessful)
History lesson from the other side of the pond and a good explanation of why I am reluctant to give in, even just a little.
Use whatever word you like it doesn't offend me. I agree the responsible people who wont endanger the lives of the rest of us should own guns (if they want to) under reasonable regulations.
"Are there any means to turn an unlicensed gun into a licensed gun? (my google searches have been unsuccessful)"
The license is referring to a person who owns a gun store - not the individual gun. In order to legally sell guns and make a profit, you have to become a Federal Firearms License holder (which is an extensive process).
You don't need a license to sell a couple guns, but if you are doing it like a business you will attract the attention of the BATF. Im not sure how they discovered him, but it happened to a person I went to school with - he got fined heavily and cannot touch a gun (its good to know they are actively shutting things like this down).
I agree that with every transaction using this 4473 form, the BATF would be able to prevent unlicensed dealers from making a profit better, and help eliminate another the background check loophole.
Are there any issues using this as it currently is? Or What would have to be changed in order to do?
What the gun makers are worried about is not the removal of guns from the American public, but, the removal of cash flowing into their pockets with the sell of each one. What's more important people? The safety of our children or the fortunes of the gun industry? Keep the fight alive!!!
@Carolyn: As John Smith indicated, a responsible firearms dealer with a Federal Firearms License will fill out a form 4473 and do a background check on all firearm sales. In short, that buyer becomes the owner of that weapon. Private sales are currently exempt.
My proposal was that the same form and background check needs to be done for all sales and transfers, including resale, and as such would require ALL sales, commercial and private, go through a licensed dealer, police department, or ATF.
Many guns change hands outside of the system, and many guns are bought through "friends" and straw purchases. All need to be tracked.
In addition, the increased civil and criminal liability on guns used during criminal acts would apply to the 4473 "owner". So if you buy a weapon for a "friend" and it kills someone at a convenience store a month later… you're in deep trouble.
So the second measure would help increase compliance of the first. It would also help insure that responsible owners properly secure their firearms in order to reduce the chance of theft.
I got about 3 down on these comments and when I got to the admonition to 'talk to a gun owner or someone who is knowlegeable about the law' part, I had to laugh. Most gun owners don't know what the NRA has done to our gun policy. Let's list a few, shall we? The NRA lobbied for or to:
1- making it illegal for the ATF to use computers to track guns, they have to use a phone, paper, and write the details down.
2- make it illegal for background checks to be kept for more than 24 hours, they must be destroyed.
3- make illegal for gun dealers to have to perform an inventory, ever. Car dealerships do it twice a year though because they are tracked at every point of sale from import/manufacture to destruction. Novel idea.
4- making it illegal for ATF to do more than one pre announced spot inspection per year on any gun dealer
5- making it a full 6 years since there has been an accountable director of the ATF. The post has been filled by interim only since 2006.
6- made it so that nearly anyone in NY can buy a Bushmaster because they are made there, and the only reason for that pistol grip is to lower the center of gravity so that the shooter doesn't have to shoulder the weapon and aim. They can just spray rounds into a crowd and not fall down.
7- just today, they argued for the right of a gun to exist…yes, now guns have rights, when a gun buy back in Arizona resulted in some 200 guns scheduled to be destroyed.
Seriously….can we get some personal injury lawyers to write our ambulance protocol while we're at it? Why is the NRA allowed to slip pre-written (by ALEC) legislation into the hands of lawmakers at skeet-shoot/bar B-ques with out the public having some kind of say in the process? They're OUR gun rights, not the NRAs.
Using a pool alarm or a car seat does not reduce my freedom in anyway, because I'm a resposible pool owner and driver. It does however, prevent the neighborhood kids from drowning in my pool and keeps my kid safe on the way to kindergarten. Why does the wingnuttio faction persist in the argument that 'bad guys will always get the guns anyway?' Easy….because the NRA has made it so stinkin easy. Sell guns. They really don't care to whom.
@John Smith: Thanks for the clarification. As a clueless non-gun owner, I now understand the distinction between "permits" and "licensed" guns.
I now have it straight that all gun permits are issued at the state level, and only 13 states require them. Of those, there are only 2 states which don't extend the automatic right to "concealed carry permits". Four states allow "permit-free unrestricted concealed carry".
@Michael Long: Thanks! You've again presented, what appear to me, more smart solutions to tighten and extend existing regulations. When I continued to analyze them, it finally dawned on me that by tracking gun sales, sellers, and buyers on the federal level, we're in effect issuing permits at the federal level. We actually do have a national registry and it needs a lot of work.
Since I've long believed we should have a national (federal) registry of all guns/gun owners. I can now see what a nightmare state's rights advocates would raise with such a requirement, not discounting the already existing arguments between states regarding their differing restrictions, eg: Strapped, unregistered Arizonans must find it a hassel to travel to DC. My state of Washington (a non gun registration state), along with Colorado, just legalized the possession of small quantities of Marijuana. Obviously it's against federal law so we're waiting to see how the feds respond. Changing/tightening federal gun law regulations will create huge ripples at the state level where regulations differ - particularly those states which don't like any regulations at all.
