btq96r

We're probably getting the virus we deserve, but natural selection will take the wrong batch of people, and I don't see us getting smarter as a result. Darwin's batting average isn't as high as one might hope it to be.

Essentially, they're making sure the gears stay lubed. "Injected" means the Fed, using their autonomous authority as a central bank, decided to make that money available to financial institutions as loans on very, very friendly terms, so they can in turn prevent bank runs. The money is meant to let them continue to operate and make loans that businesses and individuals rely on, lest this medical crisis have a financial one (credit freeze like in 2008) pop up on top of it as things get tough. The banks just get favorable terms on these loans because the theory is without those institutions being strong, the economy as a whole will be at risk. It's not a silver arrow or anything, just a preemptive step, and a sign they see this as nothing to be lethargic about.

I hope my father and stepmother in Pennsylvania have someone that can see if they need help. Phone calls and text messages only go so far as ways to keep up with their needs as things could get tight quick.

It's not the death rate that makes COVID-19 a problem, it's the rate of proliferation, and the threat to overwhelm our existing systems. That's why all the measures being taken are to "flatten the curve" so the impact can be spread out over as much time as possible where resources can handle demand. Your own quoted stats here are over a full year, this has the potential to pack its peak into weeks, like it is in other countries at the moment.

The NBA has just suspended its season because a player tested positive. If a grinding halt to a business with annual revenues in the billions doesn't make you think it's getting real out there and about to get worse, I don't know what will.

Here's something else to consider for folks that aren't inclined to think about the strict medical side of all this...how many folks can your work lose to sick days or quarantine before the organization becomes ineffective? The answer is probably well less than 100%. I'm sure not all of us are blessed with a work from home capacity, especially in manufacturing, retail, customer services, and other fields. Really, unless your job can be done on a personal computer or work laptop from home, this could impact you without you ever getting sick by forcing your job to enact unpaid furloughs, or having some service you rely on enact measures that restrict your day to day lives. Just a thought.

Bingo. We can froth at Dick's for taking away the guns and ammo we never bought from them anyway, fine. But to make assumptions about a store that very clearly has a workable operating model in a time where retail sales are tenuous is at best is hubris.

Folks in other countries have more widespread access to healthcare, without the financial consequences here, so seeing a doctor until last resort isn't standard practice. I'm wondering if our system of for profit insurance will inadvertently help resource utilization. There will be more than a few people who don't go into a hospital for fear of the bill it will create. That's not good for their overall condition, but it's one less bed, set of labs, CT scan, ect. for each person avoiding the cost.

Since we've been battling the flu around our office for a few weeks before Coronamania, my job has already told people to work from home if symptoms of any kind manifest. The medical practice I work with is already coming up with contingency plans of how to keep essential services we provide going while just hitting pause on routine outpatient ones. Every shopping trip I'm buying a few more cans of soup and Dinty Moore to stock the cabinet. Since it's just me alone in my apartment, I don't need the absurd amount of toilet paper you're seeing folks leave Costco with. I'm not worried for myself. I figure if I get sick, I'll have some bad days, but it'll be over along the reported timeline. I do worry about my father. He's in his early 70s, and as a lifelong smoker, has a bit of a higher risk profile. As with any disease that spreads fast, the elderly will be hit hardest. I'm amazed that hand sanitizer is flying off the shelves while bars of soap are pretty much fully stocked. Our society has gotten quite lazy at the most basic of things.

...and my apartment finally has power restored. Thankful for the hard work by the electrical crews to bring it back after all the devastation in the area. Also realize others aren't yet to this level and keeping them in my thoughts.

They could advance one of the Marine One helicopter's or have a National Guard UH-60 available to take him from BNA to Putnam County. I think he could have more real impact for those folks than he would being restricted in Nashville or Mt. Juliet. We all know that Nashville will be given priority, because big city with more people, but those folks out in Putnam were hit so hard. If nothing else, having every LEO or military person working the visit pick up some canned goods and a case of bottled water to leave on site is worth it.

So, this is what I got to behold in the aftermath at 2am. I'm considering myself quite fortunate and am not about to complain over the few inconveniences when so many have been put out or worse.

