America's Gun Violence #2

FiveBelow · May 2023

Halifax2TheMax said:

Just wondering if Illinois has folks driving around with an AR15 in the car so a 12 year old can shoot someone who was trying to stop their “friend/guardian/relative” from pissing in the parking lot?

Bigger state with more people and more people with guns + lax or zero regulations regarding possession, where and how = better odds of being a victim anywhere. I’d fathom in Illinois your odds are determined by where in Illinois you are. Tejas, not so much.

Your blatant disregard of the statistics is astounding.

mfc2006 · May 2023

HughFreakingDillon said:

I couldn't give two shits, really, if the "most" homicides/mass shooting occur in a blue state, or a red state, or a blue city, or a red city (which is why I posted that link earlier; it shows it's cross-political). The fact is, the issue is more micro than that. you don't get anything done that way, and it's exactly what politicians want you to focus on, so they aren't the ones held responsible. the party is.

a pointed finger solves no problems.

Exactly

HughFreakingDillon · May 2023

two guys in a pissing contest...both facing the wind.

dudeman · May 2023

mickeyrat said:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-illinois-gun-law-14bcad1bf2ee322b0517086755b8ff56

Illinois District of Columbia Illinois state government Washington news
Supreme Court lets Illinois keep ban on sale of some semiautomatic guns for now
Today
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Wednesday that Illinois can, for now, keep in place a new law that bars the sale of certain semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines.
The high court denied an emergency request from people challenging the law, which bans so-called assault weapons. The law’s opponents had asked the court to put the law on hold while a court challenge continues. The court did not comment and no justice publicly dissented.
The high court’s action comes at a time when gun violence has been heavily in the news. Since the beginning of the year, 115 people have died in 22 mass killings — an average of one mass killing a week, according to a database maintained by The Associated Press and USA Today in a partnership with Northeastern University. The database counts killings involving four or more fatalities, not including the perpetrator. Just recently, on May 6, a man armed with an AR-15 style rifle and other firearms fatally shot eight people, including three children, at a Dallas-area mall.
The case before the Supreme Court involves an Illinois state law enacted in January. The legislation bans the sale of a series of guns including the AR-15 and AK-47. The law also bars the sale of magazines that have more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns and more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a long gun.
People who legally owned the now-barred guns and magazines ahead of the law’s enactment can continue to keep them. The guns, however, must be registered with law enforcement.
Nine other states and the District of Columbia have gun bans similar to the one in Illinois, according to the gun control group Brady, which tracks the legislation. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey and New York also require registration of guns purchased prior to the law while four other states – Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington -- do not.
The Illinois legislation was driven largely by the killing of seven people at a 4th of July parade last year in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park. The shooter was armed with an AR-15 rifle and 30-round magazines.
A federal trial court in February declined to put the law on hold. A federal appeals court also declined to put the law on hold while the case continues.
The case also involves a separate so-called assault weapon bans passed by the city of Naperville.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority just last year handed gun rights activists a major victory, ruling that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. But the decision left open whether various restrictions states might impose would be constitutional.
___
Associated Press reporter Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report from Boston.

I don't know that I see this legislation having any impact on gun violence in Illinois. It seems that people blame the lax gun laws in neighboring states for the amount of illegally owned firearms in Illinois.

The people trafficking illegal weapons across state lines are not likely to give two shits about this.

FiveBelow · May 2023

HughFreakingDillon said:

two guys in a pissing contest...both facing the wind.

Pissing match, or conveying a point to someone who’s argument is emotionally driven? How do you interpret the statistics, Hugh? If you’re paying attention none of my comments are based on political bias, If calling someone out for doing so, with facts and logic is considered a pissing match, you’re quite the pisser yourself.

