• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. 7+ dead

Jan 9, 2018
812
1,193
405
The 26/27 fatherless figure is factually wrong, even the originator of that statistic walked it back. Always leave it to Republicans to take a multi-factor cause and reduce it down to a single factor, based on wrong numbers but more importantly having inconclusive data.

The enormous impact of missing fathers & broken homes on social disintegration and crime wasn't even that controversial; even Obama pushed it in many speeches where the excepts would be considered Right-wing today.

Fun fact-check of yore: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/23/barack-obama/statistics-dont-lie-in-this-case/

As for recent mass-shooters, the set of individuals is so small that any purely statistical analysis is going to be meaningless. What can be meaningful is to look at the increase in male lives that feel like they're at a dead-end and are willing to burn the world down. You don't see that in a healthy society.

Anyhow, did anyone post this revealing little tell-all by his ex-"girlfriend"? (quotes due to unsurprising polyamory)

At first I wasn't sure of authenticity, but that article has now been highlighted by some mainstream news outlets. Anyhow, look at the kinds of lives young people think are acceptable now:

He was a perfect gentleman throughout our relationship. He never pushed me to do things I didn’t want to do. His biggest concern was that I was comfortable. Polyamory is confusing for everyone involved, but luckily he and my fiance at the time were both understanding and consenting.
Ugh. His girlfriend's fiance.

....Girlfriend's fiance.

What a joke.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
Biggest murders (number and rate) come from democratic states.
right, democratic states like:

1) Louisiana (R)
2) Missouri (R)
3) Maryland (D)
4) Arkansas (R)
5) Alaska (R)
6) Alabama (R)
7) Mississippi (R)
8) Illinois (D)
9) South Carolina (R)
10) Tennessee (R)

I'll give you two of those, I don't think two out of the top ten proves your point very effectively, though

@DunDunDunpachi purposely posted his per county graph as total number, not rate. It's the type of dishonest thing he regularly does here. Any graph will show highest 'total number' of pretty much anything in 'Democratic counties', since they tend to be high population.
Rate is a much more useful statistic here, and areas that vote either way have these problems
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,111
9,372
715
right to vote is not just 'common parlance'. It's described as such in the 15th amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

I recognize that literalist interpretations of the constitution have muddied the concept of a "right to vote" to protect their interests, but that doesn't mean the idea has been made up wholesale as 'right to healthcare' has.

If you want to be a literalist, than we should also note that:
A: the 2nd amendment is worded with specificity to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and there's nothing "well regulated" about hodgepodge gun sales without registration
B: Sure, the 2nd amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", however the scope of what is meant by 'bare arms' is easily debatable. If we want to take your literalist interpretation, we can agree that all 1776 era arms do not require registration. Anything invented after that, however, is fair game for restriction. After all, why can't I own a tank, or land-mines, or an ICBM??? So this "right" is already being "infringed". People reading into the 2nd amendment as "We have the right to the same weapons of force as the government has, so we can repel government takeover" are reading into the words as written far more than those reading into the "well regulated" part
C: We already restrict 2nd amendment "rights" for certain citizens, including felons, so it isn't handled any different than voting is handled. Once again, this "right" is already being "infringed"

All you're pointing out here is that the framers of the constitution were imperfect, and the document was meant to be changed and clarified. Both the 2nd and 15th amendments are confusing, open to interpretation, and ought to be clarified.

As such, do you honestly think American's don't have a right to vote? Would you be against a further amendment that clarifies this?

I have no issue with Americans having a right to vote, yet having to register before doing so to prove the right is theirs
I also have no issue with the same standards being used for firearms.

As to "Any such law would be struck down as unconstitutional, regardless of your opinion." my opinion has nothing to do with it, and neither does yours. It would be entirely up to the courts to decide, and would likely change with the makeup of the court
Again, this debate has been going on a long time.

We do not have a right to vote. yes, i am aware of the 15th amendment, but likewise i am aware of the longstanding controversy over the 15th for that very reason. It assumes a right where none have ever been established.

I've been around this circle before, and have no interest in rehashing. I absolutely agree it's hotly contested. I fall firmly on one side. Many others agree. Just look at voting vs. citizenship in America and you can see it has always been treated as a priviledge.

There is relatively large group:

They are literally trying to get an ammendment passed to enshrine this as a right, because it is not. As they put it:

American adults living in states typically can vote, but they do not have a federally protected right to vote enshrined in the Constitution. States protect the right to vote to different degrees based on the state’s constitutional language and statutes. The federal government traditionally only steps in to prevent certain broad abuses, such as denying the right to vote based on race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), or age (26th Amendment).
And yes, i firmly believe that the US Constitution did not enshrine the right to vote. I don't find this statment controversial, i find it factual.


Here's a .gov classroom material on this issue.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

But how would Americans consent to be governed? Who should vote? How should they vote? The founders wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land. James Madison described the problem this way:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property....

Eventually, the framers of the Constitution left details of voting to the states. In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.

Unfortunately, leaving election control to individual states led to unfair voting practices in the U.S. At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers, and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country.
Bolding is mine.

I stand by my assertion, voting is not a right in the US. People call it that for shorthand, but it is not. Join that organization and get it enshrined if you want to, but til then, it isn't. In fact, history shows us quite the opposite is true.
 
Last edited:
Apr 18, 2014
2,675
1,374
670
P-Town
Lol, look at this weak ass shit.

You see color, I'm talking about categories. Familicides for example don't get this mass shooter categorization.
.


Are you serious?

You guys have got to do better than this.
Why bother when you just deflect or straight up go silent when they do? See below for example:

Person accusing another of laziness can't be bothered to provide proof of claim.
Endorses other unsubstantiated claims.
Hope to deflect away from claim they were called out on by raising noise-to-signal ratio.
:unsure:

Here, let's get back to the claim in question:



Note the word "Always"
Note just how much evidence must be provided for this claim to be substantiated.
Note the complete absence of it.
Note the complete absence of any effort to present it.
Note the desire to distract and deflect from the original claim.
Note the attacking rhetoric used against the person challenging the claim.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
right, democratic states like:

1) Louisiana (R)
2) Missouri (R)
3) Maryland (D)
4) Arkansas (R)
5) Alaska (R)
6) Alabama (R)
7) Mississippi (R)
8) Illinois (D)
9) South Carolina (R)
10) Tennessee (R)

I'll give you two of those, I don't think two out of the top ten proves your point very effectively, though

@DunDunDunpachi purposely posted his per county graph as total number, not rate. It's the type of dishonest thing he regularly does here. Any graph will show highest 'total number' of pretty much anything in 'Democratic counties', since they tend to be high population.
Rate is a much more useful statistic here, and areas that vote either way have these problems
Indeed. Just remember that with rate you have to exclude populations under a certain amount, like 200 because especially low pops are ready to skew.
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
Again, this debate has been going on a long time.

