Of course the only correct number of gun deaths among civilians is 0, do you disagree with that?

I absolutely do disagree, yes. If my life or safety is being threatened by someone, then I absolutely have the right to use any level of force necessary to defend myself, up to and including lethal force.

BTW, the way that you state that question is a form of manipulation. It’s a common tactic used in high-pressure sales.

According to a quick Google search, 3 in 10 American adults say that they currently own a firearm; that’s around 82,000,000 gun owners in the US. Last time I checked, there were around 45,000 annual gun deaths in the US, of which just under 2/3 were suicide. That leaves somewhere around 18,000 deaths that are homicides of some form (which also includes legal self-defense). So it’s far, far less than 1/1000 gun owners that are going to shoot someone (other than intentionally shooting themselves, and IMO that’s a different issue entirely).

But, sure, if in your opinion that only correct number of gun deaths is 0, then yes, removing guns and collectively forgetting how to make them is the only solution. Just like if your opinion is that the only correct number of traffic deaths is zero, then the only reasonable solution is the completely elimination of all means of transportation other than feet.

Generated by diceware, actually. I wanted to keep it as random as possible.

I think that most people that have lived in Chicago for a while are pretty aware that, due to this kind of culture of violence, that kind of action in Chicago carries a degree of risk that wouldn’t be present in many other places. So I don’t think that it would be that out of line to make that kind of comment in general. It’s just kind of pervasive.

I would be much more surprised to hear that kind of statement in, say, Phoenix, AZ, where you almost certainly have far, far more people carrying concealed firearms legally, but don’t seem to see the same kind of gang/violence problems.

I avoid anywhere with blackberries and raspberries when they’re in season; that’s where the bears tend to hang out, and I’m not super keen on surprising a bear when I’m out hiking.

Surprised a family of bears (sow and two yearlings) trying to walk out of my basement last week in the dark. That was not fun.

I’m getting my shoulder repaired next week (I completely tore my supraspinatus tendon, wooo…). It’s going to cost me $16,000. That’s relatively cheap in the US; if I had insurance (which I don’t), I’d have to have surgery done in a hospital, and my insurance would be billed >$30k. I’ve looked into medical tourism, but I just don’t have the time; if it was still 80% torn, I could fly to Spain or something, pay cash, take 2-3 weeks to recover, do touristy shit, fly home, and still come out ahead. Unfortunately, once a tendon is fully separated, you need to address it ASAP.

And, BTW, I’m very, very lucky that I have $16k in a 401(k) that I can withdraw in the first place; if this had happened to me 10 years ago, i would have just lost partial use of my right arm for the rest of my life.

…And why don’t I have insurance? The only insurance available to me costs >$500/mo., and the annual deductible (the amount I have to pay before insurance covers anything aside from routine care and prescriptions) is $9000. My costs would be almost identical if I had the only insurance that’s available to me.

EDIT - OTOH, it’s generally a little faster for people in the US to get non-emergency care. E.g., if my supraspinatus was torn, but not completely separated, I would generally have a longer wait for surgery in the UK or Canada than I would in the US. But that’s a pretty small positive for the US system compared to a huge ton of negatives.

Statistically speaking, people that have conceal carry licenses are less likely to engage in criminal activity than the average person, and less likely to shoot a person in general. The people to worry about are the people that carry firearms without having a valid carry license. (This doesn’t apply in the relatively few states that don’t require permits to carry concealed firearms.) Essentially, people that obey one law–getting a permit before they carry a firearm–tend to be likely to obey most laws.

That’s not gun culture per se, but gang culture. Gun “culture” in the US is something that trends far more right wing in general, and tends to be mostly white, mostly (nominally) christian.

I can’t speak to other cities, but the south side and west side of Chicago (esp. around Garfield Park, Douglas Park, and all of Austin) have a serious gang problem. If you aren’t willing and able to engage in violence at the slightest perceived provocation, then you tend to be victimized. The net result is that someone that jumps a line can end up getting a beat down, or killed. (And, BTW, the gang problem is a result of a century of institutionalized racism, combined with a few decades when CPD was exceptionally effective at jailing gang leaders; instead of just two or three major gangs in Chicago, you have hundreds of small ones, all constantly fighting over tiny patches of turf.)

I’m curious how hard it would be for a typical user to chain VPNs together so that my traffic went sequentially through VPNs. In theory it seems like VPN #1 would know that it was connected to my home and VPN #2, so it couldn’t tell where data was originating. VPN #2 could see the site that was being accessed and VPN #1, but not me.

I have no idea if it actually works this way in practice through.

