15 Dec 2015, 9:16 am
15 Dec 2015, 9:30 am
15 Dec 2015, 10:06 am
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
15 Dec 2015, 10:25 am
15 Dec 2015, 10:58 am
15 Dec 2015, 1:22 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,029
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
15 Dec 2015, 1:27 pm
15 Dec 2015, 11:07 pm
16 Dec 2015, 1:46 am
C2V wrote:
Hmm, always seems to be the complaint among people of differing religious views. I believe you have a point there in general terms, but I'm curious as to how you perceive this thread to meet that criteria? What has been insulting, exactly? Differing points of view are always difficult because of the self/ego complex interprets it as a personal attack, but there has been none of that in here that I could make out. Examples?
I am responding out of simple respect for a straight question, but I will keep this short also out of respect for the original poster. I nearly cited examples (though in rereading, I found examples but some were not as harsh in my second reading as I understood it the first time through), but if I even went into it, I feel like I might become a bit of a smart aleck in even responding. And I don't want that. Also, it would deter from the topic at hand by far, and I don't want to disrupt either. I think you showed concern in your question though, and I thank you for that. Kudos!
25 Dec 2015, 6:13 pm
26 Dec 2015, 9:19 am
Aniihya wrote:
To be honest, I am very critical of a lot of people on this site because many of the more bigoted folk on here are also those who are self-diagnosed.
I understand both "people-watching" and caution. But I also think self-diagnosis plays little part in bigotry. This is a very broad example but I use broad examples for a reason, lol:
I can and have on many occasions self-diagnosed and treated spider bites for myself and my family via an old Indian (I still don't say native American and I'm' part Indian so I can do that lol) remedy that works every time and cost hundreds less than a doctor visit. That has no relevance to whether or not I am a bigot. As a matter of fact, I am far kinder to people in general than almost anyone I've seen. I kind of hate that because it seems to make people view me as weak or desperate. I can assure you, neither is the case. I often walk away from aggressive/destructive people, so desperation is not there. And I would protect my family with every inch of my being, and I feel that removes weakness quite enough. I have also seen many bright people self-diagnose including educators, which I find to be wonderful
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
26 Dec 2015, 10:53 am
26 Dec 2015, 1:48 pm
Jacoby wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Since the data ends in 2013, I manually gathered the death toll from subsequent terrorist attacks in the US (including the December 2015 San Bernardino shooting), which increases the number by an additional 64 to 3,444. Please note that this number includes *all instances* of terrorism, like the recent Charleston Massacre by Dylan Roof which had nothing to to with Islam.
Most of the "gun deaths" are from inner city people killing each other, gangs, or drug-related deals gone bad.
No.
Myers et al. (2013) wrote:
Overall, firearms deaths showed no significant differences in risk of death between the most rural and most urban counties (Table 2). However, within the age subgroups, firearm deaths showed very different patterns across the rural urban landscape. In the youngest age group (0 to 14 years), as well as in the older age groups (45 to 64 years and ≥65 years), the risk of firearm related injury death was significantly higher in rural areas compared with the most urban (respectively, fully adjusted RRs: 1.64 [95% CI 1.10 to 2.46], 1.16 [95% CI 1.00 to 1.33], and 1.20 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.41]). However, in the 20 to 44 year old age group, the risk of firearm related injury death was significantly lower in the most rural areas compared with the most urban (0.85; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99, fully adjusted). In the 15 to 19 year old age group, there was no significant difference.
Source:
Myers, Sage R. et al. “Safety in Numbers: Are Major Cities the Safest Places in the United States?” Annals of emergency medicine 62.4 (2013): 408–418.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3993997/
If you are younger than 15 or older than 45, cities are safer than rural areas with respect to gun deaths. If you are 20-44, rural areas are safer, and if you are 15-19, there is no difference.
More importantly, since the risk of injury is generally higher in rural than urban areas (as the above article demonstrates), getting away from the inner city crowd is generally not a sound strategy in this case.
Think about that for a second, what age bracket would most gangbangers and those involved in the drug game be? This study doesn't mean that it is safer in rural areas, that makes no sense at all since all those younger than 15 won't always be younger 15 and the same is true with those who are over 45. Very misleading study to be used to make this point. You can't use per 100,000 stats to compare big area to small area, less people obviously will skew the results.
... Ooookay...
I think I'll let you off the hook on this one, given what you posted here:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=301114&p=6276194#p6276194
You might want to read this article, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction_ ... ematics%29
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
26 Dec 2015, 2:41 pm
GGPViper wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Since the data ends in 2013, I manually gathered the death toll from subsequent terrorist attacks in the US (including the December 2015 San Bernardino shooting), which increases the number by an additional 64 to 3,444. Please note that this number includes *all instances* of terrorism, like the recent Charleston Massacre by Dylan Roof which had nothing to to with Islam.