Merkin Baller · May 2023

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-illinois-gun-law-14bcad1bf2ee322b0517086755b8ff56

Illinois District of Columbia Illinois state government Washington news
Supreme Court lets Illinois keep ban on sale of some semiautomatic guns for now
Today
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Wednesday that Illinois can, for now, keep in place a new law that bars the sale of certain semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines.
The high court denied an emergency request from people challenging the law, which bans so-called assault weapons. The law’s opponents had asked the court to put the law on hold while a court challenge continues. The court did not comment and no justice publicly dissented.
The high court’s action comes at a time when gun violence has been heavily in the news. Since the beginning of the year, 115 people have died in 22 mass killings — an average of one mass killing a week, according to a database maintained by The Associated Press and USA Today in a partnership with Northeastern University. The database counts killings involving four or more fatalities, not including the perpetrator. Just recently, on May 6, a man armed with an AR-15 style rifle and other firearms fatally shot eight people, including three children, at a Dallas-area mall.
The case before the Supreme Court involves an Illinois state law enacted in January. The legislation bans the sale of a series of guns including the AR-15 and AK-47. The law also bars the sale of magazines that have more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns and more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a long gun.
People who legally owned the now-barred guns and magazines ahead of the law’s enactment can continue to keep them. The guns, however, must be registered with law enforcement.
Nine other states and the District of Columbia have gun bans similar to the one in Illinois, according to the gun control group Brady, which tracks the legislation. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey and New York also require registration of guns purchased prior to the law while four other states – Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington -- do not.
The Illinois legislation was driven largely by the killing of seven people at a 4th of July parade last year in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park. The shooter was armed with an AR-15 rifle and 30-round magazines.
A federal trial court in February declined to put the law on hold. A federal appeals court also declined to put the law on hold while the case continues.
The case also involves a separate so-called assault weapon bans passed by the city of Naperville.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority just last year handed gun rights activists a major victory, ruling that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. But the decision left open whether various restrictions states might impose would be constitutional.
___
Associated Press reporter Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report from Boston.

I don't know that I see this legislation having any impact on gun violence in Illinois. It seems that people blame the lax gun laws in neighboring states for the amount of illegally owned firearms in Illinois.

The people trafficking illegal weapons across state lines are not likely to give two shits about this.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-crime-shooting-guns-illinois-gun-laws/11937013/

“LESS THAN HALF THE GUNS USED IN ILLINOIS CRIME COME FROM ILLINOIS, DATA ANALYSIS SHOWS”

dudeman · May 2023

Merkin Baller said:

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-illinois-gun-law-14bcad1bf2ee322b0517086755b8ff56

Illinois District of Columbia Illinois state government Washington news
Supreme Court lets Illinois keep ban on sale of some semiautomatic guns for now
Today
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Wednesday that Illinois can, for now, keep in place a new law that bars the sale of certain semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines.
The high court denied an emergency request from people challenging the law, which bans so-called assault weapons. The law’s opponents had asked the court to put the law on hold while a court challenge continues. The court did not comment and no justice publicly dissented.
The high court’s action comes at a time when gun violence has been heavily in the news. Since the beginning of the year, 115 people have died in 22 mass killings — an average of one mass killing a week, according to a database maintained by The Associated Press and USA Today in a partnership with Northeastern University. The database counts killings involving four or more fatalities, not including the perpetrator. Just recently, on May 6, a man armed with an AR-15 style rifle and other firearms fatally shot eight people, including three children, at a Dallas-area mall.
The case before the Supreme Court involves an Illinois state law enacted in January. The legislation bans the sale of a series of guns including the AR-15 and AK-47. The law also bars the sale of magazines that have more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns and more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a long gun.
People who legally owned the now-barred guns and magazines ahead of the law’s enactment can continue to keep them. The guns, however, must be registered with law enforcement.
Nine other states and the District of Columbia have gun bans similar to the one in Illinois, according to the gun control group Brady, which tracks the legislation. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey and New York also require registration of guns purchased prior to the law while four other states – Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington -- do not.
The Illinois legislation was driven largely by the killing of seven people at a 4th of July parade last year in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park. The shooter was armed with an AR-15 rifle and 30-round magazines.
A federal trial court in February declined to put the law on hold. A federal appeals court also declined to put the law on hold while the case continues.
The case also involves a separate so-called assault weapon bans passed by the city of Naperville.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority just last year handed gun rights activists a major victory, ruling that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. But the decision left open whether various restrictions states might impose would be constitutional.
___
Associated Press reporter Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report from Boston.

I don't know that I see this legislation having any impact on gun violence in Illinois. It seems that people blame the lax gun laws in neighboring states for the amount of illegally owned firearms in Illinois.

