-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
This is brilliant - no anti-this or pro-that rhetoric, just facts
- Thread starter RLBreton
- Start date
alittle to much fact and logic in there for mee I tune out after someone says "this is true" or "facts" I prefer "I am assuming" or "I think".
Andreas
NES Member
Very well put. But as an (astonishingly) intelligent poster pointed out in the comments, "The only thing this video needs is to mention that those big cities with all the violence are the places that have the heaviest gun restrictions in place already."
This video approaches but does not hit on the real story, which is that the drivers of homocides in the US are black-on-black murders. If you count only white-on-white homocides, our homocide rate is as low as any modern European country. Nobody wants to talk about this because it would be discrimination. So, just as we frisk granny at the airport to avoid hurting the feelings of certain religous groups known for terrorism, we must eliminate guns from every single American rather than focus on those likely to use them in homocides - inner city, unemployed black men between the ages of 18-28.
Not to insult you or your post but you "tune out" your mind when confronted by facts and logic? Just what do you "tune into"
to come up with a reply to the anti gun "logic". You need FACTs to make your case and the post above cites a pretty good source to use and go to. To make a case to push back the anti gun tide you need more than just saying we have the 2nd amendment! Even the antigun people can go to the web site and read the stats. Yes I know facts don't mean much to most of them but they can't argue with their own gov data.
Last edited:
That Guy
Banned
I think he was being sarcastic to point out that most people don’t care about the facts.
I liked the video but I can’t say he wasn’t pushing an agenda himself. Not that I disagree with his message.
Post the sh*t out of this. I'm putting it on everything I have.
He has some excellent data there... but he is reaching to justify the higher murder rate.
He says that the US has 6 times as many major metropolitan areas as England and Wales. Perfect. That justifies our higher murder rate, right? ... Except that the US also has 6 times the population. And all of his data is per 100,000 citizens. What I get out of this portion of his video is that the rate of major metropolitan areas is the same.
Other than that, I like it.
He says that the US has 6 times as many major metropolitan areas as England and Wales. Perfect. That justifies our higher murder rate, right? ... Except that the US also has 6 times the population. And all of his data is per 100,000 citizens. What I get out of this portion of his video is that the rate of major metropolitan areas is the same.
Other than that, I like it.
MaverickNH
NES Member
I guess the way I'm thinking about it, is that we can increase our population 6-fold either by increasing numbers of smaller communities, or by increasing numbers of larger communities, both small and large proportionally or in any ratio you might choose. It just turns out that there is a size/density limit where if you go above 250k, you get more violent crime and murder. So a 6-fold population difference with a larger contribution of that 6-fold made up by 250k+ cities yields proportionally more crime.
It's like saying a light child can cross thin ice and so can to a heavy adult, but only if the heavy adult is crawling sprawled out flat versus walking upright. So 6-fold greater population in large cites versus small cities passes the "breaking point" for crime. It's like the old witticism about rats in a nesting colony getting along until their population size/density exceeds a critical limit where rat society breaks down into fighting, killing, and canabilism.
I'll dig out the reference to a multi-part debate on gun control between the a US gun rights advocate and the European editor of The Economist magazine, where the US/UK murders/violence ratio was discussed in detail. The European ultimately said he would prefer to be violently assaulted 5 times over rather than use deadly force once to defend himself, hence describing how the Brits think about murder versus violence.
But really, that's how the well-to-do, protected society members view things over there, knowing that others in the lower/middle classes will pay for the policies enacted by the upper classes. When those that have to endure the 5-fold more violence speak up, they want the right to use of deadly force in self-defense.
True antis will just ignore it and politicians know the facts but they are interested in power so this does not fit their agenda of controling the masses but it is good for people sitting on the fence.