We do not have a right to vote. yes, i am aware of the 15th amendment, but likewise i am aware of the longstanding controversy over the 15th for that very reason. It assumes a right where none have ever been established.

I've been around this circle before, and have no interest in rehashing. I absolutely agree it's hotly contested. I fall firmly on one side. Many others agree. Just look at voting vs. citizenship in America and you can see it has always been treated as a priviledge.

There is relatively large group:

They are literally trying to get an ammendment passed to enshrine this as a right, because it is not. As they put it:



And yes, i firmly believe that the US Constitution did not enshrine the right to vote. I don't find this statment controversial, i find it factual.


Here's a .gov classroom material on this issue.



Bolding is mine.

I stand by my assertion, voting is not a right in the US. People call it that for shorthand, but it is not. Join that organization and get it enshrined if you want to, but til then, it isn't. In fact, history shows us quite the opposite is true.
none of this is new to me, I'm a major proponent of Fair Vote, and would love to see the right to vote properly added to the constitution. It seems you wouldn't, which I find abhorrent, but whatever

The constitution refers to voting as a right in the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments, thus it is not just 'parlance'. There is constitutional justification to consider voting a right. How such a document can be written so sloppily is beyond me, but, as I said in the post you quoted:

All you're pointing out here is that the framers of the constitution were imperfect, and the document was meant to be changed and clarified. Both the 2nd and 15th amendments are confusing, open to interpretation, and ought to be clarified.
Surely you understand that the right to bare arms has been hotly contested as well, yet yo avoided all of the literalist interpretations I provided in the post you quoted that would prove a modern gun registration would be constitutional. Surely you also recognize that the right to 'bare arms' has already been infringed, both nationally and at the state level, in many ways (thus it's treated similarly to voting)
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
right, democratic states like:

1) Louisiana (R)
2) Missouri (R)
3) Maryland (D)
4) Arkansas (R)
5) Alaska (R)
6) Alabama (R)
7) Mississippi (R)
8) Illinois (D)
9) South Carolina (R)
10) Tennessee (R)

I'll give you two of those, I don't think two out of the top ten proves your point very effectively, though

@DunDunDunpachi purposely posted his per county graph as total number, not rate. It's the type of dishonest thing he regularly does here. Any graph will show highest 'total number' of pretty much anything in 'Democratic counties', since they tend to be high population.
Rate is a much more useful statistic here, and areas that vote either way have these problems
Why handwave murders when it makes your party look bad? We are talking about human lives, not percentages. I already pointed out that population density seems to have a closer correlation to gun violence than the strength or laxity of gun laws. If Democrat gun-control policies worked, high population wouldn't matter just like it doesn't matter in European countries who can clamp down on guns successfully. It's not dishonest to point this out.

'Rate' is statistically meaningless when half the country's counties had zero murders and half the murders are concentrated to 2% of the counties. Rate is simply your way of cowering behind the clean reputation of the majority of states with much lower violence to mask the very real gun-violence problem in Democrat strongholds. This is... well... dishonest. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
Indeed. Just remember that with rate you have to exclude populations under a certain amount, like 200 because especially low pops are ready to skew.
the rate used in the link I provided is per 100,000 people, and is broken down by state. Every state has more than 100,000 people so I'm not sure how this would skew results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssolitare
Apr 18, 2014
2,675
1,374
670
P-Town
right, democratic states like:

1) Louisiana (R)
2) Missouri (R)
3) Maryland (D)
4) Arkansas (R)
5) Alaska (R)
6) Alabama (R)
7) Mississippi (R)
8) Illinois (D)
9) South Carolina (R)
10) Tennessee (R)

I'll give you two of those, I don't think two out of the top ten proves your point very effectively, though

@DunDunDunpachi purposely posted his per county graph as total number, not rate. It's the type of dishonest thing he regularly does here. Any graph will show highest 'total number' of pretty much anything in 'Democratic counties', since they tend to be high population.
Rate is a much more useful statistic here, and areas that vote either way have these problems
Mayor of New Orleans (#1 city in Louisiana for Murder) is LaToya Cantrell - Democrat
Mayor of Baton Rouge (#2 city in Louisiana for Murder) is Sharon Weston Broome - Democrat

I could keep going but it's not really worth the energy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and SpartanN92

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
Why handwave murders when it makes your party look bad? We are talking about human lives, not percentages. I already pointed out that population density seems to have a closer correlation to gun violence than the strength or laxity of gun laws. If Democrat gun-control policies worked, high population wouldn't matter just like it doesn't matter in European countries who can clamp down on guns successfully. It's not dishonest to point this out.

'Rate' is statistically meaningless when half the country's counties had zero murders and half the murders are concentrated to 2% of the counties. Rate is simply your way of cowering behind the clean reputation of the majority of states with much lower violence to mask the very real gun-violence problem in Democrat strongholds. This is... well... dishonest. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Wow this is bullshit

rate absolutely matters, particularly when you are trying to tie statistics to policy. If you are just looking at numbers you have a higher chance of *any* statistic being true in a high population area. I'm not 'handwaving' any murders away. The murders you referenced are also included in murder rate statistics, however, they are properly represented as a fraction of people who commit murders under said policies

By your shitty logic, Detroit is whiter than Helena Montana simply because Detroit has more white people in total, and Las Vegas is more Christian than Helena Montana for the same reason. Must be something about all of the sex and gambling that is making Las Vegas so Christian, perhaps we should spread Vegas style culture to every small Christian town that is less Christian than Vegas is...

You aren't entirely wrong, there are gun violence problems in some major cities, but you are wrong to pretend it's just a democratic county problem, and you come from a dishonest place when you do it
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
If rate is so important to you, @PkunkFury



Let's check voting record for the cities with the highest rates...


St. Louis




Baltimore.



Detroit.


New Orleans.



Kansas City


Cleveland



Memphis



Newark

No need to continue since the point is well made. Furthermore, this is an overall homicide rate, not strictly gun violence rate.

For that, we can look here, where many of these same cities appear. Even in Red states like Alabama, the areas with highest gun violence rates voted Democrat, like in Burmingham...



...Milwaukee



...Louisville...




