Struggling to find the paper with actual tests, but there was a separate statistical analysis backing this up, and here’s a link to another paper confirming those results: https://docs.iza.org/dp8590.pdf

Struggling to find the paper with actual tests, but there was a separate statistical analysis backing this up, and here’s a link to another paper confirming those results: https://docs.iza.org/dp8590.pdf

Because it’s a huge chunk of the labs revenue, and there are other labs the companies would want to work with. Then the automakers who make up the rest of the labs business are now potentially liable for kids fitting without a car seat, instead of being able to transfer that liability to the car seat makers. What is the moral thing to do and what are you incentivized to do are very often opposite.

It just causes far less headaches for automakers to keep the existing laws mandating child safety seats, so the liability can be transferred to other companies that now have a reason to exist, and you have a way of feeling better by spending $500 on the fancy seat instead of 100 bucks on a cheap one that works just as well.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

If the parent had line of sight on the baby, would they have forgotten about him?

Serious question: with today’s cars and car seats, radically different survivability in crashes compared to when car seat laws were passed, would more children die from accidents with front facing seats or no car seats at all? I’ve heard about crash tests done in secret showing the answer is there is no measurable difference with modern bucket seats. (Edit: Struggling to find the paper with actual tests, but there was a separate statistical analysis backing this up, and here’s a link to another paper confirming those results: https://docs.iza.org/dp8590.pdf )

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.

https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/police-integrity-lost-study-law-enforcement-officers-arrested

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.

My question is for someone passionately arguing against keeping a gun for self defense, with the implication being it’s law, and so regardless of training and care and personal circumstances.

The pro-gun crowd doesn’t just blanket recommend guns for everyone in every situation either, so my question is specifically about how those worst case defensive scenarios are envisioned by people who eschew the idea of personally owning guns.

Can you name viable alternatives, and what’s your personal plan?

So… What’s your plan for any of those scenarios where someone wants more than just to run off with your phone/wallet/car?

(Keeping in mind the that cops have zero obligation to stop a crime in progress if there’s any potential risk to them, leading to scenarios like this: https://youtu.be/jAfUI_hETy0 )

Edit: to be clear I’m NOT denying any of what you said, just want to know “and then what” from a person who so passionately tries to convince others that the idea of armed self defense is wrong and not worth considering.

The whole system is set up to prevent leaders who are good for the people from winning (primaries specifically, the only candidates who do well are those that corporate interests approve of). So you know we end up with a mix of bickering over inconsequential nonsense and people trying to convince us that giving up our liberties is actually good for us, to keep us away from what actually matters.