That is a different statement. It’s saying abusers can be more dangerous with a weapon. It does not follow that people who own a weapon are somehow more likely to be an abuser.
To make that argument it would need to say something about what percentage of gun owners commit abuse or some kind violent crime.
You can find higher rates of domestic violence among cops for instance so maybe you could argue cops are more likely to be abusers.
Violence was a thing before guns existed. If I got stabbed I’m not going to think, “Thank goodness I wasn’t shot.” I suppose I’ll have plenty of to think about it while waiting for the cops to show up though.
Cherry picking and a lack of controling for confounding variables is an issue when people try to make the claim you did. There is also a lot more going on than just gun laws. When normal people don’t benefit from our GDP it really isn’t a good benchmark for comparable countries. When people have a lack opportunities or lack social programs there will probably be some social problems.
A lot of domestic violence involving a gun doesn’t mean that most gun owners are abusive.
I suppose the guns hypnotized him and made him do it? He did it because he was a piece of shit.
If he regularly shot pictures of women or something sure but owning a lot of guns or buying ammo in bulk isn’t really any indication of domestic violence. The son even said there wasn’t a history of violence. It seems like the heavy drinking or arguments have more correlation than anything.
Media outlets often cite things like how many guns someone has to freak out people who don’t know about guns. All the dude needed to fuck up was a single handgun and a single bullet. If he was drunk he shouldn’t have even been carrying. And being drunk isn’t really a good argument for why someone got violent.
Criminals don’t care about carry laws as breaking laws is kinda their whole deal.
Normal people carrying isn’t a problem unless you assume normal people get murderous the second they have the opportunity.
It’s just a different mindset. People carrying don’t have to be fearful or stressed out like you assume. They just want to have the ability to defend themselves or loved ones. Police simply cannot protect everyone all the time and violence is a thing that can happen sometimes. Violence certainly doesn’t happen all the time but many people prefer to carry and not need it then need it and not have it.
The people who are actually a danger are still going to be dangerous regardless of how unarmed others choose to be.
Maybe you feel like you can depend on your police or your local criminals are less violent.
Many cultures have issues with depression or suicide. Including ones with a focus on collectivism.
Work-life balance could be a part of the issue. That can be an issue for individualism or collectism. Although I feel like with individualism it’s easier to set your own standard.
The affordability of life is a problem as well but money being a thing won’t go away anytime soon.
One aspect you might have to separate is the gun control advocates who just want to cite another reason for X or Y policies. Those people aren’t necessarily advocating for mental health.
As an example take waiting periods. They might do something for first time buyers but the policy doesn’t really make sense for the people who already have a safe full of guns to pick from. I don’t hear those people talk about programs like “hold my guns” either.
If you’re not getting interviews then the issue probably has to do your resume. Maybe formatting. Maybe the contents or job history. Have you been out of work for a long time? Lack newer tools/knowledge? Too much job hopping?
If you are getting interviews then the resume and where you’re applying is fine. Either you’re probably lacking in soft skills, interview skills, or not impressing them. There could also be a mismatch between the salary you want and what they want to offer.
The main issue is that the Republican party has tied themselves to single issue voters and the kind of religious people who support a ban. They need those voting blocks to keep getting elected.
For a single issue voter their pet issue is the only thing that matters. They will vote based on that one issue alone. There are a few issues like that but anti-abortion is a big one. If the Republican party dropped it they stand to loose a lot of votes and thus elections. No, they wouldn’t necessarily attract a lot of pro-choice people. Maybe a few if the person is mostly conservative but was pro-choice.
The reasons someone would actually support a ban on it basically comes down to how they view it as morally wrong. Almost always it is based on the person’s religious views.
In theory it has some kind of affect but not anything anyone would notice. Like I’m not even sure it would show up on a scale and anyone trying to measure it with something sensitive enough to do so would have a hell of a time separating the change from normal things like eating, going to the bathroom, sweating, or just breathing.
