Then by that logic, all of us should stay and hide in bed because there's danger outside. Congrats, you win the useless pedantic argument award.

> A defensive driving course would make everyone safer than OSHA 10.

Do you have a stat for this, or are you just continuing to minimize the efforts of workplace safety? There's a big difference between idiots on the road you have little to no control over, and say, an exposed pump with moving parts that has been reported 3 times to management until Phil got too close and it pulled his hand in and now they finally put a metal shield over the damn thing. Although I guess Phil's wasn't a fatality so he doesn't count against workplace safety...

> Millions of people in the US drive to work everyday. ~100 of them die in vehicle accidents every day. Meanwhile ~5 people die a day at US workplaces

...Is this attempting to minimalize fatalities in workplaces? Cars have new safety features put on or improved every single year to save lives. What do you think you're arguing here?

Seriously. You can literally watch it happen in front of you. We have stricter regulations on our barrel makers because someone lost half a finger. Extra ventilation was only made when one summer our interior reached 130 degrees F and workers literally could not be in the plant for more than 5 minutes and were getting hospitalized from heat stroke.

> You bring stuff up like saying rent 200% of mortgage and then admit the mortgage amount is irrelevant

I just brought up the exceedingly high cost of rent from the renter's side. You decided to make it about the landlord being coerced to rent for lower based on their situation. They don't have anything to do with each other even though you keep attempting to conflate them.

> Then you make up a definition of hoarding that is also silly,

Sigh. Maybe this is cute for you, but it's just sad for me to have to interact with.

> having 10 $1 bills is not hoarding and neither is owning 10 rental properties

I can tell you must be a landlord, because no ordinary person would make such an asinine comparison of $10 to 10 rental properties. $10 isn't enough for a combo meal at McDonalds. 10 rental properties requires a literal management group. If you have so many rentals they have to be organized, you have too many.

> Hertz isn’t hoarding cars by having a rental fleet, Marriot isnt hoarding hotel rooms by owning Thousands of hotel rooms

These aren't properties, these are assets. Try and keep your comparisons in the same ballpark.

> landlord isn’t hoarding because they rent out more than 0 rental properties

> You want to control people with what they buy, I don’t. You give no rational explanations just the usual mistaken belief that somehow you are entitled to something just because.

> You utterly ignore reality, wanting there to be no landlords

Are you even responding to my posts anymore, or just arguing with the increasingly agitated voice in your head? I brought up "no hoarding" and what you instead decided to read was "NO LANDLORDS. NO RENTALS FOR ANYONE."

You understand what "too much" means, right? You know what "greedy" means, right? It means you are taking more than your share. It's the core of the whole "1%" movement. I'm curious if you have a reason that you want to encourage that the richest people in this country get richer off the most finite resource we have (land) while everything gets smaller and more expensive for everyone else. Are you just ignorant to how capitalism works, or do you genuinely just enjoy people having less money and less property?

What it seems to come down to is: I believe that landlords are probably fine when they don't control excessive amounts of land. You believe landlords are fine and that they SHOULD control excessive amounts of land.

> No idea why you think someone in real estate is "hoarding" properties if they own more than (some number) of properties.

Because that's the definition of hoarding.

> Go build as many properties as you want, it is a free country.

Properties are land, not houses. And the only people building on multiple properties are the wealthy. I don't know what kind of argument you think you're making, but "let people with money do anything they want with it with no limits" is about as piss-poor a decision you could possibly make in a capitalism-based nation.

> What someone's mortgage payment is is utterly irrelevant to what they should charge for rent.

It's partially relevant as it tends to sway rent and mortgage prices in the area.

> Some landlords own their property free and clear, does that mean they should charge less than someone who has a big mortgage on a similar property?

They're all going to float to a similar price for equivalent homes based on the area price so this isn't even a valid question. They could absolutely afford to, but they're not going to. You're asking if just because it's more moral, that they should be compelled?

Landlording wouldn't be as bad if you couldn't hoard properties, if fixes and repairs were quick and consistent, and rent wasn't 200% of what a mortgage is.

> i think som

EBODY ONCE TOLD ME

> I want my family and friends who have drug problems to get medical help and social support not to get arrested, traumatized, and set back even further back in life by jail.

As someone who has lived with a methhead family member, sometimes jail is the only way they're going to get clean for any amount of time. Didn't matter how many times we supported them and took them to rehab. At their core, they did not want to get better.

> The kid was, by the police's own admission, totally fucking fine and being taken care of and there were other adults in the house.

Speaking from experience, it's fine until one day it's not, they flip shit, and try to kill everyone in the house. I still remember my uncle's face, as he smashed in the passenger window of the pickup truck, trying to pull me out of it while my grandma was driving us away.

> Atlanta and GA have directly contributed to the US becoming a better nation than it was.

So no company based in Atlanta needs to be held responsible for what they do? That must be nice.

> He stopped himself... from being hit when the driver returned.

Demonstrably false, according to the article. The driver not hitting him was why he was able to shoot in the first place.

> He stopped... others from being hit when the driver returned.

Demonstrably false, according to the article. There were no others with them.

You're just going to paste this useless article over and over, regardless of the context of who you're responding to?

> Driver hits cyclist and in retaliation another cyclist shoots driver. Didn’t stop the cyclist from getting hit.

Nothing about this changed in the 2nd article.

> Downvote away

OK.

> He said he pulled Ward out of the car "to handcuff him and to check for weapons." In the struggle, he said he felt Ward "messing with his gun side" and was afraid Ward would get his gun, knock him out or paralyze him.