The people trafficking illegal weapons across state lines are not likely to give two shits about this.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-crime-shooting-guns-illinois-gun-laws/11937013/

“LESS THAN HALF THE GUNS USED IN ILLINOIS CRIME COME FROM ILLINOIS, DATA ANALYSIS SHOWS”

There you have it. This law will not have a major impact on gun violence in Illinois but it will make people feel better and help politicians gain support for their party.

mickeyrat · May 2023

FiveBelow said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

FiveBelow said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

FiveBelow said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

FiveBelow said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

FiveBelow said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

nicknyr15 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

It’s a media driven agenda.

your country is insane, but like I said, there's no way that this all started up at the same time around the country.

this may sound alarmist, but I'm actually reconsidering coming there to see PJ in the summer.

Random acts of violence are still very rare. You can reduce the risk even more by avoiding certain areas at certain times. While nothing is 100%, I certainly don't fear going out on my day to day life.

Tejas. Avoid Tejas.

But not Chicago? Cmon. Put your political bias to the side for one second man. Those videos from a few weeks ago…. Yea. No thanks. Doesn’t seem very welcoming.

I’m not sure Illinois is as dangerous as Tejas or that Chicago is as dangerous as any city in Tejas with similar populations on a per 100,000 population basis but I do know that Tejas’ gun laws are way far less restrictive than Illinois’ but for indianer. Further, IMHO opinion, there are certain areas of Chicago you can avoid but in Tejas it’s the whole state you need to avoid.

What videos from a few weeks ago did I miss?

Not sure if the CDC is considered to be credible or not, but here's their latest firearm mortality rate per 100k. There are 26 states with a higher rate than Texas (Illinois just so happens to be next in line). Seems bias may be coming into play a bit here.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

Where would you say your chances of being shot are greater, given that Tejas has a population of approximately 29.3M, while Ilinois has 12.7M and the discrepancy per 100K is a mere .3 (12.4 versus 12.1, Tejas/Illinois)?

Further, while Chicago has a higher rate than Houston, Houston ranks immediately after, and for Tejas cities, Dallas, San Antonio, Fort Worth, Austin and El Paso are listed in the Big Cities Health Coalition as it relates to per 100K firearm deaths. Seems to me, avoid certain areas of Chicago where gun crime is prevalent, you should be okay. Tejas, not so much. Link is data from 2020.

Gun Deaths in Big Cities | Urban Health Collaborative | Drexel University

To answer your question, the mortality rate seems to indicate the chances are slightly higher in Illinois. If you don’t want to go the age adjusted rate route, let’s do this. Texas had 4613 firearm deaths in 2021 (per the CDC link), while Illinois had 1995 deaths. The 2021 population estimate for Texas was 29,527,941 with Illinois coming in at 12,671,469.
4613/29,527,941 = .00015622
1995/12,671,469 = .00015744
If you lived in Illinois during 2021 your chances of being one of the firearm victims was .015744%, still slightly higher than the .015622% if you lived in Texas during 2021. If you understand this, there is no need to compare cities within these states. If you’re only interested in comparing cities, that’s a different discussion. I do find it funny (not really) that your link would rank the safest PJ shows this tour as follows:
Austin
MSP
Ft Worth
Chicago
Indy
https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/our-changing-population/state/texas/?endDate=2021-01-01&startDate=2010-01-01

You won’t convince me that I’d be safer in Tejas than Illinois or any Tejas city over Chicago. More people + more guns = more people with guns = greater chance of getting shot.

Gun licences issued in Illinois and Tejas and percentage of adults with at least one gun at home.
Licenses in 2021: 144,749
In Illinois, 27.8% of adults say they at least one firearm at home. Roughly 2.5M gun owners.
Licenses in 2021: 1,006,555
In Texas, 45.7% of adults say they live in homes with guns. Roughly 6.8M gun owners.
Since the beginning of 2023, more mass shootings, roughly 2Xs more, occurred in Tejas over Illinois, according to the gun violence archive. Looking at only deaths from firearms is not the sole predicator of risk. I’ll take my chances in Chicago over Tejas. Enjoy the shows in Tejas but don’t play baseball.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/us/texas-college-baseball-player-shot-stray-bullet/index.html

Trust me, I already know. Not surprising when you continue to ignore the evidence. When the dust settles on 2023 and the gun violence information is compiled, I’ll base my assessments accordingly. In the meantime you can continue to base yours from the image below.

You were saying? Let me know when Illinois matches Tejas. Half of the nation’s worst mass shootings in the past ten years and a 90% increase in their murder rate. You go Tejas.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/us/texas-gun-ownership-mass-shootings/index.html

Enjoy the shows but bring your Kevlar backpack. Like Bo, just a thought.

