The article scrutinizes the viral headline. They conclude that it is mostly true, despite major statistical blunders.

As you'd expect from any viral headline there are things that invite misinterpretation. From the article:

> when [...] expressing both figures as rates per 100,000 people, the picture shifts. “Gun deaths in the US are now slightly larger than European heat death rates,” she wrote.

> What the data is actually showing, she argued, is something simpler: status quo bias. [...] Europe would never absorb tens of thousands of annual gun deaths without demanding legislative action. America would never absorb tens of thousands of annual heat deaths without demanding someone install a thermostat. [...] Things don’t have to be this bad. It’s a choice.

We’ll see how the discussion changes if/when the us southwest runs out of water or gets too warm. Or if/when the crop production of the Midwest suffers. I guess at that point the us will have both problems?

I don't see a problem to be honest. People who want to will buy AC, it is not prohibited to own one. People who are stubborn and won't buy one will die. Stubborn people refusing AC are usually old people so I think it is a win/win situation.

we are fucked, you know, we know, I know, but in this horrible random, probably actualy it's somebody else is getting fucked way, and you have stuff to do, that inevitably and even more horribly is contributing to getting fucked, which makes even thinking about it all a head fuck, so you do stuff to help a bit, but things get more fucked anyway, and you consider getting a gun.