Just some context because gun violence studies are probably the most manipulated data sets in history. The two numbers (auto deaths and gun deaths) are pretty close to each other and different policies can and do push one above the other.
- Most of those gun deaths are suicides and the vast majority would happen anyway without guns.
- This wasn't true before about 2015 and the change (increase in non-suicide gun deaths) over the last decade is largely the consequence of 'defund the police' policies.
- 90+% of gun violence happens in about 4 urban zip codes, all of which have some of the strictest gun control laws in the US.
There is a reason you have never heard a criminologist rail about guns (its usually a sociologist). The data points to problems with other policies. Also gathering the data honestly is difficult; people stop reporting types of crimes when the police stop investigating those types of crimes.
PS A "curve-off" public welfare policy is far more effective than banning guns.
Not to get into a gunfight in the gambling hall, but:
> Most of those gun deaths are suicides and the vast majority would happen anyway without guns.
Apparently any form of obstacle between a suicidal person and their gun greatly reduces successful suicides.
Things like the gun being in a safe that McSuicidepants owns, operates, and can get in with a fingerprint. Things like the bullets being on the other side of the room.
> I don't know of many professions[1] with such demands on time outside of a work day to keep your skills updated.
This is an extremely miopic view (or maybe trolling).
The vast majority of software developers never study, learn, or write any code outside of their work hours.
In contrast, almost all professional have enormous, _legally-required_ upskilling, retraining, and professional competence maintenance.
If you honestly believe that developers have anywhere near the demands (both in terms of time and cost) in staying up to date that other professions have, you are - as politely as I can - completely out-of-touch.
Sure, but those same professional certifications and development hours also allow them to not need to re-prove their basic competency when interviewing.
No, current LLMs are already good enough to read the subtexts from documents, email, call transcripts where available. They're extremely good at identifying unwritten business practices, relationships, data flows, etc.
BAE Systems Inc, a US-based subsidiary that operates entirely in the US and whose leadership operates under an SAA which means they report to the US Government and the parent in the UK.
That was the 2024 figure. In 2025 it rose to 2.1% and this year it is expected to rise further.
And that's just the direct allocation, not the under water part including venture funding of some of the defense industry (obvious overlap: anything including AI & drones, it's pure VC bait).
Reporting is messy and due to the EU's fragmented linguistic nature harder to come by than it probably should be.
The balancing act is to increase stockpiles whilst supplying Ukraine which is consuming almost as fast as we're producing. Precision weapons you are right about, those are dwindling, but at the same time this is the one area where Ukraine internal production is beginning to outnumber imports (and their motivations are not so much quantity as 'no strings attached', which is very understandable).
Artillery shell production is up, 2.2 million shells/year or thereabouts, but here too the Ukraine war is consuming them very fast, either way, it is sixfold or so of what it was prior to 2022. Many new factories have been built and opened and are since a few months adding their output to the stream.
I think what held things back for a bit is that the EU was - wrongly - under the impression that Putin would back off but now that it is clear that that is not the case the longer term investments make sense. But it took a while for that to get underway.
This is absolute fantasy. Stockpiles are only depleting, production hasn't and won't come close to meeting demand, and until there's a shooting war inside the bloc, it won't.
Unless you are privy to secrets at a level that they contradict the EU official figures + the figures from the defense contractors that I am tracking this is as accurate as I can make it.
I do not have access to information from the military other than what gets published but that's good enough for me as long as I don't see contradictions.
They were aiming for a 100% supply to Ukraine + stockpile increase for 2026 and I see no reason to disbelieve that other than your comment, if you want me to re-calibrate my position on that you're going to have to supply some sources.
The ~2M figure was a 2025 EOY nameplate capacity target, not actual output for the year. Even those capacity numbers are widely overstated - it’s well known in defence circles (where you claim to be) that real capacity is running at about 40% of official claims, with some shortfalls being made up by international procurement, but the majority remaining unfulfilled.
As for EU motivations, Orbán is the visible blocker, but the Western states are even more constraining than Hungary. It’s Spain, Ireland, Germany, France, etc. that have no appetite for war or economic upheaval, which would immediately topple governments across the bloc. EU defence policy requires unanimity across states, and it doesn’t exist.
Rhetoric is strong but thin, and almost everybody apart from yourself sees it. Let’s come back to this in a year, when production figures and defence spending for 2025 become public and see.
> As a source puts it, the French said: "Would you like more soldiers? You could have them. Would you like more naval support? You could have that. Would you like more air support? You could have that too."
