Are you talking to me or the person calling me a liar? Trolling is not allowed, and a preponderence of the evidence shows the other person to be trolling (using false statements and not correcting them, calling others a liar, not engaging in meaningful debate, avoiding legitimate questions while continuing to attack, etc). I have full confidence in the mods here.

If you need it, they will know it and their attraction wanes. Being happy with yourself is the first step to being happy in a relationship. Working on self improvement is the best first step. That could be getting in shape, gaining confidence, etc. If you dont know why previous people have lost interest, ask them for their honest feedback. Ask your friends heat they think too.

It doesn't hurt to try dating during the time you are working on yourself. Try internet dating and go out with anyone even close to your standards. If it doesnt work out, at least you had some nice conversation and you might be able to ask them for feedback too.

I'll probably get some flack for this. You could try joining a pick up artist group/forum/etc. Just remember the cardinal rule: always leave them better than how you found them.

I think I would agree, but with the caveat that the hiring companies need to change how they view credentialization. Right now many companies will just toss your resume if you don't have a BS+.

I have a BS an MSIS. Most of the information isn't used in my job.

"We’ve shown that your 3% claim was misleading as presented."

Lol where did you show that? The 3% claim is only misleading because you are applying a context to it that it was not intended for. The point is that additional federal gun laws will not be enforced because the government does not enforce the current ones, and doesn't even have the resources to do so. If anything, you have been the misleading one by presenting false information and failing to back up your (trolling) claims. You can go back to the root comment to see that they are approaching this from a light that additional federal gun laws would not be effective since the current ones are not being enforced.

"I don’t need to refute your position with data - that’s not what’s wrong with it."

Then, please, get to the point and tell me what is wrong with it. Stop draffing this out with unsubstantiated claims, twisting words, and flat out lies. Not all my questions were data related, but also conceptual - yet you ignore those as well (for example, you still haven't defined the 'illegal' gun purchases).

Good bye, troll.

"Which turns out to be false. The offenses are prosecuted, just not by the federal government."

You don't seem to understand how the law works. The Federal offenses are not prosecuted. The State offenses are. My statement is true.

"but deferring to states is a common practice in the US and indicates no such thing."

Lack of interest in pursuing the law would fit with the definition of lackadaisical. I've given you the stats that show they are not interested in pursuing the federal crimes.

This isn't really deferring to the states. If one is not guilty under state law, the feds may subsequently prosecute under the federal law. Even if you're found guilty at the state level, they might prosecute you just to make an example of you (Chauvin, recently). It's a sloppy way for the people in power to ignore equal application of the law by picking and choosing who deserves it, which to me undermines the very principle of rule of law.

"It sure looks like you are intentionally trying to mislead people, otherwise you’d probably have mentioned this up front."

I have not tried to mislead anyone. Perhaps you were projecting your own ideas on it based on your lack of willingness to engage in a meaningful debate. After all, you're the one calling my statements total BS, yet not providing any responses to the questions posed around sources or data to support your position or refute the data I have provided.

"As far as racism goes, it’s pretty easy to understand if you apply Ibram Kendi’s definition - if it disproportionately affects black communities, it is a racist policy."

If that's the case, everything is racist and the very definition provided is racist since it only deals with "black communities" and not others. Perhaps we can use a widely accepted definition, like from a dictionary. Then you can also explain what is being disproportionately affected along with the why and how.

So, where is your response to the requests around definitions and data for "illegally" purchased guns and their impact? Conveniently ignoring this too? I'm starting to think you are a troll.

"If you mean things like actual violence or conspiracies to traffic firearms, these are prosecuted vigorously and the 3% figure is bullshit in that context."

I'd love to see your data then. My data shows a different picture.

The majority of prosecutions within that 3% are possession by a felon. The next most common are ones involving a violent crime or drug offense, and possession by a person in the United states illegally. The reason prosecution is so low and doesn't include more violent offenders is because the federal government is lackadaisical and decides not to prosecute them. They instead allow the states to prosecute under state law. Even if the states prosecute under their own laws, the feds still can prosecute under the federal law if they wanted to.

Around 10k federal prosecution out of over 400k occurrence of violent crime involving a firearm. That's a terrible percentage in my mind. Links at bottom

"there are a large number of guns owned by people of color who didn’t buy them legally, not because they couldn’t, but because they either didn’t know they needed to, or they didn’t trust the legal route."