Rates are also higher in places where counties voted Democrat in 2016. Weird. Now that we know that total number and rates are both higher in Democrat strongholds (just like I "dishonestly" pointed out), what conclusion would you draw?
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
Mayor of New Orleans (#1 city in Louisiana for Murder) is LaToya Cantrell - Democrat
Mayor of Baton Rouge (#2 city in Louisiana for Murder) is Sharon Weston Broome - Democrat

I could keep going but it's not really worth the energy.
how cute, of course it's not worth the energy, as you'd just further prove me right :messenger_blowing_kiss:

you can't keep going because you got stuck there, nothing to do with energy. And even what you provided is lacking.
It's worth the energy for me, so I'll humor you:

1) Louisiana - President (R), Governor (D), House (R), Senate (R)
2) Missouri - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)
3) Maryland - President (D), Governor (R), House (D), Senate (D)
4) Arkansas - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)
5) Alaska - President (R), Governor (R), House (R?), Senate (R)
6) Alabama - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)
7) Mississippi - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)
8) Illinois - President (D), Governor (D), House (D), Senate (D)
9) South Carolina - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)
10) Tennessee - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)

So you gained a 'D' Governor in Louisiana, but you also added an 'R' governor in Maryland

And of course you ran to big city stats and pointed at their mayors. not entirely wrong, but:
A: I was correcting a post specifically about State murder rates, the post was clearly false. I recognize that this gets more difficult at county levels, but you aren't proving me wrong by jumping to counties without rates and affiliations for every county. And even then, I was specifically referring to states, because:
B: Mayors only have so much power. Pretending a city's problems are entirely on the Mayor is fallacy, particularly when the state itself is governed by an opposite party trifecta. We could really dig into what those mayors can and can't try to do when Republican lawmakers actively hamstring them, but that would indeed be an exhausting discussion

Regaurdless, the only one of the internet's favorite Democratic haven punching bags that made this list is Illinois (and well deserved). California, Washington, New York, Oregon, Hawaii, all absent. In the meantime, this list is a whose who of everybody's favorite Republican punching bags (Hi Alabama, Mississippi, Alaska, Missouri, and Tennessee!)

Anyway, I'm glad you had me chart this out as above, because it's even worse than I realized.
While I knew the states with the highest murder rates would all vote Republican, I had no idea so many of them were also Republican trifectas, and strooooong Republican trifectas at that! Not a good look if you are trying to pretend Republicans have the best solutions to curb homicides...
 
Last edited:

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
5,431
6,588
615
right, democratic states like:

1) Louisiana (R)
2) Missouri (R)
3) Maryland (D)
4) Arkansas (R)
5) Alaska (R)
6) Alabama (R)
7) Mississippi (R)
8) Illinois (D)
9) South Carolina (R)
10) Tennessee (R)

I'll give you two of those, I don't think two out of the top ten proves your point very effectively, though

@DunDunDunpachi purposely posted his per county graph as total number, not rate. It's the type of dishonest thing he regularly does here. Any graph will show highest 'total number' of pretty much anything in 'Democratic counties', since they tend to be high population.
Rate is a much more useful statistic here, and areas that vote either way have these problems
this is total homicide statistics, including gun and non gun. here are Gun Violence statistic by state, sorted by total Gun Murders:

StatePopulation
(total inhabitants)
(2015) [2]
Murders and
Nonnegligent
Manslaughter
(total deaths)
(2015) [1]
Murders
(total deaths)
(2015) [3]
Gun Murders
(total deaths)
(2015) [3]
Gun
Ownership
(%)
(2013) [4]
Murder and
Nonnegligent
Manslaughter
Rate
(per 100,000)
(2015)
Murder Rate
(per 100,000)
(2015)
Gun
Murder Rate
(per 100,000)
(2015)
California38,993,9401,8611,8611,27520.14.84.83.3
Texas27,429,6391,3161,27690635.74.84.73.3
Pennsylvania12,791,90465865149727.15.15.13.9
Georgia10,199,39861556546431.66.05.54.5
Illinois12,859,995[5]74449744026.25.83.93.4
Missouri6,076,20450249941827.18.38.26.9
Michigan9,917,71557157138928.85.85.83.9
New York19,747,18360961138310.33.13.11.9
Louisiana4,668,96048147437944.510.310.28.1
North Carolina10,035,18651750635328.75.25.03.5
Ohio11,605,09050048031619.64.34.12.7
South Carolina4,894,83439939431244.48.28.06.4
Tennessee6,595,05640640229739.46.26.14.5
Maryland5,994,98351637227920.78.66.24.7



Governers of top 10

California -D
Texas - R
Florida - R
Illinois - D
Pennsylvania - D
Georgia - R
New York - D
Michigan - D
North Carolina - D
Maryland - R

it is nearly even, with Dems having governorship of 6 of the top 10 states with the most gun deaths by standard count. true this may be the more populated areas, but the argument is that too many deaths are occurring, we should not be making excuses, particularly if those places have the "anti-gun" party in control, and statistics like total deaths are already being invoked on the reg.
 
Last edited:
Jan 9, 2018
812
1,193
405
The problem with calling out Southern states is that the geographic violent crime pattern closely follows the race pattern--places with (generally impoverished) black neighborhoods have consistently high crime, wherever in the nation they occur, be it Detroit or a small town in Mississippi.

The other pattern is that urban areas have very high violent crime, even adjusted for population density. And urban areas almost always go blue electorally, wherever they appear.

Anyhow, that doesn't seem like a fruitful direction for either side.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Off Duty Ninja
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
NE states typically have really low murder rates and gun murder rates.

Population skews more to White people.

Just saying.
 
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
Eh its somewhere in the middle you kinda have to give a shit when the numbers are out of whack.

The media and general public will watch articles the most when it comes to mass shootings and some kind of oddball motive like a loner student mowing down teachers and students, or someone angry at churchgoers. Things like that. It's almost always one or two nutcases vs. a mob of innocent people minding their own business.

That's what people care about.

Nobody cares about Black guys doing driveby shootings due to pissed off gang members or drug deals where two sides likely have a connection and wrongdoings of some sort.

What gets more attention?

