Nah I just didn’t have anything to add after TB posted. He’s a smart cookie
1 Like
fuckin’ trolls 
2 Likes
Are we? Someone is murdered basically daily in Baltimore and it’s become a punchline here.
Is it nonsense? Not sure I agree. I’m much more concerned about my family dying in a car or murdered in Baltimore than by a terrorist.
Sure, but I didn’t get that vibe from the post, though.
From a 4 second google,
Tbh sounds like an absurd amount is being done
Based on recent events, it’s a pretty safe bet the majority of the GOP doesnt share your view
That’s not really the challenging part (size and speed). The challenge is how to make ethical decisions. If the car is driving and it has the option to hit 10 pedestrians or drive into a pole, what does it chose to do? Who programs that logic? Do you want the car to make a decision based on the types of people (value children over adults or something). The objective moral choice would be to value 10 people over the person in the car, but do you want your car to not do “everything in its power” to save your life if that situation arises?
1 Like
Lol, no it isn’t. Its just bluster. You could probably fine the same exact statement from the last 5 mayors.
Good for them.
I’m curious as to what you’re basing this on? Your personal knowledge of Baltimore and it’s inner workings?
The comment was made to demonstrate that while it would be a very good line to fear cars more than terror, nobody is pushing it, as the side that would be spends too much time fearing terrorism to further the agenda and enrich their respective industries
It’s not about ignoring the point but seeing through the post to see the real point, which is to diminish the effects of gun violence upon children. Can you give a good reason why the author would not count children over the age of 12 as, well, children? Can you give a good reason why inner city children should not be included among, again, children?
I can do the author one better: the number of newborns killed by guns is so low, lower than the number of deaths the author acknowledges for his select group, that we shouldn’t worry about children of any age when it comes to gun violence.
I’m basing this on living in MD for 30+ years and listening to the same talking points over and over again and literally nothing changing. Pugh is just another incompetent Mayor in a long line of incompetent (and crininal) mayors here.
But, hey, we’re not on pace to break our all-time murder high score (set in 2017) so there’s that…
So a lack of progress equates to a lack of effort? Without said effort, would Baltimore be worse/better/the same?
Just seems like a weird way to defend a “data driven” look at gun violence when you say we’re not doing much in Baltimore, when data says we are
There’s that optimism we all know and love
There’s no real effort. It’s just talk. It is always just talk.
We are?
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Baltimore-Maryland.html
Murder up every year for the last 4 years (including 2017).
Rape - steady except 2014. Its was a good year…
Assault - similar story. Most of the categories hold pretty steady year over year.
Given the increase in gun homicides in recent years, could I use your logic to say we’re not doing anything about gun violence and be equally correct?
Edit: meant to quote your stats link
I don’t follow? I don’t think we do almost anything about gun violence in America; except, talk about it on the interwebs or for political points.
Is that even true anyway? And, if it is, if you exclude suicide (for which we do basically nothing imo) is it still true?
Please excuse the biased link. If you scroll a bit they have CDC data posted. Homicides scaling at a much faster rate than suicides in recent years
If a trend is de facto proof of work being done and/or not being done vs being all talk, we’re actively getting worse in recent years nationally the same way we are in Baltimore.
If your logic is true, there hasn’t actually been any effort in either arena, just talk.
This would also apply to the places that HAVE enacted gun legislation (unless they’re somehow not in the nation), showing proof of effort, which invalidates the logic.
If a large percentage of a group’s deaths come due to drug-related and gang-related violence, it wouldn’t make sense to include them. Those are things that decent society is mostly safe from, due to not being involved in them-those deaths are most often due to the deceased’s involvement in illegal activity. Counting suicides as part of gun violence also makes no sense, because the dead guy did it to himself. You’re pretty safe from suicide if you don’t…commit suicide.
Did they control for population growth?
Sure, if you consider gun legislation doing something other than talk, which I don’t…
For example, the MD shooter on Tuesady used a glock 9mm, which is illegal fo him to buy in MD.
It’s the CDC so I’d assume so. In any event, recent years scalings are increasing at ~15x the rate population growth is scaling at. So if they didn’t account for population growth it’s still up, just not as much
Then for the purposes of that data driven FB post, we’ve sailed into agree to disagree territory, with not much further to go over
Looked to me like they just posted the raw numbers.
Looks like you were correct. Adjusted for pop growth the year over year increase isn’t as drastic, but still on the rise
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/us/gun-death-rates.amp.html
1 Like