I stopped after the first line, when you you wouldn't admit your previous point was BS when called out for it, but then started to pile on the BS.The Brandolini is strong in this one.
. A county can see a single incident with 4 people dead and have wildly skewed gun violence numbers, but a single incident does not mean there is really the kind of pervasive danger that exists in blighted neighborhoods and it would be disrespectful to the people in those neighborhoods to compare both situations as equally violent.
Dude, YOUR point is the one that is BS. Gun murders/100,00 DOES NOT correct for crime via rural and urban and give an accurate picture of "dangerous" (at least as is commonly understood by the public) in either one. Lets look at how your example works. Lets say in a county of 1,000 people, there is a dispute over hunting territory and some nutjob kills 5 hunters in a dispute. This would give a gun homicide rate of 500/100,000. This would make that county more than twice as bloody as the bloodiest city in the world, in Cartel territory in Mexico at 181/100,0000 and worse than U.S. #1 New Orleans at 70/100,000.Now a dimwit might say "See gun deaths/100,000 in this rural area it's more dangerous than Chicago....derp". Which is an utterly moronic thing to say. It completely ignores the context and takes a single incident and projects that onto the conditions that are experienced on a consistent basis. And that is why I wrote this-
Which is why it's not something I said. And I don't so much disagree with what you're saying now as I think you failed to make this point (if it is what you were trying to say, which is unclear) originally. As I said, I have basically stopped reading because, y'know, Brandolini.
That being said, sometimes data doesn't tell the whole story. A county can see a single incident with 4 people dead and have wildly skewed gun violence numbers, but a single incident does not mean there is really the kind of pervasive danger that exists in blighted neighborhoods and it would be disrespectful to the people in those neighborhoods to compare both situations as equally violent.Also, in some cases those gun violence deaths can be mostly domestic and not street crime or criminal enterprise related (or confined within criminal enterprise and outside the public eye) and thus their impact on public safety is not comparable.
Which I guess would be why the numbers are given in homicides per 100,000 people. Any statistician would note that and know what it means.
As opposed to what? The left's idea of half-measure regulations? Of a total gun-ban which is about as realistic as the radical right thinking outlawing pot will stop pot use?Because all the measures the left propose are either half-assed measures that while are good because they would have a marginal affect and the right is too stubborn and paranoid about giving an inch on. And a lot of the other ideas that might work, the left (and a fair chunk of the right) is vehemently opposed to on various grounds ranging from discrimination to violations of civil liberties.Possibly replies from gogators!A) Some personal insultB) Some form of "You're just saying it won't work and are immune to change"...while still not offering an actual solutionC) Some plan that is presented as common sense and a silver bullet which is actually anything but and is just a marginal measureD) Some completely unfeasible plan that doesn't take into account a reality where people don't blindly follow laws
Define marginal.A big reason gun safety regulations don't work as well as they might is that local and/or authorities don't implement them or if they do the implementation is haphazard. You shouldn't project about people not obeying the law. The lack of enforcement lets you get away with drinking and driving in SK. That lack of enforcement is also becoming a problem in the US.
Please explain the logistics of enforcing these laws while staying within the Constitution and regulations and managing resources to also investigate every other crime you are tasked with.A common middling-IQ+high impulsivity mistake people make is when they think of solutions but don't stop to consider logistics.
When the progressive left starts taking away the guns belonging to the Crips and the Bloods and the Mexican Mafia, then maybe I'll listen to their pleas for gun control. But their confiscation is mainly aimed at the MAGA crowd. It's all political.
Crips, Bloods and Mexican Mafia? Someone's been watching too much "Mayor of Kingstown".
I spent my teens living in one of America's most violent cities. There are even places in that town where the cops fear to tread. Meanwhile, Uncle Sam wants to take away Farmer Smith's AR-15 to prevent gun violence. It's a big joke.
USA- above the UK and above the OECD average. What a surprise! It’s not the hellish dystopia it’s made out to be.
Does that picture depict average Americans or an uncommon worst aspect? Yes, there are homeless junkies in America, but they are a tiny percentage of the population. There are way, way, way, way more millionaires than ten dwelling heroin addicts. Which do you want to be?
