[in front of a protesting crowd, two characters are talking]
[blue, serious] Violence is never the solution
[purple, smug] Agreed, let’s disarm the police
[blue is now shown angrily gesticulating, sweating bullets]
NO,
NOT
LIKE
THIS
[in front of a protesting crowd, two characters are talking]
[blue, serious] Violence is never the solution
[purple, smug] Agreed, let’s disarm the police
[blue is now shown angrily gesticulating, sweating bullets]
NO,
NOT
LIKE
THIS
Why is the number of mass shooters and police themselves relevant here? We’re talking about the deaths the respective groups caused, and you haven’t provided any counter-evidence/stats for that.
First off because I’m not disagreeing with his thesis. I’m agreeing with the commentor, who also neglected to disagree with his thesis, who said his use of statistics were flawed.
As to your first question.
He’s comparing total deaths from shooters and police.
But if you add up the total number of individuals that have committed mass shootings it’s gonna total like what 1000? 2000?
Meanwhile there’s at minimum 700,000 police officers in the USA right now (not including ICE-PIGS).
So his number of 33x more deadly is not accurate, because if the USA had even half as many mass shooters as police the death toll from mass shooters would clearly be larger.
Hence why it’s a bad use of statistics.
…
American’s culture of anti-intellectualism is one of the tools the elites use to control the populace. If we can’t even have an adult conversation about math than how are we going to unite against our oppressors?
You can say that individual police members aren’t more likely than mass shooters to kill people, sure.
However, it is still true that the police is that big and they still killed much more people.