@ Gwen: I love your spot-on, timely, and accurate NRA comments! Can't wait for the replies! I'm hoping ProPublica does some reporting about corporate funded ALEC's legislative writing skills and cash flow which turns the bidding of the NRA into law. Only more public awareness can help us properly re-designate ALEC as a corporate lobby front group rather than the tax free "charity" status it now enjoys.
@Carolyn: Tracking on the Federal level is a major issue with the NRA and the 2nd Amendment fringe, as they believe that a comprehensive national database is the first step towards confiscation of all weapons.
With the 4473 process, the Feds basically store the SN and the dealer, and then if the firearm is later recovered and investigated the dealer is contacted for the appropriate owner information.
Awkward, but it works most of the time. At least for new weapons purchased through legitimate dealers. I'm simply proposing all guns resold or transferred be required to go through the same system.
And as it's an existing process, with information stored at the local level, the NRA shouldn't kick too hard with it being a national "seize the guns" database.
@MMS Dave: Nice history lesson. Wrong, but nice.
Just for one example: "As it happened, America delivered 1.25 Million rifles ... They were stored between the wars and when the threat of invasion during 1940 was imminent, THEY REMAINED IN STORAGE. The Home Guard was set up and paraded with broomsticks and any "overlooked" service rifles. It was not until the end of 1940/early 1941 when the Home Guard had been fully organised and brought under strict government control and the threat of invasion receded that the rifles were issued to them."
"Consider the implications – there was a serious possibility that the Germans WOULD invade but the civil servants and the Government of the day decided that arming the population carried a greater risk than working with a hostile government."
In actuality, pre-war Britain was feverishly inspecting and refurbishing its remaining stocks of P14's under what became known as the Weedon Repair Standard. I say remaining, because after the WWI Britain had sent huge numbers of rifles to the emerging Latvian army and others. By the 30's they had fewer than 600,000 left in store.
The entire article appears to be like that, a "fear the government" screed that selectively presents the "facts" deemed appropriate to support its argument, and then leaps to its own conclusions based on such.
And just as conveniently forgets or ignores others.
Mike Jackson, I apologize for not replying sooner… life just gets in the way sometimes.
So let me make some qualifying statements.
I do belong to the NRA. I have been a member for a long-long time. I started reading NRA magazines when I was a little kid while sitting in the barbershop with my Dad, who is also a life-long member of NRA. I grew up with guns, lived in a small to modest sized town, and started hunting with my Dad when I was six. (In good humor, at that age it was more running along behind him, but he always took me). So yes there is emotional attachment to lifestyles that cannot be replicated in big cities like Houston, where I live now. But, I am also old enough to remember the debates of the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the rhetoric has not changed. That bothers me because people whom I am assuming are too young to know that history are citing or speaking the same arguments as if they are reading from prepared texts. Sincerely, I shake my head in disbelief because comments have not changed in 44 years. That is why the legal groups in NRA are so entrenched in their positions. From the gun registration and gun confiscation side of the argument there has been no compromise and reasonable discussion. At this point I am sure somebody is going to bring up issues, so let me state my position and we can take it form there.
"Reasonable registration requirements"
We started with the 1968 GCA, and the Brady waiting periods. NRA advocated instant police checks from a national crime database. The gun control crowd opposed it with as much passion as the NRA in debating the issue. I ask why do they oppose it if it is a good thing to do. The general arguments from NRA types, is if you are a new crime victim such as those of domestic abuse, why should you have to wait while your abuser makes their next plan to attack you. We know there is case after case of domestic violence where the boy friend defies the restraining order and kills the girlfriend and usually somebody else. That is not an extreme argument, and reasonable.
But the real fear is that all gun confiscation schemes by governments all over the world are preceded by gun registration demands. Our President in a campaign speech promised to not take our guns. But others like the Senator from San Francisco want the laws to be so restrictive as to not allow weapons to be passed onto generations.
Back to the emotional issue—Here I point out two government leaders who are on the same side of the agenda saying things that concern gun owners. I would be very saddened to not be able to receive my Father's guns that go back to his father and over a hundred years, and not be able to give them to my sons and grandsons. Tradition. Some of those guns would fall under the ban guidelines.
But my best argument that is undeniable by reasonable people—recall all of the support for the Occupy movement and their lofty goals of social re-adjustment. Recall that their greatest anger and fear was mistrust of government leaders and business leaders to do the right thing. I remember reading Propublica blogs late into the night as people claimed their support for ONY and ODC and how much they despised government. So now, why would you expect a person like me to trust government leaders anymore on an issue like gun control, and feel any less passionate as the OC's and their issues?
Come on, smile with me on this one.
Our country's founders mistrusted government as much as the OC's, and certainly as much as people like me who are reasonable and willing to look for solutions.
But I trust not what government is capable of doing when our leaders take the bully pulpit and talk about taking power away from one party or the other. Why, because we never here them talk about governance. We only hear them talk about power. Therefore I prefer to look at history and say don't make that mistake.
Well that is one long point. So I won't go into the others until later.
But I hope now you will not classify me as a gun nut. I prefer family guy with a strong tradition. Or maybe we can call that a new stress syndrome "FGST."
I look forward to the next post.
@ Michael Long: Thanks again! "Awkward" is an apt term for our current "system".