1. Kid pulls out rifle and shoots up school

2. Drug dealer shoots junkies in alley

Pretty sure more people will read #1.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
this is total homicide statistics, including gun and non gun. here are Gun Violence statistic by state, sorted by total Gun Murders:

StatePopulation
(total inhabitants)
(2015) [2]
Murders and
Nonnegligent
Manslaughter
(total deaths)
(2015) [1]
Murders
(total deaths)
(2015) [3]
Gun Murders
(total deaths)
(2015) [3]
Gun
Ownership
(%)
(2013) [4]
Murder and
Nonnegligent
Manslaughter
Rate
(per 100,000)
(2015)
Murder Rate
(per 100,000)
(2015)
Gun
Murder Rate
(per 100,000)
(2015)
California38,993,9401,8611,8611,27520.14.84.83.3
Texas27,429,6391,3161,27690635.74.84.73.3
Pennsylvania12,791,90465865149727.15.15.13.9
Georgia10,199,39861556546431.66.05.54.5
Illinois12,859,995[5]74449744026.25.83.93.4
Missouri6,076,20450249941827.18.38.26.9
Michigan9,917,71557157138928.85.85.83.9
New York19,747,18360961138310.33.13.11.9
Louisiana4,668,96048147437944.510.310.28.1
North Carolina10,035,18651750635328.75.25.03.5
Ohio11,605,09050048031619.64.34.12.7
South Carolina4,894,83439939431244.48.28.06.4
Tennessee6,595,05640640229739.46.26.14.5
Maryland5,994,98351637227920.78.66.24.7



Governers of top 10

California -D
Texas - R
Florida - R
Illinois - D
Pennsylvania - D
Georgia - R
New York - D
Michigan - D
North Carolina - D
Maryland - R
ugh, where is the head hitting the wall smiley

First of all, I used homicide rates instead of gun homicide rates because I was replying to two posts using homicide rates instead of gun homicide rates:
I agree your data is more relevant to this thread, but I didn't want to flip the script on those I replied to.
blame them

As far as your data, you forgot to sort by rate...

sorting by rate with gun homicide data gives you *almost* the same list as homicides:

District of Columbia (different politics, but obviously 'D', including this at the top an following with 10 states)
Louisiana - President (R), Governor (D), House (R), Senate (R)
Missouri - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)
South Carolina - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)
Delaware - President (D), Governor (D), House (D), Senate (D)
Alaska - President (R), Governor (R), House (R?), Senate (R)
Maryland - President (D), Governor (R), House (D), Senate (D)
Georgia - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)
Tennessee - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)
Mississippi - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)
Michigan - President (R), Governor (R), House (R), Senate (R)

So you've swapped Illinois for Delaware (Delaware, really????) and Arkansas for Georgia. Otherwise, pretty much the same as the homicide stats, which isn't surprising as I'll bet most homicides use firearms
Super interesting that Illinois seems to be an upswing in 2017, the homicide rate stats show it out of the top 10 in 2014. My guess is the difference between this list and the list I posted is simply that this list is using 2015 data.
BTW, we really should be looking at this data over time to fully understand what is going on. Interesting to see which states are transient and which states remain consistently at the top

it is nearly even, with Dems having governorship of 6 of the top 10 states with the most gun deaths by standard count. true this may be the more populated areas, but the argument is that too many deaths are occurring, we should not be making excuses, particularly if those places have the "anti-gun" party in control, and statistics like total deaths are already being invoked on the reg.
I am not making excuses. I am showing the data is it should be appropriately read when trying to determine which policies are curbing gun violence.
If you assume that each person has an equivalent chance of murder in the absence of any policy, then obviously you must look at rates of murder under specific policies (not total numbers) when determining how effective said policies are in preventing murders. Otherwise, large populations under specific policy are always going end up measuring as the highest offenders, simply because they have a high total amount of whatever's been measured
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
The problem with calling out Southern states is that the geographic violent crime pattern closely follows the race pattern--places with (generally impoverished) black neighborhoods have consistently high crime, wherever in the nation they occur, be it Detroit or a small town in Mississippi.
and calling them out for this is absolutely not a problem considering some of the prime indicators of violence just might be rigid segregation, poverty and unequal opportunity. These are still red states' problems, even if the people in the areas causing them are voting blue. If the governor and state legislature are doing nothing to help, such a partisan response to their situation should actually be expected

Anyhow, that doesn't seem like a fruitful direction for either side.
agreed here, I only jumped into the thread to counter the 'it's only the Democrat's problem!' BS
Both sides do have to acknowledge and work towards fixing this
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Tesseract

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,111
9,372
715
none of this is new to me, I'm a major proponent of Fair Vote, and would love to see the right to vote properly added to the constitution. It seems you wouldn't, which I find abhorrent, but whatever

The constitution refers to voting as a right in the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments, thus it is not just 'parlance'. There is constitutional justification to consider voting a right. How such a document can be written so sloppily is beyond me, but, as I said in the post you quoted:

Surely you understand that the right to bare arms has been hotly contested as well, yet yo avoided all of the literalist interpretations I provided in the post you quoted that would prove a modern gun registration would be constitutional. Surely you also recognize that the right to 'bare arms' has already been infringed, both nationally and at the state level, in many ways (thus it's treated similarly to voting)
If you already know about fairvote, then why are you coming at me? Then my factual statements about whether we have the right to vote are correct.

And i'm glad to know you find my views 'abhorrent' when i am literally stating a fact, and not only that, a fact that an organization you agree with itself states and agrees with.

I ask you, where in the two posts you have responded to have i stated my opinion on whether we should have the right to vote? I've checked, i haven't. I have said voting is a privilege, not a right. That is factual. That is not my opinion on how it should be, that is an assessment of what is.

Now, you may very well find my views on the subject 'abhorrent'. Go for it. Don't care. But since i haven't laid out my views on how it should be, i'd appreciate not being called abhorrent for literally highlighting a cause you so plainly support and agree with.
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
If you already know about fairvote, then why are you coming at me? Then my factual statements about whether we have the right to vote are correct.
I'm stating that the right to vote and the right to bare arms are both treated haphazardly by modern government. Both have restrictions in modern times
What constitutes a 'right' is also not spelled out in the constitution, none of this is.

For the third time:
All you're pointing out here is that the framers of the constitution were imperfect, and the document was meant to be changed and clarified. Both the 2nd and 15th amendments are confusing, open to interpretation, and ought to be clarified.
I'm confused why you want to go in circles

And i'm glad to know you find my views 'abhorrent' when i am literally stating a fact, and not only that, a fact that an organization you agree with itself states and agrees with.
Now you are building straw men. I did not say your fact was abhorrent. I said the idea that you wouldn't want voting to be enshrined as a right is abhorrent:
I'm a major proponent of Fair Vote, and would love to see the right to vote properly added to the constitution. It seems you wouldn't, which I find abhorrent, but whatever
and note, I said 'it seems', but enjoy throwing yourself a pity party. It's not my fault you didn't answer the question, that's entirely on you. If you don't answer, I have to work with what I'm given (more below). I recognize there's a reason you didn't want to answer

I ask you, where in the two posts you have responded to have i stated my opinion on whether we should have the right to vote? I've checked, i haven't. I have said voting is a privilege, not a right. That is factual. That is not my opinion on how it should be, that is an assessment of what is.
right here:
I've been around this circle before, and have no interest in rehashing. I absolutely agree it's hotly contested. I fall firmly on one side. Many others agree. Just look at voting vs. citizenship in America and you can see it has always been treated as a priviledge.
perhaps I misinterpreted you, but i'm not sure what else this could mean. Sounds like you fall firmly on the side that voting is a privilege, not a right. Hence, why I said 'it seems'.
There are multiple ways to read this statement, the most obvious one being that you fall firmly on a side, with which many others agree (as in the case of voting vs. citizenship in America) that voting has always been treated as a privilige
But feel free to correct me unambiguously. I am in no way, shape, or form denying you the opportunity to clear the record

Do you support enshrining voting as a right in the Constitution?

