If fusion 360, solid works, OR solid Edge ran on Linux I’d deal with the annoyances.

Talking about a politician who insider-trades her way to tens of millions in gains each year.

The real fix here is to ban speculative trading on anything with either industrial or everyday use (like metals and real estate).

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.

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

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?

“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.

Win for Panera employees, loss for literally everyone else because it’s so thoroughly normalized for politicians to narrowly tailor laws to favor friends that such a high profile incident is not even raising any flags in political circles.

Well, it is, because newsom got an exception for restaurants with a standalone “bread” menu item and some caveats that basically made it only apply to Panera Bread.

(Incidentally, This is the essence how the whole federal tax codes and tariff schedules work)

250 years ago, national guard would have been Tories. American born colonists loyal to the King, taking orders from people also loyal to him.

Because their police standards and practices are, by and large, our deep blue city police standards and practices. Some minor differences sure but you transplant people from one department to another and they’ll fit right in.

Sorry about your family.

What makes you think it’s so central to my identity? (Granted I’ve got way more hobbies than most people, I’m sure it’s an innocent assumption.)

We might have different ways of judging people. I learned to judge character long before I ever touched my first gun (as an adult), and do not defer or equate a person’s identity to their character.

Yeah people lie, but in the orgs I belong to everyone has the keys and full access to nice facilities, and is treated like an adult - consider that a litmus test, or a baseline level of trust which is exceedingly rare to have someone break. You think fearful people just sign up to be on a “cold” range (unarmed) where someone else is running around with a loaded gun (e.g. USPSA), and submit fully to whoever’s running the range that day? Or join the club at the police or military range? There’s way more fear at the universities (and I live at one of the biggest right now).

Yeah I’m not in the south, only ever lived in big cities that are as blue as it gets.

It’s not censorship if it’s words by people you dislike, silly! Everyone with a real education knows that!

(Edit: /s because I guess someone might say this unironically?)

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.