The god of Liberty is a hungry god. Child Sacrifice Uvalde edition. [UNLV Update]

I like how they're calling him embattled, as if he didn't get the shit rolling himself. That said, the claim, so far, is that they haven't broken any rules.

Source: https://www.kut.org/crime-justice/2...ity-council-behind-closed-doors-tuesday-night

I'm also a big fan of the idea they're meeting sensitivity needs by not broadcasting it to everyone, while still installing the asshole into power. That's some politicking right there.

Me, a council person hiring a Nazi: "I'm sorry, Jewish friends."
Me, swearing them in: "I'm sorry," I whisper to my Jewish friends as I close the door to my office and begin the swearing in.

 

As I said above, it's very likely that by doing it that way they also violated the state's open meetings act.

 

not really... Chicago doesn't even crack the top 20 compared to cities in gun happy states. We mention it to ridicule your underlying racism regarding "large urban hellscapes". (Worth noting that Thunder Bay, Ontario is generally the shooting/murder capital of Canada and not exactly a centre of multiculturalism)...

so yeah, totally negates that fiction.

as a matter of fact, if you look at the history of schools shootings I think you'll find the spree versions tend to happen in the more affluent suburbs than in inner cities.

 

I agree, I just find it curious they're making the claim that they've violated no rule. I'm interested to see how this plays out, because clearly they've violated some rules, as you mention.

 

There are reporters looking into it today.

 

Yeah, this.

I'm curious to see the source evidence for UAs claim. I did some quick Googling and couldn't find a list that breaks down cities per capita.

 

Bullshit cherrypicking. How many holiday weekends does Chicago need to beat the body count of your mass shootings?

 

jsut because you call it cherry picking doesn't make it so... especially when I'm comparing the whole damned country.

imbecile

 

That was tough.

https://news.wttw.com/2022/05/31/47...l-day-weekend-shootings-across-chicago-police

https://news.wttw.com/2021/07/06/more-230-people-fatally-shot-shootings-over-4th-july-weekend-us

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...hootings-single-weekend-8-years-1512634?amp=1

Cue the rationalizing and hair-splitting.

 

Bullshit. More people equals more violence. It’s not because of gun laws. It’s because the existing laws don’t go far enough. There was a reason Tombstone Arizona had a strict “no guns” policy before Arizona became a state.

 

Found this that breaks things down per city https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/chicago/news/chicago-has-had-most-mass-shootings-in-u-s-since-2018/#app:


Also:
https://www.kff.org/other/state-ind...rearms Death Rate per 100,000","sort":"desc"}

 

I admit it's very late here (can't sleep) so I might be missing something, but looking through those none seem to have per capita info.

 

Doing it by state is a bit misleading when removing one or two cities causes the stats to take a nosedive. I don't know where the "virtue" is in pretending that congested urban hellscapes living with crushing poverty aren't the bulk of the problem.

But we should all be gleeful about stacking ourselves like sardines, right @Ancalagon?

 

I didn't look for "per capita," because I don't see much utility in it. A tiny town with one mass shooting suddenly has a huge per capita rate, whereas a huge crime-ridden shithole can have its stats diluted by roping in all the sprawling suburbs.

The number of deaths is the number of deaths.

 

what exactly did you think a "rate" is measured by?

 

By whatever metric the bullshitter with an agenda chooses to parse his stats.

 

I'll just leave this here...










Regina for the non lethal gun crime win!

 

well, you'd be wrong.

maybe cut the bullshitting to support your agenda?

 

Without looking at things in per capita rates you end up with the meaningless statement that places with more people have more things happen to people.

The population of the US is a magnitude higher than that of Canada or Australia, I'm sure you'd recognize it as silly if someone tried to say "X happens 10 times more in the US therefore it's more dangerous".

 

.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-gun-violence-in-toronto-is-skyrocketing-again

 

You are confusing correlation with causation.

Since many of the guns used in Chicago violence come from out of state, it is not really a reflection on Chicago's local ordinances or even Illinois laws but on Indiana's.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...20220527-pruljwytw5c3zmdaqhrr6q4fki-list.html

 

Hey, look, UA can Google.

 

If you want your remedy to have the greatest effect, you focus your attention on the areas with the highest concentration of gun violence.

If you want to obfuscate the facts in service of an agenda OTHER than the greatest effect for your efforts, you draw the biggest circle you can and bang the "per capita" drum.

 

Where you draw the geographical boundaries for the stats being looked at is entirely unrelated to whether you then look at those numbers in raw or per capita terms.

 

congratulations... you sourced an op ed from our local print version of OOAN or whatever that right of FOX news network is.

as you want actual numbers though.

we're talking about a population of about 2 million in the city, and 5 million in the greater toronto area referred to. How many in Nebraska?

anyways, as usual you're dragging this as far away form the track as possible, which was specific to mass shootings and all we've found out is that they as well as more individual gun violence are more likely to happen in lower population densities.

 

Don't get pedantic with me. You're not equipped for it. I never CLAIMED to be seeking a causal link. Only looking for the most effective focus for your efforts.

Finally. You people are slipping. So are those other states similarly overrun with gun violence? No they are not. The best you will come up with is maybe the CITY of Detroit, which is its own crowded shithole with its own problems.

 

yup, but he still fails to display critical appraisal of the source's quality.

 

This is true. However, we are unable to focus our attention because anytime the subject comes up, we get a bunch of 2nd amendment fetishisers crying about their rights. So, honestly, anyone who brings up Chicago, et al, in defense of no gun control are arguing in bad faith.

Or you can just create circle jerks.

 

if you wanted to eliminate drug trafficking, would you go after the end users or the cartel supplying them?

 

Maybe if you're doing it for purely academic, as opposed to pragmatic, reasons. But if you're not attempting to be pragmatic, invoking stats is just window dressing on an opinion you had already formed.