I just bought a last years model Motorola Z2 Force ( https://www.motorola.com/us/pr... ) for $120 from Sprint. This is Mororola's flagship from last year.
Now granted the Z series isn't as great as Samsung's or Apple's flagships but it's not a bad phone by a long shot and isn't that far off. The only reason I can see for most people to be paying the current prices for the latest and greatest flagships is tech nerd status which I could care less about. I feel like Samsung is wising up here and realize they can't offer anything new that matters all that much and is reorienting itself for what I feel like is the market to come.
"Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life."
Sure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.
"And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S."
More nonsense. There's nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to bear arms against your own government.
"Well unlike you, I am not lying about them.
DUURRR, more stupid. Tell me, how am I lying when I say that?
"I'm hardly the person who says there's a replication problem in science except for the parts I like."
Jesus you're dumb. As I told you, comparing two numbers that no one debates is not part of the modern problem with the replication in results modern science is having. This has nothing to do with "what I like" and everything to do with incredibly easily observed things. If you're saying there is debate on the validity of these numbers then the burden of proof is on you. Show me the reputable source that cast doubts on them. All you're doing now is basically saying "Not uh, that's wrong because I say it is".
I'm asking for evidence on your claim "he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook.". Clearly you're an intelligent person who wouldn't just make shit up because your ideology says you should not like something, right?
"Are you asking for evidence of "he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them"?"
Poverty is a tricky issue. Ask the government of literally any red state except for Texas. Their economies are all garbage and their state's packed full of poverty. Meanwhile encouraging people to participate in our Democratic process is about as American as you can get and doing so with the people least likely to participate even more so.
"We're not debating whose fault it was, we're simply debating whether the statement that Obama created a lot of jobs is a reasonable assessment of his presidency, and it is not."
Oh geez, this is embarrassing for you https://www.factcheck.org/2017... . We gained a lot of jobs under him. Maybe you are the type to just make things up.
"We already have a massive system of socialized medicine, called Medicare/Medicaid. It already spends more per American (again not per patient but per American) than many European systems of socialized medicine. So the problem is not that we lack sufficient funding for socialized medicine, the problem is that the system of socialized medicine we have is horrendously inefficient and overpriced. And Obama did nothing, zero, zip to fix that."
Yup, it's really looking like you're the type to make shit up. Medicare costs us less than $11,000 per user ( https://www.kff.org/medicare/s... , https://www.healthaffairs.org/... ) and currently covers about 15% of the population ( https://assets.aarp.org/rgcent... ). Per American that comes out to 1,600 per person so no it does not cost more per American than any socialized system. In fact, it's not even close.
Even if we ignore your ridiculous claim of per American and look at per user it's actually pretty impressive how low that $11,000 is given that by design medicare exclusively serves our highest cost demographics.
"There clearly is. And there are three ways in which Obama could have addressed that problem: he could have fully privatized our system, he could have imposed a mixed system with strict cost controls, or he could have implemented a nationalized public system like the UK and France. All three of these can be made to work cost-effectively, given the right regulations. Obama did none of those."
Well I don't think being "fully privatized" would get us healthcare coverage for our poorest as we're already pretty privatized and can't do that but we can certainly agree Obama Care isn't great.
"If you think we can solve gun violence the same way we're "solving" drug overdose related deaths, by banning drugs and spending billions of dollars on a "war" on them, then you should prepare for same the results."
You're ignoring the mountain of correlating evidence that less guns equals less gun violence, less murders (even if you take out suicides for the US and leave them in every other countries numbers our homicide rate would still be about 2.5 times the first world average), and less suicide. Strong correlation strongly suggests causation.
"Ask the folks in Japan."
You mean the country that has a homicide rate that is about 25 times less than ours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . After looking at this clearly your "suicide makes up a massive portion of American gun violence" seems like it's full of shit.
Nothing that you just said refutes "For the last several decades it has been at least half as much and that's the minimum aside from a spike in violence in the first few months of 2018 where it did exceed New York's (which has not been the worst American city for that type of thing for a couple of decades). The UK has had strict gun control laws for well over half a century." which is what this whole conversation has been about.