I did, but it simply wouldn't have happened. Whatever about boots on the ground and ships deployed, they would not have fired a shot. There is zero appetite for war with the US.
Europe can wreck the US in 15 minutes and not a shot would be fired. That would have massive effect on the EU too and that's one of the things holding that back. But if the US would invade Canada or Denmark I'm fairly sure that they would not hesitate, especially not if half the USA would be on their side in the decision.
Europe is not a megalith, there is no central authority to make any kind of decision, and no Government in the bloc has a mandate to destroy it's citizens quality of life and economy by engaging in armed conflict with the US.
This includes Denmark, who would not have fought the US, as much as they tried to put on a show.
Which part of 'and not a shot would be fired' is so hard to understand. There are so many ways to tell another party that maybe they should tend their own house for a bit.
Are you talking about economic warfare? Too many EU nations are completely dependent on the US economically and it only takes one veto.
The reality would be lots of denunciations, some token measures, followed by Business As Usual. Ireland, Poland, Germany, Spain aren't sacrificing their entire economies for Greenland.
Speaking as an Irish citizen id be ok with messing up the US at the cost of our economy. I think that you underestimate the resolve of Europeans on this.
It's profoundly depressing, but such is the world we live in now.
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but if you think it generalises, you're simply wrong. There is extremely strong and consistent polling across the EU in general, and Ireland in particular, showing that while the public supports Ukraine and moderate defence spending, it does not support direct military involvement or major escalation, and has zero tolerance for armed conflict, severe economic self-harm, or escalation against major powers.
In Ireland specifically, the cost of living is the key political issue at this time for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Neither has any mandate or capacity for military or economic conflict with the United States - our recent diplomatic efforts, in spite of the Greenland and Iranian crises, should highlight that.
Ireland is more dependent than ever before on the US. We would veto any EU efforts against them.
> Ireland is more dependent than ever before on the US. We would veto any EU efforts against them.
Unlikely. We'd most likely hum and haw for a while and then go along with it.
Like ultimately, we need both EU membership and US investment to maintain the economy we have at the moment. Losing one or the other would be really bad, but ultimately the only one we can really control is EU membership, and I'm relatively certain that the majority of Irish people, if forced to (and not one second before) would choose the EU.
> There is extremely strong and consistent polling across the EU in general, and Ireland in particular, showing that while the public supports Ukraine and moderate defence spending, it does not support direct military involvement or major escalation, and has zero tolerance for armed conflict, severe economic self-harm, or escalation against major powers.
Can you point to this polling please? I'm definitely not in favour of more wars, but the issue is that the choice may not be up to you or me, rather it will be driven by countries starting said wars (cough cough US threatening to invade Greenland).
> In Ireland specifically, the cost of living is the key political issue at this time for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Neither has any mandate or capacity for military or economic conflict with the United States - our recent diplomatic efforts, in spite of the Greenland and Iranian crises, should highlight that.
While I do agree with your core point around cost of living, honestly, the likelihood of any political party in Ireland (but particularly FFG) doing anything about the cost of living is ludicrously small, depressingly.
The two biggest drivers of inflation in Ireland (and the west more generally) are energy costs and land costs. If you ran on reducing land costs you'd become a pariah in Ireland (again, really unfortunately).
And our planning system makes it unlikely (again, depressingly) that any work will be done on grid modernisation or building energy infrastructure. I mean, I would love to see this happen (I'd even vote for FG or the Shinners to accomplish this), but I find it extremely unlikely.
As for the realpolitik within the EU, I'm close enough to the fire that I can see the slow changing trends and I have some hope that once Orban is dealt with we'll see some serious improvements in how the EU is conducting day-to-day business in times of crisis. We simply were unprepared for countries backsliding due to out-of-EU influence. But that cat is out of the bag and now we need to deal with it without alienating the rest of the Hungarian population.
I did and it is 100% consistent with my comment. Nice sounds and token troop movements, but absolutely no commitment to fight, which simply wouldn't have happened.
Okay, how do you know? Let's go through this step-by-step, in your opinion, what's the difference between a real commitment and a not-real commitment that you can point to before there's a meaningful-enough emergency to make you show your cards? What would be a non-token amount of troops?
There is no appetite for war in Europe, zero. The Danes know it, the French know it, the US knows it. Every analyst knows it.
The idea that France was going to engage in armed conflict with the US over Greenland is absurd. The US could probably take Saint Pierre and Miquelon or French Guiana without triggering a French armed response.
Companies don't have morals, only people. Abdicating your moral responsibilities because you're employed is cowardice.
reply