@Buelldozer
@lemmy.todayLaw Enforcement, remember this article is about a Cop, isn't "just anyone". There's two reasons for people being riled up about this, one of which is criminal and the other is user error / training.
Ignoring the criminal aspect of what he's doing the Cop literally cannot fire that weapon without endangering himself and his fellow officers. He also can't fire that weapon a second time without manually manipulating it because he's using it in a manner that WILL cause it to mechanically malfunction.
It's fucking stupid (and criminal) all the way around but it has nothing to do with the points you are making.
How the fuck is this legal?
Glock, an Austrian company, uses a variety of common sense safeties that are automatic in nature.
With a manual safety the user has to remember to engage / dis-engage it as appropriate. This means a weapon can be left in an unsecured state simply because the user forgot (or elected not too) engage the manual safety. Conversely if the user forgets to disengage the manual safety the weapon will not fire when they need it too, which makes an awful lot of sense when you know that Glock designed these weapons for Law Enforcement.
To work around the weaknesses of a Manual Safety Glock designed what it calls its "Safe Action System" which you can read about here.. In a nutshell a Glock will not fire unless the trigger is intentionally pulled in the correct way.
Other pistol manufacturers will have some, or all, of those feature and may have other things such as "Grip Safeties" where you have to be holding the pistol both correctly and tightly enough before it can discharge.
There's quite a variety of automatic safeties in use in the pistol world. If you are interested you can read about them here.
On balance these kinds of automatic safeties are at least as effective as a manual safety and there are valid arguments with empirical evidence showing that they can be safer.
Any of the folks who place more value in their ability to end another person’s life on a split second than the safety of their own children want to chime in and explain this one to me?
Could you explain why you are using such inflammatory language? NO safety can or is meant to make a loaded firearm safe from a child. It's arguably easier for a child to flip the selector lever on a manual safety than it is for one to grip a firearm a specific way or pull its trigger in a specific way (or both).
Loaded weapons, regardless of their type(s) of safety mechanism, should not be left where they can be handled by children.
Of all the "Feature Phones" I ever had, and I had a bunch, the Alias and it's successor the Alias II were my easily my favorites.
The best way to do this would be to use data from 2023 (as the infographic claims) and NOT data from the years 2000 through 2022. It would also be helpful if the source wasn't a right-biased US based organization whose stated goal is de-regulation of the Medical Industry.
They could also do their reports using established methodology instead of creating their own, base it on first sources instead of literature review, and maybe they could avoid biased sources while they were at it.
Seriously, I tore into the data and sourcing and it's simply awful. The base report isn't really even about wait times, it's about increasing efficiency (and thus profitability) through using telehealth, blister packs, and OTC contraceptives.
I tore this apart in a comment in the original feddit post. For you Australians the tl;dr is that the data is outdated, with some of it being from 2014, while other data is from the pandemic. NONE of the data from any country is from 2023 as is being claimed.
I'm really disappointed in statista for publishing this. I've always considered them a solid source of data but this is flat out misinformation. It's based on study done by a biased source using questionable methodology using data from literature review that stretches at least as far back as the year 2000!
The study was done by the Consumer Choice Center, a right biased organization seeking to deregulate the Medical Industry.
The study is called "Healthcare Time Saved Index" and you can access it on their website.. You can read the full study (PDF) by clicking the link on that site and you can access their data / sourcing (Google Docs) at the link they posted.
If you want to hop right to the data / sourcing you can use this link.
First off despite what the infographic says this is absolutely 100% NOT 2023 data! If you look at column I (Average wait times for a primary physician appointment (days)) and check the sourcing this is what you will find:
America - Sources give data from 2021 and 2022.
Australia - Source is using data from 2000 - 2019 with the GP Data specifically ending in 2014.
United Kingdom - Source is using poll data from April of 2022.
Sweden - Source is using data from 2020.
For GP visits every one of their sources is using data from the pandemic, none of them are using data from 2023 as claimed by the graphic.
It doesn't get any better for "Non Emergency Surgery".
First off the CRC Study doesn't say "Non Emergency Surgery", it says "Elective Surgery" and as Johns Hopkins explains they are not the same.
Jumping back to the data it somehow gets worse.
America - Their source (Fee) relies on another source (Frasier) who is using data from 2016! The Fee.org article is also bashing Canada's healthcare system. (bias)
Australia - Data from 2022.
United Kingdom - Data from 2018.
Sweden - Data from 2018. (Same source as the UK)
So for Non Emergency Surgery Elective Surgery visits the data is once again NOT from 2023, instead it's a mix of significantly older and pandemic era data that at least in one case relies on a biased source.
So as I said in another comment "The study is fucking trash and someone took that trash, piled it into a dumpster, and then set it on fire in order to produce the infographic."
The post should be taken down by the mods as misinformation and statista should delete the infographic with embarrassment.
Not sure where the 4 days comes from.
That's a solid / highly regarded source but the data they used stretches as far back as 2000. Four days to see a GP may have been accurate in 2014 but could easily be out of date now.
The 21 days from the US is just madness tho, if accurate.
That 21 days number was a nationwide average from during the pandemic. I tracked down their source and while the infographic says "2023" the study source says 2021-2022...right during the pandemic. So not only is the year wrong the infographic is mislabled / misleading.
The study is fucking trash and someone took that trash, piled it into a dumpster, and then set it on fire in order to produce the infographic.
According to the data source the US wait time is a Nationwide average...from 2022.
Gee, I can't imagine why getting a GP appointment would have been hard in 2022. It's not like there was anything going on.
Seriously, the study that this infographic is based on is pretty much junk no matter what country you live in.
The point of the "Study" they did was about efficiency and time, specifically how increased use of TeleMed, Blister Packs, and generally available contraceptives would save Patients time and Providers money. Does that make more sense?
This "study" is low quality work, barely above junk status. It uses old and weird sources and very questionable methodology. It's possible they came to the right conclusion (which wasn't US bashing btw) but if they did its only because the target was so wide that they could hardly fail to miss.
https://consumerchoicecenter.org/healthcare-time-saved-index/
The "Study" that this infographic is based on is full of shit. The deeper I dig into the data the more disgusted I get with it. It uses old / weird sources for a number of countries (for instance that US wait time is from the pandemic), they change up terms (Non-Emergency and Elective are not the same thing) and a whole host of other problems.