Most of the "gun deaths" are from inner city people killing each other, gangs, or drug-related deals gone bad.
No.
Myers et al. (2013) wrote:
Overall, firearms deaths showed no significant differences in risk of death between the most rural and most urban counties (Table 2). However, within the age subgroups, firearm deaths showed very different patterns across the rural urban landscape. In the youngest age group (0 to 14 years), as well as in the older age groups (45 to 64 years and ≥65 years), the risk of firearm related injury death was significantly higher in rural areas compared with the most urban (respectively, fully adjusted RRs: 1.64 [95% CI 1.10 to 2.46], 1.16 [95% CI 1.00 to 1.33], and 1.20 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.41]). However, in the 20 to 44 year old age group, the risk of firearm related injury death was significantly lower in the most rural areas compared with the most urban (0.85; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99, fully adjusted). In the 15 to 19 year old age group, there was no significant difference.
Source:
Myers, Sage R. et al. “Safety in Numbers: Are Major Cities the Safest Places in the United States?” Annals of emergency medicine 62.4 (2013): 408–418.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3993997/
If you are younger than 15 or older than 45, cities are safer than rural areas with respect to gun deaths. If you are 20-44, rural areas are safer, and if you are 15-19, there is no difference.
More importantly, since the risk of injury is generally higher in rural than urban areas (as the above article demonstrates), getting away from the inner city crowd is generally not a sound strategy in this case.
Think about that for a second, what age bracket would most gangbangers and those involved in the drug game be? This study doesn't mean that it is safer in rural areas, that makes no sense at all since all those younger than 15 won't always be younger 15 and the same is true with those who are over 45. Very misleading study to be used to make this point. You can't use per 100,000 stats to compare big area to small area, less people obviously will skew the results.
... Ooookay...
I think I'll let you off the hook on this one, given what you posted here:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=301114&p=6276194#p6276194
You might want to read this article, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction_ ... ematics%29
I find it interesting that you keep a catalog of my posts but yeah wouldn't 1 murder in a town 7,000 will give it a per 100,000 murder rate similar to a warzone? Look at the total numbers from rural and urban and I'm sure it will agree with the fact that most gun violence in this country is usually urban and drug related. I grew up in a gang infested city, generally people don't get shot or killed for no reason altho I would not say that makes the city any more safe. Cities and police departments also LIE about crime statistics, it's called cooking the books and this was the case in my hometown. They said like my whole life that crime was falling but that didn't add up with us who actually lived in the city, the habitable areas are a lot smaller and gangs much more widely spread. The only reason the city isn't like Detroit and half abandoned is because the city maintains(or at least did while I lived there) a strict residency requirement for all city workers for like the last 100 years. Originally it was so emergency services and stuff were close by which made sense in the time before cars and interstate highways, now it's all about trapping tax revenue in the city. Coincidentally since those lies were exposed, you've seen an explosion of crime over the last few years but I imagine that there hasn't been much of a real increase and now they're just being honest.
26 Dec 2015, 4:51 pm
Jacoby wrote:
I find it interesting that you keep a catalog of my posts
I don't. I just put in "Jacoby" and "math" in the search field, and found your comment in the 2nd returned link.
Jacoby wrote:
but yeah wouldn't 1 murder in a town 7,000 will give it a per 100,000 murder rate similar to a warzone?
Only if the war-zone had a 1:7,000 murder ratio. 
Jacoby wrote:
Look at the total numbers from rural and urban and I'm sure it will agree with the fact that most gun violence in this country is usually urban and drug related.
The total numbers do not say anything about what the risk of being shot dead is, since the risk is relative to the population size.
And when you claim this:
Jacoby wrote:
This study doesn't mean that it is safer in rural areas
... then it only makes sense to look at death relative to the population size.
In other words: The study isn't misleading. Your posts are simply incoherent.
Jacoby wrote:
But the total numbers don't tell I grew up in a gang infested city, generally people don't get shot or killed for no reason altho I would not say that makes the city any more safe. Cities and police departments also LIE about crime statistics, it's called cooking the books and this was the case in my hometown. They said like my whole life that crime was falling but that didn't add up with us who actually lived in the city, the habitable areas are a lot smaller and gangs much more widely spread. The only reason the city isn't like Detroit and half abandoned is because the city maintains(or at least did while I lived there) a strict residency requirement for all city workers for like the last 100 years. Originally it was so emergency services and stuff were close by which made sense in the time before cars and interstate highways, now it's all about trapping tax revenue in the city. Coincidentally since those lies were exposed, you've seen an explosion of crime over the last few years but I imagine that there hasn't been much of a real increase and now they're just being honest.
Irrelevant personal anecdote. Your personal experience (n=1) does not in any way change the general conclusion concerning the risks of living in urban or rural areas.
