murder rates

[TwiceHorn 31283]

14 minutes ago, tchookem said:

Disillusionment is a better word. Those other countries don't have a constant reminder that America is an exception, because here, you can accomplish anything as long as you pull those bootstraps hard enough.

In some communities, that disillusionment leads to gun violence, in others it leads to Trump votes. Both of course create more problems than they solve.

Yep, I almost made this point myself.

[elfenix 34171]

It's weird that Donkey is like 98% of the way there

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

It's weird that Donkey is like 98% of the way there

[Dahobbs 17447]

1 hour ago, Cajun said:

LMAO

Ok, MENSA

Maybe you should take a break from pointing out "idiotic posts".  Just a little tip.

No charge, it's on me. 

LOL at the guy who is happy to not so subtly bring politics into a DT safe place thread, but runs away once people can actually address his absolute bullshit.

Just so everyone is aware, Cajun doesn't think there is a murder problem in the US. But, if there is a problem, he is absolutely sure it is only caused by democrats. His proof is that he can name a few cities with high murder rates that are nominally run by democrats. He also thinks if you remove enough cities from the statistics, then there is no murder problem in the US. Which is technically true, but then of course there would be no people in the US. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

20 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

 

Edit to add: the disillusionment point is a really good one. Disillusionment is the last bastion before a complete loss of hope, which is when the real death numbers start to get registered.

Children are not born without hope.

I will fight anyone who ridicules Fred Rogers. He understood the moral imperative and responsibility we have to all children.

 

 

 

I consider it none of my business whether someone chooses to have children or not. It is an extremely personal decision. Our country has a long way to go towards honestly and forthrightly facing our treatment of children once they are born.

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

 He also thinks if you remove enough cities from the statistics, then there is no murder problem in the US. Which is technically true, but then of course there would be no people in the US. 

Complete tangent, but our dinner conversation last evening consisted of a consideration of what would be the result if (each of us) were Thanos and could snap our fingers.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

Jokes aside, I keep coming back to when the movie Parasite came out and Bad_Teammate fanboi'ed and stanned all over it on the movie thread. I didn't get it at the time but I think what he was saying and what the movie was saying is what we are talking about-- dehumanizing a person through social ostracism and making them see that they are so obviously less than from a macro-perspective so they give up hope, and any microaggression (e.g. holding your nose at their "poor and other" stink) causes someone to snap.

I guess I see what that would look like and the applications in our society, is my point, now.

Elfenix-- what is the 2% I am missing?

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is, our poor aren't any poorer than anyone else's, but they're more mad about it.

Having lived and worked in multiple third world shithole countries I can tell you our poor are no where near as poor as theirs. 

[wildcat09 29258]

There's also the whole thing that if you're working poor here, you work (and your forbearers worked) for the wealth that you can see around you every day and you know it was at least partially built by you and yours. 

If you're poor in the Congo, you can't see what they've built in Brussels by ruthlessly exploiting your people.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Children are not born without hope.

I will fight anyone who ridicules Fred Rogers. He understood the moral imperative and responsibility we have to all children.

 

 

 

I consider it none of my business whether someone chooses to have children or not. It is an extremely personal decision. Our country has a long way to go towards honestly and forthrightly facing our treatment of children once they are born.

 

 

If a child is not born with hate but taught, then doesn't it logically stand that a child is not born with hope but that too is taught?

I say this with the caveat that I actually don't know what exists in the baby/child's brain before the wicked inertia of the world crushes the bigness a child is born with into a cruel little ego. I read an interesting article*** about psychedelics (link at the bottom if you care) that reminds me to be humble in that aspect-- I'm just a world-worn and weary sojourner abused and marked by the world and my own journey.

But that said, I find it a reasonable position to be in disagreement with you-- just as reasonable as any other position, at least. Why would a child not be born with hope anymore than be born with it as an innate part of their brain? I feel like you have to make a spiritual or psychic argument to imply that a child is downloaded with certain intangibles such as hope and love and fear and hate, etc.