I’m curious what areas are seeing the gain in YIMBY; I have a hard time thinking that any of it is coming from La Jolla. And yeah, San Diego really needs more high-density housing. I lived there for a few years in the early 90s, and there really wasn’t much at the time.

The problem isn’t political will per se, but specifically steamrolling local NIMBYs. The people with the most political power and will tend to push high density housing out of more desirable areas and into less desirable areas. If you wanted to, for instance, but a 100 unit building in Ukrainian Village or Wicker Park in Chicago, you’d have a really stiff fight on your hands from local property owners who want to keep their neighborhood all brownstones. OTOH, if you want to demo a square block near Garfield Park and build there–and I wouldn’t recommend doing that–you’ll have the local alderman holding a golden shovel for the groundbreaking.

It’s really not that simple.

You can, for instance, buy land and build your own home. But if you do that, you’re likely going to end up paying prices that are very comparable–or much, much higher!–to the prices you would pay to get the mass-produced homes from one of a few companies that are building massive sprawl. Those companies have economies of scale working on their side; they have limited floor plans, and have more control over the cost inputs, because they can negotiate bulk pricing. If you break up the ‘cartels’, then you’re suddenly dealing with much, much more custom homebuilding.

(FWIW, I’m currently looking into custom homebuilding, so I’ve got a pretty decent idea on what some of the costs will be for even a fairly modest home where all I really want is a shell that’s stub plumbed and has a breaker box.)

The price-fixing cartels refers to rent specifically, rather than sales. And yes, there is a shortage of units for sale, and that is due largely to market forces. For instance, if I have a house right now that I still have 25 years of mortgage on, my mortgage is probably at a very low rate. Selling that home and buying a new one would mean a new mortgage, at a higher rate, which means bigger monthly payments. This is a problem that older people are running into right now; their homes are too big now that their kids are gone, but they can’t afford the new mortgage rates.

Even without rental software suggesting market values for landlords, it’s very easy to look at comparables in your general area to set your own rates close to what other people have their at. Similarly, if you list a property at $X, and get 200 queries in a single day, you are likely to set your prices higher because you know that you’re listing lower than average. (I sold a car like that; I got 50+ inquiries in just a few hours, because I’d set the price lower than market rate.)

And in places there’s actually a shortage

…Which actually is most places.

IIRC, the gov’t is restricted right now, and can’t build more without a change in the law. And sure, let’s change that. But you’re also going to need to change local zoning restrictions that prevent high density housing from going into certain residential areas.

Great! I’m all for gov’t increasing housing supply! But, frankly, most of the pushback from building affordable, high-density housing is coming from the local level. If we build high-density, affordable (e.g., low-income only, versus mixed-income) housing in it’s own area, rather than integrating it into existing communities, we’re only building the slums of the future. As it stands, well-off communities, even in areas that are heavily Democratic (such as, most of California), have been strongly opposed to locating such housing in their neighborhoods, and do everything they can to prevent it.

That would be great! Except that cities refuse to do that, and no one wants to put high density housing anywhere near their cute, historic neighborhood.

If you can build the political will to steamroll the NIMBYs, I’m all for it.

Okay, now you have waiting lists like they do in Copenhagen.

Pretty much every economist will tell you that rent control creates disincentives to building more housing.

This fundamentally misunderstands the way that the market works.

If you have 1000 people trying to rent a 1br apartment, and there are 500 1br apartments on the market, then yeah, the price is going to go up, because there’s more demand than supply. But supply is constrained by outside factors, like zoning, and neighborhoods that don’t want to ruin their “character” be someone building high-density housing next to their cute, retro bungalow. Sure, you can build your apartment complex out in BFE, but no one wants to rent a place out in BFE because now they can’t get to their job in a reasonable amount of time, and have to drive rather than take public transit (or walk, ride a bike, etc.). Plus, that creates sprawl.

If you really want more housing, blaming landlords–including corporate landlords–isn’t going to fix it. Blame the cities that won’t allow proper high density housing, blame the NIMBYs.

I don’t know where people think that more housing comes from; someone has to put up the money. I’m fine with it being the state, but someone has to front the money in the first place.

…And the net result would be that they would charge more on rent. And since taxing at higher rates would deter people from building more rental properties, the housing shortage would get worse.

As in, white supremacists and cops murdering unarmed black people that are looking for food and shelter? That kind of bad?

Right. The John Sturges that was born in 1910 was directing films in 1890, twenty years before his birth, and also pioneered color and sound films several decades prior to their patents. Cool.

You’re not a very effective or amusing troll.