While I am generally quite libertarian here, this statement is not generally true. I spend most of my time now as a single parent, but with shared parenting time and joint legal decision making. I can't leave town without a court battle...one which could plausibly leave me under explicit court orders not to relocate beyond a certain radius.

Now my employer and I just have to pretend that they don't possess an absurd amount on non-consensual leverage over me, because there aren't any other comparable defense contractors in the area. My only options would be to despecialize and take a corresponding pay cut. They no longer have any retention pressure.

You don't need to commit any crimes to lose substantial freedoms.

It echoes an AC post, but I live in Tucson, and in the neighborhoods where you find dollar stores, you will almost certainly have a "carniceria" nearby for cheap perishables. Market forces already settle this. Plus, wanting to feed a large family efficiently with bulk goods, and wanting to purchase unprocessed healthier foods are not really disjoint pursuits.

Again, it is just a bad example. I am a physicist, and the turbines on a car misconception is one of those exceptions that is actually viable for certain conditions, which may be why some people intuitively cling to it.

Consider a car at rest pointing into the wind. The fans generate power while no work is done by the wheels and nothing is lost to drag. Obviously some forward motion is possible before things come to equilibrium. Working it out, that equilibrium happens at a bit faster than the windspeed.

So it won't work on a highway commute (and would in fact be detrimental) but it isn't a totally wrong direction for casual intuition to take you. Sailboats sail into the wind, using the wind speed differential as power in an analogous way.

I had one of these friends too. It's not the best example to use though, because he is stupid but not as wrong as you think.

That can actually work, but the energy comes from a velocity differential between the wind and surface rather than magically excessive drag mitigation. For going downwind, you have to switch to letting the wheels power the fans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

There is a very good reason for a ban. It will obviously fail to prevent development and manufacture. What a ban would realistically prevent is tactical deployment against a lesser than existential threat.

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

-John Adams

I am not sure it really means what you were going for though.

There are also employers who are actively looking for a defendable reason why they should instead hire some comparably qualified oppressed minority, or bring in someone from overseas.

That last sentence that you quoted was certainly improperly worded on my part. I meant that a gun aids in deterring intervention and stopping those who intervene, which is the point of most of your reply and was not meant to trivialize anyone's sacrifice.

My point was that this is event in particular, even with 9 adults and 18 children, when compared to typical mass shootings among peers, had an outcome that was less facilitated by firearms than those other massacres. I did not say that it wasn't a factor, just that it was not appropriate to flag this event as being the one in particular that finally highlights the stupidity of U.S. gun practices.

Focusing on the guns instead of the whole event makes it sound as if there was a guy who sincerely wanted to murder his mother and a bunch of children, did not care about the consequences, and everything was just fine until he found a gun.

Why? It was a grown man in a room with few small exits filled with small children. Anything from history that has ever been called a weapon, baseball bats included, would have resulted in comparable devastation. A gun is just a convenience. Someone with the desire to murder a roomful of children and complete personal removal from the consequences is the problem.

I will concede that the gun may have aided in deterring and stopping other adults from intervening, but that is less significant in this case than in any other mass shooting that I have heard of, considering the high ratio of potential victims to people physically comparable to the shooter.

To call out this one in particular as the event that screams "IT'S THE GUNS" blatantly disregards the more substantial problems.

I am still early on my first child, a daughter, but I wouldn't think a baby boy would be any worse on that front. When my daughter pees at the wrong time during a change, she pees all over herself, every time. I have tile floors and a Swiffer. Peeing nearby would certainly be an improvement.

Replace "economic" with "academic" and water down the list of indefensible practices; you have our modern college admission policies, and the same people furious over studies like these advocate the hell out of practices like that.

It probably also depends on his blood type.

It makes much more sense, and is perfectly compatible with the rest of the plot, if you replace his period of muteness with a delay to learn the language. I have a suspicion this is what was originally intended but they did not want subtitles on the whole film.

Have you seen "Hancock"? It's not too far from what you describe.

The lower reciever, for the AR-15, is the only part that bears the serial number. It is "the gun" as far as regulation is concerned. All other parts can be legally purchased anonymously . That is why this is significant.