this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
967 points (93.8% liked)
Comic Strips
12948 readers
2985 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That 34% came from your data, feel free to search for the amount of carriers and choose your favorite estimate and use that, it's still lower than 34%. As for the motivations for "not stop with gun" think critically, it's simply more likely that if such a low percentage of people carry daily, there's a higher chance that nobody there has one at any given location/time (aside from expected locations like "gun store" or "police station" where of course the likelihood of the presence of guns jumps to 100%, but for some reason those are rarely targeted). Would you rather stop a shooter with a gun of your own or risk bare handing it?
See above, re: unprovable assertion.
Yes yes ignore any other data, I'm gonna be honest dude I don't actually care if you believe the data or not, you can look it up if you really care but you're clearly more interested in dismissing it so, have a nice day I guess, this little subthread has reached its logical conclusion, goodbye.
I can't look up data that doesn't exist.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=percent+of+americans+carry+guns&ia=web
Since you evidentially are unaware of the existence of search engines I'll provide this helpful link.
Now, if you just wholly reject the concept of estimates (lol but you do you) you can go with the raw "has CCW" number which is tracked, though low (due to constitutional carry/open carry), and would benefit my argument. Again IDGAF, 34% ain't that bad of a percentage for how few people carry whether you believe it or not, and you're clearly dead set on your preconceived notions that misrepresented data is good and estimates are bad (though there is the 8% of americans with verifiable CCW permits, that ain't no estimate), so again I must bid thee adeu.
Sorry, that doesn't prove that there were no armed people in the majority of those situations. That's not how statistics work. It is not an even distribution and I don't think you're stupid enough to believe it is. You made an unprovable assertion.
Ok pal.
That's certainly one way to weasel out of the uncomfortable truth that statistics about owning any consumer good over a broad population in a capitalist system is not evenly distributed.
You're the one who doesn't want to engage, you can't then claim I'm "weaseling out." You've put forth no counter argument to argue further, this is your doing not mine, I'm just refusing to play your silly game.
I'm engaging with you this entire time and "that is not an even distribution" is literally a counter-argument. You just don't like it.
If it helps to use the 8% verifiable "CCW holders" then fine, there's still a low likelihood that any given person there has a gun to respond. The fact that you don't believe in "probability" isn't really my issue, everyone else understands it just fine.
Are you "refusing to play my silly game" or are you accepting that I am engaging with you and making a counter-argument and will continue to discuss this with me?
Because it can't be both.
I'm refusing to play by reiterating my original point and elaborating on said silly game of "nuh uh estimations and mathematical probability are fake news." Check your house for gas leaks.
And now that you've decided to hurl insults, we're done here.
Incidentally, a gas leak is one of the options I'm looking into in four to five years depending on the laws in Canada or certain other countries. Shall I let you know?
We've been done, you just refuse to shut up when someone politely declines your silly bullshit lol.
"Depending on the laws..." is it only legal to kill yourself or others with a gas leak in Canada? You planning on starting a gas leak? Not sure I want to know what you mean by that weird ass sentence but if you're experiencing suicidal or homicidal ideation of some sort please seek help, it's never the option you should take. I don't like you and don't let me know, but someone does I'm sure and I hope you get the help you need.
If you don't like me, wouldn't you want to know?
That's exactly what the medically-assisted euthanasia will be doing, so thank you. I thought you didn't like me.
No? Ideally we would just stop talking now and that's that. I don't hope you die or kill someone just because I don't like you, if you wish that on people just because you don't like them you seriously need help.
Although I suppose I didn't consider medically assisted, I'm not opposed to that, as much as I'm not a fan of you I'm sorry to hear it.
In any case fuck off.