***https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/tripping-in-lsds-birthplace-a-story-for-e2809cbicycle-daye2809d/

[DonkeyCigars 144]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There's also the whole thing that if you're working poor here, you work (and your forbearers worked) for the wealth that you can see around you every day and you know it was at least partially built by you and yours. 

If you're poor in the Congo, you can't see what they've built in Brussels by ruthlessly exploiting your people.

That has to feel like a slap in the face that I was meaning when I said "resentment".

[Brian Fantana 6668]

Me:

*Opens thread*

*Reads until he sees DT poster dogwhistling*

Edited July 13, 2021 by Brian Fantana

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

5 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

If a child is not born with hate but taught, then doesn't it logically stand that a child is not born with hope but that too is taught?

I say this with the caveat that I actually don't know what exists in the baby/child's brain before the wicked inertia of the world crushes the bigness a child is born with into a cruel little ego. I read an interesting article*** about psychedelics (link at the bottom if you care) that reminds me to be humble in that aspect-- I'm just a world-worn and weary sojourner abused and marked by the world and my own journey.

But that said, I find it a reasonable position to be in disagreement with you-- just as reasonable as any other position, at least. Why would a child not be born with hope anymore than be born with it as an innate part of their brain? I feel like you have to make a spiritual or psychic argument to imply that a child is downloaded with certain intangibles such as hope and love and fear and hate, etc.

***https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/tripping-in-lsds-birthplace-a-story-for-e2809cbicycle-daye2809d/

I am coming from the position that one thing babies do once they get a sense of...I don't know what it's called...but a sense of 'alertness' (?) is to seek a connection--sure, I get it's biology, instinct, and all that but it is our socialness as humans that keeps us alive; the odd curmudgeon not withstanding still had to come from two adults. Babies are born with that,  that "hope" I guess I call it, that their mouth will find the bosum or the bottle, that their eyes will find those that meet theirs, that the arms that cradle them are snug, not startling.

I guess that is how I differentiate it. It is present, whether the child was loved from the moment of first breath or not. What comes next comes down to multiples of variables.

 

I'm not so good at explaining my thoughts here, I hope (!) I understood yours correctly.

[tchookem 3900]

Yep, I almost made this point myself.

I was going to add that maybe the communities experiencing violence are doing so only because they've been "kept down"/feeling disillusioned for a lot longer.

But I don't know that I completely agree with that.

But I do think that we can expect to see more violence from the disillusioned Trump supporters, as their disillusionment grows.

[wildcat09 29258]

Angry white people in America are used to the state doling out their violence for them. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

10 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I am coming from the position that one thing babies do once they get a sense of...I don't know what it's called...but a sense of 'alertness' (?) is to seek a connection--sure, I get it's biology, instinct, and all that but it is our socialness as humans that keeps us alive; the odd curmudgeon not withstanding still had to come from two adults. Babies are born with that,  that "hope" I guess I call it, that their mouth will find the bosum or the bottle, that their eyes will find those that meet theirs, that the arms that cradle them are snug, not startling.

I guess that is how I differentiate it. It is present, whether the child was loved from the moment of first breath or not. What comes next comes down to multiples of variables.

 

I'm not so good at explaining my thoughts here, I hope (!) I understood yours correctly.

Well regardless of the metaphysics behind life, I think that there are cultures were children are destroyed before they've had a chance to be autonomous thinking beings or have agency. Their butterfly wings are touched or plucked fresh out of the chrysalis and those places exist in pockets all over America, and the world, and are sad, hopeless reminders of humanity's inherent wickedness.

[workswithseed 2037]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Angry white people in America are used to the state doling out their violence for them. 

No shit, that's why we should defund the state. 

[Cajun 11675]

52 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

LOL at the guy who is happy to not so subtly bring politics into a DT safe place thread, but runs away once people can actually address his absolute bullshit.

Just so everyone is aware, Cajun doesn't think there is a murder problem in the US. But, if there is a problem, he is absolutely sure it is only caused by democrats. His proof is that he can name a few cities with high murder rates that are nominally run by democrats. He also thinks if you remove enough cities from the statistics, then there is no murder problem in the US. Which is technically true, but then of course there would be no people in the US. 