You don't appear to have any grasp on how statistics work. One city does not make a trend, plenty of other American cities are currently seeing spikes in crime.
Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd
"Dylan Roof was certifiably insane"
And steaped in far right thought. The Left isn't known for sporting the Confederate flag
"It wasn't the land use policies, it was the illegal railroading of a citizen."
Irrelevant. We have courts for that type of thing.
"Sure you don't"
Durrr, good one! Clearly you'd know my oppinions better than I would.
Because significant parts of it have some of the best weather in the US which is never too cold, never too humid, rarely too hot. I never travel during the height of summer or winter now because of it.
Or how about another fundamental basic, food? We're America's produce basket and year round I can eat good quality produce either grown here or in Chile who has the same climate, just in the opposite hemisphere and a very convenient chipping distance away.
The fundamental root of California's attraction isnt companies and job. Companies and jobs come to California because the fundamental basics of life are easier here.
No one who is educated in the social sciences thinks we're anywhere near third world status. There is a massive gap between the economic prosperity of the two nations in question here just as there is a major gap in your grasp on how the world works.
You mean how London briefly has had a higher homicide rate than New York, a US city that has been experiencing record lows in that category https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/... ? London, in a country that has had strict gun laws for over a half century.
You're referring to the spike in London that clearly has nothing to do with their gun laws?
Maybe get your information from sources other than right wing news and you might look less stupid.
No, it's not. I'm sorry but you're clearly getting your info from Right Wing shit holes. For the last several decades it has been at least half as much and that's the minimum aside from a spike in violence in the first few months of 2018 where it did exceed New York's (which has not been the worst American city for that type of thing for a couple of decades). The UK has had strict gun control laws for well over half a century.
I can't believe you're calling me an idiot with this stuff.
"In sociology ? You mean a "Science" where studies can't be reliably replicated"
Every field of science is having this problem right now. Meanwhile you're using this as a means of placing doubt on easily comparable statistics no one questions. Stupid.
"Anyway going back to your idiocy. The violent crime rate in Montana a state with very little regulation of gun ownership 281/100k overall violence comparing that to London it's 2200/100k considering strict violence against the person"
Comparing a major urban area to a mostly rural one. Talk about comparing completely different demographics. Stupid.
"If we don't want to confront the uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities"
Most other first world nations have this problem around as bad as us. This is yet another thing controlled for by comparing amount first world nations.
" and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths)"
So suicide is not a problem? That's the stupidest thing I've heard all weak. If American's are more likely and/or more successful at committing suicide with guns then that is yet another problem with our country's mass ownership of firearms.
Stupid. If California is such a "shit hole" why does it have some of the highest property values in the US. For every negative California has I'd wager whatever backwater you live in has two.
"the insane politicking and the march against logic, reason, knowledge, discipline, learning, critical thinking, diversity of opinion, open mindedness, freedom of thought and speech....etc."
You mean like your post which features the insane politicking of an article about enrollment numbers for the humanities?
" Just maybe there is another overriding factor, or factors, we need to consider."
The problem is that when we compare averages for first world nations to other first world nations we are doing so as a means to control for the typical major factors for crime and violence in society. This is the reason why we don't use third world countries in comparisons on this issue because it's not comparing apples to apples. When we compare among first world nation we are accommodating just about all of the known major reasons for variance by default. The typical variables that explain crime rates throughout the world can't explain America's homicide or gun violence rates, as a first world nation we shouldn't be having these problems. We should have solved them for ourselves by now.
"Because he didn't just "organize" people, he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook. And as such, he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them."
Reference please. I really don't believe that there is any evidence of this and without that you're just making shit up.
"Yes, and his response was massive handouts to Wall St and corporations and massive government spending. And the depression itself was caused by government policies that progressives (in both parties) were largely responsible for."
That wisdom can be debated. The sudden crashing of those giants would have most certainly turned what was one of the worst depression this county has had into what was most certainly the worst. Don't get me wrong, it upset me to see those people who pretty much caused that recession get handouts but the immediate alternative would have been worse for all of us.
