borkcorkedforks

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

A lot of domestic violence involving a gun doesn't mean that most gun owners are abusive.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

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.

 

Feel free to pick a context:

  • Interview
  • Describing yourself
  • Describing what you want in a partner
  • When you see the word on a dating profile
  • When you see the word in an obituary
  • When describing a business plan in your DnD game
view more: next ›