RepairmanJacked

"Non-homicide crime" seems a little passive for shooting someone in the face, doesn't it? Everything I've read states you "accept responsibility" for what you did. But calling it a "non-homicide crime", not stating what you actually did, and talking about how it was at the direction of other kids doesn't really seem like taking responsibility for almost killing someone.

Deeper meaning beyond success. I like that. Do you think it would be smart to start a company (not me, I'm broke) where you buy up medical debt, then require the debtors to just pay what you paid for the debt + expenses? That way, people pay way less, and can fund the next round of medical debt purchases. Essentially, it's a way for people to dig themselves out of medical debt much quicker than otherwise possible while not relying on donations, which allows the service to work perpetually (or until we unfuck the medical systems in America).

I'm curious because it doesn't explicitly state it in your post. Are these individuals who were and/or should have been banned from owning guns that were allowed to keep their already owned guns and used them to kill? Or simply individuals who were and/or should have been banned from owning guns and got them from some other source and then used them to kill?

When you first started, were you expecting success online? Or was it more of a joke that picked up steam? What do you have planned for 2021?

Do you think this is a case of "the authorities knew and simply didn't want to take away their guns?" or a jurisdictional or other process oversight where a software or other process could be used to make sure these people don't fall through the cracks?