✓ Gaslight
Obstruct
✓ Project
Wow, a two-fer!
Conservatives love to quote the statistic that many blue counties have a higher total number of gun deaths than red counties. What they hope you don't notice is that those blue counties are also the most populous. If you normalize the statistics per capita, those blue counties become far and away the safest areas of the country. The deep south has the highest rate of gun violence per capita.
Edit: Capita, not capital (my keyboard keeps changing it)
You know what cities also have more of compared to rural areas? Tanning salons, gyros, kitchen sinks, street lights, baby shoes, babies, pillow shams, spatulas, auto body shops, pork chops, thai restaurants, cork screws, massage parlors, sewer lines, electrical transformers, chiropractors, wrist watches, boner pills, cat toys, and meteorologists.
Total # of anything is meaningless propaganda. Per capita is the only genuine statistic in this matter.
Exactly. There's even an xkcd about it.
Not really, it's difficult to utilize. A town of 50k people who had a familicide that had 4 deaths makes their murder rate 8 in 100k... while a city with 1mil can have 80 murders and have the same per capita. It doesn't make the city safer magically...there is still other crime that happens.
Trying to compare rural areas and cities on gun violence is stupid anyways. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that gang and drug violence makes up the majority of our gun homicides and because more people are in cities and that's where most gangs are.... they're going to have more violence and death...
You mean "per capita" (per head, i.e., per person).
Gun violence "per capital" (gun violence divided by number of capital cities) wouldn't do much except make these six countries look good in comparison since they get to divide by a number larger than one.
If you think for one instant they're not using "Democrats" as a code word, then you don't understand racists.
what the fuck are they talking about
Here are the premises that led to this:
- All black people are Democrats.
- All criminals are Democrats.
- All shootings are done by people easily categorized in one of the above groups.
None of this is true, but it's what led here.
"90% sounds like a big, believable number, right? Let's go with that!"
That hair is criminal
The meme is talking about "gang violence", an oft quoted stat. While largely true, it can also be a racist dog whistle.
I commented on it here:
God, this reminds me of something that just happened last week. I got a letter in the mail from the HR outsourcing company an old job used. They got hacked and my personal info was leaked. I mentioned it to my mom, and she said something like "I can't wait for democrats to all die so shit that that stops happening.".
...Fucking what?
I'm about to start, should I save the ammo and let climate change do the trick instead?
Regular though in my head ( dw I'm from a no guns country)
The other 10% are conservative... It's not 0 like you suggest, math isn't hard.
c/lostlemmings
Not only did you miss the point of the post, but you didn't understand the crux of the fallacy being made by the person in the image.
The person who made the post is against the argument in the image. They made this post to ridicule the argument being made in the image.
The issue with the argument being made in the image is that it ignores gun violence per capita, which is a much more meaningful descriptor rather than raw numbers.
Anyone who subscribes into either party is a fucking idiot, 2 side of the same shit coin
Wow lots of idiots on here
Yeah, yeah, both sides are the same. One wants to control women's healthcare, promotes literal fascism, wants to give tax breaks to billionaires, denies climate change, and resists any sort of gun control, no matter how widely popular. The other wants to give free healthcare, protect the planet from climate change, and enact some basic gun control measures. I can see why they blur together to you.
Source?
Just look at the state of murika And this
I agree both parties are shit. It is just a matter of picking the less shitty option.
Calling someone an idiot isn't gonna change anyone's mind. It will just make them dislike you.
I don't think subscribing to a party is necessarily a bad move when party primary are usually the deciding factor on who actually eventually gets into office.
With that being said, I do think there is a difference between someone who is a fanatic for a party and always listens and defends the party line, and someone who doesn't agree with a party on everything but still leans toward a certain party because they are more in line with their views. I would suspect that the more reasonable people fall into the second group while the first group is the more emotional group who always follow the party line because they identify with their party and not their parties views.
