No. of Recommendations: 11
Heh. If you lived in a hard core progressive city, you'd think otherwise. Murder statistics are pretty clear about this. One uses murder because it’s a statistic over which there is no dispute: either the person is dead or not. No haggling about “was that a violent crime” or “was that statistic accurate”. It’s murder.
So looking at murder, we find that those “urban hellscapes” are *significantly* less likely to have murder than those rural paradises. How much?
Well, murders in NYC are 5 per 100,000 population. In Boston, 6 per 100,000. In Los Angeles, 10.
In the great rural state of Mississippi, 24. Louisiana: 21. Alabama: 16.
Yes, you are four times more likely to be murdered in Louisiana than in New York City. Five times more in Mississippi. And so on.
https://www.rit.edu/liberalarts/sites/rit.edu.libe...https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/m...If you would like to dispute these numbers, you have my permission. But try to do so with facts, not “My Aunt Tilly says…” or “I heard about a guy who…”
And If you would like me to display the statistics on other crimes I will be happy to do that, too, but you won’t like the results. There are more violent crimes, more robberies, more rapes, more assaults in rural states than in your so-called “urban hellscapes.” But congratulations on sucking up another helping of moron juice. Your handlers are very good at their jobs.