It should also be noted that the Republicans who control both houses of congress during most of his two terms were openly antagonistic to future restrictions on these groups.
"Yes, but not even enough to keep up with population growth. And the labor force participate rate fell dramatically under Obama and never recovered, even if you factor out demographic changes."
So what? The massive economic decline that precipitated all of this wasn't his fault. Meanwhile, there's no way Trump could possibly be responsible for the first year of growth under his presidency despite his claims. He hadn't been in office long enough to make any major difference. There is no denying that our economy was far healthier after Obama had finished his terms.
"Transferring vast amounts of money from poor, young, healthy people to well-off, older, sick people is not a way of fixing US healthcare and it's not sustainable. Health care reform ought to have addressed the out of control costs, one way or another, either by full privatization or by full nationalization. What Obama chose to do instead was the worst possible combination of policies: massive handouts to corporate lobbyists and no costs controls at all."
Our system is what is not sustainable. We were spending twice or more than every single other nation with socialized medicine before Obama Care and now after Obama care. It's our stupid system that isn't sustainable and you're clearly exemplifying ideology before truth here. I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone who isn't a child or mentally deficient but if something can deliver something comparable for half the cost then clearly there is a problem with the more expensive option.
Yes, capitalism generally gets us more bang for our buck but there is so much obvious data out there that socialized medicine outperforms our current system per dollar spent it's ridiculous anyone would support our current system.
You being poorly educated on this subject does not change the fact that comparisons in homicide rates between first world nations are considered perfectly valid by those who aren't. They control for all of the typical major exasperating factors like major degrees of poverty, wealth inequality, and government corruption to name a few.
"If you want to make your point, you have to show that gun ownership rates and degree of restriction on owning guns (NOTE THE AND) have a high correlation to the crime rate and (NOTE THAT AND AGAIN) there aren't other factors that have higher correlation."
No that's not true at all. The vast majority of the first world who have strict gun control laws have a similar crime rate to our own while having vastly lower homicide and gun violence rates. This very strongly suggests that while the rest of the first world is equally crime prone their lack of fire arms drastically reduces their murders and general gun violence rate.
It's really a case of ideology before practical thought that brings pro gun conservatives to the conclusions that more guns leads to less gun violence. There's certainly no meaningful statistical support for that in the first world.
I'll be the first to tell you American no-gun zones are stupid. They just come in over the border.
"So it seems when you control within the same society gun control laws do not correlate with gun crime rate."
No, they do. That's why every single first world country with strict gun control laws has a vastly lower homicide rate than we do.
"First world countries with guns ? Switzerland which has universal gun ownership for males up to the age of 30, and the lowest crime rate in the world, destroys the idea that guns cause crime."
Good for Switzerland (although you're not telling me anything I didn't know. That's why I phrased what I said the way I did). Small countries are often able to buck the statistical trends. In the social sciences they're typically where you find you're outliers.
Basically, you're peddling a tiny nation against the statistical trends of the entire first world. Even though I don't use my degree professionally I'm glad I got it if it prevents me from making glaring errors like this. It's amazing to me how ignorant people are in regards to the social sciences that they think a single data point proves something.
And if you had looked at the article I had posted you'd have seen that aside from a few recent months New York generally has a homicide rate that is at least twice that of London and it has been like that or more so for decades.
A couple of months is a statistical blip. I'm back to calling you an idiot.
I love this. Some idiot can name one city in one country that has strict gun control that is experiencing a spike in crime and they think they've proven that gun control doesn't work. Never mind the fact that every single first world country with stricter gun control has a homicide rate that is on average 5 times lower then ours.
Spikes in crime happen in major urban areas for quite a lot of reasons and you're an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
I just bought a last years model Motorola Z2 Force ( https://www.motorola.com/us/pr... ) for $120 from Sprint. This is Mororola's flagship from last year.
Now granted the Z series isn't as great as Samsung's or Apple's flagships but it's not a bad phone by a long shot and isn't that far off. The only reason I can see for most people to be paying the current prices for the latest and greatest flagships is tech nerd status which I could care less about. I feel like Samsung is wising up here and realize they can't offer anything new that matters all that much and is reorienting itself for what I feel like is the market to come.
"Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life."
Sure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.
"And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S."
More nonsense. There's nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to bear arms against your own government.
"Well unlike you, I am not lying about them.
DUURRR, more stupid. Tell me, how am I lying when I say that?
"I'm hardly the person who says there's a replication problem in science except for the parts I like."
Jesus you're dumb. As I told you, comparing two numbers that no one debates is not part of the modern problem with the replication in results modern science is having. This has nothing to do with "what I like" and everything to do with incredibly easily observed things. If you're saying there is debate on the validity of these numbers then the burden of proof is on you. Show me the reputable source that cast doubts on them. All you're doing now is basically saying "Not uh, that's wrong because I say it is".
"I'm not sure what exactly you are asking.
I'm asking for evidence on your claim "he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook.". Clearly you're an intelligent person who wouldn't just make shit up because your ideology says you should not like something, right?
"Are you asking for evidence of "he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them"?"
Poverty is a tricky issue. Ask the government of literally any red state except for Texas. Their economies are all garbage and their state's packed full of poverty. Meanwhile encouraging people to participate in our Democratic process is about as American as you can get and doing so with the people least likely to participate even more so.
"We're not debating whose fault it was, we're simply debating whether the statement that Obama created a lot of jobs is a reasonable assessment of his presidency, and it is not."
Oh geez, this is embarrassing for you https://www.factcheck.org/2017... . We gained a lot of jobs under him. Maybe you are the type to just make things up.
"We already have a massive system of socialized medicine, called Medicare/Medicaid. It already spends more per American (again not per patient but per American) than many European systems of socialized medicine. So the problem is not that we lack sufficient funding for socialized medicine, the problem is that the system of socialized medicine we have is horrendously inefficient and overpriced. And Obama did nothing, zero, zip to fix that."
Yup, it's really looking like you're the type to make shit up. Medicare costs us less than $11,000 per user ( https://www.kff.org/medicare/s... , https://www.healthaffairs.org/... ) and currently covers about 15% of the population ( https://assets.aarp.org/rgcent... ). Per American that comes out to 1,600 per person so no it does not cost more per American than any socialized system. In fact, it's not even close.
Even if we ignore your ridiculous claim of per American and look at per user it's actually pretty impressive how low that $11,000 is given that by design medicare exclusively serves our highest cost demographics.
"There clearly is. And there are three ways in which Obama could have addressed that problem: he could have fully privatized our system, he could have imposed a mixed system with strict cost controls, or he could have implemented a nationalized public system like the UK and France. All three of these can be made to work cost-effectively, given the right regulations. Obama did none of those."
Well I don't think being "fully privatized" would get us healthcare coverage for our poorest as we're already pretty privatized and can't do that but we can certainly agree Obama Care isn't great.
And that's what I thought. All you have left is name calling.
"If you think we can solve gun violence the same way we're "solving" drug overdose related deaths, by banning drugs and spending billions of dollars on a "war" on them, then you should prepare for same the results."
You're ignoring the mountain of correlating evidence that less guns equals less gun violence, less murders (even if you take out suicides for the US and leave them in every other countries numbers our homicide rate would still be about 2.5 times the first world average), and less suicide. Strong correlation strongly suggests causation.
"Ask the folks in Japan."
You mean the country that has a homicide rate that is about 25 times less than ours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . After looking at this clearly your "suicide makes up a massive portion of American gun violence" seems like it's full of shit.
Nothing that you just said refutes "For the last several decades it has been at least half as much and that's the minimum aside from a spike in violence in the first few months of 2018 where it did exceed New York's (which has not been the worst American city for that type of thing for a couple of decades). The UK has had strict gun control laws for well over half a century." which is what this whole conversation has been about.
Nice try at deflection though.
You don't appear to have any grasp on how statistics work. One city does not make a trend, plenty of other American cities are currently seeing spikes in crime.
