12 Dead, 6 Injured In Shooting At Virginia Beach Municipal Center

We're talking per capita, it's a ratio.

For example the fatal auto accident rate in the United States is roughly 12.4. That's not saying only 12 people died in car accidents last year it's saying the per capita rate is 12.4, which roughly translates to "Out of every 100,000 people in the US, 12.4 of them will die in car wrecks).

So if there are only 700 people in an area and 1 of them gets stabbed that means the per capita rate of violent crime is 142. (1/700*100,000). Which translates to "Out of every 100,000 people, 142 will get stabbed".

That's how statisticians come up with per capita rates of things, but when you take in realistic variables such as population, location, (and logic) you can see how when you do the math it doesn't always make logical sense. As in the case when based on raw statistics Antarctica is technically more violent than Afghanistan even though nobody in their right mind would actually try to argue that.

Folks often like to taunt how "raw numbers" don't lie but the reality is that there are way more variables than just that.

 

There is a huge variable here that folks keep either missing and purposefully dismissing.

Total number of murders in Illinois in 2017. 997
Total number of murder in Chicago in 2017. 650

Total number of murders in Michigan in 2017. 569
Total number of murders in Detroit in 2017. 267

Total number of murders in Maryland in 2017. 546
Total number of murders in Baltimore in 2017. 343

Total number of murders in Alaska in 2017. 62
Total number of murders in Anchorage in 2017. 35 (Fairbanks had 13).

Need I continue? And if we expand the border a bit to encompass the outer reaches of these cities or the drug avenues to these places (Gary Indiana) then the numbers get bigger.

We all know exactly where this violent crime problem lies and we all know exactly where it needs to be dealt with. Deal with these inner city cesspools, period.

 

There is no backpedalling going on at all. I presented you a very real scenario as to when simply using statistics and raw numbers as definitive nails in the coffin doesn't always work. Antarctica has a "crime problem" too based on raw numbers. No logical person will argue that Antarctica has a crime problem worse than a 3rd world failed state such as Haiti. But the raw numbers say otherwise. A classic example as to why that doesn't make sense. The smaller the population the more inflated the numbers become, and that is in regards to anything.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are getting at. We in the US has a alarmingly large population of terrible human beings who do terrible things, so what's the best way to prevent them from doing terrible things? Take away their ability to do so because we can't just kick them all out or something. The problem is you are blaming it directly on guns, as if by simply having guns it makes a place less safe. That is factually incorrect.

It's not the guns, it's who has the guns. If it were directly the result of the guns themselves then every single place in the US with guns would have a gun violence problem. That is not the case, certain places in the US have a gun violence problem because of the types of PEOPLE who live in these places. Guns don't shoot people, people with guns shoot people. Never in the history of manufacturing has an engineer been able to produce a sentient firearm that can shoot itself at will.

The little town that I live in hasn't had anyone shot here in decades. And something like 90% of the people living here own multiple firearms. We do have a drug problem though,a higher heroin usage per capita than Chicago. But we all have guns, we have the drugs, and we have a massive alcoholic problem, but we don't have the violence. Why? Why are the drug addicts and drunks not using their Glocks to blow each others heads off?

Because the CULTURE and the PEOPLE here are different. Based on your rationale of guns directly = problem then there should be at least 1 person murdered with guns per week here. But even though half the population here is either high or drunk at any given time with direct access to their own personal arsenals, they aren't shooting each other. Explain to me, in your words, why that isn't happening.

The United States is not Australia, we have different ideologies here. As I stated before this is the direct reason why we have an Electoral College and we don't elect Presidents based on a pure popular vote. Major metropolitan cities are vastly different than rural areas, just like in Australia. You guys have like what? 80% of your entire population living in cities or something like that? Your country is only slightly smaller than ours but the overwhelmingly vast majority of all of your citizens live in cities. And your cities control your entire nation, whatever problems your cities have becomes a problem for everybody that you tackle.

We don't roll like that here. We tell the big cities that although a lot of US citizens live there, we won't allow you to control everybody.

NYC alone has more people in it than the entire states of Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, and Wyoming COMBINED. But we do not allow the wishes or votes of the 8+ million people in New York City to dictate the policy for 7 whole other states. Because we realize that NYC and Deadwood South Dakota are nowhere near the same place and the problems in NYC likely aren't the same problems in South Dakota and what makes sense in NYC doesn't necessarily make sense in Idaho.

Seriously, what you are advocating is akin to how since 23 people have been killed by alligators in Florida we make a blanket law stating that NOBODY in America can go swimming in the river as a measure of public safety. And then trying to explain to folks in Oregon the logic behind telling them that they can't go in the river so as to not get eaten by a gator when they don't have gators in their rivers.

You're advocating that since urban gangbangers keep killing each other on an hourly basis in inner city cesspools NOBODY in America can have guns as a measure of public safety. And then trying to explain to rural America the logic behind them not being able to own guns because of gangsters in the community when they don't have gangsters in their community.

Cities need to deal with their own problems. I am 100% in favor of any big city in America enacting whatever gun control policies it so desires in order to figure this out. But do it there, don't bother us we aren't your problem and your problems aren't our problems.

 

You may not be saying it directly in those words but you are advocating the removal of guns as a solution to the problem. That means that guns are the problem or at least part of the problem.

If this is not the rationale being presented then why advocate for the removal of guns?

There is no rehearsed defense here, merely a difference of opinion. In all reality this is a discussion forum, we merely discuss things here. It has been proven for millennia that arguing with others rarely solves anything. You know the end result as do I, we could discuss this for days on end. At the end of it all I have no illusions that you will actually change your mind on this issue and I'm sure you hold no illusions of me doing so either.

We talk about our opinions on various things because that's what we do here, it's what people do in general. Nobody actually believes they are changing anyone elses minds around here...

 

Small towns being nice has always been the position from the very beginning....Hence my continuous saying of deal with the cities that you promptly countered by saying your big city (Im assuming Sydney based on the population you stated earlier) is much safer than our big cities so it's not strictly a "city problem".

I noted time and time again that I actually agree with you. It's not the city itself that is a problem in itself it's the CULTURE of the city. You've even quoted me saying it's the PEOPLE who live there who are the problem. You quoted me saying we have a CULTURE problem of the types of PEOPLE here in cities.

I specifically gave an example (you didn't quote that one) of how my own particular town has a massive heroin problem greater than that of Chicago per capita usage. A greater alcohol problem as well, a massive amount of guns and no homicides in decades. I specifically said it's because of the PEOPLE who live here and even though half of them are drunk or high at any given time they are not using their guns to shoot each other. I then asked you to explain in your own words why that isn't happening here. You did not.

The underlying point is very simple based on real world data. It's not the amount of guns in a particular community that is a problem, it's the type of people in a particular community who have access to guns that can be a problem. And in America's case it's a specific group of particular people in particular communities that are constitute the overwhelming vast majority of the "problem". Gangsters.

So Ill say again what I have been saying multiple times. We have no problem here because we don't have those types of PEOPLE here. Deal with THEM and the places THEY live. Not us.