2 ms·
Yeah precisely. I am saying your chance of hurting yourself with a gun is zero if you just don't act like an idiot with a gun. the average statistics include ma
by DontchaKnowit 3y ago
Yeah precisely. I am saying your chance of hurting yourself with a gun is zero if you just don't act like an idiot with a gun. the average statistics include massive numbers of idiots. I am not part of that population. Ergo, my risk is far different than theirs.
- eviks 3y agoYou've made a much stronger, but false and based on faulty logic, claim about 0 But I see from your other comments that you have a crystal ball with 200% certainty of being right about the future, so it's a pointless argument
- DontchaKnowit 3y agoWhat im saying is that people have agency over their own behaviour. To throw out a blanket statistic and act like you have no control over where you land is insane. Okay how about this : Lets say over the next week, on average, 10% of the population will eat more calories than their maintenance requirements. Now for me, is my probability 10%? No, because I can actively decide which side of that I want to end up on. If I want to eat under maintenance, my chance is 0% if I want to overeat, my chance is 100% (provided adequate access to calories) Is this making my point any more clear? Im saying that if mitigation strategies exist for gun safety exist, then it makes no sense to say that 2 people with wildly different safety standards have the same probability of injurying themselves just because a particular average statistic has been studied and published at some point.