The UK, Australia, and Brazil have significantly less firearms (which makes gun control a million times easier), and are not constitutionally granted the right to bear them (which makes gun control unconstitutional). If you go ahead start a new country with no guns and implement strict gun control, sure, it would probably have less gun deaths, but that's irrelevant to the American policy debate. Criminals in America will have ridiculously easy access to guns for a long time, and further restrictions on ownership will only decrease law-abiding gun-ownership rates.
This is where I think you're wrong. The vast, vast majority of people killed by police are warranted. People routinely threaten officers' lives with guns, and get killed for it. It's unfortunate, but it happens. People aren't just getting shot by police for no reason regularly.
More police are shot and killed every year than people who were accidentally shot by police. Imagine if they didn't approach every high-risk situation with guns drawn. There would be orders of magnitude more officers killed.
That is obviously true... but also a fairy tale hypothetical, and we are in the real world. So the question is, what's the solution, right now? Not 200 years ago.
Yes, firearms themselves present a clear and present danger by themselves. I'm sure once you make laws to control them, the firearms learn to stop being dangerous.
For successful policing*. Which everyone should be for.
edit: Every single thing you guys have replied with are policy/law debates, not enforcement debates. I disagree with many laws on the books today. I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.
I think the police should especially have guns drawn if they are pulling over a car owned by a murder suspect. It is reasonable enough to assume the driver is the suspect. If they PID the driver as not the suspect, holster up, no problem. Police always have guns drawn for any felony stop as an officer safety precaution, no reason to not when you have a high risk suspect.
Yes, but they don’t want to drink milk the at the same price. Price drives demand equally as much as demand drives price. That’s the point you’re missing.
> [Shorts] literally can't be made, unless there was someone in the market who thinks that at the short price, the stock is a good investment opportunity. Every trade is proof that the market thinks the stock is a good investment at that price.
Again, this isn't true. The spot price has to decrease from the point where short-selling is happening for there to be a willing buyer, unless there is a new bid. Yes, transactions happen at one singular price, but if you're only saying that every seller has a buyer and every buyer has a seller, then the guy that you replied to is correct. What you're essentially saying is that "every gallon of milk is sold to a person". This is not useful information.
Yes, that is how short-selling works, but you're claiming that the only reason the headline isn't "SPCX is the most purchased new stock" is for narrative reasons, which is patently false. Shorting necessitates that someone decides to sell a stock they do not own, which creates downward pressure on the price. Saying "there's always someone on the other end of the transaction" is true, but not at the same price. If what you were implying were true, the price of shares would never change. You probably understand this, but share prices decrease and increase due to the number of buyers and sellers. Hence, the more people that short-sell a stock, the lower the share price goes until it can find buyers.
You're conflating two things though. Shares are being borrowed to sell in this instance, referred to as short-selling. These shares can theoretically be borrowed multiple times over to sell (ex. Gamestop fiasco). This is not current owners of the shares selling to new buyers, they are selling already-owned shares of SPCX.
IMO, it's an argument against diversification. The Nikkei's decade-long stagnation is proof that the indices that are widely considered "diverse" are not immune to stagnation. This is from a trader/investor's standpoint. Of course, the S&P can return 0% in a few year timeline, but the American economy would really have to stall to return 0% over a 10+ year time horizon. This might shock the Kevin O'Learys and Dave Ramseys of the world, but picking stocks that outperform in any macro environment is easy, you just have to have the stomach for vol and continuously invest.
Okay, I do agree with this. IQ probably correlates with effort a little, but my anecdotal experience is that the most successful people in my school were primarily smart as opposed to being hard workers. Of course, there is a lot of overlap and exceptions.
This is laughable. Most children (sampled randomly from the United States) could absolutely not score 145 on a WAIS assessment. Your perception of the average children's intelligence is likely skewed by being surrounded by above average intelligence children (maybe in school). It's not eugenics to acknowledge the strong genetic factor of human intelligence.
This is far from proven fact. There are studies that show this effect, and there are studies that disagree. I can certainly see the argument for it being true in extremely Low-SES evnironments, but I don't believe this is true for the vast majority of Americans, and certainly isn't why California schools have such poor outcomes.
The number 1 predictor of educational outcome is IQ by a long shot, which is hardly affected by any of the factors you listed. Yes, high IQ kids usually have high IQ parents who are likely to prevent those things, partly because they are likely high income, but none of those are as important as how smart the child is.