Now THAT's some reimagining.

Well done DA!  I'm glad you're laughing b/c so am I.  Dualistic, binary "thinking" has a very undervalued comedic value imho.  It's right up there with reframing the positions of those who disagree with you so that you can project a completely fictional strawman to pull your peen sword on.  You hit the Daily Double Dip BRO!!!  Good stuff.

Thanks man.

Keep pearl clutching over death within the boundaries of the US while pshaw-ing that which exists elsewhere.  It's cute. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Cajun

[DonkeyCigars 144]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Angry white people in America are used to the state doling out their violence for them. 

Organizational Change Management (OCM) is the hardest part of any transformation.

And these changes and transformations need strong leaders and leadership.

The biggest fail trap it seems, and we saw this in the 1860's, is with countries versus organizations, there is no real way to cut bait and say "Thanks but no thanks, I don't believe in your leadership or values and strategy and goals and would rather take my talents elsewhere", so you can rebuild and transform with those who want to stay on board and move in the direction you want.

The New World was that, but we ran out of real estate. Maybe Bezos and Branson can usher in the age of space colonization. How crazy would that be? The ultimate white flight. "Ugh, this country is the worst. Pack your things, we are going to Mars, got a job at the new Amazon Universe HQ on Olympia Mons making $500,000 Moondars."

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

14 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Now THAT's some reimagining.

Well done DA!  I'm glad you're laughing b/c so am I.  Dualistic, binary "thinking" has a very undervalued comedic value imho.  It's right up there with reframing the positions of those who disagree with you so that you can project a completely fictional strawman to pull your peen sword on.  You hit the Daily Double Dip BRO!!!  Good stuff.

Thanks man.

Keep pearl clutching over death within the boundaries of the US while pshaw-ing that which exists elsewhere.  It's cute. 

That's a lot of words to say fuck all.

[justhookit 4180]

I didn’t post this on the DT thread because I didn’t want to cloak it up, but when talking about mass killings a couple of posters wanted to place a lot of the blame on the media coverage and social media. I found this article interesting - https://www.cjr.org/analysis/christchurch-shooting-media-coverage.php

tldr, the United States was less likely than other English speaking countries to publish the shooters name, at least in the Christchurch shooting.

[Dahobbs 17447]

21 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Now THAT's some reimagining.

Well done DA!  I'm glad you're laughing b/c so am I.  Dualistic, binary "thinking" has a very undervalued comedic value imho.  It's right up there with reframing the positions of those who disagree with you so that you can project a completely fictional strawman to pull your peen sword on.  You hit the Daily Double Dip BRO!!!  Good stuff.

Thanks man.

Keep pearl clutching over death within the boundaries of the US while pshaw-ing that which exists elsewhere.  It's cute. 

What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously, your brain is broken. I live in the United States, of course I care more about death here. It's closer to me and closer to my area of control. All I've said is that the US has a significantly higher homicide rate than its economic peers, and I've backed it up with hard statistics from multiple sources. Why wouldn't that be concerning? Isn't that something we should look into? I really don't understand why you feel we should not discuss this fact. Maybe you can explain it to me. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Dahobbs

[tigol 2383]

Now THAT's some reimagining.
Well done DA!  I'm glad you're laughing b/c so am I.  Dualistic, binary "thinking" has a very undervalued comedic value imho.  It's right up there with reframing the positions of those who disagree with you so that you can project a completely fictional strawman to pull your peen sword on.  You hit the Daily Double Dip BRO!!!  Good stuff.
Thanks man.
Keep pearl clutching over death within the boundaries of the US while pshaw-ing that which exists elsewhere.  It's cute. 

Huh?

[Dahobbs 17447]

3 minutes ago, tigol said:

Huh?

I think he is having a stroke. 

[Mole 4320]

2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

You've made a number of idiotic posts in this thread, but making a specific point to single out a city belonging to a state that hasn't gone "blue" in 24 years might take the cake.

