You can take away most freedoms but don't touch my internet!

As long as the cash is not coming out of their pockets, why should they? The taxpayers don't have visibility to these expenses. The Mayor is the one that should be all over this. It's his budget this money will come from. He would have to raise property taxes to cover lawsuits. The Mayor is the publicly elected official that can be booted if taxes go too high. The Mayor can turn the screws on the Chief of Police to minimize these incidents. Basically, all municipalities would need to publicize what % of their law enforcement budget goes to cover lawsuits and how that relates to the national averages.

Perhaps your premise is accurate but that does not explain why the same drugs cost overseas a fraction of what they cost in the US? When I say same drugs, I mean same drugs. Same manufacturer, same brand same dosage.

The workers wouldn't even need to be on the dock. Cheap labour overseas could command the exoskeleton remotely. And all this, while waiting for the rudimentary AI needed in order to allow the exoskeleton to perform those same tasks in an autonomous fashion.

Have we seen an instance where they have not lied to cover any of their questionable actions in the last decade or so?

Comparable to A4 and 3? They start in the low 30s with no options..You can't get into a decent version for less than $39K

I call b.s. Unsubstantiated drivel

That's all nice and great in unicorn land. What about a society where the criminal element is already armed? If you were starting from scratch and no one was armed your silly diatribe would be acceptable. In the real world in the US you can't disarm all the criminals no matter how many laws you pass.

No, because there maybe other variables at play that you're not including in your analysis.

When you mentioned the UK as an example where gun laws 'worked'. You basically contradicted your own argument. UK is a different country with so many variables being different than the US. The fact (this can be argued) that the laws worked there has no bearing as to whether they would work in the US.

Umm, old people keep mowing people down with their cars. This lady just drove her car into a cafe in my town. Cars are way more dangerous than guns.

Outsource everything, cut investments in high tech, cut investments in infrastructure and science.Spend more on giant military. That's what it gets us.

States don't 'allow' you to carry a gun. It's a right. States have skirted around the right by adding all kinds of rules and regulations but if they take it too far then the supreme court can step in and slap them around

Perhaps we not have as many cases go to court then? Thanks

Why don't we just skip this and enforce auto-braking when reversing and an object is detected? Many cars do this today while moving forward. Cameras still rely on people to stop. The incompetent drivers that back over people will still do it. The camera won't stop them.