bhmnscmm

Not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but the opening scene to The Conversation uses a high-zoom shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlwdpNw1FW8

Eye in the Sky also prominently features long-distance/high magnification shots from the perspective of a drone/UAV.

I agree with everything you've said. Hamas can be a terrorist organization, and still be the elected government. Both can be true, and acknowledging the how and why of that being the case is necessary reach a resolution to the conflict.

The fact that you're trying move this conversation towards the actions of Israel while avoiding the actions of Hamas leads me to believe you're not interested in having a genuine discussion. I think you're trying to play gotcha.

Have Israel and Hamas used terrorist tactics? I think so. Do both sides not care about the well-being of civilians? I think so. Are both sides of this conflict bad? I think so.

My definition of terrorist tactics is irrelevant to how the OP would classify Hamas.

Regardless, here's how terrorism is defined on Wikipedia: it seems pretty reasonable to me.

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants

If Hamas isn't a terrorist organization then what would you call them?

I think you're confusing me with other commentors. I haven't suggested this research in particular is being actively used to support policy decisions. Nor have I suggested this research is advocating for policy.

In my initial comment I simply said policy in general (at least with gun control) shouldn't be based on people's feelings/anecdotes.

I think this study asked a very interesting question, and I find the results to be very interesting. I don't really have any issues with this research by itself.

I can't read the entire article since it's behind a pay wall for me, but graph alone doesn't support or contradict the headline. It simply shows the full time employment of Zoomers is comparable millenials at when they were the same age. It doesn't show anything about income.

I could understand the argument for factoring people's feelings into policy in some cases, but let's take this study as an example.

Handguns are responsible for far more harm than AR-15s, but this study shows people "fear" AR-15s more. A policy that is based on these findings and not empirical data may attempt to reduce gun violence by addressing AR-15 ownership. Thereby not having a major effect on reducing actual gun violence.

A policy focusing on reducing handgun ownership would be much more effective at reducing gun violence, despite people not fearing them as much.

I'm trying to understand your argument against the article and what point you're trying to make by using their chart.

I don't get the point you're trying to make with your graph. Obviously there wouldn't be many Zoomers working full time; most are still in school.

Zoomers born after 2006 haven't graduated high-school, and those born between 2002-2006 are in college. That's leaves only a 5 year window of people you'd expect to be employed full time.

The line for millenials looks about the same as Zoomers.

So you spend $400/month on restaurants?

$150 x 4 = $600/month.

AR-10s have been gaining popularity for deer hunting in my area recently.