You've led me to understand that dealers are the choke point through which law enforcement must pass in order to find out who owns the guns they're trying to track down. I then needed to find the key points in ATF requirements for would-be gun dealers to follow if they obtain the required FFL (Federal Firearms License). They must agree to immediately respond to ATF requests and they must transfer their records to the ATF if they no longer are in the business of selling guns. "These requirements enable ATF to carry out one of the principal purposes of the GCA—to assist State, local, and foreign law enforcement officials in tracing firearms used in crime." Of course I then looked up the GCA and found it refers to the Gun Control Act of 1968 which begins with the disclaimer (sec. 101) that the act (in essence) isn't a government plot to take our guns away.
On paper, sounds ok. In reality, it has to include a nightmare of delayed response, vanished or deceased dealers, and missing/incomplete/out of date paperwork. Your Jan 9 post with your well thought out proposed fixes really must be included in coming legislation.
Re: Your correction (smackdown) of MMS Dave's paranoid post brings me to Jon Stewart's brilliant Jan 9 show devoted to gun violence:
"Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing its actual dystopic present. We can't even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually, in reality, happening in our country every year because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of an imaginary Hitler."
"NRA advocated instant police checks from a national crime database. The gun control crowd opposed it with as much passion as the NRA in debating the issue."
Ummm… citation? It's true that at the time the NRA supported background checks, but only if they could be done "instantly", so as not to inconvenience gun buyers on gun store owners.
And they've historically opposed any registration scheme that might lead to a national database of gun owners, while not being shy about proposing national databases of criminals, sex offenders, those on "watch lists", or people with "mental health problems" or on medication. (In other words, tracking everyone else appears to be find and dandy.)
The NRA promotes "gun safety", but also seems to go out of its way to block legislation mandating CCP training and certification before such a permit is issued.
You point out the issue with waiting periods, but ignore the equally well-document cases where the boy friend in your scenario goes and buys a gun in a fit of rage, returns home, and uses it.
30,000 people a year die in the US due to firearms. Based on averages, and as of noon, 41 people have died today. 41 more tonight. 82 more tomorrow.
What's your solution?
Commenting on this story is closed.
We're probing the policy and politics of guns in America.
Latest Stories in this Project
- How Much Could Obama's Gun Moves Affect Gun Violence? Nobody Knows.
- Why Counting Mass Shootings is a Bad Way to Understand Gun Violence in America
- How the Gun Control Debate Ignores Black Lives
- The Best Reporting on PTSD in Children Exposed to Violence
- Podcast: Guns, PTSD, and the 'Data-Free Debate'


text:
OK, sort of, I guess.: Celebrity Infinity Cruise Review by ElJugador
Overall Member Rating
OK, sort of, I guess.
Destination: Alaska
Embarkation: Seattle
The ports were interesting. Yes, there are fun excursions to take (we booked our own and saved a ton of cash AND got to go with smaller, better companies). What struck us, however, was the absolute lack of anything cool about the towns More themselves. Ketchikan and Junneau have NOTHING other than shops that exist exclusively for cruise ship tourists. If buying crap made in China that says "Alaska" on it is your idea of a good time, you'll be in heaven. Likewise, if you like to buy expensive jewelry that you can buy anywhere for the same price or other trinkets. Otherwise, you're out of luck. Skagway had the same crap as well, but at least the stores were housed in actual historical buildings from the gold rush and there was a museum so you could learn the history. That made it worthwhile. The final stop was Victoria. This is by far the coolest place. Sadly, we were there only for a few hours.
The cruising was awesome. The Tracy Arm Fjord was stunning and we had fantastic weather. We were able to drive right up to the glacier. Magnificent. Along those same lines, the section in the inside passage was mind-blowing. Nice weather (though cold) and early season meant a lot of beautiful snow covered mountains.
The staterooms were OK, though they seemed a lot bigger in the photos. The staff was fantastic all the way around. They work their butts off for months on end with very little time to themselves, but they are always in a good mood. Not sure how they pull that off.
Celebrity is supposed to be among the best in terms of food. Our experience was mixed. The food in the buffet area was awful and barely edible. The food in the main dining room and a big step up, but still pretty bad (basically what you would expect when you are eating from a kitchen serving 2,000 - 3,000 meals at a time).
There were a few specialty dining options that were good. Qusine was a fun/interesting/unique/whimsical restaurant that could stand on its own anywhere. The food wasn't great in terms of gourmet/fine dining standards, but it wasn't too far off. Definitely a highlight.
The S.S. United States is supposed to be a fine dining experience with French food. It was mediocre at absolute best. There was a wine pairing menu that was a huge disappointment. The wine was good (but they poured very little with each course). The food was the least compelling stuff on the menu and everything else looked better. We would have been blown away if they served what we got in the main dining room, but it was not up to snuff in terms of the fine dining experience it was supposed to be. Not even close.
There was also a place that served crepes. For a $5 cover, you could have whatever you wanted. We ate here a LOT. Not great, but not bad.
Alcohol was reasonably priced.
The only thing on the boat that seemed like a huge rip off was internet ($.75/minute).
Would we recommend it? Perhaps. Would we go on another Celebrity cruise? Probably -- if we decided cruising was our thing. I'm pretty sure it isn't though. Less
Published 05/19/12
Cabin review: S1 Sky Suite 1
The cabin was OK. We got one that was at a spot where the ship gets wider so we had a bit more deck space. Nothing special .Read All Sky Suite 1 (S1) Reviews >>
Port and Shore Excursions
Whale Watching
Jeep Tour
Read Cruise Critic's Celebrity Infinity Review >>
Coral Princess July 2017
First Cruise to Alaska, Travel...
