That meme isn’t even close.
Chicago not even in the Top 10?
Detroit FTW!
England isn’t right either. Russia and Ukraine both have much more violent crime. And even if excluding Eastern Europe, don’t France and Belgium have more violent crime per capita than the UK?
Yeah. I think Norway oddly enough had more mass shootings than England. :)
The meme was something I quickly found. I think it is more about gun crime rather than simply violent crime. Violent crime can include a lot more than just guns. Yet I still don't think the UK is at the top.
Baltimore is also pretty bad in the U.S. right now. Most leftist controlled cities with stricter gun control are worse than the places without it. That might be true across the board but I won't say that is the case because I haven't taken the time to check each and every one of them.
EDIT: I do know that if you do the research the U.S. is not the top when it comes to mass shootings.
Also if your curious. I almost always add images after I've written the post. I try to find some that work well. In this case there are definitely flaws with that meme but I think the message I wanted from it is there.
Nah... I Just don't nitpick if I don't like the narrative. Also I consider my time valuable. I don't think is my duty to go do research for other people. Sometimes I may. Sometimes I may not.
Whether I wanted a "flawed" message or not did not enter my head. I also don't see proof that it is flawed. That'd require more research. You are the one hung up on it... so search, or don't. That is up to you.
In this case there are definitely flaws with that meme but I think the message I wanted from it is there.
this is what i'm talking about. the meme is flawed and you decided was good enough for your argument. that seems sketchy to me, and i'm noting that for the blockchain.
The message I wanted was about the FACT that the places with the strictest gun control laws seem to have the most problems with gun violence.
Sketchy.
Only if you treat the narrative pushed by the propaganda machine as dogma.
I'm going to try one last time with you...
I wrote my words. Those are what I wanted to say. Then I went and quickly looked for images.
If you are going to be petty and look for B.S. reasons to point at something then you will almost ALWAYS be able to find such reasons.
I write what I mean. I don't try to find secret little implications for you to need to look for. No mind reading is required.
If you think you need to seek out escape hatches to ignore everything else someone else says so you can justify the mental spam filters being engaged then in most cases you will be able to find them.
If that is NOT what you are trying to do then I'll still extend you the benefit of the doubt.
If that IS what you are trying to do and many people actually do on a regular basis then I think that makes you foolish.
You don't need to seek little things to attack. Look at the whole.
All of us have little things we disagree on. If that is all we focus on then nothing is accomplished and it is a waste of both of our time.
It is also pretty telling that when I do the work you seem to lazy to do and actually looked up the things about the pulse night club you wanted... you shift. Let's find something else for you to poke at.
Give me a break.
Here a little more quick searching... just how lazy are you that you demand I do this for you. It is not that hard. It is pretty annoying when people don't like something and make demands but they are unwilling to do the least bit of searching themselves.
That was just one of several articles that talked about increased security and the security response or lack of security response. A lot of different messaging.
This is no longer hot cutting edge news so I am sure you can find plenty more to read if you are that concerned about it.
And for the record I am not saying what Trump stated about this. I am explicitly talking about the scouting out other locations before Pulse and not choosing them due to the obvious presence of security.
In the case of Pulse it doesn't seem like security that was there was particularly fast at responding. Thus, the reasoning by the lawsuits.
please don't make assumptions about me, a stranger on the internet. you're likely to bend yourself into all sorts of shapes if you think you need to hold my hand here. i can research perfectly well, but it also pays to know what sources an author is using. i didn't know much about this case beforehand, but your casual mention of it and then general appeal to "the actual statistics" felt off somehow.
In the case of Pulse it doesn't seem like security that was there was particularly fast at responding.
this article from the Orlando Sentinel references the OPD's record of events: the off-duty officer exchanges fire with Mateen within minutes of his arrival at Pulse, and then calls in additional police support.
the official timeline of events used in this review by the National Police Foundation, states (page 21) that the off-duty officer engaged with Mateen within a minute of the first shots being fired.
so, had Mateen gone to the other locations he looked at and not seen security/police for some reason, would he have gone there? i don't know, maybe. seems like he wanted to shoot people. i'm sure he'd find targets eventually.
but that still leaves the question, what were you trying to say?
but that still leaves the question, what were you trying to say?