"Peaceful protestor yeah
https://www.thegatewaypundit.c... [www.thegatewaypundit.c] [thegatewaypundit.com"
Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd
"Dylan Roof was certifiably insane"
And steaped in far right thought. The Left isn't known for sporting the Confederate flag
"It wasn't the land use policies, it was the illegal railroading of a citizen."
Irrelevant. We have courts for that type of thing.
"Sure you don't"
Durrr, good one! Clearly you'd know my oppinions better than I would.
Because significant parts of it have some of the best weather in the US which is never too cold, never too humid, rarely too hot. I never travel during the height of summer or winter now because of it.
Or how about another fundamental basic, food? We're America's produce basket and year round I can eat good quality produce either grown here or in Chile who has the same climate, just in the opposite hemisphere and a very convenient chipping distance away.
The fundamental root of California's attraction isnt companies and job. Companies and jobs come to California because the fundamental basics of life are easier here.
No one who is educated in the social sciences thinks we're anywhere near third world status. There is a massive gap between the economic prosperity of the two nations in question here just as there is a major gap in your grasp on how the world works.
Drive a car into peaceful protester's and kill some one
Shoot up a place of worship because the people there were black.
Hold up against the federal government in a violent manner because they object to federal land policies.
I don't pretend my end of the political spectrum doesn't have assholes in it but clearly you do.
You mean how London briefly has had a higher homicide rate than New York, a US city that has been experiencing record lows in that category https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/... ? London, in a country that has had strict gun laws for over a half century.
You're referring to the spike in London that clearly has nothing to do with their gun laws?
Maybe get your information from sources other than right wing news and you might look less stupid.
"London's murder rate is close enough to NYC's"
No, it's not. I'm sorry but you're clearly getting your info from Right Wing shit holes. For the last several decades it has been at least half as much and that's the minimum aside from a spike in violence in the first few months of 2018 where it did exceed New York's (which has not been the worst American city for that type of thing for a couple of decades). The UK has had strict gun control laws for well over half a century.
Stupid.
I can't believe you're calling me an idiot with this stuff.
"In sociology ? You mean a "Science" where studies can't be reliably replicated"
Every field of science is having this problem right now. Meanwhile you're using this as a means of placing doubt on easily comparable statistics no one questions. Stupid.
"Anyway going back to your idiocy. The violent crime rate in Montana a state with very little regulation of gun ownership 281/100k overall violence comparing that to London it's 2200/100k considering strict violence against the person"
Comparing a major urban area to a mostly rural one. Talk about comparing completely different demographics. Stupid.
"If we don't want to confront the uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities"
Most other first world nations have this problem around as bad as us. This is yet another thing controlled for by comparing amount first world nations.
" and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths)"
So suicide is not a problem? That's the stupidest thing I've heard all weak. If American's are more likely and/or more successful at committing suicide with guns then that is yet another problem with our country's mass ownership of firearms.
Stupid. If California is such a "shit hole" why does it have some of the highest property values in the US. For every negative California has I'd wager whatever backwater you live in has two.
"They are pretty proud of themselves but the rest of the world holds them in contempt. "
Or maybe you dont speak for "the rest of the world". I mean shit, maybe try walking your talk
"the insane politicking and the march against logic, reason, knowledge, discipline, learning, critical thinking, diversity of opinion, open mindedness, freedom of thought and speech....etc."
You mean like your post which features the insane politicking of an article about enrollment numbers for the humanities?
" Just maybe there is another overriding factor, or factors, we need to consider."
The problem is that when we compare averages for first world nations to other first world nations we are doing so as a means to control for the typical major factors for crime and violence in society. This is the reason why we don't use third world countries in comparisons on this issue because it's not comparing apples to apples. When we compare among first world nation we are accommodating just about all of the known major reasons for variance by default. The typical variables that explain crime rates throughout the world can't explain America's homicide or gun violence rates, as a first world nation we shouldn't be having these problems. We should have solved them for ourselves by now.
"Because he didn't just "organize" people, he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook. And as such, he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them."
Reference please. I really don't believe that there is any evidence of this and without that you're just making shit up.
"Yes, and his response was massive handouts to Wall St and corporations and massive government spending. And the depression itself was caused by government policies that progressives (in both parties) were largely responsible for."