I incorrectly thought that the St. Louis and Blue thing was some kind of hockey reference or he’s an early jazz fan:

 

 

[hpslugga 4044]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I think he is having a stroke. 

Uh how can you tell?

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

1 minute ago, Mole said:

I incorrectly thought that the St. Louis and Blue thing was some kind of hockey reference or he’s an early jazz fan:

Part of the confusion (I thought similar to you) was likely due to part of the thread being imported from DT but a few posts were not included so following the discussion was rendered more difficult.

My interpretation had it as @Cajun was initially proposing that other countries had extrajudicial killings in large numbers (for example, in Mexico but excluding cartels). Others disagreed with that line of reasoning and somehow large urban areas were brought in and now it's run the gamut. I don't know if randomness vs relationship of perpetrator of violence to victim/s, i.e. did the victims know the assailant in some fashion was brought up or not as I stopped following it in DT. That does seem to play out in various scenarios.

I apologize if I've misinterpreted anyone, not my intent.

[Dahobbs 17447]

25 minutes ago, Mole said:

I incorrectly thought that the St. Louis and Blue thing was some kind of hockey reference or he’s an early jazz fan:

 

 

That's what I thought initially too. I didn't expect he was taking the DT political until he reinforced the statement a couple of times. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

The thing is crime harms the poor more often since it's easier to steal from your neighbor, who you know legally can't have a gun to protect themselves or property. 

All of the following red states, each with favorable gun ownership laws, have a higher murder rate than Illinois.

LA, MS, AK, MO, SC, AR, AL, TN, OK. Why are people stealing in those states if they assume their neighbor has a gun?

[tchookem 3900]

No shit, that's why we should defund the state. 

Or hold the state accountable.

[Macanudo 12928]

On 7/12/2021 at 9:03 AM, Eskimohorn said:

Among developed nations, the US leads in murders, mass murders, and gun murders by a wide margin.

Not sure we're a developed nation anymore.

[sidis 9754]

2 hours ago, Cajun said:

Now THAT's some reimagining.

Well done DA!  I'm glad you're laughing b/c so am I.  Dualistic, binary "thinking" has a very undervalued comedic value imho.  It's right up there with reframing the positions of those who disagree with you so that you can project a completely fictional strawman to pull your peen sword on.  You hit the Daily Double Dip BRO!!!  Good stuff.

Thanks man.

Keep pearl clutching over death within the boundaries of the US while pshaw-ing that which exists elsewhere.  It's cute. 

 

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

That's a lot of words to say fuck all.

 

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously, your brain is broken. I live in the United States, of course I care more about death here. It's closer to me and closer to my area of control. All I've said is that the US has a significantly higher homicide rate than its economic peers, and I've backed it up with hard statistics from multiple sources. Why wouldn't that be concerning? Isn't that something we should look into? I really don't understand why you feel we should not discuss this fact. Maybe you can explain it to me. 

 

1 hour ago, tigol said:

Huh?

 

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Uh how can you tell?

 

you have to admit, when drive-by idiots like him and cheeseweasel actually engage, it is intensely amusing.

this scattershooting lunacy is probably a step back from when he used to just tap out by using the tired 'sorry for ruining your black panther party' line though.  that was slightly more efficient.

[Cajun 11675]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I think he is having a stroke. 

Of course you do.

It keeps you comfortable.

[Cajun 11675]

5 minutes ago, sidis said:

 

 

 

 

 

you have to admit, when drive-by idiots like him and cheeseweasel actually engage, it is intensely amusing.

this scattershooting lunacy is probably a step back from when he used to just tap out by using the tired 'sorry for ruining your black panther party' line though.  that was slightly more efficient.

Trust me, your echo chamber is equally amusing.

And sorry for the "Black Panther Party" quip.  The one time I said it really hurt you.  I had no idea it would inflict so much pain.  A thousand apologies.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Cajun

[sidis 9754]

3 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Trust me, your echo chamber is equally amusing.

boom! you're on fire.