Still doesn't change the fact that .015744% is greater than .015622%. I didn't realize America's Gun Violence only pertained to mass shootings. Nice pivot, and thanks for helping me better understand what you deem to be the biggest threat...the small fractions. Your hard-on for Texas seems to be skewing reality. Politics over facts, apparently.
"Regardless of the definition being used, fatalities in mass shooting incidents in the U.S. account for a small fraction of all gun murders that occur nationwide each year."
No shit, Sherlock.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

90% increase in gun homicides. The mass shootings are icing.

From your source, a very informative one if you're interested in more than just mass shootings.
Texas gun homicides increased 91%, Illinois increased 110%. Weird.
Texas gun deaths increased 46%, Illinois increased 77%. Weirder.
Texas firearm homicide 38%, Illinois 62%. Weirdest.
You're not on your game today, my friend. Might be time to pick another hill.
https://everystat.org/#Illinois
https://everystat.org/#Texas

per 100k citizens or population as a whole?

JimFletcherPearlJam · May 2023

Just remember that Texas has approximately 30 million residents, and many of us are rational human beings. It's dangerous to generalize to entire populations.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2023

FiveBelow said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

two guys in a pissing contest...both facing the wind.

Pissing match, or conveying a point to someone who’s argument is emotionally driven? How do you interpret the statistics, Hugh? If you’re paying attention none of my comments are based on political bias, If calling someone out for doing so, with facts and logic is considered a pissing match, you’re quite the pisser yourself.

the statistics can be interpreted as presented, but depending on which "side" you're on, you use the calculations that are best suited to you.

demographics?
population?
homicide/suicide/mass shooting/accidental?

people on both sides choose which ones to use and which not to, depending which result they wish to see.

mace1229 · May 2023

Kids get a 180 day suspension (a full year) for vaping THC here.
Had a kid bring a gun to school, he's back 2 weeks later. Something seems off here....

Technically it was a BB gun. But apparently it looked so real the police had to look in the chamber to confirm it wasn't a "real" gun. It was even stamped "9mm"

I think the punishment for those scenarios should be flipped.

OnWis97 · May 2023

mace1229 said:

Kids get a 180 day suspension (a full year) for vaping THC here.
Had a kid bring a gun to school, he's back 2 weeks later. Something seems off here....

Technically it was a BB gun. But apparently it looked so real the police had to look in the chamber to confirm it wasn't a "real" gun. It was even stamped "9mm"

I think the punishment for those scenarios should be flipped.

What does a kid do when he's suspended from school for a year? Spend the year at home playing video games and probably vaping THC? If you're going to potentially ruin a kid's life (and at least impact the crap out of it) it really should be because they're a danger or some kind of super-extreme distraction to everyone else.

Gun: Dangerous to all.
Vape: Dangerous to self.

I'm absolutely floored by this. I remember a kid in Minnesota getting kicked out of school for a Swiss army knife (Decades ago)...I really felt bad for him because he didn't appear to have a threatening purpose. My point is that I have always viewed schools as being pretty severe with weapons punishments. I don't want my kid* going to school with kid that brought a gun, BB or "real," or not. I accept that my kid goes to school with kids that make bad choices regarding THC.

*if i had one.

FiveBelow · May 2023

HughFreakingDillon said:

FiveBelow said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

two guys in a pissing contest...both facing the wind.

Pissing match, or conveying a point to someone who’s argument is emotionally driven? How do you interpret the statistics, Hugh? If you’re paying attention none of my comments are based on political bias, If calling someone out for doing so, with facts and logic is considered a pissing match, you’re quite the pisser yourself.

the statistics can be interpreted as presented, but depending on which "side" you're on, you use the calculations that are best suited to you.

demographics?
population?
homicide/suicide/mass shooting/accidental?

people on both sides choose which ones to use and which not to, depending which result they wish to see.

I'm on the side of breaking it all down (which we have already gone back and forth on) to determine risk based on hard data. I'm not the slightest bit interested in politics. How ever you slice it the data indicates that IL is statistically more dangerous than TX as they pertain to your chances of being shot by anyone other than yourself. I understand HF2TM's stance on the number of guns increasing your chances, but if they aren't being used (responsible?) the data isn't there. I am in no way endorsing the approach that TX has adopted and am as disgusted with the numbers in this country as anyone, but when people put all their focus on a state (for political reasons only) that by all gun violence metrics ranks roughly in the middle, I find it a bit ridiculous.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2023

FiveBelow said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

FiveBelow said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

two guys in a pissing contest...both facing the wind.

