blaine

This is good news, right? The only way we can force wealthy, waterfront homeowners to move back from the coasts that are going to be increasingly hit by hurricanes is to stop insuring their idiotic behavior. This is a necessary adaptation to the climate crisis in a place where the reality of the issue seems to have overcome the partisan divide.

Seems like this would be a policy democrats and progressives would be cheering for, no?

Most carjackers don't use guns.

I haven't made any arguments to "bad faith". I just saw OP saying the father should face gun charges, and that's a topic I know a bit about, so I thought I'd chime in with a quick fact check. I never said the father wasn't a piece of shit or that he shouldn't go to jail.

If you’re going to fight a just but losing battle, fight the one that informs all others that won’t get rotten fruit unfairly pelted at you in the public square.

Love this line. I've been eating a lot of fruit here on Lemmy. Going to have to put some thought into this one.

I'm linking to peer-reviewed scientific studies over here. If you want to dispute what I'm saying, avoid the genetic fallacy and engage with the substance.

By "lower-status", I meant lower socioeconomic status. Less education and less income. The two things women primarily judge potential mates on.

I miss the old days when I could pick up a rifle or shotgun during my trip to Fred Meyers or Wal-Mart. This isn't anything new or unusual.

It is true that women generally want a partner who makes the same or more than them, while men generally find income/career status less important in mate selection. That is a scientific fact before you politicize it. And it's also a fact that as more women receive higher education and fair pay, the pool of men who make the same or more than the average woman will shrink pretty dramatically.

So it is true to say that as women become empowered and more able to care for themselves without the help of a man, the majority of lower-income and males with a lower socioeconomic status will have a much harder time finding a mate. This mostly affects men negatively at a younger age when their earnings are lowest and they sit closest to the bottom of that hierarchy. Conversely, the negative impacts hit women later on when the end of their child-bearing years approaches and they realize that putting a family on hold to focus on their career may have been a more permanent decision than they'd intended now that they've moved up the economic ladder and the small proportion of men at or above their level are either already taken or happy to play the field non-monogamously.

It hits both genders just as hard and it's an issue we need to solve. Our evolutionary psychology and mate selection processes just haven't caught up with modern society. And since males are more prone to isolation and suicide, we see the affects against them more readily. But the affects to women will become more apparent in the next few decades.

I know this is politically charged territory, but it's pretty well established from a sociological and evolutionary psychology perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_preferences#:~:text=Mate%20preference%20priorities,-Research%20has%20been&text=In%20the%20study%2C%20it%20was,attractiveness%2C%20as%20the%20highest%20priorities.

Edit: Changed "lower-status males" to "males with a lower socioeconomic status" since that seems to be a trigger-word for some folks.

Agreed - that's probably the easier way to charge the father in this case. Focus on child endangerment, reckless abandonment, etc. I'm just saying a gun charge probably isn't the best path to conviction in this case.

Agreed. Unfortunately the law and common sense don't always align. Maybe the father could be charged with reckless endangerment or some sort of neglect - I'm only saying there probably isn't a direct firearm storage statute that was violated here.

Edit: Sadly, it'd probably be easier to charge him for leaving the kid in the car based on how hot it was, with the gun storage issue maybe as an aggravating factor.

It really doesn't vary that much by state.

You can check all 50 individually from page 1 of this document - https://handgunlaw.us/documents/USRVCarCarry-1.pdf

Here's the breakdown for the most populous states, which would cover most people in the US. This also includes the most restrictive states in terms of gun laws like NY and CA, so most will be more permissive than this.

California: Prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle unless it is in a locked container or the trunk. Concealed carry permit holders must adhere to these rules.

Texas: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Florida: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

New York: Generally restrictive. In New York City, it is prohibited to have a loaded firearm in a vehicle. In other parts of the state, a permit is required, and rules can be strict.

Pennsylvania: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Illinois: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Ohio: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Georgia: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

North Carolina: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Michigan: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Rule 1: Don't have kids.

Rule 2: Don't allow kids in your car or home.

Agreed. I was just quoting the actual law. I store loaded guns unsecured in my car and home, but I live alone and don't have kids or allow kids in my car or home. Obviously the situation would be different if I did.