Yeah, it's not like shifting globalized markets can turn one of the places with the best median standards of living into a slum over a couple decades. Yep, it's gotta be "those" people. You know "those ones". They're just incompatible with success.

I don't know if you're racist or anti-union, but either way, your opinions are just biases stated in words.

I didn't. RTFP.

Yes, every characteristic is optional. e.g. comic sans and windings. Attempting an objective solution to an artistic problem isn't bad, the complaints that come out of that can help point you towards better objective constraints. Assuming you've succeeded because you're trying to be objective would be the only problem.

You didn't actually see the font, the first image was just about analyzing character structure in a mathematically objective way.

Maybe. But since your post affirms my own biases, I'm going to take everything in it with a grain of salt.

Increased punishment as deterrence measurably does not work. Period. We don't need to go into the details of specific kinds of crime to discuss that.

The FBI has an overview of how and why they deal with hate crime if there's anything besides that that concerns you.

Maybe, but not currently under law, and the empirical evidence it happened a lot isn't there. In cases where it did, like racketeering, like I said before there are laws.

Pretending people didn't kill one black family to keep others from moving in isn't going to help here. Or gay people. Or Jews. Or atheists. Or lots of other times that has happened.

I don't fundamentally agree with the principle that stronger punishment acts as deterrence against senseless acts, but in the context of a legal system that assumes that, this is a reasonable measure.

Hate crimes carry the implication that you'd repeat the crime for others of the same identifiable demographic, while, say, generic murder does not.

I'm saying any sort of threat where the clear intention to harm other is given, without explicit statement of such in words.

You know, things like putting butchered animals on someone's lawn to suggest the intent of violence towards them. Not. Legal.

No, actually, that's entirely untrue. Implied threats are illegal, with good reason.

And... yes, if you're killing people for holding a political position, that's likely going to be prosecuted as a hate crime. Don't know what to tell you other than that.

I was just saying any argument fundamentally structured around your "safety" is going to be oppositeofreality.txt at the final level of assessment, and is only applicable within specific constructed contexts, that don't deal with the entirety of reality.

Safety pragmatism isn't a reason to own a gun, nor a reason to preserve that right as a consequence. It's not the only reason brought up, far from it, but dispelling that myth is a component of this conversation.

Fuel provides energy. Power comes from the conversion rate of the engine. You "power" things with an engine, but the net energy comes from fuel. Some engines can handle multiple fuel types, e.g.

Um, yeah, once you're under arrest and detained, there is a legalistic distinction for the sake of practicality. The police will also deprive you of your weapons when arresting you.

I think you misunderstand hatecrimes. (Derail time, since it's more interesting and less psychopathic to discuss).

Hate crimes are deigned to have higher penalties, not because the motive is judged to be more serious, but because it creates ancillary crimes of implied intimidation and threats towards other people of the same identifiable subset. It becomes a more reasonable thing to prosecute and demonstrate than 30 counts of intimidation against the other, say, gay people in the community.

It's the same reason racketeering is a separate crime from simple fraud, because it represents a danger to all the businesses in a community.

Unsupported premise:
Most effective means of self-defense.

I feel like before I could even argue about your conclusion, we'd have to have an absurdly detailed discussion that would mostly depend on you providing your definitions of:
"Most effective"
"Means"
"Self defense"

Because with sufficiently narrow and specific definitions of all those terms, it could possibly be construed to be true, but it would drift, in my mind, to be outside the realm of fundamental rights far before that and into "esoteric statistics".

Suffice it to say: (controlled) studies have genuinely shown that owning a gun increases your death rate(per anum) by about 1.6%, with about 100% of the increase taking the form of suicides and homicides by family member.