My original statement was that owning a lot of guns wasn’t suggestive of anything. The comment suggested there was a “correlation” with owning guns and domestic violence in response.

That is a different statement. It’s saying abusers can be more dangerous with a weapon. It does not follow that people who own a weapon are somehow more likely to be an abuser.

To make that argument it would need to say something about what percentage of gun owners commit abuse or some kind violent crime.

You can find higher rates of domestic violence among cops for instance so maybe you could argue cops are more likely to be abusers.

Violence was a thing before guns existed. If I got stabbed I’m not going to think, “Thank goodness I wasn’t shot.” I suppose I’ll have plenty of to think about it while waiting for the cops to show up though.

Cherry picking and a lack of controling for confounding variables is an issue when people try to make the claim you did. There is also a lot more going on than just gun laws. When normal people don’t benefit from our GDP it really isn’t a good benchmark for comparable countries. When people have a lack opportunities or lack social programs there will probably be some social problems.

A lot of domestic violence involving a gun doesn’t mean that most gun owners are abusive.

I suppose the guns hypnotized him and made him do it? He did it because he was a piece of shit.

If he regularly shot pictures of women or something sure but owning a lot of guns or buying ammo in bulk isn’t really any indication of domestic violence. The son even said there wasn’t a history of violence. It seems like the heavy drinking or arguments have more correlation than anything.

Media outlets often cite things like how many guns someone has to freak out people who don’t know about guns. All the dude needed to fuck up was a single handgun and a single bullet. If he was drunk he shouldn’t have even been carrying. And being drunk isn’t really a good argument for why someone got violent.

Many cultures have issues with depression or suicide. Including ones with a focus on collectivism.

Work-life balance could be a part of the issue. That can be an issue for individualism or collectism. Although I feel like with individualism it’s easier to set your own standard.

The affordability of life is a problem as well but money being a thing won’t go away anytime soon.

One aspect you might have to separate is the gun control advocates who just want to cite another reason for X or Y policies. Those people aren’t necessarily advocating for mental health.

As an example take waiting periods. They might do something for first time buyers but the policy doesn’t really make sense for the people who already have a safe full of guns to pick from. I don’t hear those people talk about programs like “hold my guns” either.

If you’re not getting interviews then the issue probably has to do your resume. Maybe formatting. Maybe the contents or job history. Have you been out of work for a long time? Lack newer tools/knowledge? Too much job hopping?

If you are getting interviews then the resume and where you’re applying is fine. Either you’re probably lacking in soft skills, interview skills, or not impressing them. There could also be a mismatch between the salary you want and what they want to offer.

Not sure how that is really going to help.

In theory a person with medical debt would be more likely to get the loan if credit agencies ignored the debt but without considering the debt the new loan may not be something they can actually afford. If the debt was paid then it likely wouldn’t affect their ability to afford new debt and ignoring it makes more sense.

Maybe we could address why people are going into medical debt instead of trying to ignore it so people can take on new debts?