jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (29 posts)

What Do You Think About This Data?

  1. Sychophantastic profile image82
    Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago

    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13182851.jpg

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      How would the percentage increase or remain the same if more immigration of Syrian refugees was increased? How has the vetting process affected this statistic?

  2. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 3 months ago

    I think it shows that we are a violent culture and have a great need to address that tendency in our country.

    1. Sychophantastic profile image82
      Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      That, sir, is a sound conclusion from that data.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Even though only .00003 of Americans are shot, it's still valid.  Even though 4 times as many die in car crashes, it's still valid.  Even though the number of homicide by gun is overstated by 50% (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … 9-2013.xls ) and no mention of the rest of the murders, it is still valid to a point.

        1. Sychophantastic profile image82
          Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          And I believe that gang-related crime accounts for a lot of it. Likewise, police officers are most often shot by white men.

          Just throwing out some odd stats.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            One must be careful with stats as they are often (usually?) badly deformed to "prove a point".  For instance, are cops shot by white men in proportion to population?  In proportion to the number of contacts with white men? 

            But I do personally think that gangs are a huge part of the killings.  Saw a stat (if I can remember it) that indicated that if we take out Chicago, NYC and 2 other big cities, our murder rates falls to one on the lowest in the world.  Not sure at all I believe it, but there is probably at least some truth, and that truth is directly tied to gang activity.

            1. Sychophantastic profile image82
              Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              I agree that proportion is important, exactly as you have pointed out. Also important is how many black men are pulled over or contacted by police and for what reason. Would you agree?

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                That one's tricky.  How many blacks are stopped is irrelevant.  How many in the ghetto, compared with how many whites in the ghetto might be a more reasonable comparison, taking into account how many whites and blacks live in or frequent the ghetto.  (I think poverty has a good deal to do with crime and violence). 

                A look at how many (relative to population) are stopped out of the ghetto vs whites might be instructive as well.  Along with honest opinions from cops as to why they were stopped - did they not "fit" in the community found?  Were there several, casing a store or neighborhood?  Were there recent problems reported as being from one race or the other?  There are lot of reasons a cop might "randomly" stop someone, and racial bias is only one of them.

                One might also look at a comparison as to how blacks that are stopped are gang members vs the same for whites.  Bottom line is that it's real easy to just point to more blacks being stopped (relative to population) and declare that it is obvious racism, but there's lots more to it than that.

  3. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    And that if you want a specifically  titled truth or otherwise  made up statistical chart   , for ideological purposes  , no mater the cause , no matter reality , ............you can find one on the net !

    1. Sychophantastic profile image82
      Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Except this one isn't made up and contains the sources. That's actually the difference between truth and lies - that you can source the data and that those sources are reliable. I know you can find made-up charts because that's mostly what you base your opinions on. However, I expressed no opinion about this chart. I provided straight data. You're actually saying the data isn't accurate? If so, where's your data?

    2. Sychophantastic profile image82
      Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Do you disagree that lightning kills more people in the U.S. than Islamic terrorists?

      p.s. I actually don't care what you think because you can disagree with that statement all you want and you'd be wrong. So, if that's your opinion, it's based on faulty data and logic, which I think is the definition of stupid.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        It probably does...if you carefully leave out their single biggest "job".  Not even close if you don't.

  4. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 3 months ago

    Someone told me yesterday more people are killed with hammers than handguns. I wonder if that is true.

    Although, they need to stop arming toddlers. Who in their right mind would sell a gun to one of those little heathens?

    1. Sychophantastic profile image82
      Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      You can look that up easily as the government keeps track of manner of death.

    2. Sychophantastic profile image82
      Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Here you go:

      https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offen … le_08.html

      The stat you were referring to was that more deaths happen as a result of hammers than as a result of rifles. However, you can see how easily that gets changed to "hammers kill more people than guns" which is untrue.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry. I don't quite get your point. Dead is dead; last time I checked.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Or changed again to "hammers kill more people than guns", exacerbating the falsehood.  Especially as your link does not indicate "hammers" but ALL blunt instruments, of which "hammers" is only one.

