gummy jones wrote:What I think he is saying is that the media talks about our mass shooting "epidemic" and cites it as reason for new legislation even though the numbers aren't even as bad as the black on black murders in chicago that nobody wants to address.
He is saying one fits the agenda and is highlighted whereas the other does not. He is intentional comparing apples to oranges to show how silly it all is.
At least that's what I took from it.
99cobra2881 wrote:Exactly correct, you got my point and you didn't have to call it "bunk" or insult me in the process.
I expect the insults out of lib socialists it's their mechanism to make the other person theyre debating with look foolish and diminish that persons point of view rather than engage in a debate they know they'll lose.
But that's the inherent problem with comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing two different things, so there is no reason to assume that the attention the deaths get, or the legislation around it is going to be the same. I'm just speculating, but given that a high percentage of murders are committed between people who know each other, but in mass shootings, the victims rarely know the killer, there's a sense of randomness to it. The population feels it has control over most murders (I'm pretty sure most people think they aren't associating with anyone who is going to kill them), but has little control over mass shootings. Therefore they value the two types of dying differently.
There are a million ways to die in the US. Why do we focus on death by extremist muslims? Hell, I bet I could put together stats showing swimming is more dangerous than extremist muslims, but no one writes a news story about the dangers of pools. Because it's apples and oranges, and for some reason, probably related to human psychology, death from an outside source, which occurs randomly, is more significant to people than death due to some actions they involve in.
And again, your attempts to label everyone "lib socialists" when discussing STATS is ridiculous. Do you honestly believe a "lib socialist" would tell you your numbers are poor and then provide you with the exact numbers you need to make a cogent point??? Sometimes this board baffles me, with the individuals who seem to think "libtards" is associated with the proper use of numbers and statistics... I'm pretty sure liberal is a political leaning... and I'm pretty sure proper use of numbers and statistics (and methods of debate, and logical inferences) is something both sides of any political spectrum should strive to achieve. If you are going to associate these traits with only liberals, then you are by default associating conservatives with ideas not based on statistics, not based on an understanding of numbers, etc etc... that's not a winning approach.