BlameThePeacock

If you think that isn't factored in, you aren't paying attention to how traders work.

If these people didn't have guns, no amount of talking to ChatGPT would have mattered in terms of them going through with a mass shooting.

It's painfully clear that at least for the Tumbler Ridge shooter there should not have been any guns in that home. Multiple humans KNEW there was an issue, and that didn't stop it at all.

I know it's hard, but use your fucking brain. You're so caught up with trying to justify your own ownership of firearms that you refuse to even consider that they're the largest component of the problem.

We don't have a lot of mass knife attacks, we don't have a lot of bombings, we don't have a lot of poisonings, because as you pointed out they have a much higher skill/knowledge requirement. The thing you intentionally ignored is that the skill/knowledge requirement for pulling a trigger is really low.

I'm not saying guns shouldn't exist. However, I personally think that handguns and even semi-automatic rifles/shotguns should not be allowed to be owned by civilians. If you want a gun for personal use, you can use a bolt action rifle or break-action shotgun. Those cover 99% of legitimate use cases for firearms. All firearms should also be legally required to be bright pink.

Job based firearms can be licensed separately, because there are legitimate use cases for handguns and semi-automatics in very specific roles or tasks.

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't blame the actual tool that people are using to kill people, but we should blame the tool people are using to plan for the use of that tool?

That is some fucked up logic right there.

WE didn't, I made better choices.

First three always, fourth sometimes, definitely not the last two.

This is the type of diplomacy I want to see.

This relief doesn't help people who are making better choices already.

It should be given to everyone equally, and then people can choose to make better choices to save even more.

I was going to say a human can't carry it, but yours is good too.

This is only true if you have fallen into the trap of not understanding what healthy means.

Eating healthy can actually be very cheap, you just won't get to eat the things that societies thinks are exciting or the most delicious. You won't be getting "I can't believe it's not meat" and the latest type of chia seed detox bullshit.

You can eat rice, lentils, onions, carrots, potatoes, oats, chickpeas, beans, tomatoes, bananas, and some dairy products and keep your meal prices down to less than a dollar while filling all nutritional requirements.

A basic Indian Dahl on rice works out to significantly less than a dollar per serving if you buy the ingredients in more than single use packages, 500 calories, 17 grams of protein, 8 grams of fat, and 80 grams of carbs for $0.75 is pretty fucking healthy.

Two servings of oats and a banana for breakfast? 50 cents, for again around 500 calories, 17 grams of protein (mostly the oats), and 7 grams of fat. You could splurge on a bit of yogurt and keep it under a dollar easily.

In terms of "effort" if you consider cooking 10 portions of Dahl for an hour and then freezing them individually to be too much effort, you don't actually care about the cost of eating, you're just too lazy.

That last thing could be said for most humans, especially those in the lower salary brackets. We still employ them in droves, and supervisors to supervise them too.

Now THAT'S a stupid question.

Good Job.

The answer to your first question is yes.

Children don't get to set their own boundaries, that's why we consider them children. Once they're ready we call them adults.

If I allowed them to set their own boundaries, they'd probably already be dead. They get some pretty stupid ideas sometimes.

I'm laughing so hard right now.

You're so idealistic. When you grow up and join the real world you'll realize that what you said was funny too.