If we say for a moment that it does have an affect on people the next question would be what effect might there be. Again I think a major issue would be measuring results when there would be so many other things at play. Also what are we measuring? What might the proposed effect be?
This idea mostly sounds like pseudo science or a half assed attempt at supporting some new age idea.
YTA
I grew up in the US reusing containers like that and still do sometimes. It’s not a third world thing at all. I’m pretty sure it was to save money back then but it can be a eco thing too. Extended family and friends do this all the time too.
Recycling plastic doesn’t work as well as you might have been told and it is more impactful to reuse or reduce. Glass and metal are better for recycling though.
Based on the post you care more about superficial things than your wife’s feelings. Your friends are superficial AHs too. How much money do you all spend trying to keep up with each other?
Ads have gotten worse and worse overtime. Some websites are so stuffed with ads the performance of the website suffers. Then there are risks associated with ads when many have become malicious or used to track people. Then what is advertised can also be extremely questionable. Everything from useless products to addictive mobile games to harmful “health” products to crypto scams show up on ads.
I’m fine with some ads on free websites/service if they’re not crazy but too many sites have gone nuts. I’m not ok with ads with paid services. Ads during shows/movies are a no go when I paid for them.
Ideally we should find a replacement for that horseshoe crab blood or perhaps a way to raise them in captivity. Maybe someone could come up with something to give the crabs to offset the damage caused by taking the blood. The issue might not even be primarily due to the blood with everything else happening climate change wise.
There might be ways to improve things for the birds but animals with super specific niches just kinda run the risk of becoming extinct. I feel similar about Pandas and Koalas.
Some people like the idea but to me that only makes sense if you are basically doing the nomad thing at a cheap location. You’d want to stay in the place for awhile as you’re still spending most of the “vacation” working all day. On your days off you could do more. On an actual vacation you would actually be enjoying yourself the whole time. Traveling to just spend all your time working seems like a waste.
Also just try to work on just a laptop for a week. It sucks. I’m not doing that.
@crow Not really sure how someone faking it would expect things to work out. Someone could decide they could get a bunch of clout and followers by faking it. But at some point they get shown to be a fraud then they lose any following they had. Are the people who claim to have discovered something notable before this or could they just be riding a wave for a min for a quick buck? I guess there have been cases in more proper scientific circles of faked results.
Reporting on it is kinda whatever as that’s kinda just talking about what someone else claimed.
Another possibility is that some other mechanism is at work or there is a fault in the test setup. At that point the person making the claim could be wrong but not necessarily aware of it. Maybe due to a lack of knowledge.
People use stuff like Alexa or Google home mostly as a voice activated timer, weather reporter, or speaker. If they have light bulbs maybe they use it that too. It can also be handy for voice activated controls for a movie if it can connect to something like a fire stick.
Most people don’t actually know what might be involved in terms of privacy concerns. They see the convenance of tech or something that’s neat. A vast majority of people simply aren’t doing things like uninstalling Google apps or know what a GPL refers to.
There are open source and local versions of home automation and voice assistants.
I have Alexa because it was on sale and useful to me. I don’t really think out loud and can unplug the thing if I want to talk about unionizing. When I replace things or buy new ones I’ll be keeping in mind compatibility with open source or local solutions. Alexa does integrate with a lot of stuff though. I do think it will be discontinued at some point. Amazon loses money on the product and it hasn’t been increasing sales like they hoped. No one trusts the damn thing to buy crap off Amazon for them.
Over time that subscriber section has become less prominent. At one time it was the way to find content you wanted to see. I think most people now just use the feed YouTube gives you.
Subscribing does seem to affect the algorithm. If nothing else it should help the creator pay the bills so you can keep getting videos from them.
My original statement was that owning a lot of guns wasn’t suggestive of anything. The comment suggested there was a “correlation” with owning guns and domestic violence in response.