Fabulous Cruise. Excellent Sta...
Great itinerary, tired ship, n...
First time to Alaska on Infini...
Alaska was simply amazing
Excellent 1st Time Celebrity C...
You do not have to go to Disne...
Great itinerary, tired ship, n...
Sponsored Links

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Pictures of Ryan Gosling Shopping in Toronto
Ryan Gosling Isn't the Lone Ranger, but He Does Shop Solo
Ryan Gosling Isn't the Lone Ranger, but He Does Shop Solo
Ryan Gosling was out and about by himself in chilly Toronto yesterday. He's up North in his home country after spending much of the last couple of months shooting the George Clooney-helmed The Ides of March around the Midwest. Ryan has a diverse slate of movies hitting theaters over the next year. The trailer for Crazy, Stupid, Love, a romantic comedy in which he costars with Emma Stone, was released earlier this month ahead of its July release. He tackles an action-packed role in September's Drive alongside leading ladies Carey Mulligan and Christina Hendricks. There is one part Ryan won't play — his rep says Ryan will not appear in The Lone Ranger opposite Johnny Depp's Tonto despite previous reports.
0previous images
-29more images


text:
Page Not Found.
We could not find the page you requested.
This is either because:
- there's an error in the address or link,
- due to a technical fault it has not been properly published,
- it is an older article that has been removed from our site.
Welcome to The Age. Skip directly to: Search Box, Section Navigation, Content. Text Version.
|network map | member centre
The WWF conservation group has called for a strong monitoring system for tuna fisheries to combat decreasing stocks of the fish before international tuna conservation bodies hold a joint meeting next week in Japan.
Releasing its position statement for the meeting, the WWF demanded tuna-fishing countries implement a "global catch documentation system" for all tuna species that tracks tuna from the ocean to the market. It would help "properly control both catching and the trade."
"Action is urgently required," the WWF said, while also calling for ensuring that measures are taken to reduce "bycatches" of threatened species during tuna fishing.
"Marine wildlife, including seabirds such as albatross, marine turtles and sharks, are threatened by tuna fishing," it said.
"There are some technical measures to reduce this but fisheries managers are being slow to adopt them."
Japan, the world's biggest tuna consumer, will host the first joint meeting in Kobe from Monday to Friday.
The five multilateral tuna conservation bodies, known as the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, will mainly discuss how to improve management of the world's tuna resources, including measures to fight poaching as well as unreported and unregulated fishing.
The five are the Western Central Pacific Ocean Fisheries Commission, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna.
The WWF will join the meeting as an observer.
© 2007
Brought to you by
When you see news happening: SMS/MMS: 0406 THE AGE (0406 843 243), or us. More
Subscribe to The Age and save up to 35%*
Personalise your news, save articles to read later and customise settings
We could not find the page you requested.
This is either because:
Skip to:
National | World | Opinion | Business | Technology | Sport | Entertainment
CLASSIFIEDS Jobs | Real Estate | Cars | Dating | Place a classified ad
Sitemap | Subscribe | Privacy | Contact Us | Conditions | Member Agreement |
Personalise your news, save articles to read later and customise settings
We could not find the page you requested.
This is either because:
Skip to:
News Store Alert will keep you informed. Find out more.
Get free news emails from theage.com.au. Sign up now.


text:
Instant delivery: ships within 3 business days!
( excluding Saturday, Sunday and public holidays! )
[Review at 990-2,000, 990, $ 30,337!!]
|And set dirt bags, Western-style toilets, portable toilet, put excretion after defeating clotting drug bags sanitary and easy!
Coagulant melt naturally absorb the moisture, solidifies.
From coconut shell activated carbon with superior deodorizing properties, reduces compaction by foul odors quickly.
After using the water don't have to worry more.
Disaster, when emergencies, such as water is not very active in the!
Material solidification agent: polymer, coconut shell activated carbon and water soluble paper, dirt bags: polyethylene
Coagulant size (weight): (approx) 75 × 75 / mm / 15 g, dirt bag: 45 L
Set contents coagulant × 30, dirt bag x 30 sheets
-Country of origin Japan
Note *
Looting solidified bags to take crap, please sprinkle directly.
* When you do not use must be sealed and armpac, please keep out of children's reach.
* Eat is an anticoagulant.
* Clotting agent is put directly into Western-style toilets. Can cause boils down.
* Please directly touching the skin after use.
* After using the follow on how to dispose of each municipality.
* May take several minutes for the firm from putting an anticoagulant.
|JP Post EMS
|Your order will be shipped to you via Japan Post EMS. Japan Post is a speedy delivery service that delivers to more than 120 countries. With an effective tracking system and insurance program, EMS is able to offer a secure delivery worldwide. You can track your package with the tracking code provided and it will be delivered within a week. See estimated shipping fee
|Credit Card
|We accept credit and debit cards.
The following credit and debit cards can be used:
•American Express
This product cannot be shipped to United States from the store.
Please contact the store for further information.


