Henry

@Utahdesert @BStarr96522 @HistoryBoomer You are assuming your conclusion and you haven't yet realized it. Yes, the actual future distribution of murder victims is unknown. You, and Carl, are making an a priori assumption that Pr(murdered) = pr(murdered|native) = pr(murdered|immigrant).

@Shield_44 @BStarr96522 @HistoryBoomer You're using the term "risk" to refer to the actual number of murders in a future year. Risk is instead a probability calculated on the information available to us. On the information here--murder rate within these populations--the risk to native members goes down.

For the statistically illiterate. A million people in a state with 50 murders every year, your murder rate is 50 per million. Add a million immigrants who do 1 murder a year, total murders goes up to 51, but that's among TWO million people. Your rate is 25.5 per million. The number of murders goes up, but each person in the city is actually safer. More murders does not automatically mean more danger. Population size matters. If we kidnapped the entire population of Japan and brought them to America, our number of murders would go up (Japanese people commit about 250 murders a year), but we'd become a much safer country (the Japanese murder RATE is far lower). Oilfield Rando's argument (more murders automatically means more danger) is bad math.

@extramsg @JonSnow50616798 @IVANM31 @HistoryBoomer Well that's certainly a fair example of where per capita would give better comparison. Notion of density probably not too useful in loosely populated areas due to variance. Also still doesn't contend with fact that aggregate rate doesn't tell us an individuals or subgroups risk.

@Shield_44 @JonSnow50616798 @IVANM31 @HistoryBoomer It's pretty easy to show that per capital is better. eg, there are counties in Texas that are 1000 square miles with a population under 500 people. If a narco war broke out in that county and killed 100 people, under your metric, you would have to say that NYC is more dangerous.

@Utahdesert @BStarr96522 @HistoryBoomer You are just misunderstanding the point. Saying "its just as possible" means you are assuming that Pr(Murdered | Native) = Pr(Murdered | Immigrant), but we have no reason to suspect that a priori. It is possible within Carl's given numbers that native risk doesn't fall.

@Shield_44 @BStarr96522 @HistoryBoomer It's just as possible that only the new population were the victims of the now 51 total murders. (You didn't realize that?) This doesn't change the fact that the probability of being a victim for native members has decreased.

@HistoryBoomer This is poorly done. You have to do the conditional probability - what is the probability you will be killed given that you are native born.

@extramsg @JonSnow50616798 @IVANM31 @HistoryBoomer No it does not. Probability of victimization depends on a wide range of factors and is not i.i.d. Most murder is also not random. Jon's idea of crime density is a much better proxy for relative safety. Exposure is not a '1' per person as your crude per capita rate implies.

@JonSnow50616798 @IVANM31 @HistoryBoomer Why isn't it per Taco Bell? Or per per crystal wearing hippie? There are all kinds of mostly irrelevant stats you could invent, but the one that best tells you your chances of getting killed is per capita.

@Utahdesert @BStarr96522 @HistoryBoomer For Carl's example: It's possible that only the native population are victims of the now 51 total murders. Probability of being a victim for native members thus increased, even in his dumb hypothetical.

@BStarr96522 @HistoryBoomer Okay, give us your reasoning. Saying "incorrect" never convinced or enlightened anyone.

@blightersort @HistoryBoomer Good point, but it is also not "true" in statistical sense. It is artifact of ignorant ratios only. In Carl's dumb example, new population will not automatically supplant native population as victims, nor guarantee that any of the immigrant population would be victims at all.

@HistoryBoomer this is true from a purely statistical point of view but relies on so many unrealistic assumptions as to be useless. "assume people are completely fungible and a new population seamlessly and perfectly blends with the old instantaneously, it then follows that..."

@HistoryBoomer Carl, your smug and moronic assertion that a lower murder rate automatically means more safety is extremely poor logic. Probability of being a victim is not i.i.d. across all members of population.

@FeatherWF406 @Oilfield_Rando @HistoryBoomer Not to mention, murder rate is just a proxy measure for concept of safety. Once you start yanking levers in dumb hypotheticals you have to make an insane number of assumptions about lots of things holding constant, things that likely would not under such extreme circumstances.

The joy of statistics, for us illiterates: A converse scenario that is equally as valid for making a purely statistical point is that you have a million people with only 1 murder per year, and then you bring in a million immigrants who commit 50 murders per year, and the numbers are completely different. It is further proof of the old adage that 90 percent of all statistics are made up. Valid statistics require real data and populations measuring what is claimed to be measured. With selective sampling and made up populations statistics can be skewed in any direction you choose. Instead of kidnapping the population of Japan why not the population of Jalisco? Would that not be more representative? Where is the population of 1 million with 50 murders that is being impacted with a million new people who only contribute 1 additional murder? I guess I prefer to be statistically illiterate rather than statistically dishonest.

@David_J_Bier @Mittens38230909 No it does not. This is the crux of your argument on this point and it’s a major oversimplification. You’ve assumed away the problems with your thinking and you don’t even realize it. Exposure to violent crime is not uniform across individuals. Most violent crime also not random

@Mittens38230909 Because the rate tells you the probability you’ll be a victim

The sophisticated empirical arguments against immigration are disproven, but all the objections that matter most politically are just complete nonsense that you don't need any complex analysis to reject: -On crime: They increase crime *levels*! -On economics: They took our jobs! -On budgets: They consume >$0 in benefits! -On politics: Illegal aliens elected Biden! -On assimilation: They speak foreign languages! -On legality: They should all just come legally!

@3rdReeb @Oilfield_Rando @HistoryBoomer Good way to illustrate that an aggregate rate of violent crime is not at all the same thing as personal safety, nor does it equate to a person's "likelihood of being murdered". Human interactions are complex and varied. Murder also generally not random, most victims knew perp.

@Oilfield_Rando @HistoryBoomer Imagine the mayor of Chicago saying he's going to annex Naperville to lower Chicago's murder rate and that should make Chicagoans feel safer. These people are idiots.

Kent could have charged his entire dept with the destruction of leftwing terror networks in the country. Instead he resigns over attacking the single largest state sponsor of terrorism. Excellent, thanks man. Good luck in 2028 when they come for you

Pretending to forgive without requiring apologies and restitution is just a slave’s pretence at morality.

@johnpavlovitz Remember when they say stuff like this they’re implying Kirk deserved to be assassinated. John won’t actually say that because he has as much backbone as an earthworm but that’s the actual point

Jon, this is not a game. The monsters Biden let into the country raped and murdered women and children. I’ve asked you multiple times to show some shred of human emotion and you’ve refused. Also: there are no Americans in ICE detention, just illegals who can go home upon request.

And there you have it. Jon, a top Democrat strategist, says he feels no sympathy for the American families whose loved ones were raped, tortured and murdered by foreign invaders. He finds comedy in their agony. Sick doesn’t even begin to describe it. His soul is broken.

@RashidaTlaib Quiet piggy

🚨NO PRISON TIME🚨 Joshua Danehower gets "insanity plea" He kiIIed CEO Gret Glyer in his bed as he was sleeping next to his wife, shot 10x, wrote a manifesto (Fairfax, VA)

Everyone supports censorship against their existential political opponents.

Somehow the “libertarian free market constitutionalists” couldn’t do this but the “authoritarian fascist” could. Makes you think.