It's a nice diagram. That said, it's also 2007. Does it have one more up to date? Because the last ten years alone changed things to hell around the globe.
Seriously though these categories are terrible. Greenland looks like a war zone. Any homicides are bad, but 10-20 is closer to 5-10 than it is to 20-infinity. They should have made 10-20 a light orange, or made 20+ Black.
Technically you're not wrong, it's just your satire infers an adjective when the reality is a verb because a lot of it is actual racial purging and blood feuds that go back decades.
As is the case for most black homicide victims globally where the perpetrators are also black, but it's different enough by African tribal standards to matter so much more there.
Greenland is a desolate artic waste and only has a population of 56.6k. 6 homicides would be enough to earn it the second highest rating.
They should have made 10-20 a light orange, or made 20+ Black.
They should have posted the actual numbers as this is where the concept of "lies, damned lies, and statistics" comes in play. As mentioned in the case of Greenland only 6 homicides are needed to earn the second top rating. Only 12 would be needed for the top. Meanwhile the USA would need over 33'200 homicides to quality for the second top rating and over 66'400 for the top one.
Going from 33'200 to 33'206 would probably be considered a rounding error and even if it weren't it wouldn't really matter when the population involved is a third of a billion. Going from 6 to 12 however when your population is only that of a dial up modem is not only a 100% increase in homicides but also enough to change your rating on that second map despite the fact the increase in both countries would be the same number.
Not that the first map is any better seeing as how it is measuring "guns per 100 people" and the USA has the largest military in the world 🙄
So when people say they want to ban guns to reduce murders, what they actually mean is they want to turn into China or India.
Coming from Turdeau that would make sense. He admires at least one of those countries, and his family foundation enjoys the same countries' donations immensely.
The only reason the Left truly wants to ban guns, is because an armed populace is a direct check on socialist tyranny.
While your everyday libtard drone doesn't think along those lines (they don't think at all, they just act as a repeater for talking points they get from firmware downloads), their elites very much do, which is why you end up with shit like Waco and Ruby Ridge where libtard feds treat really petty shit as some sore of existential threat to the regime, and then when their stormtroopers perform poorly and get their shit pushed in, it just makes them even more certain that the only way to subjugate a populace is to totally disarm it.
We got a shit load of crime and about half a million police officers on active duty (not to mention those who are retired and still have the right to carry a piece). On top of that add an untold amount of illegal guns (mostly in the hands of criminals but sometimes owned by regular citizens). Oh and don't forget that because of high crime, there are security cameras everywhere.
As to why a normal person would own a illegal gun, it's because in 2004 (in Lula's second year in power) they made a referendum about outlawing the purchase of guns. Despite a very expensive propaganda campaign featuring famous actors, the Brazilian people voted NO, guns shouldn't be outlawed. Then the government said "fuck you very much", went ahead and made them near illegal with so many restrictions and fees. Most poor people can't afford or meet the requirements for a legal gun.
But the most interesting fact about Brazil is that during these last 4 years (Bolsonaro's government) legal gun ownership rose sharply (like never before in our history), and at the same time murders fell steadily year after year (also for the first time since they started counting them).
And just to play devil's advocate here, when they passed the new gun legislation murders did decrease slightly for a year. But then started to climb back.
Brazil is the proof that more guns = more deaths is just bullshit.
I guess? But then how is it documented so well? If it's so isolated, it's weird it's even reported. And if it's lawless, doesn't the concept of murder evaporate? You wouldn't consider animals killing oneanother as murder. Just survival.
You can pick up a stick or pull a branch off a tree, sharpen it and thrust it into the chest of a victim.
Anytime you want.
...
Ban trees?
Ban assault gravity!
It's a nice diagram. That said, it's also 2007. Does it have one more up to date? Because the last ten years alone changed things to hell around the globe.
Shit what's with all the homicides in Africa?
Must be something in the water.
Seriously though these categories are terrible. Greenland looks like a war zone. Any homicides are bad, but 10-20 is closer to 5-10 than it is to 20-infinity. They should have made 10-20 a light orange, or made 20+ Black.
Black people. That's really the long and short of it.
In my color scheme Africa would be colored Black. It's like poetry.
That's Ray's sis and shiet!
Technically you're not wrong, it's just your satire infers an adjective when the reality is a verb because a lot of it is actual racial purging and blood feuds that go back decades.
As is the case for most black homicide victims globally where the perpetrators are also black, but it's different enough by African tribal standards to matter so much more there.
Lookat dis fuggin raysis cracka tryin to talk in de Ee-bonix. Sheeeit. Ain't got dat melanin in he brain what makes him talk good.
Greenland is a desolate artic waste and only has a population of 56.6k. 6 homicides would be enough to earn it the second highest rating.