Now, you may very well find my views on the subject 'abhorrent'. Go for it. Don't care. But since i haven't laid out my views on how it should be, i'd appreciate not being called abhorrent for literally highlighting a cause you so plainly support and agree with.
I asked you your views, you answered cryptically. You also tipped your hand when you referred to the 'right to vote' as 'common parlance' rather than recognizing it is specifically labelled as such multiple times in the constitution:
Voting is generally not considered a right, but a privilege and the common parlance of 'right to vote'is inherently flawed just like 'right to healthcare' is.
Once again, feel free to correct me.

I would much rather be wrong, and have you be in favor of voting being a right, than be right, and have you be in favor of abhorrent voting restrictions.
So please, please, please prove me wrong

And now you've responded to me three times, and you still haven't addressed the inconsistencies as to how the right to bare arms is handled, so, once again...

If you want to be a literalist, than we should also note that:
A: the 2nd amendment is worded with specificity to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and there's nothing "well regulated" about hodgepodge gun sales without registration
B: Sure, the 2nd amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", however the scope of what is meant by 'bare arms' is easily debatable. If we want to take your literalist interpretation, we can agree that all 1776 era arms do not require registration. Anything invented after that, however, is fair game for restriction. After all, why can't I own a tank, or land-mines, or an ICBM??? So this "right" is already being "infringed". People reading into the 2nd amendment as "We have the right to the same weapons of force as the government has, so we can repel government takeover" are reading into the words as written far more than those reading into the "well regulated" part
C: We already restrict 2nd amendment "rights" for certain citizens, including felons, so it isn't handled any different than voting is handled. Once again, this "right" is already being "infringed"
 
Last edited:

tfur

Member
Oct 21, 2007
3,240
84
945
If rate is so important to you, @PkunkFury



Let's check voting record for the cities with the highest rates...


St. Louis




Baltimore.



Detroit.


New Orleans.



Kansas City


Cleveland



Memphis



Newark

No need to continue since the point is well made. Furthermore, this is an overall homicide rate, not strictly gun violence rate.

For that, we can look here, where many of these same cities appear. Even in Red states like Alabama, the areas with highest gun violence rates voted Democrat, like in Burmingham...



...Milwaukee



...Louisville...




Rates are also higher in places where counties voted Democrat in 2016. Weird. Now that we know that total number and rates are both higher in Democrat strongholds (just like I "dishonestly" pointed out), what conclusion would you draw?
The only people who do not know this, are the people who have never lived in these places.
The Democrat run cities have been garbage for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danielberg

tfur

Member
Oct 21, 2007
3,240
84
945
The 26/27 fatherless figure is factually wrong, even the originator of that statistic walked it back. Always leave it to Republicans to take a multi-factor cause and reduce it down to a single factor, based on wrong numbers but more importantly having inconclusive data.


Someone responded in that blog post with actual information.

https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/shooters_myth_stable_home_1.15.pdf
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
If rate is so important to you, @PkunkFury



Let's check voting record for the cities with the highest rates...


St. Louis




Baltimore.



Detroit.


New Orleans.



Kansas City


Cleveland



Memphis



Newark

No need to continue since the point is well made. Furthermore, this is an overall homicide rate, not strictly gun violence rate.

For that, we can look here, where many of these same cities appear. Even in Red states like Alabama, the areas with highest gun violence rates voted Democrat, like in Burmingham...



...Milwaukee



...Louisville...




Rates are also higher in places where counties voted Democrat in 2016. Weird. Now that we know that total number and rates are both higher in Democrat strongholds (just like I "dishonestly" pointed out), what conclusion would you draw?
First off, congrats on using rates, this is indeed a more honest appraisal of the situation
but... now your limiting measurement to cities, and I have no idea what that means
Seems going by county would make more sense, but this data is hard to find. I looked for it a bit and realized this isn't what I want to do with my time. Here's someone's idea of how "violent crime" would map, I have no idea how accurate it is:


Also, I question how well county law supersedes state law concerning factors that influence criminal behavior, or how well county borders represent cross-county crime. I think there's good reason to measure this at the state level, but both are relevant data points
Maybe you can find better county data, I don't really care, because ultimately I don't see this as a partisan problem.
I'm only in this thread because you do.

But I'll humor you anyway, let's look at those cities in the list you posted, and where their states are politically:
Missouri - (R)
Maryland - (D)
Michigan - (R)
Louisiana - (R)
Missouri - (R)
Ohio - (R)
Tennessee - (R)
New Jersey - (D)
Illinois - (D)
Ohio - (R)
Pennsylvania - (R)
Wisconsin - (R)
Pennsylvania - (R)
Indiana - (R)
California - (D)
Oklahoma - (R)
Utah(?) - (R)
Georgia - (R)
Ohio - (R)
Tennessee - (R)

so your list gives us 16 cities in Red states vs. 4 cities in blue states based on your criteria of using the latest presidential election to measure partisanship. That's 80% red states, ouch. In fact, just the fact that MO and OH show up in this list multiple times tells (near the top for both, even!) tells me there are significant state level factors involved (as well as the fact that other states with major cities are completely absent).

I don't deny that many of these cities themselves have a populace that leans blue. But I %100 deny that the laws as set by the state legislature, governor, etc, have no effect on the city populace. Or that the overall state level treatment of the people, segregation, poverty, lack of opportunity have no effect.

If you're conjecture that this is all the Democrat's fault were correct, why wouldn't we see New York City, LA, San Fran, San Diego, Denver, Portland, Seattle, Boston, Honolulu and all of your other favorite liberal targets on this list? Something about the liberal cities in Republican states is making them come out way ahead of the liberal cities in liberal states, I wonder what it could be???

