I am thinking we should just require the good guys to wear capes like in a comic book. 

 

What happens when the bad guys start wearing capes too?  I mean look at Magneto.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Selective outrage always kills me. Poor people in terrible neighborhoods in cities with strict gun laws are gunned down everyday. Innocent people getting smoked is fine so long as they live in the ghetto. The gun deaths in those neighborhoods represent the lion's share of the gun violence.

---

Selective outrage always kills me. Poor people in terrible neighborhoods in cities with strict gun laws are gunned down everyday. Innocent people getting smoked is fine so long as they live in the ghetto. The gun deaths in those neighborhoods represent the lion's share of the gun violence.

The problem is cities with strict gun control laws aren't always in states with strict gun control laws.  It's easy to cross the border, and buy a gun.  You aren't limited to your city.  Gun violence is higher in states where gun control laws are less strict.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The problem is cities with strict gun control laws aren't always in states with strict gun control laws.  It's easy to cross the border, and buy a gun.  You aren't limited to your city.  Gun violence is higher in states where gun control laws are less strict.

Chicago is the murder capitol every year and Illinois has strict gun laws. NJ has very stringent gun laws and Camden is the wild west. Cali has tough gun laws and inner city gun violence is a major problem still.

---

Awful living conditions and pop density are greater indications of  gun violence than the gun laws in a location. Put a ton of poor people together in garbage neighborhoods and shootings will happen regardless of the gun laws. Those deaths represent the bulk of gun violence in this country.

---

Once again; correlation does not imply causation.

 

Lack of correlation proves lack of causation.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

What happens when the bad guys start wearing capes too?  I mean look at Magneto.  

 

(goes back to the drawing board)

---

;

;

the hoax videos have started coming out

---

Go Jags!
*To stay up for atleast 2 years 3/6/17
2016 draft players I think will be good

• On the Fournette train, will be best back of his class 3/6/17
  
• Lattimore please,  Lockdowns on both sides would be nice
  
• Engram at TE and the MJD clone Samaje Perine
  

Selective outrage always kills me. Poor people in terrible neighborhoods in cities with strict gun laws are gunned down everyday. Innocent people getting smoked is fine so long as they live in the ghetto. The gun deaths in those neighborhoods represent the lion's share of the gun violence.

 

We're not talking about "gun violence" so much as "mass killings" - the killing of multiple people by lunatics with easy access to firearms.

 

But let's not pretend that anyone really cares. Just more innocent victims to be offered up upon the altar of your 2nd Amendment rights.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

But let's not pretend that anyone really cares. Just more innocent victims to be offered up upon the altar of your 2nd Amendment rights.

You want an Emmy for best drama?

---

The problem is cities with strict gun control laws aren't always in states with strict gun control laws.  It's easy to cross the border, and buy a gun.  You aren't limited to your city.  Gun violence is higher in states where gun control laws are less strict.

 

Is that your opinion, wishful thinking or can you actually back that up with some facts?

 

Here is a list of states with the most restrictive gun laws.

 

1.  California

2.  New Jersey

3.  Massachusetts

4.  New York

5.  Connecticut

 

Here is a list of states with the least restrictive gun laws.

 

1.  Utah

2.  Alaska

3.  Arizona

4.  Oklahoma

5.  North Dakota

 

Which state in the second list has a larger problem with gun violence than any state in the first list?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Well lets look at the deaths per 100,000 population, shall we?

 

Data from 2013:

States from the Top will be in Blue

States from the Bottom will be in Red


Alaska - 19.8
Oklahoma - 17.5
Arizona - 14.1
Utah - 12.6

North Dakota - 11.8


California - 7.7

New Jersey - 5.7

Connecticut - 4.4

New York - 4.2

Massachusetts - 3.1



How about 2015?




 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Is that your opinion, wishful thinking or can you actually back that up with some facts?

 

Here is a list of states with the most restrictive gun laws.

 

1.  California

2.  New Jersey

3.  Massachusetts

4.  New York

5.  Connecticut

 

Here is a list of states with the least restrictive gun laws.