 

[wildcat09 29258]

Is Cajun going full TTom?

[Dahobbs 17447]

10 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Of course you do.

It keeps you comfortable.

Care to actually say anything of substance? Are you disagreeing with the homicide statistics I provided? Do you think the US doesn't have 4x the homicide rate of the UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc.? Do you disagree that the US's closest peers in homicide rate are places like Kenya and Cuba? Do you believe the statistics are faulty in some way? If so, please identify the basis for your belief and any evidence to support it. If you have other statistics available, please point them out. I did my best to locate any sources that differed, and everything seemed fairly consistent. 

I note here, despite what I believe you to think about me, that I haven't attributed the US's higher homicide rate to the mere presence of guns. I don't think access to guns are enough to explain it at all. Other nations have ample access to guns without the higher homicide rates. Other places with comparable or higher rates than the US are almost uniformly poor or unstable. The US is a strange outlier. It doesn't make us bad. But, it is a problem that should be addressed. What would make us bad is if we ignored it. 

Just for your reference, here are the listings surrounding the US (purple column is intentional homicides per 100,000 population)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Cajun 11675]

1 minute ago, sidis said:

boom! you're on fire.

 

As are you.  And in your safest of spaces with an audience of well wishers!!!

 

[Cajun 11675]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Is Cajun going full TTom?

Yes.  Yes he is!

Hide yo wife!  Hide yo chitlens!!!

[JimmyJames 12271]

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Is Cajun going full TTom?

Needs more meth. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

32 minutes ago, Cajun said:

As are you.  And in your safest of spaces with an audience of well wishers!!!

 

People talking politics in a political board is not a “safe space.”
 

People running away from the political board because people are meanies, to talk politics on a non political board while yelling “no politics allowed!” is a “safe space.”

[TwiceHorn 31283]

The other thought I have had over the years relating to gun and other violence is the "wild west" heritage.  The actual "wild west" partly explains the proliferation of guns in the US as we had more frontier for a longer period of time than most of our peers, creating a legitimate need for guns.

But the same sort of "rugged individualism" self-help attitude may actually extend to crime.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Yeah, unlike other countries, we had a lot of Indians to shoot. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, unlike other countries, we had a lot of Indians to shoot. 

Indians, bears, wolves, game, bad hombres. etc.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The other thought I have had over the years relating to gun and other violence is the "wild west" heritage.  The actual "wild west" partly explains the proliferation of guns in the US as we had more frontier for a longer period of time than most of our peers, creating a legitimate need for guns.

But the same sort of "rugged individualism" self-help attitude may actually extend to crime.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The other thought I have had over the years relating to gun and other violence is the "wild west" heritage.  The actual "wild west" partly explains the proliferation of guns in the US as we had more frontier for a longer period of time than most of our peers, creating a legitimate need for guns.

But the same sort of "rugged individualism" self-help attitude may actually extend to crime.

I'm going to derail a bit, but some of that is a myth promulgated around the period when the big money donors (back in the day they had those too) decided the frontier was sufficiently 'closed' and suddenly got all nostalgic, not unlike the southern remembrances in the 1920s of the glory days of the Confederacy.

The American colonizers and founders that the GOP wants to make sure American students remember in the right way, won history in that regard. I'm proud to be an American, but I like for us to be honest about it. The frontier was technically uncharted (to them) but the indigenous peoples were there and they had nations of their own, and recognized their own areas. They fought battles with each other and certainly against invaders in their territory. So, sure, guns were necessary for food or against predators but mostly because it was a war zone. America viewed the Indians as obstacles to progress--Jefferson viewed them as appropriate for study but also believed that the best way to deal with them was  "total suppression of Savage Insolence and Cruelties." So as George Rogers Clark and others destroyed crops and killed Native families, the myth began to be formed of the disappearing "Indian." That west of the Mississippi the land was there for the taking and rugged individuals were needed to tame it. Obviously the Lakota, the Comanche, and others had something to say about that, and certainly there are folks on here with ancestors going way back who might have a different and perhaps a dimmer view, but I would suggest that perhaps think about it more as the white man said a settler could live there and the settler has a piece of paper that says so, but to another Nation your piece of paper was viewed as toilet paper. If a man settles in territory not his own then maybe the Native first residing there  killing him is usually understood in most languages.

