You know some hospital system will be out there hiring brainless diaper changers to replace RNs, and have a limited number of real nurses who will be very over worked.
You know some hospital system will be out there hiring brainless diaper changers to replace RNs, and have a limited number of real nurses who will be very over worked.
MANDATORY voting… Let’s be real, we have people who are unable to read the candidates’ personal statements, you really want them voting?
That’ll be used to get President Camacho legislating Mandatory plant watering using Gatorade.
They just need to provide zero customer support, no updates to IP addresses in Oregon, etc. No need to prevent people from using devices they own, just stop transacting.
Vetted people with impunity and different interests from your own. But vetted, yes.
After a cops own well-being comes the “blue wall of silence”, then their actual orders, and finally you, you come last in their priorities.
The thing about real estate though, is that supply is inelastic. Your one landlord cannot just turn up production and pump out a million widgets of housing. They’ll sell out, fast. And you’re back to square one.
All the sophisticated (institutional) landlords modeled and realized that with higher prices and lower occupancy rates they still make more money, and they all use ONE company to set their price on each unit.
Game theory, it’s in the interest of every landlord if prices go up a little, so the overwhelming majority will raise rent.
Fact is only so much stuff is made and only so much space exists and only so many people exist to make and build etc. Money is just an abstraction for allocating those resources. Broadly speaking the market would adjust and everything would remain the same for 95% of people. The HOPE of UBI advocates is that, after adjustments to prices, the UBI would have an impact on that last 5%.
You know where this is going, can’t trust the vote of a misinformed voter, so… No vote until the government figures out what information you need for deciding on further changes to government.
Does that include police and military, do you want to abolish those as well, or do they get a special exemption from your “idiots with guns” umbrella because they use them to do others bidding?
It’s Oregon, with a population of a whopping 4 million across the entire state, so you know what, maybe actually cheaper to cut the state off than to establish DIY supply chain for repairs parts that will undercut your whole product portfolio.
“should always be a consideration” is a platudinous way of avoiding the rest of what you said.
Nobody, literally nobody, teaches tactics you describe. That’s 100% Hollywood where only the writer gets to kill the hero. It’s not like moving your mouse and clicking or pressing E to melee. With adrenaline and under time pressure, you do not have the kind of fine motor coordination necessary - there have been cases of master-class competitive shooters taking an opportunity to take a shot like that because they’re basically John Wick and the technique is muscle memory, but law enforcement is militarized enough as it is, we don’t need police qualification to be a USPSA “A” classification.
Everything openly pro-gun seems to get downvoted to oblivion here, never truly “everyone” but the balance is certainly favors civilian disarmament.
I’m autistic, does that automatically make me an incompetent who can act with impunity because I can be impulsive? This logic only hurts the people you’re pretending to help. Law doesn’t care about intent except for sentencing.
Inside his house, you’d be right and the cop ran away. After he’s outside, he sees it’s a cop, and charges him in anger with a big pointy metal thing. Do you expect the cop to divine someone’s psychological diagnosis? What if it’s a brain tumor that makes him actively murderous? Is everyone in the walking dead committing murder by killing the poor zombies who cannot help themselves?
Well you’re not a cop and have a gun, so this side is the Internet already thinks you’re a fascist gun nut and belong locked away.
Answer this: how do you work on legislation to ensure responsible gun ownership with someone who detests any form of civilian gun ownership and absolutely refuses to learn the intricacies? How do you collaborate with someone who thinks themselves to be above understanding what they’re working on? Sensible things HAVE been proposed by people with a deep understanding of guns, but they get spit on because they’re something other than another ban on an inconsequential feature or function or type of something.
Edit to add: I cannot count the number of times I’ve given someone a chance and nearly every time the answer to “are you open to the possibility of your side being wrong about anything at all” is along the lines of me being the one who needs to be schooled by someone with zero firearms experience about why banning some specific things will solve mass shootings. On the other hand, I’ve taken many anti gun people shooting, and taught them some basics, and that changed a lot about how they viewed what they’d previously been told. Internet scholars will say this invalidates their ability to be objective and so their opinion no longer counts.
The evidence, that is total intolerance to the actual ideas and proposals by gun owners, and pushing for more of the same that didn’t work the first few times, shows that legislators actual objectives are total disarmament, not the safety and lives of good people.
You hang out with the wrong crowd. I’ve belonged to several gun clubs over the years, of the many hundreds of people I’ve gotten to know, I’ve met probably a dozen who fit the profile you describe. IMO the difference is socialization: if guns are a right but at the same time you make guns a taboo and actively discourage organized events and interest shooting sports, the people who do not go into it with a healthy mind and diverse social life end up dwelling on whatever someone feeds them for clicks and ad revenue (Fox News and similar shit, not even partisan just scary news gets clicks and trains fear into people). Shooting is fun if you do it right.
In elections where 30% of people turn out right now, that’s a hell of a lot of random, and people aren’t actually that random, on a list of 10 candidates you can guarantee the “random” votes will cluster visually and the same 1-2 positions on the physical layout will always win.