Excellent highlights - I'm saving this for future reference. I hadn't really considered the glaring flaws to such an approach and you highlight them well.
As another poster highlighted, blue team doesn't want to kill the golden goose.
As things stand, they have a perpetual wedge issue to capitalize on, they have no obligation to actually put up as voters are too willfully ignorant to actually hold them accountable, and they get to profit off blue-aligned media every time they sensationalize such a thing, all while not actually having to address the pesky class/inequality issues they depend on.
They have absolutely no incentive to change status quo.
They're highlighting the glaring flaw to your symptom-focused measures and the risks of clutching pearls about a specific subset yet they're not making good faith arguments? Lol.
So long as they're in the context of overall homicide, suicide, and injury, sure.
It would highlight the severity of the overall issues so we might get some focus on addressing these societal pressures and - just maybe - improve lives.
Not to be flippant, but you could have just stopped at Microsoft Teams running like ass as the problem is Microsoft Teams and its bloated, over-ambitious nature running in fucking Edge via WebView.
Specific to your case, you seem to be referring to a video call - is Firefox using hardware acceleration? I seem to recall each video feed is its own transcode/render process so if that's entirely on CPU, it could definitely wreck your performance.
Exhibit #19,432,181 for ACAB... the best to be said is at least it's not being covered up yet. It remains to be seen whether or not the officer will suffer any consequences.
So you add hyperbole to hyperbole? Interesting. I hadn't realized I was talking with such a deeply unserious troll. Fair enough, I expected nothing less.
Which is largely irrelevant; try comparing our rates of child death by violence overall to other countries. I think you'll be surprised at how the US stacks up.
Near the same time the article you linked was published, the Justice department started moving on, quite possibly, the very research they funded and that was discussed in the article.
Red flag laws and community based violence intervention. Those are the two things the researchers suggested, no?
Are they? As you've shared them, they seem to entirely miss the point. Let's go through these links.
In the first one, of the things The Justice Department will do, only one is even tangentially tied to those findings - it's the publishing of a model for red-flag legislation for states. This seems to continue to ignore the highlight of the other findings in that in many cases those red flag laws already exist and aren't sufficiently-well understood or acted on. In other words, it doesn't actually address the deficiency.
Neither of the other two items are related - they're just more blue-team ban bullshit.
Of their investing in items, the closest match is their call-out "A key part of community violence intervention strategies is to help connect individuals to job training and job opportunities." - a thing that doesn't actually align with the original findings at all. It might, at least, help with some of the often-argued socioeconomic pressures toward violence - in clicking through to another link, there are some details which reinforce this.
So - a close miss and a hopeful addressing of one underlying issue toward violence overall.
In your NPR link, they expound on the first link's mention of a model for red-flag legislation - that it's effectively an amalgamation of the two common strategies. Interestingly, they highlight but otherwise do nothing for the already-known issues - "It also said law enforcement needs training on these laws, "including on issues, for example, like filing a petition and executing an ERPO, implicit bias, de-escalation techniques, and crisis intervention."" They also leave entirely unaddressed long-lived criticisms of such measures - "Critics of the laws, however, say that the rules are too arbitrary and can be weaponized against gun owners during personal disputes. Also at issue are instances of police approaching a person who is known to be armed and is perceived to be dangerous. "
That said, how many of the original findings are left mostly to entirely unaddressed?
How many of these are, say, addressed by any form of legislative effort?
We both know that answer.
Anyway, I think you made up your mind ages ago and there’s nothing me or anyone else can say that will change it.
Arguably, either party could... actually address the root issues highlighted by that study and it would change my mind regarding the utter lack of blue team focus on those issues.
It would have to actually happen, though, and... well... history seems an able instructor.
![Jeremy [Iowa]](https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/cf578083-5772-4b2f-a181-51285d32757b.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
As it should be.
This will likely make its way to the 9th circuit where it will be an easy defense thanks to Bruen.
On another note, this ruling contained delicious smack-downs for the most common and egregious attempts at various other bans. Love to see it.