This is a good step forward for accessibility, but unfortunately, the $50 price tag will still put it out of the hands of many who need it. It should be handed out, for free, to anybody who wants it. There’s zero downsides. It cannot be misused, diverted, or abused. It has no other uses. It has no effect on someone not ODing. It cannot benefit anyone in any possible way… unless they are actually dying right now. If we were serious about saving lives, we would be gladly giving it out. Hell, put it in free vending machines on the street. It would be the ultimate pro-life move. But, of course, in a capitalist hellscape, profit motive is of utmost importance. How about drug cos. making billions off opiods foot the bill? Thankfully, there are many great harm reduction organizations that do hand it out free, but the easier to get, the less people die. I recommend anyone pick up some, if you can find it for free, even if you don’t think you’d need it. Home/work/car, you never know what might happen in your vicinity. It’s like the modern Heimlich Maneuver. Ok… that’s my PSA for the day.
Seriously, you can just inject it without any harm?
I was at the CNE in Toronto recently and they had a free narcan table. The person was busy so I walked by. Now i regret not waiting
The city I live in has a fairly bad homeless problem and drug use that comes with it. Just last week I walked past some office workers who had to call an ambulance on a guy that was having troubles, not sure what the trouble was. The guy seemed out of it but was eating a sandwich but just out of it. The ambulance showed up as I walked past. And this is a common sight at lunch.
Initially, it was only given by injection, but now it’s common in the nasal spray. That’s what’s great about the nasal route, it’s unintimidating and you can’t fuck it up. …I guess unless you squirt it in their ear or something. lol
All you said is correct. Quick PSA, narcan is a temporary opioid blocker. If you administer narcan to an actual OD patient, they will rise to a higher level of consciousness. They may even be able to walk and talk.
They NEED to go to the hospital though, the opioids are still in their system, and once the narcan wears off they can drop into respiratory distress again.
This strikes me as a “you will own nothing and be happy” solution. Instead of paying workers a fair wage so they can put something into savings for a rainy day, you will be at the mercy of your employer for support.
This seems to be the trend. In the future, you will have most of your needs at least met, but not through your own means, because you will have no means whatsoever. You will not be able to take care of yourself without your corporation parent. This is a very coercive situation.
While wages are obviously a significant factor here, I still wouldn’t be surprised if the primary cause for this is simply the fact that most people aren’t very skilled at managing their personal finances.
I make a pretty decent living, but in discussions with my coworkers who earn as much as I do, and often even more, it becomes apparent that many of them are essentially living from hand to mouth. In contrast, I have a year’s worth of wages invested in stocks and enough cash to purchase two more cars like the one I already own. Finances and saving are subjects I enjoy discussing, but the vast majority of people have zero interest in them, and this has a real impact on their lives.
You’ve been downvoted, but I get what you’re saying. There’s just people who never really got out of the pocket money model of spending whatever you have all the time.
It’s quite possible to do everything right and still end up with not enough, but I definitely work with people who could do better. One guy, between them and their partner earn more than I do, yet are in far worse financial shape, and it’s simply because they see money in their account, and see no reason not to spend it, meaning those little events (that don’t happen all the time, but do happen) like a car failing an MOT, or a boiler breaking in winter, or a roof leak means they have no way to cover it.
I think there’s definitely a market for managed bank accounts, that handle your bills and outgoings, save up an emergency pot for you, put into investments when that fills up, and give you a spuff money pot for takeaways and other frivolous shit.
City life can also be expensive, and too few people move away when it isn’t working for them.
I’m not doing well healthwise right now and my employers told me that they were concerned about my health and I could take as many unpaid sick days as I want.
Nearly two-thirds of the deaths in 2021 were homicides, although unintentional shootings have killed many children. No matter how young the victims, pediatric gun-related deaths have left their mark on nearly every corner of the U.S.
More than 80% of the gun deaths were among males 19 and younger. Black male children were more likely to die from homicide. White males 19 and younger were more likely to kill themselves with guns.
We can see two issues here.
First: Suicide rates are rising sharply among white boys. Why?
Second: Crime is rising sharply for black boys. Why?
Removing guns doesn’t solve the problems leading to suicidal ideation or the problems that lead to homicide. We have the ability to fix those issues without undermining 2A protections. We know that poverty in dense areas is a strong predictor of criminal behavior, and that education is a strong counterbalance to that. We also know that both parties are choking off funding to poor, urban school districts, albeit for different ideological reasons. (Republicans want to cut all public educations. Democrats want to keep school funding local so that property taxes in wealthy areas aren’t funding schools in poor areas, ensuring that wealthy areas have access to better schools.)