Pissing match, or conveying a point to someone who’s argument is emotionally driven? How do you interpret the statistics, Hugh? If you’re paying attention none of my comments are based on political bias, If calling someone out for doing so, with facts and logic is considered a pissing match, you’re quite the pisser yourself.

the statistics can be interpreted as presented, but depending on which "side" you're on, you use the calculations that are best suited to you.

demographics?
population?
homicide/suicide/mass shooting/accidental?

people on both sides choose which ones to use and which not to, depending which result they wish to see.

I'm on the side of breaking it all down (which we have already gone back and forth on) to determine risk based on hard data. I'm not the slightest bit interested in politics. How ever you slice it the data indicates that IL is statistically more dangerous than TX as they pertain to your chances of being shot by anyone other than yourself. I understand HF2TM's stance on the number of guns increasing your chances, but if they aren't being used (responsible?) the data isn't there. I am in no way endorsing the approach that TX has adopted and am as disgusted with the numbers in this country as anyone, but when people put all their focus on a state (for political reasons only) that by all gun violence metrics ranks roughly in the middle, I find it a bit ridiculous.

agreed

mace1229 · May 2023

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

Kids get a 180 day suspension (a full year) for vaping THC here.
Had a kid bring a gun to school, he's back 2 weeks later. Something seems off here....

Technically it was a BB gun. But apparently it looked so real the police had to look in the chamber to confirm it wasn't a "real" gun. It was even stamped "9mm"

I think the punishment for those scenarios should be flipped.

What does a kid do when he's suspended from school for a year? Spend the year at home playing video games and probably vaping THC? If you're going to potentially ruin a kid's life (and at least impact the crap out of it) it really should be because they're a danger or some kind of super-extreme distraction to everyone else.

Gun: Dangerous to all.
Vape: Dangerous to self.

I'm absolutely floored by this. I remember a kid in Minnesota getting kicked out of school for a Swiss army knife (Decades ago)...I really felt bad for him because he didn't appear to have a threatening purpose. My point is that I have always viewed schools as being pretty severe with weapons punishments. I don't want my kid* going to school with kid that brought a gun, BB or "real," or not. I accept that my kid goes to school with kids that make bad choices regarding THC.

*if i had one.

Depends on the district. The neighboring district, where I live and my kids go, they have an alternative school. We got an email a couple months ago warning all parents the alternative program is full, and any kids receiving a long term suspension will have to serve it at home. Probably the way my district does it.

They email me a few times a week and ask for assignments. I email back. Within a couple months I stop hearing from them. You can only learn so much that way. I agree, I think it's too tough. Kids are going to be a drop out if they're suspended for a full year. I would think if a family can afford it, they'd probably send them to a private school. Most haven't.

Gern Blansten · May 2023

mace1229 said:

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

Kids get a 180 day suspension (a full year) for vaping THC here.
Had a kid bring a gun to school, he's back 2 weeks later. Something seems off here....

Technically it was a BB gun. But apparently it looked so real the police had to look in the chamber to confirm it wasn't a "real" gun. It was even stamped "9mm"

I think the punishment for those scenarios should be flipped.

What does a kid do when he's suspended from school for a year? Spend the year at home playing video games and probably vaping THC? If you're going to potentially ruin a kid's life (and at least impact the crap out of it) it really should be because they're a danger or some kind of super-extreme distraction to everyone else.

Gun: Dangerous to all.
Vape: Dangerous to self.

I'm absolutely floored by this. I remember a kid in Minnesota getting kicked out of school for a Swiss army knife (Decades ago)...I really felt bad for him because he didn't appear to have a threatening purpose. My point is that I have always viewed schools as being pretty severe with weapons punishments. I don't want my kid* going to school with kid that brought a gun, BB or "real," or not. I accept that my kid goes to school with kids that make bad choices regarding THC.

*if i had one.

Depends on the district. The neighboring district, where I live and my kids go, they have an alternative school. We got an email a couple months ago warning all parents the alternative program is full, and any kids receiving a long term suspension will have to serve it at home. Probably the way my district does it.