        One must be extremely careful with numbers as it is so easy to say something that just isn't there.

        1. Sychophantastic profile image82
          Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          That stats show that there are far more deaths as a result of gun violence than hammer violence, though the stats certainly don't provide any answers to what the solution to that problem may be.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            LOL  But LTL said it was more from hammers than handguns, which you changed to more than (any) guns.  When, as your link shows, the true association is more from blunt instruments than from rifles.

            Such things require very precise language, that's all I was saying.

            1. Sychophantastic profile image82
              Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Agreed. What do you think of the political question that comes out of that chart, which is some version of: "Should we really be freaking out about radical Islamic terrorism" given the statistics?

              1. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                And should the wording of the stat that prompted your question, be considered as possibly affecting the number? Does adding "immigrant" to "Islamic Jihadists" mean they are specifically leaving out homegrown Islamic Jihadists attack deaths, and only counted actions of immigrants with jihadist motives?  Or is it simply an innocent phrase that includes all Islamic motivated attack deaths - Homegrown and imported?

                GA

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                First I would have to know just how much has been prevented by our anti-terrorism activities.  That always seems to be the elephant quietly sitting in the corner that no one wants to talk about.

                Have we saved 10 lives per year or 10,000?  We put a LOT of effort into anti-terrorism.  We spend a lot of money on it, and we "spend" a lot of individual freedoms to limit it.  What does it accomplish?

                1. GA Anderson profile image86
                  GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  I had a quick answer for you buddy, but I thought I better make sure it wasn't crap. Turns out my answer was crap, so I won't tell you what it was.

                  But... I stared and played with this link for ten or fifteen minutes. First hmm... was that I did not see what I expected to see. The second Hmm... was that it seems obvious that developed nations with active and intensive security and intelligence do have less attacks. I know that is stating the obvious, but it seems to justify lots as the answer to your first question.

                  So bouncing around to the least secure, say... Libya... and your second answer, just for comparison, would probably be hundreds to thousands.

                  I have no idea if this site is credible. But even if slanted either way, it is interesting to check out; it's an interactive map; 2016 Terrorist Attacks

                  GA

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Yeah.  It's kind of like asking what the homicide rate would be without cops...while all actions from our current cops were kept strictly secret.  We'll never know - not even the powers that be will ever know just how many lives were saved - and are forced to leave it to our vaunted leaders to ensure that the loss of freedoms and money they have cost us are worth it.  Not a pleasant situation, but the one we have.

  5. Fayaz Solangi profile image60
    Fayaz Solangiposted 3 months ago

    no

  6. Alternative Prime profile image88
    Alternative Primeposted 3 months ago

    What the Chart of STATs Clearly Illustrates is the FACT that YES, there is and has been a CRISIS of "DEADLY Violence" here in the USA for decades but it's Definately NOT Related to "Foreign Terrorism" as "Delusional Donald" Trump & LIARs at FOX LOSER Network are DESPERATELY Trying to "Bamboozle" you into believing for Political Purposes ~ sad ~ Foreign Terrorism does indeed need to be Addressed & President OBAMA & OUR Mighty Military are EFFICIENTLY Degrading & Destroying the Eneny in this Field ~

    However, if "Body-COUNT" is the Primary MEASURE of just how DANGEROUS a Threat is to Society, "Foreign Terrorism" would not be considered a PRIORITY ~ JUST the FACTs ~

    I've been Talking about the "REAL Crisis" around here for YEARs and it Pertains to "DOMESTIC Murder" Plain & Simple ~ NOT ONLY is "Drumpfy Trump" Mentally ILL & Delusional, but he's Pretty DUMB & SLOW to the Party as well ~ An Extremely DANGEROUS Combination ~ sad

  7. 60
    Louise wheelanposted 3 months ago

    Shouldn't we be less worried about the label and more worried about the reality? Terrorists are in the minority and to seek to label a terrorist group with a word anything other than terrorist seeks to divide. To quote a very old saying 'united we stand, divided we fall' terrorists fit into no group other than their own.

 
working