It seems to be mostly a problem with Obama voters. As with many things for the Left, their desire to take away our guns arises from their projection of their violent tendencies on the rest of us.
5 thoughts on “Gun Violence”
Comments are closed.
It seems to be mostly a problem with Obama voters. As with many things for the Left, their desire to take away our guns arises from their projection of their violent tendencies on the rest of us.
Comments are closed.
You notice how they never give up.
Ever.
They lose….then they start right in again. They change the name of the law but keep the guts and keep putting it up for votes until they get what they want.
I wish Republicans would do the same.
Sorry, but the map on the left is obviously bogus. Vermont a hotbed of gun violence? Northern Maine? The Quad Cities region? The Arrowhead, for God’s sake? Meanwhile, Chicago, St Louis, and KC are barely noticeable. Right. Who falls for this stuff?
It does say ‘share’ of gun violence, so: weighted. Someone stepping on a bullet in northern Maine is probably enough to make them ultraviolet.
Ridiculous, this is just a population density map (meaning, cities vote democrat, duh, cities have higher population hence high crime, duh. These are uncorrelated). Here’s xkcd making fun of you http://xkcd.com/1138/.
Interesting is all those red areas low in population and high on firearm homicides (Texas, the South etc). I bet a population-normalized map would should just *the opposite* of your point. What a clown
Yes, ian, I’m sure most of those inner-city gang-bangers who are shooting themselves and their peers are Republicans.
If they are Obama voters, then just think of “gun violence” as (to use the classic phrase from Pournelle and Niven) “evolution in action.”