No one said armor prevents any damage at all,
You're pulling that out of your ass. In fact other posts in this thread are talking about how even without penetration, the distributed force from armor stopping a bullet could still be fatal for a 70+ year old.

Back on the actual topic, Hacksmith made a bespoke suit that could stop small arms with publicly accessible materials for $100k. And all of their testing was at pretty close range.

It is not infeasible for a former President and current candidate's suit used during outdoor public events like this to have some sort of material to mitigate embedded in it, even if it isn't obviously won't provide the same protection as full armor. Every little bit helps.

As someone that doesn't brew, distill, etc. at home at all and has only done a little research... It looks like it is, but only in the sense that like a pressure cooker is more dangerous than other cooking methods type of difference.

Brewing can result in exploding bottles if not done correctly due to fermentation. Distilling has steps involving higher pressures as well, they are just higher pressures kind of like a pressure cooker.

Fermentation can create very dangerous microbes/bacteria that are deadly if done incorrectly, but fermenting things at home is legal, both alcoholic and not.

Danger isn't why the DOJ is justifying the ban though either way, they're not saying it's banned because it's more dangerous, they're citing taxes. And the tax reasons were removed for brewing in 1978, with a law that was not originally intended for alcohol at all, just as general excise tax changes. The focus on alcohol was due to advocates lobbying for home brewing.

Agreed that with modern access to information at the tips of everyone's fingers it makes no sense if the only reason is a higher danger. There's a TON of other shit that's legal for us to do, make, ferment, use, etc. that's just as dangerous as the various processes used in distilling. Botulism spores are found in honey, but making mead at home is fine. Pressure cookers are basically pipe bombs, but those are perfectly fine to cook with. Danger doesn't inherently mean it should be banned.

But I also want to point out again that the DOJ isn't arguing the ban based on any sort of danger. They're reasoning is only taxation, and that reason was removed for other alcohol brewing in 1978. So based on that reasoning... why should taxing spirits result in an at-home ban while other methods of alcohol production explicitly had the ban removed?

It essentially breaks down to letter of the law versus spirit of the law I think. The 1978 law wording says brewing, but uses a justification that would seem to apply to all alcohols, regardless of manufacturing process. So do we apply it only to brewing because that's the word that's used, or apply it broadly because that's what the actual change would do it you just change references of brewing to something slightly more broad like alcohol production since the reasoning still applies.

FYI for those that want to learn something today. The "THX sound" is called "Deep Note", and it looks insane when written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Note

I mean, the justification from the DOJ is taxes. But in 1978 Jimmy Carter signed a law allowing homebrewing, a law originally based on changing rules around excise taxes. The Brewing-specific aspects were included later due to lobbying from brewing groups.

The words obviously mean different things obviously, but that's just production methodology, not because of an inherent difference between the beginning and end result. At home brewing and winemaking are legal, how is distilling fundamentally different?

This appears to be the government using same reasoning for this spirits ban, as was removed for at home brewing in 1978. So there is precedent to remove the limit if that's the only justification they have. Congress removed the "excise taxes" reason for banning at-home production 50 years ago. Is there an inherent difference between distilling and brewing legally that would justify treating the production methods differently based solely on tax laws since that's what they're citing for the ban?

Haven't done a ton of research, but on its surface... This ban makes no sense if we also allow at home brewing and wine making.

Especially given the flimsy justification of essentially "taxes, and because they want to limit the plants that produce it". How is distilling spirits functionally different than brewing beer, or fermenting wine? It looks more like something nearly identical that just wasn't explicitly included when Jimmy Carter legalized home brewing in 1978, because the lobbying at the time was from brewers. The actual Act originally was about excise tax changes, that was the basis for removing the ban, so it makes sense it should be extended to other at home alcohol methods.

Not sure it's up to a judge to do that exactly, but the reasoning that home brewing was allowed easily applies to spirits and wine as well.

You do realize that after a game ships, they're still working on fixing bugs, adding new content post-release, right? That's still development time. They don't just send out a game and move on.

Well, some developers seem to, but not most, and definitely not the good ones.

It's not necessarily about usefulness but rather quantity and economics of scale.

The number of people needing wheelchairs in the first place is pretty small compared to the population, and adding the additional caveat of those that can still use their legs fully to power what is effectively a bicycle, results in a venn diagram with an extremely tiny use case.

The cost of a decent basic wheelchair (not AliExpress/Walmart shit) is already high. Adding the complexity of a bicycle on top of that just makes it more expensive. And then there's insurance which almost certainly would tell you to kick rocks before they would even think of covering a fraction of the cost because it isn't necessary.

At the time that was posted, publicly, we had no idea where the shooter was.

Not that I agree with the arguments here either way but... Devil's advocate.

Blanks are not a "safe" round and are deadly. They still fire a regular powder charge and an explosion still leaves the barrel, they just aren't pushing a bullet ahead of them. They will kill just like a regular round at closer ranges. An attendee dying doesn't inherently mean that blanks weren't used. Actual bullets are evidence, but we don't have concrete info of that sort yet.

It doesn't take a mastermind. Dictators faking assassination attempts to garner support isn't new.