I'm fine, my neighborhood not so much. I live in Germantown next to the Sounds ballpark, and while my apartment complex was exceptionally fortunate, two others a block away were not. It looked bad at 2am, I can only imagine how worse it'll look in daylight Still without power, haven't slept all night, charged the phone in the truck a bit. I've got some pics, but the news has mostly the same damage scenes. Some potent reminder of nature calling the shots last night.

The Aimpoint sights on weapons used in Afghanistan and Iraq were put through their paces and came out with amazing durability validation. I'm a Vortex fan, but would never hesitate to slap an Aimpoint on a gun I own instead if tough was a primary concern.

I had to come at it from this wild scenario so I could understand it by creeping up to a point. Do you think it should be a criminal charge if you failed to lock the car? This might be the third or fourth time I've had to clarify this...I have no desire to add to, or create a new criminal law regarding this. I came into this thread to specifically discuss civil liability. The conversation has just drifted to criminal because there is an actual law on the books (TCA § 39-17-1313 as I quoted a few posts up), but I'm just making inquires to see if people agree with that law how it's written or what they would change. I'm not advocating one way or the other except for us to consider this issue.

If someone has a gun sitting in a place where it can be seen and it gets stolen then used in a crime, by the law of our state, they're able to be charged. I think that the will will be far less to make that charge than for a court to uphold a conviction of such. But I'm serious...what responsibility (and I'm not talking criminal charges here) do we have to secure our weapons when they're not under our positive control?

Let's try this from the bottom up and see where the line for some folks is. Should this be a criminal statue as it's written: If someone leaves a firearm in their vehicle, unlocked, visible to a normal glance (ie: on the dashboard, or in the passenger seat)...how liable is that firearm owner should a criminal steal the gun, then go shoot someone with it? We have a law against that currently, so we already have some line of responsibility a gun owner has to take and could be prosecuted criminally for failing to do...but should it be that way? Is that all we're willing to accept, or do we even want that rolled back, because it's not the gun owners fault if a criminal does bad things with the gun they stole? We can roll this out...what about locked car, glove box or center console, just not locked? Because as I'm reading the law, an unlocked glove box or unlocked center console isn't compliant with this law. Nor would a lock box somewhere else if it can be carried away. I guess what I'm trying to say is, there is a line somewhere. I haven't seen anyone say, "doesn't matter if the window is open and my gun is right there, it's the criminal's fault". That's at least in part because I doubt believe anyone thinks that is a reasonable position. So, if we can agree that a line exists somewhere, where is that line?

Correct. It's not the criminal actions of someone who violated us that I want to hold civilly liable, it's those among us who fail to take adequate measures (and I realize there is room for a wide debate on that term) to secure their firearms from theft. There is some need to debate what would be considered a contributing factor through negligence. I'm just not sure I think out of sight in a locked car is sufficient for places where car break ins aren't out of the norm. I'll admit that I don't have all the answers, but I'm opposed to the conversation. I think this issue calls for some thought given the prevalence of vehicle break ins we see within urban areas.

I don't think we're talking criminal liability here, but civil (which I'm at least talking about) is a whole different matter.

Cars ≠ Guns. Your car has a secondary lock in needing keys to start the ignition.

I haven't had a car payment in 12 years. It's been a great feeling; one I fully intend to keep rolling.

If we keep prefacing "gun owner" with the adjective "responsible", we can't shy away from a conversation on what responsible actually means. Police will always be behind criminals in regard to this kind of theft, so "cops need to fix it" or something to that effect ignores fundamental operating conditions. I'm all for prosecuting those who steal guns to the fullest extent, but I think it's fair to think about what liability gun owners have for securing their firearms if they're used illegally. I wouldn't go so far as to mandate locked (case or trigger/barrel lock) inside a locked vehicle, but if someone has the gun in the console or glove compartment without any lock besides the door, I think there is some level of liability for how secure keep (or don't keep it) when it's not in their positive possession. I can see an argument that government areas shouldn't be able to restrict carry, but I still think a private business can exercise that prerogative if they wish. Needing to do basic day to day things will eventually bring you up against a no guns allowed scenario, and at that point, I think we have a duty to do more than just check the box when it comes to securing our firearms.

It is dangerous to be reasonable with stupid people.

Happy for you and the family with the new arrival, David. Just remember, the warranty on your body is expired at this point, so be careful!

Guessing she wouldn't appreciate Break-Free as an alternative.