Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Healthcare is expensive because of high salaries of some workers. My cousin runs a nursing home. If you want to see a woman turn a scary color, ask her what she has to pay her RNs.
You should turn around and ask the RN what they have to pay for nursing school and then tell your cousin to kindly keep her shit together. Why would you want minimum wage people taking care of your grandparents anyways? It isn't exactly like staying in a nursing home is cheap. There is still tons of room for profit. If money was the ultimate goal, go into banking, not healthcare.
Atheists simply reject theism. They don't have a faith. The rejection of a faith is not a faith. To claim that is ignorance. Off is not a tv channel. Bald is not a hair color. Unemployment is not a job. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not playing tennis is not a sport. Abstinence is not a sexual activity. An empty bowl is not a meal. Silence is not a noise. Clear is not a color. An absolute vacuum is not a smell. Not kicking cats is not animal abuse. Not doing drugs is not an addiction. Not practicing a faith is not a faith. Make sense?
I even removed the sarcasm from the above statements to ensure you wouldn't be confused.
One more little fancy bit of information, if there was one shred of proof for any god, there wouldn't be atheists with any credibility. In all reality, I was going to say there wouldn't be atheists at all if there was any proof of a god, but we still have idiots that believe the world is flat. Even atheists aren't immune to 'teh dumb' sometimes.
If this kind of data manipulation can be done to account for cause and cure with no control groups or understanding of which individuals have taken the medication, please, run the numbers as the data is already available. We have this wonderful invention called the internet where you can self publish your results.
You should be comparing guns and crime more to the effectiveness of a medication (the gun, in case you need a hint) on a disease (crime, you compared crime to a disease and say you can look at it as an epidemic, right?). The problem is the medication (the guns) being distributed randomly through out the population where some people have a lot of medication, some have zero medication. Now tell me the effect of this medication (guns) at curing a disease (crime) in the populace by looking ONLY at the people that are still infected (victimized). That sounds kind of dumb unless somebody was also keeping track of who used the medication (was armed) and who did not before they were infected (victimized). As far as I'm aware, we are not keeping any meaningful records on who had taken the medication (been armed) and still been infected (victimized) to even pull a small amount of data from the situation. Please, enlighten me how this all works out in your mind.
Legal gun ownership and crime[s committed by those owners] do not correlate on any meaningful level. I figured you were intelligent enough to read into the meaning, don't be ridiculous.
What is your defense now? Look somewhere else. Let me break this down easy for you. Guns don't commit crime, people commit crime. Guns can prevent crime or at least reduce the damage of a crime. This is why we call people with guns when we are in trouble.