Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POWER9 Could Be A Game Changer For Cryptocurrency Mining

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
    One you start digging into the numbers, the understanding is less clear. Correcting for suicide, demographics, and reporting methods. Looks more like a wash before you even start to examine other sorts of crimes.

    Should you stop selling stoves because a few houses have burnt down? Or will you admit a full analysis takes more than looking at a few negatives?
    The thing about firearms and suicide is that they're way more effective than most methods to commit suicide. Women attempt to commit suicide more often than men, but actual suicide deaths are weighed considerably in the direction of men primarily due to men being way more likely to use a firearm.

    In other words: A successful restriction in the access to firearms will considerably lower suicide-related deaths when much fewer attempts are successful and those who would previously have been successful can instead get help.

    I love how you try to sound oh-so-official by talking about "demographics" when you're referring to black gang violence. The thing about firearms and gang violence is that firearms are required for the #1 cause of gang violence related deaths, drive-by shootings, to be possible in the first place. It also makes murders in general way easier when compared to any other type of weapon not to mention how much higher the chance of getting caught becomes when you have to walk up to someone and stab them a dozen times or more to kill them rather than being able to shoot them from a distance.

    In other words: A successful restriction in the access to firearms will considerably lower gang violence deaths when murders become much harder to pull off, less likely to be successful and the chance of being caught and put behind bars goes up significantly.

    I also love how you immediately start talking about a total ban when the talk is actually about restricting the types of weapons available to civilians, for what use and the conditions that need to be met before someone is allowed to own a firearm, not a complete ban on firearms altogether. Having been in the army and trained to use an assault rifle I can say from personal experience that most civilians have no legitimate uses for the firepower even a semi-automatic assault rifle can offer. In all honesty it's kind of ironic how you talk about people wanting heavier restrictions on firearms being dishonest while you yourself are putting up a massive straw man with your "they want to ban all guns" attempt at an argument.

    Your stove analogy also falls completely flat on it's face at even cursory scrutiny. If a stove is misused the only person who suffers is generally the person who misuses it when their burns his/her house down and the thing about things is that they can be replaced. If a firearm is misused it's generally other people who pay the price and are killed or injured and a person cannot be replaced.

    Comment

    Working...
    X