 

1.  Utah

2.  Alaska

3.  Arizona

4.  Oklahoma

5.  North Dakota

 

Which state in the second list has a larger problem with gun violence than any state in the first list?

 

 

The suggestion here is likely confusing the cause and effect. This is suggesting that states listed first are more violent because they have stricter gun laws, but actually they have stricter gun laws because these stats are more violent. I'm not necessarily an advocate of stricter gun laws, but some things are obvi.

---

'02

Well lets look at the deaths per 100,000 population, shall we?

 

Data from 2013:

States from the Top will be in Blue

States from the Bottom will be in Red


Alaska - 19.8

Oklahoma - 17.5

Arizona - 14.1
Utah - 12.6

North Dakota - 11.8


California - 7.7

New Jersey - 5.7

Connecticut - 4.4

New York - 4.2

Massachusetts - 3.1



How about 2015?




 

 

I figured that you would come up with something like this.  Why use a select number (Deaths per 100.000 population)?  Because it makes your statistics look correct.  However, lets look at real numbers.

 

I'll compare the top two from my lists just as an example.

 

California is the most restrictive when it comes to gun laws.  Looking at 2015 stats, there was a population of 37,253,956.  So lets round that number down for our calculations.  37,253,956 / 100000 = 372.53956 so we'll round that number to 373.  Number of deaths then (using your chart) would be 373 * 7.7 = 2872.1 which we'll round to 2872 gun deaths.

 

Utah has the least restrictive gun laws.  Again, looking at 2015 stats, there was a population of 2,763,885.  Again we'll round that number down for our calculations.  2,763,885 / 100000 = 27.63885 and again we will round it up to 28.  So number of deaths would be (again using your chart) 28 * 12.2 = 341.6 which we'll round to 342.

 

So looking at our results right now, the state (California) with the most restrictive gun laws had more gun related deaths (2872) than the state with the least restrictive gun laws (Utah) with (342) gun related deaths.

 

Now what does this exercise prove?  You can make statistics say whatever you want.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It's being reported that the shooter targeted Christians, shooting them in the head while shooting non-Christians in the leg.  The race and religion of the shooter have not been released, nor have there been any details about what kind of weapon(s) he used and if they were obtained legally.  I know in some states you can buy a rifle at age 18.  The shooter was 20. 

 

 

I haven't actually read anyone or watched any televised reports, but I have heard a bit about this as I live near Oregon. For starters I thought there were multiple shooters, or at least more than one person involved with the shooter. Also, I'm hearing they were white neo-nazi skinheads.

---

'02

And I figured you'd come up with something like that.  


So you'd be totally okay with me comparing the US to UK gun deaths, right?  I mean they're totally comparable, and we don't need to look at the population size, right?  Or hey, how about Australia?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The suggestion here is likely confusing the cause and effect. This is suggesting that states listed first are more violent because they have stricter gun laws, but actually they have stricter gun laws because these stats are more violent. I'm not necessarily an advocate of stricter gun laws, but some things are obvi.

 

I got those stats from here and here.  I am not suggesting anything.  I'm just dealing with actual data and facts.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

And I figured you'd come up with something like that.  


So you'd be totally okay with me comparing the US to UK gun deaths, right?  I mean they're totally comparable, and we don't need to look at the population size, right?

 

The thing is, using your method is going to heavily be in favor to states with a larger population.  As an example, what if the chart showed deaths based on a population of 1,000,000?  Many of the states that show up in the "worst" side of your chart would not even be there for one thing.  The number next to many states on the "best" side of your chart would be much higher.

 

As I said before, you can make statistics say anything.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Uhh.. you do realize that doing it by per million would just move the decimal point over by one spot, right?


So Alaska would have 204 gun deaths per million

California would have 77 gun deaths per million

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Uhh.. you do realize that doing it by per million would just move the decimal point over by one spot, right?


So Alaska would have 204 gun deaths per million

California would have 77 gun deaths per million

 

Not quite right.  Alaska doesn't have 1,000,000 people so the equation would equal zero (0 * 204 = 0).

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.