3 ms·

> The major metropolitan areas are far less safe That mostly depends on who you are and what you're doing. I've felt scared in cities more often than I've fel

> The major metropolitan areas are far less safe That mostly depends on who you are and what you're doing. I've felt scared in cities more often than I've felt scared in rural areas, but the most objectively dangerous situations I've ever been in have all occurred in rural and suburban areas. E.g., it's far easier for someone unfamiliar with an area to avoid "the bad part of town" in urban areas than in rural areas. And suburbs are way more tricky than rural areas in this respect. > And in fact, the more gun control, the less safe Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief.

nitrogen 10y ago
Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief. No, I think that the causation might be reversed -- dangerous urban communities might feel the need for gun control, while rural communities that may be supported by hunting do not.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
liamcardenas 10y ago
The relative danger of rural vs urban areas is irrelevant. My point is that the amount of weapons and the incarceration rate should have no bearing on their rankings. A better reason would be: "statistically you are more likely to be killed and/or unfairly imprisoned due to corruption" which is not what he said. > Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief. Correct, there is no correlation between gun control and safety. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myth... But in defense of the guy in the article, he did not mention "gun control" but rather the amount of guns in total -- which may actually have a positive correlation with homicide rates: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... this, of course, is most likely due the fact that people will try harder to get guns if they live in a more dangerous area
visarga 10y ago
> the most objectively dangerous situations I've ever been in have all occurred in rural and suburban areas This documentary about Johannesburg opened my eyes. It's really bad. People are trying to organize while Police can't cope with the situation. I'm giving such a remote comparison for reference. It is good to know how bad it can be. I have never seen such bad conditions except maybe in a favela in Rio. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xycnjl_law-and-disorder-in-johannesburg_lifestyle http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xycnjl_law-and-disorder-in-...

nitrogen 10y ago

Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief. No, I think that the causation might be reversed -- dangerous urban communities might feel the need for gun control, while rural communities that may be supported by hunting do not.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

liamcardenas 10y ago

The relative danger of rural vs urban areas is irrelevant. My point is that the amount of weapons and the incarceration rate should have no bearing on their rankings. A better reason would be: "statistically you are more likely to be killed and/or unfairly imprisoned due to corruption" which is not what he said. > Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief. Correct, there is no correlation between gun control and safety. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myth... But in defense of the guy in the article, he did not mention "gun control" but rather the amount of guns in total -- which may actually have a positive correlation with homicide rates: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... this, of course, is most likely due the fact that people will try harder to get guns if they live in a more dangerous area

visarga 10y ago

> the most objectively dangerous situations I've ever been in have all occurred in rural and suburban areas This documentary about Johannesburg opened my eyes. It's really bad. People are trying to organize while Police can't cope with the situation. I'm giving such a remote comparison for reference. It is good to know how bad it can be. I have never seen such bad conditions except maybe in a favela in Rio. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xycnjl_law-and-disorder-in-johannesburg_lifestyle http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xycnjl_law-and-disorder-in-...