text:
Richard Morrison eulogises in the Times today about the brilliance of the revamped and reopened Alice Tully Hall at Lincoln Centre, New York, which has ditched its "chilly municipal" feel for a "six-storey glass prow". Morrison uses the example of Alice Tully as a way forward for cash-strapped arts organisations – and potential donors – in this country: now is the time to spend, spend, spend, and invest in the arts, which people need in a time of economic gloom.
Not everyone is so enthusiastic. CultureGrrl has a fascinating two-part photo essay on how Alice Tully Hall has changed, mostly, she thinks, for the worse: uncomfortable new seats, bad lighting, only marginally improved acoustics, injury-inducing elements in the redesign, and, above all, a lack of faith in the old building's concrete brutalism.
The Southbank Centre was the last major revamp this side on the Atlantic, and I wonder if a similar catalogue of criticisms should be levelled at it. A couple of years on, was it really worth £115m to move an organ, put in some shops and restaurants – and still not to have a decent concert hall in the capital? With money as tight as it is now, you have to wonder whether that cash would have been better spent on a new hall instead of tarting up an old one that will never be world-class.
All right, belated harrumph over. Meanwhile, staying with the US, here's an encouraging article in the LA Times, highlighting how the Obamas are leading by example in their patronage of the arts. He managed to get $50m for the arts in his stimulus package, but Obama's being seen at concerts, the theatre, dance and opera is a political symbol that money can't buy. I've never seen Gordon Brown at the opera, but culture secretary Andy Burnham put in an appearance at Doctor Atomic last night. The sense of impending doom throughout Adams's opera must have been the perfect respite from the ever-deepening political gloom of Gordon Brown's government. Or not.


text:
Skip to Content
(603) 225-2711
Home > Wellness > Health Library > Factors (Triggers) That May Cause a Flare-Up of Rosacea
Browse and register for related classes.
Factors (called triggers) that may cause a flare-up of
rosacea include:
These triggers cause the blood vessels in the face to relax and open
wider (dilate), producing a sudden increase in blood flow and causing the face
to flush. Triggers for flushing affect people differently—a trigger that
affects one person may not affect another in the same way.
ByHealthwise StaffPrimary Medical ReviewerKathleen Romito, MD - Family MedicineAdam Husney, MD - Family MedicineSpecialist Medical ReviewerAmy McMichael, MD - Dermatology
Current as ofFebruary 5, 2016
Current as of:
February 5, 2016
Healthwise Staff
Medical Review:
Kathleen Romito, MD - Family Medicine & Adam Husney, MD - Family Medicine & Amy McMichael, MD - Dermatology
This information does not replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise, Incorporated, disclaims any warranty or liability for your use of this information. Your use of this information means that you agree to the Terms of Use. Learn how we develop our content.
To learn more about Healthwise, visit Healthwise.org.
© 1995-2016 Healthwise, Incorporated. Healthwise, Healthwise for every health decision, and the Healthwise logo are trademarks of Healthwise, Incorporated.
Feeling under the weather?
Use our interactive symptom checker to evaluate your symptoms and determine appropriate action or treatment.
Concord Hospital
250 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301
Share Feedback and Questions
View Quality Data
© 2017 Concord Hospital
| Privacy Policy | Nondiscrimination Notice


text:
- Talk
- Site Feedback
Talk forums- same page over and over
When I am trying to get past the first page in the Talk forum, and click "Older," the next page is mostly the threads from the first page. When I click to go to the third page, I still get a couple of the threads from the first page (though less than the second page), and so on to the forth. Hope you can fix this! Thanks!


text:
Hard on the heels of a big Lightroom CC release, today marks the release of the next major update to Adobe Creative Cloud. 15 Adobe apps get major updates and new features. Adobe has been adding updates to most CC apps 3 or 4 times a year. Once a year there is a milestone update that aligns all the apps with a full version behind the scenes and a CC (year) indicator to help people keep track. As is our custom here at PhotoshopCAFE, we have all the new features for you, right at launch. If you want to see previous updates and features, they are all covered in our CC Superguides here.
See the Camera Raw updates here that include Dehaze, HDR and Panoramic merge in Camera RAW
Photoshop CC 2015
by Colin Smith
I have a video for you to watch here that shows my favorite new features, Watch the video and read this in-depth material (trust me, you will want to look at both!)
Let's just jump right in and have a look at the new features. There are a few nice additions for photographers and a lot of yummy possibilities for designers. One new feature for everyone, that you don't see initially, is a vast speed improvement in some tools. The spot healing brush is up to 120x faster! Try it for yourself, you can literally paint away blemishes in near realtime. The patch tool also benefits from the expansion of the Mercury engine in Photoshop. (Mercury is a combo of software and hardware rendering that used the GPU A.K.A. Video Card on your computer for faster visual processing).
All this is available on theThe Creative Cloud Photography plan. Only $9.99mo for Photoshop, Lightroom and Lightroom Mobile.
Creative Sync
This also brings up another term. Creative Sync. This is a rebranding of all the stuff that syncs through Creative Cloud. That would be Libraries, assets, preferences, files etc. Instead of plain sync, it's called Creative Sync.