They should have posted the actual numbers as this is where the concept of "lies, damned lies, and statistics" comes in play. As mentioned in the case of Greenland only 6 homicides are needed to earn the second top rating. Only 12 would be needed for the top. Meanwhile the USA would need over 33'200 homicides to quality for the second top rating and over 66'400 for the top one.
Going from 33'200 to 33'206 would probably be considered a rounding error and even if it weren't it wouldn't really matter when the population involved is a third of a billion. Going from 6 to 12 however when your population is only that of a dial up modem is not only a 100% increase in homicides but also enough to change your rating on that second map despite the fact the increase in both countries would be the same number.
Not that the first map is any better seeing as how it is measuring "guns per 100 people" and the USA has the largest military in the world 🙄
That "guns per 100 people" is civilian firearm ownership.
Do they count gangs killing each other as homicides?
Shit really went south after that white guy with the samurai sword got hired to protect their leader....
So when people say they want to ban guns to reduce murders, what they actually mean is they want to turn into China or India.
Coming from Turdeau that would make sense. He admires at least one of those countries, and his family foundation enjoys the same countries' donations immensely.
The only reason the Left truly wants to ban guns, is because an armed populace is a direct check on socialist tyranny.
While your everyday libtard drone doesn't think along those lines (they don't think at all, they just act as a repeater for talking points they get from firmware downloads), their elites very much do, which is why you end up with shit like Waco and Ruby Ridge where libtard feds treat really petty shit as some sore of existential threat to the regime, and then when their stormtroopers perform poorly and get their shit pushed in, it just makes them even more certain that the only way to subjugate a populace is to totally disarm it.
OY VEY JUST GIVE UP YOUR GODDAMN GUNS SO WE CAN KILL YOU, GOYIM!!!1
ReMeMbEr HoW nAzIs ToOk AwAy GuN rIgHtS??
Central America is kind of full of outliers.
I'm surprised Brazil has so few gun owners. I've seen videos of criminals getting shot in the streets by random civvies. (and off-duty cops)
Top map says 2007.
Bottom map is likely of similar vintage.
We got a shit load of crime and about half a million police officers on active duty (not to mention those who are retired and still have the right to carry a piece). On top of that add an untold amount of illegal guns (mostly in the hands of criminals but sometimes owned by regular citizens). Oh and don't forget that because of high crime, there are security cameras everywhere.
As to why a normal person would own a illegal gun, it's because in 2004 (in Lula's second year in power) they made a referendum about outlawing the purchase of guns. Despite a very expensive propaganda campaign featuring famous actors, the Brazilian people voted NO, guns shouldn't be outlawed. Then the government said "fuck you very much", went ahead and made them near illegal with so many restrictions and fees. Most poor people can't afford or meet the requirements for a legal gun.
But the most interesting fact about Brazil is that during these last 4 years (Bolsonaro's government) legal gun ownership rose sharply (like never before in our history), and at the same time murders fell steadily year after year (also for the first time since they started counting them).
And just to play devil's advocate here, when they passed the new gun legislation murders did decrease slightly for a year. But then started to climb back.
Brazil is the proof that more guns = more deaths is just bullshit.
registered gun owners, everyone there is either off duty cops or off duty robbers
Wait wait wait, how the fuck is Greenland that deadly?
Also weird that the UK and India are outliers, I'm guessing there's still enough tradition still to stop going full barbarian.
What the fuck is going on over in Greenland? I thought that place was an uninhabited icy hellscape.
It is, with a population of only 56.6k. 6 homicides are enough to earn it that rating on the map.
small population, eskimos, and pretty lawless because of the harsh environment and lack of infrastructure.
I guess? But then how is it documented so well? If it's so isolated, it's weird it's even reported. And if it's lawless, doesn't the concept of murder evaporate? You wouldn't consider animals killing oneanother as murder. Just survival.
I mean.. africa probably has a lot of gun ownership because of its many civil wars. Its just lack of self control and basic black on black violence.
Must be a hell of a lot of racist powerhungry white police officers in Africa...
Everyone: Wow. Look at all the people killing each other in South America and Africa!
Me: What the hell is going on in Greenland?!
Greenland has like 20 eskimos, so if 1 pushes another into a polar bear, now they go red.
Also those really hostile environments tend to have a lot of murder. Alaska has a lot of murder, too.
Greenland...
Love it, but infographs like this need citations.
What the fuck is going on in Greenland?
now do a graph of intentional homicides per 100,000 black people
FACT CHECK: This doesn't say (or even imply) the homicides are happening by methods other than firearms.
Just that increased gun ownership (which I assume is legal gun ownership) doesn't correlate with an increase in homicides.
Chile threw most of their problems out of helicopters back in the day.
Argentina is mostly Germans from WW2 that escaped Eisenhower's persecution.
Turns out, dealing with one generation's communists buys you several generations of relative peace.
I could sit here and talk about historical and cultural differences, but let's just say demographics plays a large factor IMO.
Look up which south American countries have (virtually) no black population.
more whites and less shitskins