I don't know if there's a foolproof test. Life can be so segmented that people who know music might not know sports. There are gamers who wouldn't know some of the most basic pop culture references. I wonder if you couldn't ask people to rank the holidays, if that wouldn't give them away? I mean, official and unofficial. Or like ask them what do they do for certain holidays that wouldn't give it away?Utisz wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 8:19 amAnother question that was in the back of my mind (mostly for the U.S., but also for Canada or whatever country really): if you had to ask a foreigner a question to figure out whether or not they were born and raised in your country, what would it be? (Not a shibboleth ... not pronunciation based.)
I will figure out someone didn't grow up here when they say things like about world history that I know they didn't grow up here. Or, if I drop some commercial reference or song reference and they don't get it I'll know something's up.
Because there's no exact science to the occurrences or direct causes to set them off, it's hard to see if they'll continue at their current rate. There could be something more appealing on the horizon. Like, arsonists who set things ablaze due to them being pyros has gone down over the years. Has there been any sort of law or new design in buildings? Not necessarily, I think it just became passe. Maybe it has something to due with more security cameras out everywhere? It could just be that when the more notorious, oneupmanship stunts of the late 80s and early to mid 90s happened, there were not forums for angry and destructive people to vent? There were a lot of arson cases in the late 00s but many were due to people getting upsidedown on mortgage payments following the collapse of the housing bubble. Does the motivation of setting fires matter to insurance companies or fire depts? Prolly not, but perhaps the gen public is more at ease when it's just the laid off marketing rep setting his 4 bdrm albatross ablaze, rather than some psycho trying to burn down the Hoboken Ramada Inn.
People are still going to shoot up places. If the targets will be schools or offices or amusement parks or car dealerships remains to be seen. There likely won't be any significant legislation passed until after the midterm elections come November. It'd prolly take another 2 grotesques events before then to change that. I think the best that could be hoped for would be another ban on military grade assault weapons. Though I'd imagine there'd be so many loopholes to that that it might not be that effective in even slowing the rate of new weapons from being manufactured and sold. Or at least prolly not quickly. It prolly spur a huge influx of new sales before the deadline.
It really takes court cases to make things change. Even then, it may take more than one. One thing that's been really significant this past year has been NIL in college athletics. This didn't happen overnight. So, if you didn't know college athletes are not allow to be paid in the US. There are really only 2 revenue sports in college athletics, mens basketball and football. Meaning, they're the ones who make money. They're like studio tentpole movies that fund everything else. Student athletes could get scholarships but that's it. Boosters would try to pay athletes to play at their school. Major scandals involving shoe companies, local businesses, wealthy donners and major college programs have happened over the years. Things like students getting use of a car, tattoos, meals at restaurants have taken out some of the biggest names in college sports and not necessarily cash payments. Or, it could be getting someone's mom or uncle a job could cause a school to be sanctioned and the young athlete to be scorned or lose eligibility. Even though coaches can make $5-$10 mill a year, networks pay $11 Billion with a B for rights, students on the court or field could not be paid.
In 2009, Ed O'Bannon, a star player on UCLA's 1995 championship basketball team sued the NCAA for prohibiting college athletes from cashing in on their Name, Image or Likeness. He said it's unfair that the schools can sell his jersey, still, and receive the money but even with him being out of college and no longer eligible to play, he couldn't receive any payment. In 2014, the courts agreed. It's hard to tell due to covid, but it's only really been since the last year or so that college athletes, like a gymnast who has her routine go viral or brash wide receiver could make money off of merch or NFTs or autographs at a trade show, could really cash in on their NIL for pay. It's really becoming the wild west. Students are able to enter the transfer portal and switch schools, they can set up fans only sites, they can hire reps to boost their image. None of this was allowed previously. There's still not pay for play but that's likely coming.
What we're starting to see now is parents being arrested for their kid's behavior. It's been hard to sue gunmakers for liability cuz the guns, for one thing, have worked according to design. I'd suspect that just like drunk driving victims or relatives of drunk driving victims suing bars for continuing to serve someone clearly intoxicated, a suit is going to go against WalMart or some other retailer that's going to claim the retailer didn't do enough to prevent the sale of the gun to someone clearly unstable. Apparently there was one gun retailer in Colorado who refused to sell a gun to the guy who shot up the theater in Aurora during the Dark Knight Rises showing. If a cancer-causing liability verdict ever comes down against retailer, it could cause other retailers to stop selling out of fear the next bankrupting verdict could go against them. Or, it could cause retailers to carry some kind of liability insurance or assault weapon holders need liability insurance that would be too costly to hold that would cause people to seek out other type of guns.
All merely speculations but that's my guess to what could get things to change. Could those things happen in the next couple of years? Maybe, but I don't think there's anything in the pipeline that's not going to go for the gun manufacturer. I think it might first take a criminal conviction, which could happen with a shooting that took place last year in Michigan, before a civil case could be fought and won. I'd expect it'd be 2-3 years before the criminal case to be resolved. And if a civil trial proceeds from that, expect all the delays in the world. And to get the verdict that'd change the scope of the industry...could it be under 8-10 years? Unlikely. But, again, I don't know what's out there. I didn't know people were still trying to fight mask mandates in the courts when one judge sorta reversed everything. I thought it was going to be a natural easing of things as we approached this summer but no, just one day in early spring a judge says, nope, you don't gotta and so they're gone.