Also, other things to consider:
- You are measuring voting responses in the boundaries of crime ridden cities to project Democrats as criminals. You are not considering that those could be protest votes from these underrepresented city folk trying to get better protection for themselves in the face state-level party opposition. It could very well be that these people are voting to fix the problems in their city, but are outnumbered by rural voters who don't share their goals
- violent crimes will always represent higher in cities because there's more reason to commit violent crimes in cities. Mass shooters have more targets, thieves/muggers have more money available, anyone politically or racially motivated can find a target of their choosing, homeless services abound and bring in derelicts. And, most importantly, in large crowds, you are waaaaay less likely to be caught. All of this analysis is useless if we don't account for those who cross county/state lines to commit their crimes, and I doubt we will find that info.

So, ultimately, once again, the data doesn't point to this as a partisan issue. Both sides need to address this issue, Democrats more so at the local level, and Republicans more so at the state level
 
Last edited:

Eiknarf

Member
Mar 25, 2019
588
521
330
In 1865, a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.

In 1881, a left-wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States – who later died from the wound.

In 1963, a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

In 1975, a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at
Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983, a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

In 1984, James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonald’s restaurant.

In 1986, Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990, James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991, George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, TX.

In 1995, James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999, Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001, a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

In 2003, Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007, a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010, a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011, a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012, Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

In 2013, a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza,
shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT.

As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

Even more recently a disgruntled democrat shot up a Republican softball game, wounding a U.S congressman on the field where he almost died.

AND 2019 IN DAYTON...

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns. We don’t need gun control, we need Democrat control. Guns don’t kill people, Democrats do!
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Oner

Dacon

Member
Apr 24, 2011
2,303
996
705
Houston, Texas
Am I the only person worried that if people can't get guns they'll just escalate? What are the chances of people making homemade bombs, using sarin gas, or just plain running down droves of people with their cars?

I'm not saying that this is an argument against any kind of stricter gun control or whatever, but I know that if someone wants to hurt people they'll find whatever means they can to do so. I mean there were several mass stabbings in japan for fucks sake.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,111
9,372
715
right here:

perhaps I misinterpreted you, but i'm not sure what else this could mean. Sounds like you fall firmly on the side that voting is a privilege, not a right. Hence, why I said 'it seems'.
.

Yes, i fall firmly the side that voting is a privilege, not a right.

So does fairvote.

That is not a statement that remotely states my position on the matter, it is a statement about whether voting is a priviledge or a right. Since it is not enshrined as a right, and treated as a privilege, it is not a right.

My opinion on what it should or shouldn't be has nothing to do with it, and despite my repeated attempts to avoid this conversation since the very beginning, you keep dragging it back.

Currently, in the US, I agree with the many others, including fair vote, that voting is a privilege, not a right. I have not made a single statement about my opinion on that, despite you calling my views abhorrent, etc, and generally being disrepectful and rude.
 

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
611
935
415
Am I the only person worried that if people can't get guns they'll just escalate? What are the chances of people making homemade bombs, using sarin gas, or just plain running down droves of people with their cars?

I'm not saying that this is an argument against any kind of stricter gun control or whatever, but I know that if someone wants to hurt people they'll find whatever means they can to do so. I mean there were several mass stabbings in japan for fucks sake.
There is some value in deterring people and making them take extra steps. It's why so many subscription based services love to give you a 2 month free trial for Spotify plus or whatever, they're counting on a significant number of people being lazy and just not bothering to cancel. It's why we have locks on our doors despite knowing that if someone really wanted to get into your house they could easily force their way in. If someone is determined to harm as many people as possible they'll find ways but ideally certain measures could be taken to reduce the overall number of gun deaths and mass shootings. I'm not opposed to mandatory waiting periods or magazine restrictions but I doubt those actions alone will meaningfully do much. We have a societal responsibility to figure out where we went wrong where so many young men feel as if they're left with no alternative but to start attacking Innocents. Marilyn Manson once said in response to Bill O'Reilly asking him about what he would do if he could talk to the Columbine shooters... he said he would listen.
 

Dacon

Member
Apr 24, 2011
2,303
996
705
Houston, Texas
There is some value in deterring people and making them take extra steps. It's why so many subscription based services love to give you a 2 month free trial for Spotify plus or whatever, they're counting on a significant number of people being lazy and just not bothering to cancel. It's why we have locks on our doors despite knowing that if someone really wanted to get into your house they could easily force their way in. If someone is determined to harm as many people as possible they'll find ways but ideally certain measures could be taken to reduce the overall number of gun deaths and mass shootings. I'm not opposed to mandatory waiting periods or magazine restrictions but I doubt those actions alone will meaningfully do much. We have a societal responsibility to figure out where we went wrong where so many young men feel as if they're left with no alternative but to start attacking Innocents. Marilyn Manson once said in response to Bill O'Reilly asking him about what he would do if he could talk to the Columbine shooters... he said he would listen.
I'm not sure why you quoted me, I didn't say anything that disagrees with this, and you ignored my overall point. I'm not against any extra measures to make it more difficult for less scrupulous individuals to obtain firearms.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
First off, congrats on using rates, this is indeed a more honest appraisal of the situation
but... now your limiting measurement to cities, and I have no idea what that means
Seems going by county would make more sense, but this data is hard to find. I looked for it a bit and realized this isn't what I want to do with my time. Here's someone's idea of how "violent crime" would map, I have no idea how accurate it is:


Also, I question how well county law supersedes state law concerning factors that influence criminal behavior, or how well county borders represent cross-county crime. I think there's good reason to measure this at the state level, but both are relevant data points
Maybe you can find better county data, I don't really care, because ultimately I don't see this as a partisan problem.
I'm only in this thread because you do.

But I'll humor you anyway, let's look at those cities in the list you posted, and where their states are politically:
Missouri - (R)
Maryland - (D)
Michigan - (R)
Louisiana - (R)
Missouri - (R)
Ohio - (R)
Tennessee - (R)
New Jersey - (D)
Illinois - (D)
Ohio - (R)
Pennsylvania - (R)
Wisconsin - (R)
Pennsylvania - (R)
Indiana - (R)
California - (D)
Oklahoma - (R)
Utah(?) - (R)
Georgia - (R)
Ohio - (R)
Tennessee - (R)

so your list gives us 16 cities in Red states vs. 4 cities in blue states based on your criteria of using the latest presidential election to measure partisanship. That's 80% red states, ouch. In fact, just the fact that MO and OH show up in this list multiple times tells (near the top for both, even!) tells me there are significant state level factors involved (as well as the fact that other states with major cities are completely absent).

I don't deny that many of these cities themselves have a populace that leans blue. But I %100 deny that the laws as set by the state legislature, governor, etc, have no effect on the city populace. Or that the overall state level treatment of the people, segregation, poverty, lack of opportunity have no effect.

