Guns don't kill people: Democrats kill people

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

If gun controllers are choosing not to "get it", I'll start messing with them, and play fallacy for fallacy.

I point out: "guns don't kill people, democrats kill people", just do the math ≈80%+ of murders (and crime) is by democrats -- thus whites/Asians with guns, aren't the problem, blacks/latinos/democrat voters with guns are. So, "we don't need gun control, we need Democrat control", since the rest of don't have a gun problem (white republicans have 1/4th the murder/violent crime rates than the Democrat average does).

Suddenly, their inner statistician comes out. They point out (accurately), that:

  • correlation isn't causality, so we haven't proved cause.
  • they suddenly want to talk about how you can't assume that everyone in a dataset is responsible for the aberration (e.g. most democrats aren't the problem, it's a small subset that's dragging the average up), they cry, "Averages, don't tell the whole story"

...and I reply, "ya don't say?"

They conveniently forget all those things when broad-brush blaming all gun-owners (or all of America), for the crimes/murders of a few illegal gun owners (and gang-bangers) in a few democrat controlled cities. But you narrow it down to a smaller more responsible subset (those who vote democrat), and they suddenly remember statistics 101 and recognize all the problems of the very fallacious arguments they've been using against our gun liberties all along. They just only selectively recognize those problems depending on if they are being applied to their side, on the other side. Proving they're not dumb, just dishonest.


Details

These are murder rates by top cities. The national average gun murder rate is ≈4.62/100K just to give you an idea of how far off norm (or conservative controlled places) these numbers are.

Deadliest Cities in America
Rank City Murder/100K State Avg/100K Party Years since opposition Mayor
1 St. Lious, MO 64.1 6.9 D 69 Years
2 Baltimore, MD 51.1 4.7 D 51 Years
3 New Orleans, LA 40.6 8.1 D 146 Years
4 Detroit, MI 39.7 3.9 D 56 Years
5 Cleveland, OH 33.7 2.7 D 28 Years
6 Las Vegas, NV 31.4 3.9 D 43 Years
7 Kansas City, MO 31.2 6.9 D 27 Years
8 Memphis, TN 27.1 4.5 D 142 Years
9 Newark, NJ 25.6 2.9 D 65 Years
10 Chicago, IL 24 3.4 D 87 Years

Are you noticing that:

  • all these places haver been Democrat controlled utopias... for generations?
  • And all have strict gun-control laws?
  • And they have 10x the murder rates of the rest of the state (and the rest of the states are less Democrat than those cities)?
  • And the only reason their states are that high, is because the Democrat controlled cities are dragging the Republican controlled suburban and rural areas averages up.
  • It also turns out that rural areas have more guns per capita -- so more guns = less murder, just like fewer Democrats = less murder.
  • 76% of the 60 Deadliest American cities are run by Democrats
  • 90% of the top 20 Deadliest American Cities are run by Democrats
    • the two that aren't, both were Democrat controlled recently.
    • Miami, FL - was last independent in 2011, and Democrat in 2004
    • Tulsa, OK - was last Democrat in 2009

Poverty

A common claim is it's just correlated to poverty. It isn't. It turns out rural and poor areas have less murder rates that richer cities. Even the poor people in the cities, are usually richer than the poor people in the country. So the whole poverty causes crime has never actually tracked well.

There is a little more with the difference between the richest and poorest in your area, may result in more poor committing crime: but that is also correlated to how much Democrats have fed the class envy thing. If you preach social injustice is all the fault of the evil rich, and some (more) of the gullible will believe you, and thus take justice into their own hands, and commit more crimes. They're also more likely to vote Democrat. We know the Democrats message of divisiveness and hate for votes, results in more resentment, crimes and murders. At least historically and statistically.

References