How can we regulate guns ... ?

Slavery is actually where you work but don't get paid for it, not where you get paid but don't work for it. That would be ... y'know ... the exact opposite.I don't want to see where you got that 49% figure from. I am not your proctologist.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So it seems that high levels of gun crime make people more likely to vote for the party that wants to curb gun crime.Either that, or correlation is not causation.But I guess either way, the maps, if accurate, do suggest that Democrats are more likely to be shot than Republicans. Maybe that's why Republicans are so much in favor of guns --- because they're more likely to take out Democrats.This would be somewhat shortsighted. A statistical tendency is not a law of nature. Republicans can get shot too.But the most peculiar thing is his conclusion. His map seems to suggest (though it does not completely prove) that Democrats are statistically more likely to be victims of gun violence. Well, if we've learned one thing from conservatives over these past few weeks, it's that the solution to gun violence is more guns. So why is he demanding that we "ban democrats from owning guns"? - when according to everything the right-wing has told us the solution would be to give them more guns?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But also, thinking it over, this is likely a crock. What are the chances that the FBI would first decide to crudely divide gun violence into "high" and "low" and then conveniently color the areas of low gun violence red and the areas of high gun violence blue?What is the actual source of this map? Can anyone link to it?Here's another map. And here's some statistical correlations: Story here, if you want to dig further.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'm guessing that someone just took a county by county map of votes in some election and then mislabeled it. It certainly doesn't square with figures from any reliable source, and it would explain why it's colored red and blue.

I was right. The map on the left is actually a map of how each county voted in 2004. See?I guess there are some ideologies that can only be supported by lying. I'm glad I don't have one of those. Also that I know the difference between "incidents" and "incidence".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, that one's OK. The legend says that the colors represent the top candidate's share of the vote, so a county is only light pink if Romney won it with 40%, Obama getting even less. If it was Romney 40%, Obama 60% it would be medium blue.It's the map on the left that's the problem, 'cos of having nothing at all to do with gun crime.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sure. Let me know what your friend says.

As 82% of Americans live in cities, practically everything is a "largely urban phenomenon" except cow-tipping, inbreeding, and being called Ezekiel. For example, voting Republican is a "largely urban phenomenon" --- if the GOP got all or even most of their votes from the 18% of Americans who live in the country, they'd get even less of the popular vote than they do now.However, a look at real non-made up statistics, such as I have posted above, shows that the states with the highest incidence of gun deaths are almost exclusively "red states", that there is a positive correlation between the Republican vote and gun deaths, and a negative correlation between the Democratic vote and gun deaths. Anyone with an interest in actually curbing gun deaths should think about the real statistics, rather than producing easily-debunked lies for partisan ends.