If you're conjecture that this is all the Democrat's fault were correct, why wouldn't we see New York City, LA, San Fran, San Diego, Denver, Portland, Seattle, Boston, Honolulu and all of your other favorite liberal targets on this list? Something about the liberal cities in Republican states is making them come out way ahead of the liberal cities in liberal states, I wonder what it could be???

Also, other things to consider:
- You are measuring voting responses in the boundaries of crime ridden cities to project Democrats as criminals. You are not considering that those could be protest votes from these underrepresented city folk trying to get better protection for themselves in the face state-level party opposition. It could very well be that these people are voting to fix the problems in their city, but are outnumbered by rural voters who don't share their goals
- violent crimes will always represent higher in cities because there's more reason to commit violent crimes in cities. Mass shooters have more targets, thieves/muggers have more money available, anyone politically or racially motivated can find a target of their choosing, homeless services abound and bring in derelicts. And, most importantly, in large crowds, you are waaaaay less likely to be caught. All of this analysis is useless if we don't account for those who cross county/state lines to commit their crimes, and I doubt we will find that info.

So, ultimately, once again, the data doesn't point to this as a partisan issue. Both sides need to address this issue, Democrats more so at the local level, and Republicans more so at the state level
Liberal cities in Republican states. Yeah, "blue wall" states from 2012 like Michigan and Illinois. Republican states like California and Maryland. Give it a rest. You got put in your place. The least you could do is own up to calling me dishonest when the facts were plainly on my side.

The reason why I went with county instead of diluting it by counting the whole state is because -- as you pointed out -- it is the murder rate that matters just as much as the total amount. One would think that in Democrat strongholds with effective policies of gun control in place, the rate if not the total number of gun murders would be less. You're correct, setting aside the Democrat promises of their policies keeping people safe, you might think the total gun murder rate would be higher simply because of higher population, but that doesn't explain the significantly higher rate of murder in these same places.

It wasn't me who handwaved the higher total in the first place. That was you, handwaving human lives due to your ideology's failed practices. And when you wanted to flee behind 'rates', you were proven wrong again.
 
Last edited:

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
611
935
415
I'm not sure why you quoted me, I didn't say anything that disagrees with this, and you ignored my overall point.
I'm a bit confused then. Yes people will escalate, some will, not necessarily most but it's hard if not impossible to bring certain things down to 0 occurrences. Buying a gun and ammo and prepping to go on a mass shooting spree is very, very easy to do for most adults in America, much easier than building a bomb, dispensing gas and people at least can react to a car or be in an area where a car cannot reasonably get to them. Just because someone would move to an alternative method doesn't mean that putting up some form of control in the first place is not worthwhile.
 
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
You guys are both right.

At a state level, aggregate numbers can show on a rate basis, some republican southern states showing higher murder stats.

But on a city or district level, crime seems more concentrated in places with a bigger presence of Black people or gangs.

Although impossible, I'm sure if someone was to do a rate level basis on a neighbourhood level, gang heavy blocks would probably be the highest.
 

Dacon

Member
Apr 24, 2011
2,303
996
705
Houston, Texas
much easier than building a bomb, dispensing gas
It isnt though? You can build some explosive devices pretty easily, same with producing certain gases.

Just because someone would move to an alternative method doesn't mean that putting up some form of control in the first place is not worthwhile.
I.

did.

not.

say.

that.

I've pointed out that I don't have a problem with stricter gun control twice.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
Liberal cities in Republican states. Yeah, "blue wall" states from 2012 like Michigan and Illinois. Republican states like California and Maryland. Give it a rest. You got put in your place. The least you could do is own up to calling me dishonest when the facts were plainly on my side.
You continue to be dishonest

80% of those cities are in red states by the exact measurement you used in the post I quoted (2016 presidential results). Yup, some of those states used to be blue, but they aren't now. Meaning they were never very blue to begin with.

If we use 2012 data on that list, we end up with 55% Dem, 45% Rep, which looks better for Reps, but is still much more consistent with my thesis (that this is a bipartisan issue) than yours (that this is the Democrats fault). And even then, we should be using 2013's crime data for such a measure, not 2017s, so the cities in question may be entirely different (as we've seen with Chicago). And once we get to this level, we absolutely need to be looking at changes in state legislator/governor as that has way more effect on local crime than the president...

And still no answer for why major liberal hubs in liberal states don't fit your conjecture. Just ignore the fact that none of the places you all like to deride are on any of these lists except Chicago and Detroit. Once again, why aren't Boston, Honolulu, Portland, Seattle, LA, San Francisco, NYC, Denver, etc on any of these lists? Why are Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Alaska, and Tennessee always so high? If the determining factor were liberal governance, you would not see these results. Something else is effecting these numbers

You have no idea how to read data and you have no idea what a null hypothesis is. You've set out to prove your bias, and you've failed

The reason why I went with county instead of diluting it by counting the whole state is because -- as you pointed out -- it is the murder rate that matters just as much as the total amount.
You went with city, not county. I have no idea if that graph you posted includes all counties. It would be weird that no Mississippi counties made the list when the state murder rate is so consistently high

And lol at 'as you pointed out' and the bolded.
I did not say the murder rate matters "just as much" as the total amount.
I said the total amount does not matter.

Only the rate matters. You do not compare total occurrences in wildly different sized populations using total amount. It's bad science, there's no point in doing so. You already know what answers you will get. Once again:

If you assume that each person has an equivalent chance of murder in the absence of any policy, then obviously you must look at rates of murder under specific policies (not total numbers) when determining how effective said policies are in preventing murders. Otherwise, large populations under specific policy are always going end up measuring as the highest offenders, simply because they have a high total amount of whatever's been measured
rate absolutely matters, particularly when you are trying to tie statistics to policy. If you are just looking at numbers you have a higher chance of *any* statistic being true in a high population area. I'm not 'handwaving' any murders away. The murders you referenced are also included in murder rate statistics, however, they are properly represented as a fraction of people who commit murders under said policies

By your shitty logic, Detroit is whiter than Helena Montana simply because Detroit has more white people in total, and Las Vegas is more Christian than Helena Montana for the same reason. Must be something about all of the sex and gambling that is making Las Vegas so Christian, perhaps we should spread Vegas style culture to every small Christian town that is less Christian than Vegas is...

One would think that in Democrat strongholds with effective policies of gun control in place, the rate if not the total number of gun murders would be less.
Which is precisely why the absence of Boston, Honolulu, Portland, Seattle, LA, San Francisco, NYC, Denver on these lists destroys your theory. These are actually Democrat strongholds in Democratically run states.


