"The US is tops of the list of gun violence for any country with a stable government."
Yes, we all have heard this statistic. Basically, it is cherry-picking by various ambiguous qualifiers: "stable", "developed", etc. Usually these are just keywords for "..as compared primarily to the UK, Western Europe, and Canada.."

Russia and Mexico both have stable governments. They also have strict gun control (at least according to the written laws.) Guess what, both have a much higher gun homicide rate compared to the USA.

Don't get me wrong, the homicide rate in the USA is embarrassingly high. There are many honest discussions to be had. But for now, both sides continue to dig in and not look for any real solutions that would fit with the culture and political setting of the USA.

The zero-tolerance stance used in school administration is the bigger concern. It deadens the entire concept of teaching common sense in kids, and enforces robotic black and white thinking if it disagrees with the ideologues in charge of the school. IMHO the exact opposite reason we send our kids to school.

Whatever happened to "hey billy, this isn't the right place for playing cops and robbers on the school playground, please save that for when you go home." Instead kids are suspended for minor mistakes which presented no actual danger.

I want to look up the list of countries who are worse off in terms of gun violence, can you post a link?

That's another arm of the anti-gun agenda: make it a 'health' issue (because that presumes a zero-tolerance for acceptable risk.) It should be an evaluation of risk issue just like owning a swimming-pool, trampoline, or automobile. Honestly, I would prefer getting the anti-gun lecture from my life insurance agent since he is trained to make those evaluations of risk.

I completely agree that leaving kids ignorant will not help. Hollywood teaches kids every incorrect way to handle a weapon as long as it looks cool. And people don't die as long as they are needed in the sequel.

So true. There is essentially no such thing as "true capitalism." Socialism, communism, capitalism, etc. all depend on a government to enforce them. The case of capitalism or "free market", is especially an antithesis. In other words, they only exist because of governmental framework creates environment: property, contracts, copyrights, central banking, roadways, educated workforce, etc.

Who's property is the cable residing on: power company poles, roadside easements, individual agreements with every house on the street?

Dye your hair to look younger, get some type of product to cover the crow's feet. But don't fake your resume or dodge when you went to school. That is pretty much a deal-breaker if it looks like you are being less than forthcoming with your past. Age on paper looks okay, maybe? Age in the visual sense will play into the interviewer's subconscious bias.

Depends on the industry. Latest flavor of the day apps or websites; sure, young and hip is great. The guy that maintains the code used in critical systems...

Exactly, I laughed (out loud) when I read the summary. Why bother wasting the typesetting on the word 'foreign'? Given the revelations to date, let's just assume that everything including recordings of domestic calls going back to 1956 exist someplace. If the feds want our trust back, they need to earn it through transparency.

I would take up the challenge to this economist's theory that 'contribution == pay' like this:

Economists rely on the idea that markets have perfect information. But it is sort of an asymptote/limit that the economists assume reality would converge upon in theory.

However, some people (or entire industries) make _alot_ more money than they are worth. Why? Because they have better information about the market, they were able to take advantage of information, timing, or ignorance of others, etc. With a doctor, or lawyer, their performance is transparent and measurable: education, state license, records of cases, patient outcomes, etc.

With a CEO, it is much more of a 'buyer beware' environment. You probably don't have access to private records that could verify their value (contribution to society.) Why do CEOs negotiate highly favorable terms of their departure (golden parachute) before they even begin work? Clearly there are factors at play that are likely to be some type of circular justification of their worth. Most other people state their qualifications when seeking employment, they are usually hired with the expectation of performing to that level indefinitely with no extraordinary terms of separation.

Unrelated to the perfect information argument is just good old fashioned control of supply. i.e. why does a union worker make more money than a non-union employee doing the same work? Nothing against union workers, I commend your initiative. Economic forces are at play that do _not_ correlate societal contribution to pay.

So I think the 'contribution to society' correlating to pay is a circular argument, it may be true in general but it can also be a justification for unapologetic greed when it fails to actually correlate.

That's me.

But I'll bet the people who took the shortcuts (leaving you this mess) were recognized for 'efficiency' while you get looked down upon for 'taking inordinate time' or 'thinking too much.'

Agreed, see my other responses. Didn't mean to be so generalized. But the point is the same about the extremes in the debate.

The eminent domain issue is generally avoided so long as people can sell their gear out-of-state (assuming you are talking about a state law.) NY SAFE act is an example. The Democrat majority in NYS passed this, but they are not so holy for doing this. They didn't collect the banned items, they just encourage people to modify or sell to other places. It essentially _is_ eminent domain where just compensation is provided by selling out of state or to a dealer. Obviously that is not a solution once there are no other jurisdictions to sell stuff to. And that does not take into account transaction costs, flooding the market when the law takes effect, etc. So in reality, people are taking real losses when they are forced to sell banned hardware or pay for modifications. But there isn't enough that any one person can contest by legal means easily.

I totally agree on the authoritarian thing. If you hang your hat on tolerance, be ready to tolerate things you don't like. I'm generally very tolerant and bite my tongue often.

The problem with the changes you suggest is always a matter of enforcement: the costs, checking individuals for compliance within the confines of civil rights, could the police be spending their time catching dangerous people instead... I see the real problem as the street crimes that involve weapons trafficking and violation of existing gun laws on a _daily_ basis.

I agree it is tragic when a kid finds an unsecured and loaded gun, same goes for trampolines, swimming pools, boxes of matches. Adult people need to be aware of their responsibilities. I honestly don't know how you will really fix that.

You are correct. I meant to say "But [some] conversations among liberals or progressives [that I have personally witnessed] are 100% anti-gun..."

True enough; politics is all about telling half the truth, making strawman badguy arguments, etc. But I was paraphrasing actual people I know personally. i.e. co-workers, family, teachers I've had. Certainly not trying to generalize. The point is, moderate viewpoints become suspect when either side of the fence knows how extreme (some) of the other can be.

I agree, but I think 'gun nutjob' applies to both ends of the spectrum. A majority of Americans believe in the right to own _some_ guns. I assume you are pointing out the right-end of the spectrum. But among the left end, there is a double-speak that is equally counter-productive. Conservatives are aware of this, but most centrists don't realize it. i.e. News headlines and quotes from the left state things like "Common sense" gun laws. But conversations among liberals or progressives are decidedly 100% anti-gun. "Gather them all up and throw them away" This is part of the reason that seemingly reasonable people dig in their heels on any proposed gun laws.