Thank you for a well thought out comment. Ita refreshing to read something like this sometimes. Sometimes it feels like everyone is on their own radical side.
I’d also add strickter punishments for the owner of the firearm if it was used in a crime by their child. I have a kid. I plan to buy a gun. If my kid kills someone with my gun, then as far as I’m concerned I’d be directly at fault. In addition to that I think parents should be legally liable for any violent crime their child does. If the parent has the legal authority over their child, they should also be held liable.
My kid is learning to drive and I was surprised he doesn’t need insurance. But the reason is I’m still the “driver” while he is operating the car. Im responsible for issues, my insurance pays any claim, and of course I can’t have a couple beers despite not being behind the wheel. We have an example
Why can’t we model responsible Gun ownership after cars and driving?
Because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual constitutional right. It would be like modeling your right to join and raise your kid in a religion off of licensing requirements for being a doctor. (And hey, religion will fuck kids up for the rest of their lives, even if they manage to escape.)
Ok, then free speech. Also in the Bill of Rights as an individual right the government can’t infringe.
Yet there are limits, there are consequences, non-government entities do not need to abide. The classic example is you can’t yell “FIRE!” In a crowded theater. Your right to free speech ends when it endangers someone else.
Similarly, your right to bear arms should be limited when it endangers someone. If you bring a weapon to a bar, a crowded space, carry in a city, brandish it during road rage, or when someone rings the doorbell, or if someone is able to access your weapon or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon, or you let someone use it without training, or you do something stupid when people are around, or you hunt by. Blasting away at every rustling bush, or you hunt where your bullet can co e down where there are people, then you are endangering people. You not respecting the tool and its capabilities shows that you are not fit to carry. There are consequences, and they need to happen before you actually hurt or kill someone
So, restrict rights before they can potentially be used in a way that might cause injury to someone, correct?
So, it would be reasonable to have a political literacy test before allowing someone to vote, since their voting patterns have the potential to cause real harms, correct? Or to ensure that you aren’t allowed to read about Nazi ideology, so you can’t copy it?
or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon,
…Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life? I literally have a gun beside my door that I put in my pocket before I get the mail because we have aggressive bears in my area that are too comfortable with people. I’ve had bears on my front porch, I had one that tried to come in through a window screen.
Consequences can not happen before; consequences are something that happen after the fact. You can’t redefine consequence as something that happens to you in order to prevent you from doing a thing that you might not have done in the first place. What you’re proposing would be like preemptively jailing someone because they fit the patterns of someone that might be more likely to commit a crime at some point in the future.
or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon, …Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life?
Sure, that’s the big contradiction n trying to keep a firearm for self-defense. If it’s readily accessible, odds are more likely someone will be shot on accident or a moment of emotion, than that you’ll defend yourself. If it’s locked up, with the ammo elsewhere, you’re following best practices to keep your family and friends, and yourself safe, but then can’t use it to defend yourself
I have mixed feelings about this, because I can see that it would applied in a racial manner by law-and-order Republicans. E.g., black parents in a high-crime area have a gun for protection–since cops don’t give a shit–kid steals the gun and shoots someone, and there’s an immediate judicial lynching of the parents.
I’m in favor of locking guns up around kids, but I’m generally opposed to laws that mandate it, both because of costs (a gun safe that’s worth a damn easily costs $1500, and a good one starts at about $4500), and because some people–e.g. women that are being stalked–may need to have ready access to a gun at all times.
I completely understand the concern regarding this being applied in a racial manner. I don’t really know how to get around that, though. Any law that could be abused, will be abused, so we should be very careful, but I personally am not knowledgeable enough to come up with a solution. I do think that in the example you’ve provided is valid and can and does happen. But to avoid that we would need a change in culture, and that happens slowly. Maybe stricter punishments for parents of kids that commit crime could lead to a change where people start taking more responsibility for their children. Maybe it’ll lead to just increased incarnation of minorities. I don’t know. I’m glad that I’m not in charge of making those decisions.
Regarding locking guns up and having laws about how to safely store a gun in your own home, I oppose those. I’m willing to accept the risk if the punishment for mishandling them is severe enough. But like I said, I don’t know where that like should be drawn. I think my main point is that I’m for personal responsibility, and we should be encouraging that, instead of removing the choice completely.