That wisdom can be debated. The sudden crashing of those giants would have most certainly turned what was one of the worst depression this county has had into what was most certainly the worst. Don't get me wrong, it upset me to see those people who pretty much caused that recession get handouts but the immediate alternative would have been worse for all of us.
It should also be noted that the Republicans who control both houses of congress during most of his two terms were openly antagonistic to future restrictions on these groups.
"Yes, but not even enough to keep up with population growth. And the labor force participate rate fell dramatically under Obama and never recovered, even if you factor out demographic changes."
So what? The massive economic decline that precipitated all of this wasn't his fault. Meanwhile, there's no way Trump could possibly be responsible for the first year of growth under his presidency despite his claims. He hadn't been in office long enough to make any major difference. There is no denying that our economy was far healthier after Obama had finished his terms.
"Transferring vast amounts of money from poor, young, healthy people to well-off, older, sick people is not a way of fixing US healthcare and it's not sustainable. Health care reform ought to have addressed the out of control costs, one way or another, either by full privatization or by full nationalization. What Obama chose to do instead was the worst possible combination of policies: massive handouts to corporate lobbyists and no costs controls at all."
Our system is what is not sustainable. We were spending twice or more than every single other nation with socialized medicine before Obama Care and now after Obama care. It's our stupid system that isn't sustainable and you're clearly exemplifying ideology before truth here. I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone who isn't a child or mentally deficient but if something can deliver something comparable for half the cost then clearly there is a problem with the more expensive option.
Yes, capitalism generally gets us more bang for our buck but there is so much obvious data out there that socialized medicine outperforms our current system per dollar spent it's ridiculous anyone would support our current system.
You being poorly educated on this subject does not change the fact that comparisons in homicide rates between first world nations are considered perfectly valid by those who aren't. They control for all of the typical major exasperating factors like major degrees of poverty, wealth inequality, and government corruption to name a few.
"If you want to make your point, you have to show that gun ownership rates and degree of restriction on owning guns (NOTE THE AND) have a high correlation to the crime rate and (NOTE THAT AND AGAIN) there aren't other factors that have higher correlation."
No that's not true at all. The vast majority of the first world who have strict gun control laws have a similar crime rate to our own while having vastly lower homicide and gun violence rates. This very strongly suggests that while the rest of the first world is equally crime prone their lack of fire arms drastically reduces their murders and general gun violence rate.
It's really a case of ideology before practical thought that brings pro gun conservatives to the conclusions that more guns leads to less gun violence. There's certainly no meaningful statistical support for that in the first world.
I'll be the first to tell you American no-gun zones are stupid. They just come in over the border.
"So it seems when you control within the same society gun control laws do not correlate with gun crime rate."
No, they do. That's why every single first world country with strict gun control laws has a vastly lower homicide rate than we do.
"First world countries with guns ? Switzerland which has universal gun ownership for males up to the age of 30, and the lowest crime rate in the world, destroys the idea that guns cause crime."
Good for Switzerland (although you're not telling me anything I didn't know. That's why I phrased what I said the way I did). Small countries are often able to buck the statistical trends. In the social sciences they're typically where you find you're outliers.
Basically, you're peddling a tiny nation against the statistical trends of the entire first world. Even though I don't use my degree professionally I'm glad I got it if it prevents me from making glaring errors like this. It's amazing to me how ignorant people are in regards to the social sciences that they think a single data point proves something.
And if you had looked at the article I had posted you'd have seen that aside from a few recent months New York generally has a homicide rate that is at least twice that of London and it has been like that or more so for decades.
A couple of months is a statistical blip. I'm back to calling you an idiot.
Oops, not one of the gun control threads I'm talking in. Ignore that last post.
How about you are far more likely to be murdered in New York then you are in London for you https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43...
I love this. Some idiot can name one city in one country that has strict gun control that is experiencing a spike in crime and they think they've proven that gun control doesn't work. Never mind the fact that every single first world country with stricter gun control has a homicide rate that is on average 5 times lower then ours.
Spikes in crime happen in major urban areas for quite a lot of reasons and you're an idiot.