Yeah… I don’t really want to see US infantry on the ground in Ukraine, but I would have really liked to see the US enforce a no-fly zone over contested areas and maybe also bomb the shit out of Russian forces in Ukraine from the air.
Hitting targets inside Russia could be politically nonviable, as it probably violates some international laws, but with Ukraine’s permission, they could absolutely hit anything they wanted inside Ukrainian territory.
Making a treaty with the US is folly.
Yep. If you need confirmation, just ask any Native American.
Even then … 20 years is a long time. Who’s to say the US won’t elect another Russian-puppet pedo within that time?
I assume that the new agreement would involve more concrete conditions and responsibilities
And what happens when (not if) the Trump administration (or some even worse successor) ignores those concrete conditions and responsibilities? Is Ukraine going to sue the USA in international court while they’re being overrun?
There’s no ‘security guarantee’ out there anymore that could possibly be worth the paper it’s written on.
If I were in charge of Ukraine right now, I’d be looking for ‘security guarantees’ in the form of mutual defense pacts with other countries in the region that could be in a similar situation. Poland, Finland, etc. Those might actually have your back, since they know that they’re next if you fall.
I don’t know if it’s necessarily that malicious.
Just … if your store ordered a lot of a certain clothing item, assuming it would sell well, but then it didn’t sell well, what do you do with it? If you leave it on the store shelves, it’s taking up valuable retail space that could be better utilized for displaying and selling something people actually want. Storing it in some back room isn’t going to work well – that will build up over time and you’ll end up having a whole warehouse of unwanted clothing.
Option 1: The right thing to do would be to put those items on sale/discount until they do sell. All the way down to free if you have to. But some stores think that would ‘cheapen their brand’, and most stores don’t want you to buy something at a steep discount if it means you’ll no longer buy a similar item for full price.
Option 2: You could send the unsold stock off to a discount/outlet retailer and let them sell it at a discount … if you even have such a company anywhere around. Or you donate it to some charity for a tax writeoff. But then there’s the expense of actually getting it there.
Option 3: You could send unsold stock back to the manufacturer … but that would be expensive shipping and the manufacturer usually doesn’t want it back, which is why nobody does this.
Option 4: You destroy it and/or just toss it in the dumpster out back. Cheap, fast, and easy.
Hopefully, making Option 4 illegal will make Options 1 and 2 more appealing.
There’s always a possibilty for the mechanism to trigger if you accidentally bump the gun
Ah, a Sig owner, I see.
Finally, a fellow Glock hater!
Two things that should be completely unacceptable in a modern firearm:
Having no safety mechanism whatsoever. (Trigger dingus doesn’t count.)
Requiring a trigger pull (or even putting your finger inside the trigger guard) for any other reason than intending to fire a shot.
And there are so many excellent modern pistols out there that don’t break these two rules. Pistols that do everything a Glock can do, but without these glaring safety issues. So why is the Glock still the ‘default’ choice? It’s especially egregious to see it as a recommendation to novice shooters. Dealing with these safety issues should require an expert. Putting a gun with these issues into the hands of a new shooter is just asking for trouble.
It could also be a case of a prosecutor who agrees with the shooter. (A right-wing extremist prosecutor, who has ever heard of such a thing?)
In that case, the prosecutor might feel pressured to bring the case before a grand jury, just to make it look like he’s doing his job. But he could deliberately throw the case, neglect to mention important evidence, etc, etc, and fail to get an indictment. That way, he gets to shut down the prosecution without making it look like it was his choice. Since grand jury proceedings are sealed, nobody would be able to know he deliberately sandbagged and failed on purpose. Then he gets to make a public statement about how he tried, but the grand jury said no, so his hands are tied.
So it could be a way for a malicious prosecutor to kill/bury the case without looking like he’s deliberately letting a murderer go free.
They don’t do anything involving school shootings.
Not true. They’ll stand around and blockade the entrance to prevent parents from going in to rescue their children.
Luigi should try this defense.
“I just wanted to show him my cool gun, but then it went off, all on its own. Complete accident!”
Even if you are in that (rather misguided) camp, there are better alternatives. Specifically, a grip safety. Safety automatically disengaged as long as you’re holding the gun properly. Can’t ‘forget’ to do that!
And, yes, there are good, modern designs that use grip safeties. The Springfield XD line, for example. (Those models also require a trigger pull for disassembly, though. Is it that hard to include some kind of decocker?)