I thought that would be pretty clear. He didn't go to the first two places because he saw the heavily armed security. He did not see that at the Pulse Night Club.
Gun Control Laws do not stop people who plan to shoot other people. They only disarm honest law respecting people. They create an area where the people who DO plan to commit crimes know that the only people who can defend themselves from them are law enforcement who typically have a pretty long response time. Definitely usually much longer than it takes for them to shoot, rob, etc. people.
Gun Control Laws ONLY hurt law abiding citizens. They don't protect them.
Pulse night club example was an example of the shooter NOT going somewhere he knew someone armed was there to shoot back.
Did he plan to kill people? Most definitely. That I do not dispute.
Did he use a gun? Most definitely.
Would gun control have stopped that? Typically not at all. It actually makes it easier.
Criminals don't give a damn about gun control laws.
It does however disarm people that might be able to defend themselves and others.
why is this a good example for your argument? he purchased his guns legally and others with guns engaged him very quickly.
i was hoping for more talk about algorithms, honestly.
Yes. He purchased them legally. He wanted to shoot people. Shooting people is illegal. Do you actually think he would be stopped by gun control laws?
What would you like to know about algorithms?
Do you wish me to clarify why I brought up gun control or specifically what would you like to know?
I think if you actually wanted to know how Gun Control was remotely relevant that would have been a good question.
but it also pays to know what sources an author is using.
Just search engine. I provided my quick searches. As to where I read it/saw it/heard it years ago when this happened. Sorry I don't have perfect recall. Do you?
EDIT: I've also seen people discard sources because it is "I don't trust X", "I don't trust Y". To be honest I don't trust ANY source completely.
Did I say I did? Kindly show me. Again you seem to be looking for an escape hatch.
Why do you twist and turn and look for any corner to scurry into to try to nitpick and escape?
What is wrong with looking at the entirety of something?
EDIT: Some might call it cognitive dissonance. To me I suspect it is just a bad habit. Deflection. Looking for any reason to say "See... look here... look at this one thing... no ignore everything else... let's just point over here in this corner..."
i only have your words, as do other readers. i'm certain you use those words on purpose. you seem very careful. but if asked about them, you say otherwise, and accuse me of trying to manipulate you or run away.
i very much liked most of this article and i wanted to ruminate on it a bit, and the EDIT at the end with the offhand comments about guns left a sour taste in my mouth, along with the meme. you made those choices.
If you have a zit should I just talk about that or should I pay attention to what you are talking about and who you are?
You've got a bad habit. You are not alone. You are using pretty common tactics I see a lot these days. If you want to keep pounding on me I'll try to help you break it.
I am not expecting you to agree with me. That is not the bad habit. The bad habit is you frantically looking for any little detail you can latch onto, be it a word, a phrase, anything you can say "see... do you see it" while you ignore ALL of the other things that are required for the true context.
You seek to destroy by pointing out things that by themselves you can frame as a negative. This only works by ignoring everything else.
It is disingenuous and it is pretty effective when used against most people. It is not effective when people have become aware of it.
I've got your number with this technique. If you want to talk about the whole then we might get somewhere.
If you keep wanting to look for justification for why I might be wrong... you'll always be able to find that.
Would it help you if I intentionally start misspelling things? Would you see it then?
At this point I am not trying to attack you at all. I truly want you to stop using this tactic. It is destructive. There is absolutely nothing constructive in the sense of actual communication about the technique.
Look at things in context. CHOOSE to try to understand what a person is trying to say rather than CHOOSING to find things you can dissect and attack.
For the record. I can plainly see you are not stupid. I am not trying to imply that.
I do see by what you are choosing to focus on that the habit I am referring to is there. Especially as I watch you bob and weave from one thing to another while ignoring everything else.
please don't make assumptions about me
Only reacting to your actions and what you choose to focus on.
the official timeline of events used in this review by the National Police Foundation, states (page 21) that the off-duty officer engaged with Mateen within a minute of the first shots being fired.
I didn't answer this. It doesn't mean Mateen had a clue he was there. That was my point. He skipped two locations after identifying armed security.
A minute is a long time to respond in a situation like this. That would seem to indicate that security guard was not paying attention, or was not close by.
Time 60 seconds...