They email me a few times a week and ask for assignments. I email back. Within a couple months I stop hearing from them. You can only learn so much that way. I agree, I think it's too tough. Kids are going to be a drop out if they're suspended for a full year. I would think if a family can afford it, they'd probably send them to a private school. Most haven't.

It's crazy for sure. Totally lopsided punishment. Reminds me of the one year probation that my daughter got (she was 18) for having a grinder in her purse with just marijuana dust in it. No pipe...just the residue that was in the grinder.

nicknyr15 · May 2023

FiveBelow said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

FiveBelow said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

two guys in a pissing contest...both facing the wind.

Pissing match, or conveying a point to someone who’s argument is emotionally driven? How do you interpret the statistics, Hugh? If you’re paying attention none of my comments are based on political bias, If calling someone out for doing so, with facts and logic is considered a pissing match, you’re quite the pisser yourself.

the statistics can be interpreted as presented, but depending on which "side" you're on, you use the calculations that are best suited to you.

demographics?
population?
homicide/suicide/mass shooting/accidental?

people on both sides choose which ones to use and which not to, depending which result they wish to see.

I'm on the side of breaking it all down (which we have already gone back and forth on) to determine risk based on hard data. I'm not the slightest bit interested in politics. How ever you slice it the data indicates that IL is statistically more dangerous than TX as they pertain to your chances of being shot by anyone other than yourself. I understand HF2TM's stance on the number of guns increasing your chances, but if they aren't being used (responsible?) the data isn't there. I am in no way endorsing the approach that TX has adopted and am as disgusted with the numbers in this country as anyone, but when people put all their focus on a state (for political reasons only) that by all gun violence metrics ranks roughly in the middle, I find it a bit ridiculous.

Absolutely

Bentleyspop · May 2023

https://twitter.com/SoutheasternRec/status/1659301164049899520?t=p3Sx3ZCuD7hVfX4_eMrmxA&s=19

Halifax2TheMax · May 2023

FiveBelow said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

FiveBelow said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

two guys in a pissing contest...both facing the wind.

Pissing match, or conveying a point to someone who’s argument is emotionally driven? How do you interpret the statistics, Hugh? If you’re paying attention none of my comments are based on political bias, If calling someone out for doing so, with facts and logic is considered a pissing match, you’re quite the pisser yourself.

the statistics can be interpreted as presented, but depending on which "side" you're on, you use the calculations that are best suited to you.

demographics?
population?
homicide/suicide/mass shooting/accidental?

people on both sides choose which ones to use and which not to, depending which result they wish to see.

I'm on the side of breaking it all down (which we have already gone back and forth on) to determine risk based on hard data. I'm not the slightest bit interested in politics. How ever you slice it the data indicates that IL is statistically more dangerous than TX as they pertain to your chances of being shot by anyone other than yourself. I understand HF2TM's stance on the number of guns increasing your chances, but if they aren't being used (responsible?) the data isn't there. I am in no way endorsing the approach that TX has adopted and am as disgusted with the numbers in this country as anyone, but when people put all their focus on a state (for political reasons only) that by all gun violence metrics ranks roughly in the middle, I find it a bit ridiculous.

I’m asking because I don’t know, do actuaries (I think that’s what you call them) or the folks who assess risk for financial gain, insurance companies as an example, only look at one data point to assess the exposure to risk, and if they do, are they then profitable? Corporate lawyers who review contracts for risks to their clients, do they also only look at one contract clause that may cost their client? Or do they look at and consider or assess all of the contract clauses that puts their client at risk and inform them appropriately?

My issues with Tejas go way beyond their stance on guns.

JimFletcherPearlJam · May 2023

Halifax2TheMax, I understand and concur with most of your criticisms of Texas. However, you should realize that there are essentially two versions of Texas -- urban versus rural. As things currently stand, the old, rural, conservative politicians have a hold on the state overall. However, that doesn't mean people like myself agree with or vote for them. I'm not going to surrender my really sweet homestead in an affordable part of the state just to align myself with more like-minded individuals elsewhere. Heck, you should be happy that people like myself aren't packing up and leaving based on a fair percentage of morons living here. Whether you realize it or not, you have a lot of allies down here in Texas, and generalizing to a group of 30 million people is wrong. Long live Pearl Jam!

America's Gun Violence #2

Comments

Categories