You seem to imply that they are not prohibited since they could buy them "legally". What exactly do you mean by buying them "illegally"? Do you have any data on this "large number" of minorities that bought guns illegally and how that compares to other groups?

I'd also like to hear how you believe the federal laws are racist and which ones in particular. I know there are some state laws that have racist roots. I can even agree that the structure around loss of rights should be reexamined, but isnt wholly racist (non-violent felonies should be excluded, and some recent case law is starting to move this).

https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/492/

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america

Why is she getting an MSIS? If she isn't interested in coding and already has an MBA with finance background, then what does she plan to do here - change careers, just credentialing, or work in an area unrelated to coding?

"Reasonable limits on firearms and access to firearms is not going to take away your right to self defense."

It depends on what one sees as reasonable. One might reasonably believe that the requirements for private sale background checks might not make an impact because there's no monitoring or effective enforcement mechanisms in the suggested system.

When we use qualifiers like reasonable or common sense, it's an attack on the other side and creates a divide between the debating parties. People should be debating the the proposed solutions and the objections to them.

I've heard that American Homicide is a good book on the history of homicide in the US too.

While this argument does seem to follow the science (I'd have to dig into a few studies to see the details), it doesn't address the policy question of if people should give up their right (US) to own a firearm to protect themselves on the off-chance they become suicidal. And an even deeper discussion about if we should allow some suicides. Two of three people I know who killed themselves with guns were older men slipping into dementia who didn't want to endure that and put their families through that. Seems both rational and reasonable to me, but others may differ. This is also a pretty well-known scenario - killing oneself when facing a prolonged terminal illness, and would be interesting to see how the research treats these cases.

To be fair, the third was a tragic case of a young man who's life was ruined by the justice system's enormous penalties for supplying alcohol to a minor (20 yo at college). Although, theoretically this suicide should not have been with a gun since that offense is a prohibiting felony.

That depends on your definition. Only 3% of federal firearm offenses are prosecuted. So at that level, I would say it is lackadaisical.

I like that it's generally fast to set up, has decent documentation/tutorials available, and is priced fairly cheap (for small projects).

I hate dealing with config issues and error messages. I'm currently facing an issue in a CloudFront distribution at home, and just got done a multiday issue with an SQS at work. The queue thing was very frustrating. The organization has standards for what needs to be set up, like encryption, access patterns, etc. I asked the group that owns our tools related to AWS if they had a template that follows best practices that I could look at - nope. Ok, then maybe theres a project I can look at as an example that follows our standards - nope. So as someone with mostly a developer background it was a lot of frustrating trial and error to fix an issue that I didn't even create.

Taking on the government isn't the reason most people own guns. There are other much more common reasons such as sport, hunting, self defense, etc. That said, if the armories are only stocked for roughly the population of the military, then there's little chance of arming a significant number of civilians that way. Not to mention the logistics would be a nightmare. The real usefulness of civilians owning weapons in that sort of scenario would be self dense, because the social/legal/etc structure would not be there to protect them. These are things we've seen to a limited degree in areas with violent rioting.

I think they meant it in the literary sense that people are being raised that way, not that the genetics are trending that way. Although, testoterone levels have been dropping over the past 50 years in the US, so there could be some physiological influence.

I agree that many of the lawsuits are absurd. I also don't like the "duty" wording. Sure, you want to avoid, deescalate, flee, then fight. But codifying it as a duty seems to ignore just how messy and instantaneous those situations can be.

"Is it illegal, taboo, and bred out though?"

One thing that comes to mind are the zero tolerance policies at schools. It's to the point where you aren't allowed to fight back in self defense. You just have to take the beating.

" the US military would crush them in a heartbeat "

I think what we've seen in prior civil wars is that portions of the military will support both sides.

The thing they're supposedly worried about is losing control over the culture. So it's that being in person is requores for the culture itself, but that the C suite wants to retain control.

As long as the contract is reasonably sound and the company has assets, many lawyers will take it on a contingent basis and you can request legal fees in addition to the promised sum. It would still be a hassle, but part of it's the principle for me.

I'm sorry your experience is with people not paying. Can I ask why you haven't pursued them or what the outcome was?

I'm not talking about anatomy, but rather physiology (obesity affects hormones related to sperm). Do you have some information to suggest this is an anatomical issue (other than sleep apnea) rather than physiological one?