Sounds like the solution is to take guns away from police if they need to kill anyone they're wrestling because they "mess with their gun side". Like he's going to unholster your weapon and execute all of them while prone and being assaulted.

E: Honestly, I glazed over the PARALYZED HIM part. To cops, every citizen is John Wick capable of disarming you at a moment's notice, or severing your spinal column with a mere flick of the wrist.

Either the best food, or will give you the most intense diarrhea you've ever had.

You asked for their opinion; they didn't ask for yours.

How long of a list would you like of people being killed while surrendering and following police commands?

I'm both half and double you.

> "Critical thinking"

"God did it."

Thinking over!

> Are you suggesting we disarm the police?

I think you need to reread what you quoted. Notice how I'm talking about heavy firepower and you talk about disarming them completely. I guess if cops can't have the biggest caliber weapons, might as well strip them down to fisticuffs, right? 🙄

> Sure, if we never had them in the first place, it might be possible to not have them now.

Doesn't seem to be a problem in every other country that actually tried to do something, rather than throwing up their hands immediately and declaring there's nothing to be done and no point trying.

> In the last 2 years, we've been on the verge of civil war, world war, and a revolution against the police sparked by george floyd but the protests spread worldwide.

The last 25 years have been "on the verge of war". Even before Bush went after the middle east. People have always used that as an excuse. And the George Floyd protests didn't go worldwide. We had people with signs supporting it, but protests were already going on. They just added a name to their signs for a couple of weeks.

A revolution against the police. Fucking lol. How dare they call them out on how much they abuse citizens and demand some form of accountability. And to drive the point home, the cop's response to those protests was overwhelming violence. Even against people completely uninvolved. In what other country do you see the police firing on people in their own house, or driving around in vans taking potshots at regular people walking around? Yeah, can't imagine why people might want these cops to be held to some kind of standard.

> and you're trying to tell me, after literal trillions of dollars went to arming Ukrainian citizens, that nobody wants to take what we have in the richest country in the world and i should get rid of my guns?

Once again, I need to bring this to your attention. You've brought up once again that I want to take guns away from you, even though at no point I've ever once said that. I did ask why cops need to have rifles at all times even though the situation is extremely rare that they're necessary. You took that one thing and then strawmanned the fuck out of it to get upset about something else.

We didn't spend trillions, we spent $68 billion. We spend 1.64 trillion on ourselves. 68 billion? That's barely a footnote. 4% of our budget. And we didn't arm citizens, we armed the government's military. Ukraine has also been in constant turmoil with Russia, whereas we have no active threat to us. At most you're scared of what, a guerilla attack by an extremist group? The most likely extremist you're going to get killed by in the US is an armed white supremacist, according to the FBI and Homeland.

You think any other country that might attack us gives a shit that Joe Blumpkin owns an AR-15? Nah, they give a shit about our nukes, drones, bombs, and air superiority. Don't delude yourself thinking you're going to defend your country with your personal arsenal.

E: A word

> But we as individuals, as communities, and as a nation do have to outgun the other guy.

Because we as a country use violence as the first response to anything. You want the upper hand when it comes to killing the other person because you're afraid of what they would do if THEY had the upper hand with weaponry, because controlling the other with fear and violence is the only tool you have.

> If I don’t want police to have this stuff, then are they good police?

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you saying are police even good people if we can't trust them with heavy ordnance? I think people have proved throughout history, time and time again, that people do not do well with power over others.

> And secondly, if there is someone out there who has this thing, then I should have equal power to defend against it, because I cannot depend on the police or the government to defend my family. I have to do it myself. Ergo, <insert second amendment here>

So your reasoning why we should have high powered guns is because the enemy can have high powered guns, and you must always be able to outgun that enemy. However because guns are freely sold in the US, you've basically excused yourself to have any type of gun in the world, because you both allow and demand that others here also have access to those guns. Do you see where the circular logic is coming into play?

I've known a lot of people who insist they need to defend themselves from something. Not once in their lives had their family ever been under attack. Not once in their father's lives had their family been under attack. Not one of their friends had their family come under attack. In no scenario are you engaging someone with a gun. Stop scaring the dick off yourself thinking that highway bandits are stalking your home ready to strike with their assault rifles and grenade launchers.

I literally already responded to that in this same comment thread.

The North Hollywood shooting had 0 fatalities that were not the shooters. One of the most violent shootouts in US history resulted in no police or bystander deaths. By contrast, the Uvalde school district had 21 people killed, 19 of them children, and there was absolutely no political response to it.

> edit: downvoters want another north hollywood shootout.

You're right, I would absolutely take 100 more North Hollywood shootings over 1 Uvalde.

In both of the examples given, both from over 25+ years ago, the cops were never "slaughtered". In one, 2 FBI agents (not even police) died along with the 2 shooters. In the other, only the shooters died.

> Due to the large number of injuries and rounds fired, equipment used by the robbers, and overall length of the shootout, it is regarded as one of the most intense and significant gun battles in U.S. police history.

I don't agree with using one of the most extreme examples of violence in the US as to why absolutely every cop in the US should have these weapons.

But neither of those are even in Ohio. Though the excuse of "we have to outgun the other guy" in a nation where you can buy almost any gun you want with a 10-minute drive, is why local sheriffs have tanks, APCs, and miniguns.

Misdemeanor 4, up to 30 days in jail and up to a $250 fine, for transporting a loaded, unsecured firearm.