But to avoid that we would need a change in culture, and that happens slowly.
Yes, it does. But that’s the real solution.
It’s like getting physically fit; you don’t throw out your television and XBox because you’re fat and sit on your ass instead of going to the gym. You change your habits. The television and XBox are not themselves the problem.
Maybe it’ll lead to just increased incarnation of minorities.
That seems to be the most likely outcome, esp. since prosecutors have fairly broad discretion on charging. I think that making a case for gross negligence would be a different category though, e.g., you knew your child was directly involved in violent criminal behavior and you knowingly left a firearm where you had reason to believe your child could access it easily then you are guilty of being an accessory. But I’d want that bar to be pretty high.
Democrats want to keep school funding local so that property taxes in wealthy areas aren’t funding schools in poor areas, ensuring that wealthy areas have access to better schools
I’ve seen D’s increasingly propose more state and national funding for schools, exactly the opposite of your claim. That’s in addition to increased state and federal funding for expanding pre-school, for school lunches, for at least some free college
I lived in Chicago. I saw Chicago moving more funding to charter and magnet schools rather than funding schools properly. Charter schools et al. don’t have to take all students, so CPS lost the funding, and still had to take the most difficult cases.
I think that the most rational approach is to, first, eliminate all state funding for private education, charter school, magnet schools, etc., ONLY fund public schools. And second, pool all of the tax revenue state-wide–which means that you also need to make property taxes a state issue rather than a local-school-funding issue–and the divide taxes based on the number of students in each school, with allowances made for differences in costs (e.g., it’s more expensive for a teacher to live in L.A. than it is in Blythe, so there needs to be some kind of allowance for higher teacher pay in L.A. than in Blythe).
no, i dont think. civilians handling any firearms is a hobby. The government will always have enough stupid teenagers to murder anyone who opposes them, if they really want to (a la russia). The concept of a ‘militia’ could possibly be effective, but I would expect that to be organized, not 19 year olds buying assault rifles. since the one and only purpose of a firearm is death (or, if you wish to split hairs, the threat of death), it means the hobby, firearms, is actually the hobby, death.
This is a First Amendment violation, Republicans. You assholes are always whining about being cancelled by private businesses, but are perfectly happy to “cancel” anything they think is too “woke.”
I find it really baffling that of all the missions to Mars since Viking, none have had experiments to detect life. Did the negative Viking results really kill off all curiosity in the search for current life? It seems very short-sighted.
So, what does the linked article mean when it says “In the mid-1970s, NASA sent two Viking landers to the surface of Mars equipped with instruments that conducted the only life detection experiments ever conducted on another planet.”? How does that differ from what you describe in subsequent missions?
I know a lot of them have looked for evidence of past conditions amenable to life, such as water. Have any of them tried to detect current life?
Yes, but they also have educated and trained police. Here, a candidate must meet the requirements for university, be fit, and psychologically stable before he or she can start a training of three to five years.
Being police is more than just be intimidating and knowing which end of a gun is.the business end.
It’s also hard to shoot someone who hasn’t made an honest mistake and is actually breaking in specifically to do you harm, when you don’t have a gun…so your comment is total nonsense.
If someone intends to harm me or immediately threaten my life, I’m shooting them. There is no moral or ethical argument you can make that will invalidate that. I consider the right of self-defense to be an inalienable right even if that requires lethal force.
This is the US mentality. Yeah, kid was very dumb, kid was in the wrong. Kid should probably be arrested and spend some time in jail to learn his lesson. Nope, death penalty.
This is such an annoying answer. I’ve had a strange man enter my home unannounced. I remember standing just behind a wall with intent to stab him with the knife I had because if someone breaks into your house you don’t assume a good time. Even without guns strangers are dangerous. That maintenance guy was seriously lucky I happen to recognize him in that split sec and stopped before stabbing him in the chest.
I’m American and I’ve never worried about guns. They aren’t as common as people think in a lot of areas. Mostly we have a few yahoo’s with a shitton of guns and most people with zero. I’ve still been in several situations where I felt unsafe without guns even being a consideration. If this dude was doing all that at my house, I’d call the police and then wait with a knife like I did with that stupid maintenance guy I almost stabbed who should have known better.
Depending on the gun they maybe wouldn’t have killded him, even if they hit them. Also if you are already jumping at someone with a knife, it’s not that much easier to stop than a gunshot.