Around the turn of the last century, as I mentioned above, the West was considered closed and urban centers were growing and folks began to get sentimental about it all. Around WWI, similar to the Civil War statues, monuments to the American West and the explorers began to be erected. People began to consider the past history of the Indians as peoples doomed to extinction, vanished, and then ultimately argued that the Native population was never that large to begin with and therefore they had no right to claim land or hold 'title.' I could go on about this, but it's a derail and actually touches more upon the current climate in education than the thread topic so I'll stop.

Also, it's not that what Lewis and Clark did was bad, it was fricking amazing, but once more, as Americans we owe it to each other to recognize our blind spots and build each other up so we're strong in our country and our history together. We have scars but they are what make us unique.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Mrs Whiggins
Aaaand Hugo says it in less than ten words

[elfenix 34171]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

What would make us bad is if we ignored it. 

thanks, Dickey Amendment!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I'm going to derail a bit, but some of that is a myth promulgated around the period when the big money donors (back in the day they had those too) decided the frontier was sufficiently 'closed' and suddenly got all nostalgic, not unlike the southern remembrances in the 1920s of the glory days of the Confederacy.

The American colonizers and founders that the GOP wants to make sure American students remember in the right way, won history in that regard. I'm proud to be an American, but I like for us to be honest about it. The frontier was technically uncharted (to them) but the indigenous peoples were there and they had nations of their own, and recognized their own areas. They fought battles with each other and certainly against invaders in their territory. So, sure, guns were necessary for food or against predators but mostly because it was a war zone. America viewed the Indians as obstacles to progress--Jefferson viewed them as appropriate for study but also believed that the best way to deal with them was  "total suppression of Savage Insolence and Cruelties." So as George Rogers Clark and others destroyed crops and killed families, the myth began to be formed of the disappearing "Indian." That west of the Mississippi the land was there for the taking and rugged individuals were needed to tame it. Obviously the Lakota, the Comanche, and others had something to say about that, and certainly there are folks on here with ancestors going way back who might have a different and perhaps a dimmer view, but I would suggest that perhaps think about it more as the white man said you could live there and you have a piece of paper that says so, but to another Nation your piece of paper was viewed as toilet paper. If a man settles in territory not his own then maybe the first one residing there  killing him is usually understood in most languages.

Around the turn of the last century, as I mentioned above, the West was considered closed and urban centers were growing and folks began to get sentimental about it all. Around WWI, similar to the Civil War statues, monuments to the American West and the explorers began to be erected. People began to consider the past history of the Indians as peoples doomed to extinction, vanished, and then ultimately argued that the Native population was never that large to begin with and therefore they had no right to claim land or hold 'title.' I could go on about this, but it's a derail and actually touches more upon the current climate in education than the thread topic so I'll stop.

Also, it's not that what Lewis and Clark did was bad, it was fricking amazing, but once more, as Americans we owe it to each other to recognize our blind spots and build each other up so we're strong in our country and our history together. We have scars but they are what make us unique.

The Daily Republican, Winona, MN 1863
 

[elguapo 4583]

2 hours ago, Cajun said:

As are you.  And in your safest of spaces with an audience of well wishers!!!

 

[workswithseed 2037]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

All of the following red states, each with favorable gun ownership laws, have a higher murder rate than Illinois.

LA, MS, AK, MO, SC, AR, AL, TN, OK. Why are people stealing in those states if they assume their neighbor has a gun?

It's a city problem which can have stricter gun laws than the state. You're not wrong that those states have high crime, but if it was a gun problem, then states like Idaho, Montana, and Kentucky should be blood baths with their high percentage of ownership.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/718903/murder-rate-in-us-cities-in-2015/

https://www.guns.com/news/2021/04/01/the-top-10-most-gun-friendly-states