Anonymous #1 11w

Dumb take

5

Anonymous OP 11w

Its just a fact

1

Anonymous OP 11w

But if you want a dumb take I'd say that we should ban forks or hamburgers cause of that

1

Anonymous #1 11w

The obesity problem doesn't negate the gun violence problem not sure what you're trying to do here

11

Anonymous #1 11w

Food is a necessity. Guns are not.

6

Anonymous #3 11w

Self defense is

1

Anonymous #3 11w

and guns facilitate that

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Also while food in general may be necessary the fork and the hamburger are not.

0

Anonymous #1 11w

Are you intentionally this dense, or does it come naturally to you?

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Self defense is also not a necessity

0

Anonymous #3 11w

It absolutely is

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Nope. Maslow a hierarchy of needs does not list self defense.

0

Anonymous #3 11w

Where r u from

-1

Anonymous #5 11w

What relevance does this have on anything?

6

Anonymous #3 11w

buddy just wants to write you off as a blue area/city lib type and not actually contend with your ideas

6

Anonymous #6 11w

I would actually think that you are even more stupid if you lived in a blue city and didn't feel a need to defend yourself from other people than if you lived in a red rural area and thought the same

-2

Anonymous #1 11w

So you’re intentionally this dense?

6

Anonymous #3 11w

No its just that statistically you're much more likely to be attacked by someone in a city than a rural area

-2

Anonymous #1 11w

So you are that dense. Got it.

7

Anonymous #3 11w

What am I missing then einstein?

-1

Anonymous #1 11w

1. Your argument shifted from self defense being a necessity to “you’re more likely to be attacked in a blue city”. 2. You don’t have data to show that, and I promise you won’t find it. Your whataboutism followed by strawmanning arguments are making you look as silly as a clown who forgot their makeup

4

Anonymous #3 11w

Thats not a shift in argument, I was just adding on the fact that I think you'd be more dumb to be unequipped to defend yourself where you're more likely to need to

-1

Anonymous #3 11w

And here's a source https://usafacts.org/articles/where-are-crime-victimization-rates-higher-urban-rural-areas/

1

Anonymous #1 11w

lol you’re not using scientific data, you have to resort to articles and opinion pieces. You aren’t making any cases. Have the day you deserve peace out!

3

Anonymous #3 11w

I figured it'd be easier to read than the NCVS data it cites, but go ahead and look at that if you want to.

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Here's a link to make it extra easy on ya https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You mean the one that shows that red states are more violent? Fantastic. Thanks!

8

Anonymous #3 11w

I can think of a factor that it correlates more strongly to, the urban/rural divide. Here's a map of urban and rural counties

1

Anonymous #3 11w

And here's a map of violent crime

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Yeah….again….showing violent crime mainly in red states. ….crazy that you haven’t gotten that yet.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

I admire your commitment to your level of understanding

3

Anonymous #3 11w

Buddy just doesn't know how to look at CA, WA, CO, NM, MN

0

Anonymous #1 11w

the MAJORITY of violent crime is happening in red states. You have the kind of unshakable confidence that USUALLY comes with competence

5

Anonymous #3 11w

Red states also have the majority of people, that math checks out

0

Anonymous #1 11w

People choose to eat hamburgers, people don’t choose to get shot

0

Anonymous #7 11w

Not really true, there are more people who shoot themselves to death than are shot by others to death

0

Anonymous #7 11w

It’s not worth arguing with someone who disproves his own arguments.

2

Anonymous #7 11w

#1 is probably some finance bro who thinks they’re a genius, but probably got into community college because his dads the president.

4

Anonymous #1 11w

Land surface area =/= Population density, dumbass. Population isn’t evenly distributed across all land in this country. That’s why, although red states have on aggregate a larger amount of land per person, blue states have more people. You seem to truly be that dense. It’s not worth arguing with you anymore, since your entire argument seems to consist of moving the goalposts, whataboutism, and „nuh uh“.

6

Anonymous #8 11w

Do u mean *arable land

0

Anonymous #5 11w

I didn’t include arable land into consideration, just land in aggregate. But larger land surface area won’t necessarily mean more arable land though (see Alaska)

6

Anonymous #8 11w

Or other Western states that NM Or Utah, Nevada, but AK is an excellent example

0