You’re right, and there are lots of studies backing this up. Even if you compare similar wounds like neck wounds from stabbing vs getting shot, and getting stabbed in the heart vs being shot in the heart. Stab wound victims are much more likely to survive than gunshot wound victims.
That maintenance guy is an idiot. I worked maintenance for years and you never enter someone’s home without ringing or knocking and waiting for a reply (even if they say the home will be empty). When you do unlock the door you open it slowly while calling out, “Hello! Maintnance!” I’d say 30% of the time someoine was there when I was assured the property would be empty. Kid skipping school, home sick and forgot our appoinment, etc.
Nope. He had a key, I guess he used it? IDK I just heard my fucking door open. He was there to fix something or other that was causing issues with the apartment below Mr. It was like 2PM which I guess is why he didn’t announce himself, but yeah he almost died.
To be fair, here’s the thing. If you replace a gun with a knife, while that doesn’t erase the chance of death by any means, it does lower the chance of death significantly. Because despite what a lot of people might think, in a fight, you’re a lot more likely to survive if your attacker has a knife than you would if your attacker has a gun. If you hadn’t recognized your maintenance guy right away and attacked him, then he’d still be better off with you wielding a knife than if you’d been wielding a gun instead.
And in a country with less guns, both you and a potential robber are less likely to have guns. Maybe you would use a knife, but clearly not everyone would, and saying “there’s not as many as you’d think in a lot of areas areas” is all fine and well, but the statistics show that the US has an absolutely mind boggling amount of guns per capita compared to any other country. The US literally has more guns than people. In other countries, it’s not just in some areas where guns are less common, it’s every area, and most have less than even the areas in US’s that have less guns. Countries that are literally at war have less guns per capita than the US does.
Obviously that doesn’t mean you’ll never be in danger without any guns around, but you will generally be in less danger over-all, and even when you do get into danger you will still be less likely to die.
That’s not true, gunshot wounds actually have a significantly lower survival rate than stab wounds. I can provide some studies on the topic if you’re interested.
People don’t just drop when they get stabbed and a stronger person can pretty easily take a knife from a weaker one. If you’re trying to defend yourself from a real attacker with a knife you’re probably going to have a bad time.
Mostly we have a few yahoo’s with a shitton of guns and most people with zero.
How do you know that? Are there actually stats on that? I’m a left-leaning gun owner, and I’m careful to avoid talking about guns around most people to avoid unnecessary conflict. The people who make it their entire personality are a very vocal minority.
Because I’ve lived in shitty areas with actual drug dealers and BS like that. Less people have guns than you might imagine. Maybe it’s different in nowhere USA, but in urban shithole, USA and Middle class suburbia that’s about what I’ve found. People have like 3+ guns or none at all. I guess it’s possible all my friends are just hiding this from me for some reason and in my hometown I just happen to know all the people who shoot guns, but honestly it’s been rare that I’ve seen people with just one gun. It’s not that I’ve never seen it. My cousin’s husband owns exactly one gun.
I don’t think there’s any way to get stats, but I think that the US has more guns than people lends some credibility to this idea.
So it’s all anecdotal, and based on what people tell you? Like I said, gun nuts are a very vocal minority.
And I’ve lived in a slum too. An apartment in the building I lived in was basically a trap house, a neighbor was stabbed on his way home from work, my gf’s vehicle was stolen, my vehicle was vandalized, and someone tried to enter my apartment because he was drunk and confused. And after all of that, I still have no idea how many of my neighbors had guns because most sensible gun owners don’t advertise the fact.
I dont have any guns so probly hiding and calling cops. But also I dont live in any other developed country, Im not blaming the homeowner for fearing for his life in the country with more guns than people. If we were somewhere else, not only would the homeowner not have a gun, anyone trying to break in would be much less likely to have one.
Phone the police and tell him to fuck off? Maybe hit their arm with a bat or something. If I was alone I could even just leave. Not immediately execute them.
Well where I live there aren’t nearly as many guns so the person breaking in would be less likely to have a deadly weapon and it would be a bit less risky to just call the police and hide, or comply with the (assumed) robber, or I’d feel like I’d have a better chance with using a blunt weapon like a bat to protect myself and drive them off, which would be less likely to kill someone. But where I live there are also a lot less robberies in general.
Doesn’t guarantee nobody would have died if the same thing happened in a place with less gun violence, but it might have reduced the chances. Even if people get into the same kinds of confrontations, if there aren’t guns involved the chances of everyone surviving a violent encounter goes up by a significant percentage. Less guns in a country over-all means less chances for a conflict to have a gun involved.