It wasn't me who handwaved the higher total in the first place. That was you, handwaving human lives due to your ideology's failed practices.
dude the fact that you've now doubled down on this isn't doing anything but proving you don't understand math. Once again:
I'm not 'handwaving' any murders away. The murders you referenced are also included in murder rate statistics, however, they are properly represented as a fraction of people who commit murders under said policies
Nothing is 'hand waved' if you are using rate.

You are the one handwaving all murders outside of cities since your followup was to post a list of the highest city murder rates.
I posted a violent crime per county map, feel free to find something better. It shows a lot of violent crime concentrated in the southern states, West Virginia, Alaska, and shows an absence of such violent crime in the liberal northwest and northeast.

Thus, once again, your thesis is flimsy, and there's clearly something else driving these numbers

And when you wanted to flee behind 'rates', you were proven wrong again since it is rate per capita.
What do you even mean by this? All data I have provided has been 'per capita'
I'm not fleeing behind rates, rates are precisely how this data should be compared. And you haven't used 'per capita' to somehow prove me wrong
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
You guys are both right.

At a state level, aggregate numbers can show on a rate basis, some republican southern states showing higher murder stats.

But on a city or district level, crime seems more concentrated in places with a bigger presence of Black people or gangs.

Although impossible, I'm sure if someone was to do a rate level basis on a neighbourhood level, gang heavy blocks would probably be the highest.
Nice, glad you are seeing the deeper issues

I mostly agree with this, save two things:

1: We aren't "both right". Don't forget, @DunDunDunpachi's premise here is:
Very dense, very Democrat population centers are skewing the numbers for the rest of the USA. Yet, Democrats insist their gun-control policies will fix their problems
Democrat gun-control policies are not in effect in the majority of the states that are skewing the murder numbers in the USA
Just look at the Giffords Gun Law scorecard: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
1) Louisiana - F
2) Missouri - F
3) Maryland - A-
4) Arkansas - F
5) Alaska - F
6) Alabama - F
7) Mississippi - F
8) Illinois - B+
9) South Carolina - F
10) Tennessee - D-
The best you can point to here are Illinois and Maryland, 20% of the top 10. We have no idea how much those other 8 states' murder rates would improve if the same laws were implemented there. My guess is the change would be significant
On the other hand, a bunch of states with good ratings are low on this list

My point was that this is not a partisan issue, and my point stands.

Even if the cities where homicide is a problem are voting blue, there are also plenty of red cities/counties dragging the US reputation down, and there are especially plenty of red states doing so. State government is responsible for the cities within them

2: While I won't directly contest your "crime seems more concentrated in places with a bigger presence of Black people or gangs." statement, I will suggest that the more relevant factor may be poverty.
Alaska has about as few gangs and black people as you'll find in any state, but is still tops these lists. It's a poor state. That violent crime map I posted earlier also looks bad for West Virginia, another area with few black people and gangs, but much poverty.
Yes, crime maps will likely highlight areas with a high black population and high gang activity, but so will poverty maps.
I also might suggest harsh living conditions having an effect, as this would implicate Alaska as well as locations in the sunny South (and even Chicago). Combine poverty with terrible weather and who knows what extremes people will be willing to go to
The reality is that multiple factors are contributing to high murder rates. If we could isolate to a single factor, we likely would have solved the issues by now
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
@PkunkFury

You opened up this "conversation" calling me dishonest -- not by attacking my argument, but by attacking me -- and now you want to cower behind that again. I provided more facts. You called bullshit and scurried behind 'rates'. I provided more facts. And now it's back to handwaving. Democrat-voting areas with Democrat-voted gun laws experience some of our country's highest incidence of gun violence, and it has been this way for decades. Others have pointed this out as well. Trying to hide behind "the state level" is merely a way to blame Republicans for the failed policies of Democrats. All of the areas I highlighted -- one by one, in painfully factual detail -- inflate the rest of the country's murder rate and pump up our total numbers. This is plainly the case.

Your NPC screeching reaches peak octave with this slice derangement:

You are not considering that those could be protest votes from these underrepresented city folk trying to get better protection for themselves in the face state-level party opposition. It could very well be that these people are voting to fix the problems in their city, but are outnumbered by rural voters who don't share their goals
So even in Democrat cities with Democrat gun laws in Democrat states, it's still somehow the Republicans' fault. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

This is why your ideology is crumbling. You can never accept responsibility -- neither for the lives lost due to your ideology's failed practices, nor for simple things like being shown up on the Political board of a videogame forum with a stranger across the internet you've never met. Further engaging with you is pointless when you have proven yourself to be incapable of honest (ironic) conversation. Post after post, you insisted that total deaths -- also higher in these Democrat areas -- wasn't fair because population was higher. When I rose to the occasion and also showed that rates are higher in these locations, you move the goalpost again.

"Oh, those states weren't very blue to begin with".

 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and Sleepydays

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
22,732
18,381
2,075
The enormous impact of missing fathers & broken homes on social disintegration and crime wasn't even that controversial; even Obama pushed it in many speeches where the excepts would be considered Right-wing today.

Fun fact-check of yore: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/23/barack-obama/statistics-dont-lie-in-this-case/

As for recent mass-shooters, the set of individuals is so small that any purely statistical analysis is going to be meaningless. What can be meaningful is to look at the increase in male lives that feel like they're at a dead-end and are willing to burn the world down. You don't see that in a healthy society.

Anyhow, did anyone post this revealing little tell-all by his ex-"girlfriend"? (quotes due to unsurprising polyamory)

At first I wasn't sure of authenticity, but that article has now been highlighted by some mainstream news outlets. Anyhow, look at the kinds of lives young people think are acceptable now:



Ugh. His girlfriend's fiance.

....Girlfriend's fiance.

What a joke.
Hard to see how being some kind of third wheel comfort boy in a polyamorous relationship wouldn't have deleterious effects on his psychology.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,048
2,630
670
Canada
What good are background checks if they don't have any information in them. Background checks should draw from more sources. I think you should fail a background check if you were suspended for having a rape/kill list in high school. I don't think your record as a minor should be expunged for things like buying a firearm. It should be held against you. They treat minors as adults in many cases often unjustly so boo hoo if some shitstain can't buy a firearm. Actions have consequences.
 

Eiknarf

Member
Mar 25, 2019
588
521
330
Ironic that in one breath the left compare Trump to Hitler yet simultaneously want Trump to take away our guns. WTF?
 
  • Like
Reactions: desertdroog

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
4,545
4,530
1,265
Unfortunately, the right has decided that treatment for mental illness is a privilege and not a right. Something something socialism. Hard to put your kid through therapy when you can't afford it.
The left were the ones clamoring to end institutionalization and largely preventing it from coming back.