I took that comment as criticizing dumbed-down science reporting and/or being suspicious of reported breakthroughs from China.
DelightfullyDivisive
joined 2 weeks ago
I have enjoyed Anton Petrov, Parallax Nick, some PBS Spacetime and Crash Course, plus history content from the Austin school and other places.
Kurzgesagt had quite a bit of really interesting content, but seems to have fallen off quite a bit in the last year or so.
There is no body text that I can see. I am viewing via Lemmy and using the Voyager app.
At least they didn't open a restaurant.
I don't think that is true. It wasn't a majority. (Although that's a nitpick, it was close enough to say that about half of all voters voted for Trump.)
A more important consideration is that the majority of people who did vote for him are incredibly naive when it comes to politics. They think that the president sets gas prices, or that Trump and Musk are geniuses because they say they are. Most of them feel disenfranchised by both political parties, and this is a brick through the window of the established order. I don't think most of the electorate thought this through much beyond that.
I honestly don't know what difference it will make in the long run, but I don't think it is true to say that this is what most people wanted.
Thanks for posting that! I read through it, and I don't think that it applies to the situation described by the original poster. It includes many interactions where both sides were intoxicated in some way, and had a criminal history. They did some interesting work in matching controls to the victims of gun assaults, but as the limitations section discusses, it really doesn't apply to a "responsible armed citizen" scenario, which is how I interpreted the recommendation above.
It is certainly still plausible that merely having a gun does not protect one very well from assault. The potential mechanisms of causation that the study authors came up with make for an interesting read, but the risk numbers don't really seem to connect to those mechanisms.
I think there are pretty good reasons to say that more firearms in private hands is a detriment from a public health perspective. I just don't think that this study adds much to that conversation.