Blur Gallery update
For those of you who love to use the Blur Gallery to simulate depth of field and other effects, here is something you have been waiting for. As you have discovered, the blur Gallery is a fast and flexible way to add Field Blur, Motion Blur, Iris Blur, Spin Blur and Tilt Shift. They can all be applied non-destructively using SmartObjects. The one hang-up has been the lack of grain on the blurred areas. When working on an image that has a little grain or noise, this looks artificial. But no more, you can now add in grain (using the grain engine from ACR) and perfectly match your looks.
In this example, I am adding an iris blur to bring attention to the surfer I captured in this image at the Wedge, Newport Beach (shot from a DJI Phantom 3).
When we look close up, notice that there is some noise in the photograph that is smoothened out in the blur. This makes it look like it was blurred in software and not in capture as it doesn't match. This still image was pulled from a video frame that was captured on a quadcopter, so noise is expected in this case.
Below is the same image after some noise is added (read on to see the options)
Click on the Noise tab and dial in a bit of grain for a much more realistic result.
Dial in the settings to match the grain in the unblurred portion of the image. A couple of settings to look for.
Roughness: This goes between random and uniform patterns in the noise.
Color: Add color noise (speckles of color usually a lot of red and pink).
You can also choose the type of grain to add.
With the noise settings, you can now have a higher level of realism in your "lens" blurs.
Dehaze made its debut at Adobe MAX conference at the "sneaks" keynote presentation. I remember the crowd going wild and loving it, in similar fashion as they did with the Camera Shake Reduction 2 MAX's before that. Personally, I like Dehaze better and will get a lot of use out of it.
It's quite common to get atmospheric haze in photographs (particularly when you live in Southern California). Here is an aerial panorama that I have captured on my DJI Phantom 3 Quadcopter. As you can see, the elevated position provides a long look into the distance, and the particulates in the air combined with time of day and position of the sun causes a bit of haze.
In the past, this was difficult to fix. But the new Dehaze filer added in Camera Raw, makes it easy.Choose Filter>Camera Raw filter to launch your photo in ACR
Navigate to the Effects Panel and you will see a Dehaze slider. Move to the left to add haze, and to the right to reduce it.
Move the Dehaze slider to the right to reduce the haze and bring back details to your photograph. You can see a big difference.
Once the haze is reduced, you may want to go back to the basic panel and tweak some of the adjustments as it tends to darken the image slightly.
Here is a before/after for you to look it
The Dehaze is also added to Lightroom CC in the Effects pane
For the rest of the Camera Raw updates including HDR and Panorama, see this page
CC Library updates – Library 2.0
A very welcome addition to Photoshop CC last year was the inclusion of Libraries (more about them here). Libraries provide a panel where we can store different things such as images, logos, colors, fonts brushes etc. These are available on different apps such as Illustrator and InDesign. They are stored on your computer in a folder which you can find easily enough by running a search on any of the assets. Adobe suggests you don't mess with the folder directly because that could cause a breaking of your sync. Accessing these through the Library panel is the preferred way. They are synced between different computers that you login to with your Creative Cloud account though the use of Creative Sync (if you are a creative as you're called in Behance that's getting very creative).
3 new things in Library 2.0.
Shared Storage
In the past, each app stored it's assets in different places on your computer, causing duplication. Now, all the apps share the same library location and the same shared assets, which means that you save space (1 copy) and time (don't have to download another copy). Who doesn't like to save space time?
Library Linked Smart Objects
When you drag an item out of the Library it now becomes a Library Linked Smart Object. What this means is that it will behave link a Linked Smart Object but from the Library. In English please? When you change the contents of a linked Smart Object, the Smart Object changes in the Library. Every document which uses that asset is also pinged. Whenever you open a document that contains a Library Linked Smart Object that has been updated, you will see a little yellow triangle. This indicates that the object has changed in the Library.
Right Click and see some options.
Reveal in Library is a good one to see what the newly updated object looks like and if you want to use it. When you do want to update the Object in your document, click Updated Modified Content.
When everything is current, you will see a little cloud badge indicating that the Smart Object is current and a Library Linked item.
To avoid all this, you can hold down the alt/Option key and drag something out of the Library and it will work like it always did without creating the link. There are a lot of benefits of a LLSO (Library Linked Smart Object) so it's worth considering taking advantage of this new option.
Adobe Stock
The third new addition to Libraries is Adobe Stock. You can add a watermarked image from Adobe Stock (Remember the recent acquisition of Fotolia by Adobe?). And use it in your comps, even apply smart filters to it if you like. When you are ready for a final, you can license the photos and the full resolution un-watermarked images will replace the comps. You can access this by clicking the St logo from the bottom of the Library Panel. (I wonder if they are going to rebrand Adobe Story since this is the identical logo used there, but in yellow).
Adobe Stock
You didn't think I was going to mention something as huge as Adobe Stock as a mere passing note did you? Nope, let's look at it in a bit more detail.
Let's start with some quick history. Many moons ago, Adobe shoved Stock Photos into Bridge and it eventually failed. One reason for this was because it was just essentially a marketplace without adding any real integration. Last year Adobe made the surprising move by purchasing the micro-stock Photography company, Fotolia. Everyone wondered what they planned on doing with it. Here is what happened, as of today it became what is now Adobe Stock. Not to be confused with the Adobe Stock ADBE trading on the NASDAQ.
