p3n

This is true, but it wouldn’t actually be the first time that an arbiter gave an unfavorable result to its employer: https://youtu.be/u9Jmi9BOBNA?si=mOEPKERF8Z8YFrOi&t=8m38s

In my fantasy timeline this is forced to go to arbitration but the arbiter actually is a human being who is so outraged at the circumstances that they award the entire net worth of the Disney corporation as damages in a legally binding non-appealable decision.

Simple solution to all this: We don’t have divisions based on gender. We simply measure testosterone and have a high-T and low-T division. Anyone can compete in the high-T but high-T can’t compete in the low-T division.

This is like survivorship bias, but in reverse. Obviously almost everyone who killed themselves with a gun had access to a gun, but this doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have committed suicide by some other means if they didn’t have access to a gun.

This is something that is impossible to determine scientifically. If everyone in this study group killed themselves with a gun, how many of them would have not killed themselves if they didn’t have a gun? They can’t un-kill themselves and let us take away their guns so we can determine the effect.

What this study shows is that a gun is likely the first choice of gun owners who are trying to kill themselves. It cannot determine how much less likely they would have been to kill themselves had they not owned a gun, if at all. Intuitively I do believe that it would be less, because other means are likely more difficult, slower, or less effective. Whether this would result in slightly fewer suicides or much fewer I do not know, but this study doesn’t prove either.

This is a pretty good video explaining why the imperial system in the U.S. isn’t as bad as it seems: https://youtu.be/iJymKowx8cY?si=wcyG7yM150e71Rn4