I mean if I take a swing at someone’s head with a baseball bat I’m probably just as likely to kill as I would be by shooting them. I will say baseball bat to the head probably hits less since it would probably render you unconscious immediately.
I mean if I take a swing at someone’s head with a baseball bat I’m probably just as likely to kill as I would be by shooting them.
You’d be surprised. While one hit can kill, concussion/brain injury without death is generally more common from a single hit. Usually it takes multiple hits to guarantee killing someone, and it’s harder to aim if you’re not like, a baseball player, than most people expect. You’re more likely to get a glancing blow, even assuming you catch the other person by surprise. The type of bat can make a difference in how likely it is to kill from a first hit as well.
Yeah I guess that’s all true. Either way I personally would prefer a gun to a baseball bat for self defense for the simple fact that it puts me in less danger than attacking my attacker with a melee weapon. There admittedly isn’t much in my house that is worth my life but apparently the person breaking in values my things more than their own life.
I'm in a developing country and such things don't happen here. Some months back an upstairs neighbour of mine tried to enter into my house when i was inside. He was trying his key and then rang the doorbell and i opened it and he was very confused. Then he looked at my house and realised he was on the wrong floor, said sorry and went away. These things happen if all the apartments look the same. No one needs to die for such small blunders. What's more disturbing is the amount of people here justifying shooting the kid because he broke a window and was forcing his way inside. They don't realise they wouldn't have to fear other people so much if there were no guns available in the first place. I'm sure I'll get a lot of replies that gangsters don't obey rules and what not but isn't that the same in every other country without guns? Maybe Americans like to kill people a lot. No wonder their entire country runs off war and destruction.
In this case, the person was literally breaking into the house, broken window, reaching for the doorknob. The homeowner had every reason to think their home was being invaded. And given how violent crime can get in the states, unfortunately shooting first in such a situation does make logical sense.
The situation sucks, but this case might be more on the system than the shooter.
They don’t realise they wouldn’t have to fear other people so much if there were no guns available in the first place. I’m sure I’ll get a lot of replies that gangsters don’t obey rules and what not but isn’t that the same in every other country without guns?
Home invasions happen in countries that have strict gun laws. I’ve lived in a bad apartment complex (one apartment was a trap house, a neighbor was stabbed on his way home from work, several vehicles were stolen and mine was vandalized), and a neighbor tried to get into my apartment late one night. I didn’t own a gun at the time, but I absolutely would have stabbed him with a kitchen knife if he had broken a window and stuck his hand inside. Instead, I asked him if he was okay and explained that he was at the wrong apartment.
That type of thing happens in the US as well. It doesn’t ALWAYS end with a gun. I’d say most of the time it doesn’t.
This person broke a window though and was actively forcing themselves into the home. That’s a pretty big difference from “trying a key and ringing the doorbell.”
It’s always going to be a judgement call, for a different intruder theirs would’ve been the right call. It’s not even about guns, there are knives, drugs, etc. They’re all relevant and the kinds of people that are breaking windows can be dangerous.
I forget all the details but a former neighbors son had an extremely traumatic experience when he was out with a trainee as a paramedic and a guy hopped up on some concoction of drugs incapacitated him (I think by throwing him against the wall) and then the dude spun around and beat the trainee’s skull in with some object.
Just because you haven’t heard of it… doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen in your country, but I hope you’re right. Idealistically you’re definitely right, this sort of thing never should happen, but sometimes there’s no good answer; you just do the best you can with the information and situation you’re in.
They are. The amount of people who confidently say they’d shoot before attempting to communicate has me terrified; like they want a reason to escalate the situation.
Every one of them have joined a stupid cult like group for that sense of belonging and affirming their place in the group/world.
He plays on that. It works. They’ll follow one idiot, so they’ll follow another.
And their value system - as shown for republicans - is very upside-down: Trump has validity because he’s in the group, and the group is great because he’s in it and so he’s allowed in it. It’s seemingly not the other way around where he can’t join the group as a cad and a cheat. It’s amazingly circular too.
So yeah: joiners are his thing, and he gives them all the (little-s) social security they crave at the mere cost of them committing treason for him and going to jail.
lmao I guess so huh? I don’t know man. I appreciate just having a few simple subs and posting to them though. I think thats what I was really getting at. I got the news article from google news and thought Id share it.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.