Using Creative Cloud Libraries, you can now access the vast collection of photos from within Photoshop and search for your photo.
When you see something you like, save it to your Library (watermarked version). You can drop them right into your document and start playing around with the layout and trying different stock photos. When you like something, Right Click and choose License Image. The watermarked image will be replaced by the High-Res licensed image all ready for your use. All Layer effects, smart Filters and Adjustment layers are automatically applied.
This is the kind of integration that was missing from the old Adobe Stock Photos, it certainly does seem like a good idea and worth the time for designers looking to quickly add royalty free stock photos.
Now, the pricing. As of the time of writing (June 15th Pacific/ June 16th East Coast time 2015) pricing plans are as follows. ($USD)
Pay-Per-Image: $9.99 ea
10 Images a month: $29.99/mo with any Creative Cloud Plan.
$49.99 otherwise, although Im not sure how anyone can access a CC only feature (Library Panel) without being a CC Subscriber.
750 Images a month: $199.99/mo
Content Aware Move Transform
Content aware move is a great tool. You can make a selection around an object and then drag it to a different point in the photograph. It then places the object seamlessly and fills in the gap where it was. I'm going to use a rough example to show how it works and then we will have some fun.
For example, here is a photo and Im going to move the car forward in it.
Content aware fill does its job, but notice that the car now looks tiny. That's because the image is in perspective and the car didn't change its size with the distance.
If we use the new Transform on drop, we can scale and rotate the selection before applying it.
In this result, you van now see that we enlarged the car and it looks more natural.
Ok, now to look more in-depth and have some fun.
Here we are in Newport beach and there are some people in the water. Let's turn one into a giant, shall we?
Grab the Content Aware move tool (Hidden under the healing brush)
Make a selection around our unsuspecting victim. Be careful to grab the shadow or reflection too, or it will look unnatural.
Drag to a new location with Transform On Drop turned on.
Hold Down the Shift key to constrain the adjustment. Drag a corner to enlarge the subject.
Change the Structure and Color if it doesn't blend too well, otherwise leave them alone.
Apply the section by pressing the Enter key.
We now have a giant in the water.
You can have a lot of fun with this tool!
Multiple Layer Styles
It's always exciting when new Layer Styles or filters are added to Photoshop because it opens up a ton of possibilities. In this case, no actual new layer effects are added. But the interface has been updated and you can now create multiple instances of strokes, inner shadows, color overlays, gradient overlays, or drop shadows—in a single layer style. (I'm not entirely sure why multiple Color Overlays through).
When you add a new Layer style, you will immediately notice that the interface feels more modern. The entire left side of the panel looks new, with additional options.
When you see a + to the right of an individual style, this indicates that you can create multiple instances of that effect with different settings on each. The multiple stoke effect immediately comes to mind. Click the + button to create a new copy of the selected style. Clicking the up and down arrow keys on the bottom allows you to change the order of these effects.
I'm sure you will have tons of fun with this one. Under the FX button you will also see some options that enable you to manage the panel and effects.
Image Adjustments as Smart Filters
Something I always found interesting was 2 adjustments never quite made it to adjustment layers. Shadows/Highlights and HDR Toning. The work around was to convert the image to a Smart Object and then apply these 2 adjustments as Smart Filters. This provided a similar functionality to Adjustment Layers.
In this release, Adobe has made most of the Adjustments work as Smart Filters. If you are already adding a Shadow Highlight and want to change the stacking order of your adjustments I could see this being a useful option. However, I would recommend sticking to the Adjustment layers whenever you can because they provide dedicated masks, blending modes and also are much faster. It's not often that I don't get excited about a new feature, but to me this one doesn't offer very much. Sorry 🙁
Art Boards
Before we dive into all the in's and out's of Artboards, let's address the elephant in the room. What would you use them for? That was my first thought when I initially saw them.
Let's imagine this common scenario. You are creating a banner for your website. You know you are also going to repurpose it for a newsletter and social media. Perhaps make a heading for Facebook or youtube. Maybe you are designing for mobile phones and tablets. The point is, you are going to have to make multiple versions of the layout for different sizes. This is what the workflow currently looks like.
Create your banner as layers. Create a new document for each variation and drag the layers into each window (You might have to convert some to a smart object, so that you can drag all the assets over). You might even create a clipping group to keep everything to scale. Export each image separately, changing windows and trying to remember which is which.
Now imagine this, make multiple boxes on one page. Design the banner inside one of them. Copy the assets to different boxes and move things around, all in one document. Export them all as individual images all at once.
I don't know about you, but scenario #2 sounds best to me. I now introduce you to Artboards in Photoshop. On a slightly more technical note, they are like multiple clipping groups inside a single document.
Here are different layouts of the same assets for web, newsletter and youtube. Notice the named artboards
In this case, one of the Artboards is selected. To select an Artboard, click on its name.
Here is the layer stack so you can see what's going on. Notice that each Artboard has it's own section that can contain layers, Smart Objects and layer groups. Whatever is in that Artboard section will be contained within the dimensions of the Artboard box on screen.
There is an Artboard option in the properties Panel. You can change the location or the size of the artboard from this panel for precise sizing and location.
If you turn on Rules, the rulers will adapt to each selected artboard.
