It's pretty hard to test that out, though, when one side of the political spectrum is so convinced it will happen that they devote a significant amount of political effort to making sure it happens, preventing us from ever finding out what a well-funded and run socialist experiment would look like in the US.

Wait, you have a problem with a city government trying to serve the people who actually live in a neighborhood rather than potential new residents?

That's the whole point of a city government. To serve the people living in the city.

That doesn't seem like a personal attack so much as pointing out that this belief lacks empathy and is callous, which I tend to agree with. The standard argument, which I'm sure you're aware of, is that some controls and regulations on the ownership of firearms is a net good for society by reducing accidental deaths, suicides, and murders.

Guns aren't responsible for any of those things, people are. But guns dramatically change the scale at which they happen. Ignoring that because of a belief in absolute freedom from regulation for machines designed to kill is callous and un-empathic. Or, to use a synonym, psychopathic.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/psychopathy

Funding of gun studies means we can make arguments backed up by data instead of partisan bickering. Calls to arm teachers in classrooms or mandate trigger locks on guns have real world effects, and both sides think they're right about it. Funding for studies of specific actions and policies help us as a society make more informed decisions.

More info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993411/

None of those are things I'm looking for in an engineer on my team. I want an engineer who uses their tools to make their work more efficient, who pays attention to details, and believes feedback is a way to improve the quality of their work.

Source: am a FAANG-adjacent hiring manager.