What does that have to do with the 13/52 stat?
Yes there are mitigations that can be used to reduce risk.
Like at ranges, there is a lot of shooting going but there are also a lot of controls in place to mitigate risks.
What does that have to do with what I wrote?
This is not actually correct, unless you meant firearms related murders.
Because most firearm related homicides are suicides. Unless suicide is counted as a murder in the US.
But besides that.
Murder is crime. 100% murders are commited by criminals. Therefore everywhere a murder happens with a firearm is in proximity to criminal activity
Do you understand what Iâm getting at?
What you wrote made no sense to me because it was nonsense.
No, a suicide is not a homicide.
Also, when an informed adult commits suicide, it should not be stigmatized, particularly if they do not have dependent children.
Nor should it be illegal.
In more civilized domiciles, it is a basic human right.
Yes, thatâs why I used the word homicide and not suicide.
That youâre incapable of abstract thinking?
What I wrote makes perfect sense if you can understand that someone can already have a criminal conviction, be actively committing criminal activity e.g. drug dealing or distribution, and commit a murder with a firearm directly (robbery of another drug dealer, fights over turf) or indirectly (beef/grudge with another drug dealer and they see each other at the club) involved with that activity.
Gun related deaths, sorry.
So out of cases where someone is killing someone else with a gun. Iâm guessing most of those are murders right? Or at least criminal use of the firearm?
What you are saying is that crimes are commited by criminals. And that history of criminal behaviour often predicts more criminal behaviour. No shit ehâŚ
What does that have to do with someoneâs skin color?
Did you already forget what the 13/52 stat was? Iâm not trying to engage in ecological fallacy here by claiming it means any one individual X person is more likely than Y person to engage in homicide, but as a population the 13% are way overrepresented when it comes to homicides.
Why would that be?
It could be any number of inputs, including poverty. But poverty doesnât correlate perfectly with homicide offense rate either. They are much more heavily overrepresented in homicides (13% v 52%+ and really we could even say 6% since men are overwhelmingly homicide offenders compared to women) than poverty (13% v 19.5%).
In the US homicide is also heavily concentrated in a few counties, and even more granularly can be isolated to even individual neighborhoods and streets in those counties.
Have you looked at poverty density as related to criminal activity?
Poverty couldnât be a sole causal factor even if it correlated significantly with homicide.
Yes the biggest cause is the shooting part.
Now moving on
Since most firearm homicides are the results of criminal use of a firearm. You thought it was novel to point out that it was criminals doing most of the shooting. As if it that was not implied already.
Now weâre moving on too the what could be root causes for people being more inclined towards criminal behaviour.
Is there a correlation between poverty density and crime?
Knowing full well that correlation is not causation.
Jesus youâre such a midwit lol.
You are still confused. You really think âwell all criminal use of a firearm is a crime SO OF COURSE THEY ARE CRIMINALSâ is a good response to what I wrote. Itâs another midwit âwell ackshuallyâ moment, like when you tried to âwell ackshually not all homicides are homicides because some are suicidesâ.
The point of my comment about criminal history of both the people who commit or attempt firearm homicides and the victims of those homicides was simply to add more context to firearm homicides in the US regarding who is more likely and who is less likely to be a victim or perpetrator.
You then began trying to get at the âunderlying causeâ of that criminality. Which is fine, but stop pussy footing around and just make your argument which is I imagine some flavor of âwell poverty is why they are engaging in criminal activity, criminal activity correlates with getting shot or shooting someone, so poverty is the âunderlying causeââ.
So we are here:
Is that your argument? Iâm not going to make your argument for you. Especially when I wasnât even addressing the underlying cause of engaging in criminal activity, simply who is more or less likely to be both a perpetrator and victim of firearm homicide in the US.
Youâre a new poster, and apparently, I am not supposed to tease you.
SoâŚwhat were you saying, here?
Or were you just trying to get a rise out of @Lant3rn for being a filthy Canadian?
I genuinely think they are a midwit.
You did not add context.
Youâre verbosity was vomit all over my screen because of the lack of it.
Are there some areas of expertise, or experience, or perspective, that @Lant3rn has, that might be valuable to you?
Iâm sure there are. The âbut ackshuallyâ and midwit attitude is a major turn off to even caring if there are though. See the above reply. They donât actually have any response to what I wrote, so they are going full midwit mode attempting indirectly call me an idiot. But they are too big of a pussy to be confrontational even on the internet lmao.