Creating Artboards
There are several ways of creating artboards.
a/ The first is to select the Artboard tool from the toolbox (under the move tool) Shift+V will toggle between the Artboard tool and the move tool.
You can click-drag on your document to define an artboard.
b/ You can also choose Artboard as an option while creating a new Document.
c/ You can convert any layer to an Artboard by right clicking on the Layer panel and selecting (you guessed it) Artboard from Layers
Everything that you now place into the Artboard will have its visibility clipped to the sized rectangle. You can move the layers around etc. just like always, but they will stay within the rectangle. The canvas will automatically scale as you add and move artboards.
Click drag on other areas of your canvas to add more, its that easy. Alt/Option drag to duplicate artboards.
You can copy layers between Artboards by Alt/Option dragging them between artboards within the Layers panel.
Sizing and positioning
When you are working with Artboards, you can size and position the Artboard by selecting it in the Layers panel or clicking on its name on canvas. In fact this is the default way it works. What if you want to change the contents of the Artboard instead? Ctrl/Cmd+Click with the move tool selected. Now you will be changing the contents not the box. You could also select the layers from the layers panel.
Artboards can be resized by selecting them in the Layers panel, clicking their name on Canvas or by using the Artboard tool. Change the size by dragging on their bounding box, enter a new value in the Properties panel, or even choose a preset (or make your own) from the Artboard presets.
Additional features
You can right click on the canvas to change the color to make it easier to see your artboards.
Artboard Tip
Whenever you add an image or place one it will go to the top of the layer stack. Here is way to make it go directly to the artboard.
Right click on the Artboard and choose: Isolate Layers
This will hide all the other layers except for the selected artboard content.
When you place an image, it will initially look like it's going to the top of the layer stack. But once you press the enter key, it will go directly to the Artboard. To turn off "Isolate Layers" click the red switch in the Layers panel.
Exporting Artboards, Images and Layers
Exporting the artboards also introduces us to other new features in Photoshop CC 2015.
You can right click on the artboard, or layer and choose Quick Export as (jpg). You can choose the format and options for quick export from Preferences>Export
Another Option is "Export as". This is available as a contest sensitive option in the Layers panel or from the File>Export menu (as is Quick export).
The difference is that the File Menu will export the entire document or all Artboards. The Right click (context) option in the :Layers panel will export only the selected layer or group. These option will take a little getting used to, but they will become your new best friends once you become accustomed to them.
Export as
The export as tool will show the selected layer, or the document in the main window. If you are exporting artboards, each once will be shown in the sidebar. Click each sidebar option to preview in the main window.
There are some interesting features without all the clutter found in Save For Web (Still available as Save for Web (legacy).
Choose the format and quality: Jpg, PNG Gif or SVG
Image size is pretty much what you got in Save For Web where you choose the output size. You'll get a actual size preview of what the image will look like in size, although not image compression. You can however get a preview of scaling interpolation (Resample).
The final option is almost what I have been wanting for years. I have always wanted the ability to crop in the output window. You can do it by entering numbers into the Canvas Size window. What's missing is a crop tool, or at least scrubby sliders where you can experiment with the crop, since no one who is visually cropping would actually know the numbers to enter. Because of the HTML panel, you can't even force scrubby slider by holding down Cmd/Ctrl like you can in a native photoshop dialog box. So I will be happy with the appetizer and hope these additional features will come in time as a JDI.
Quick Export
I zoomed past this option really quickly, but need to circle back because its quite a significantly useful feature. You choose the format and quality from Preferences>Export or File>Export>Export Preferences
Now, whenever you want to output something quickly, choose File>Export>Quick Export as.. or right click on the artboard, or layer and choose Quick Export.
If you have artboards, all the artboards will be exported as separate images.
Device Preview
Device preview is something completely new in Photoshop. This enables you to preview your designs on an actual mobile device while you are designing. You will need to download the app Adobe Preview from the app store and install it on your mobile device.
Either connect by USB or make sure that the device and your computer are on the same wifi. Log into Creative Cloud. Launch the mobile app and then open the Device Preview panel.
You should now see a preview on your mobile device. As you change the tab or active image, it will show on your device.
If you are using Artboards, tap on the screen and then choose an artboard from the top menu that appears.
More features for Photographers in Camera RAW
That's not all the features! See the Camera Raw updates here that include Dehaze, HDR and Panoramic merge in Camera RAW
Alright, there you have it, my summary of all the new features in Photoshop CC 2015 release. Check out all our new feature guides on the Photoshop CC Superguide.
Also have a look at our Lightroom CC/ 6 new feature review to see all that's new in Adobe Lightroom CC.
Training on Photoshop CC 2015
CS6 Superguide
All the CS6 information and more is available as a PDF magazine called the CS6 Superguide. If you're on our list, you will receive it free by email as soon as it's available. If not, sign up now and get the CS6 Superguide for free. Or click the image below.
Related Posts
How to cut out trees quickly in Photoshop tutorial
How to cut out trees in Photoshop in ...read more
How to photograph the 2017 Solar Eclipse
How to photography the great American eclipse, how ...read more
How to light a photo in Photoshop, Turn day to night
This Photoshop tutorial shows you how to turn ...read more
How to edit photos in Lightroom, full workflow from basic to dodge and burn
How to edit and retouch a photo in ...read more