Now that is complete irrational. The major metropolitan areas are far less safe. And in fact, the more gun control, the 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.
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.
> 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/201... 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-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
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-...
That's not actually true, statistically. There are more crimes because there are more people. If you look at violent crimes per capita, urban areas as a whole are safer.
On the other hand I'm not sure what value those statistics have for individuals. When you're in a city the neighborhood you're in matters a whole lot, especially if you're not from that city. Where I grew up there are some neighborhoods that are pretty close to being crime free, and there are others I won't go for fear of my safety.
The FBI reports the 2011 rate of violent crime known to law enforcement within metropolitan areas was 410.3 per 100,000 persons. The rate of violent crime per 100,000 persons in cities outside metropolitan areas was 382.1, and for nonmetropolitan counties it was 186.1.1
The FBI reports metropolitan cities had a murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate known to law enforcement of 4.9 per 100,000 persons in 2011. Cities outside metropolitan areas had a murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate of 4.4 per 100,000 persons while non-metropolitan counties had a rate of 3.1 per 100,000 persons.
http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2014/urba...
Now it’s true that the risk of homicide is greater in big cities than it is in the countryside.
As long as she doesn't say anything nice about democracy or anything.
Have we really forgotten the Tiananmen Square Massacre so quickly?
The 6/4 issue is a separate thing. In fact many in her generation are unaware that it happened. First time I made a reference, she wouldn't believe me for like a week.
But still, the salient point is that there exist governments with no gun control and minimal gun murders, high gun control and minimal gun murders, as well as low gun control and low murders, and low gun control and high murders. I think any statement of causality needs some massive citation there...