15 Minute Cities

[turtlespeed 226]

13 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I also speak from a position of experience. And I'm not about to say that some city, somewhere, isn't going to go too far. I'm also going to say that it's no worse than some city, somewhere, saying that every adult HAS to own a gun (Kennesaw, GA). If you don't like it, leave. 

Wendy P.

I agree.  If you don't like it leave.

That's what they are doing in San Francisco.

Even In and Out is leaving.  They can't stop the criminality on their properties.

Fix those relatively small areas compared to the entirety of the US, and we have a place to start negotiations.  But if you can't fix that problem, in that relatively small area, what makes anyone think they can fix the larger problem?

[wmw999 2,515]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

I agree.  If you don't like it leave.

That's what they are doing in San Francisco.

Even In and Out is leaving.  They can't stop the criminality on their properties.

Fix those relatively small areas compared to the entirety of the US, and we have a place to start negotiations.  But if you can't fix that problem, in that relatively small area, what makes anyone think they can fix the larger problem?

What makes you think that it's the physical area that matters, and not the people? Urban areas make up 3% of the land area, and 80% of the people (Census data). What do the rural areas lack that all those people don't move there? How can we fix the rural people to make them more welcoming (see what I did there?)

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 226]

3 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

What makes you think that it's the physical area that matters, and not the people? Urban areas make up 3% of the land area, and 80% of the people (Census data). What do the rural areas lack that all those people don't move there? How can we fix the rural people to make them more welcoming (see what I did there?)

Wendy P.

It - IS - the people, the culture, and the government.

More welcoming? Have you heard of southern hospitality? It's real.

What do the rural areas lack?  More perceived free Handouts. (Free to the takers) 

ETA: There are actually MANY things.  For instance: A more normalized view of getting things done (legally) without imposing on others.

I would also offer that there is a less normalized criminal mind set. 

Edited December 27, 2024 by turtlespeed

[jakee 1,558]

37 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I speak from a position of experience.   Life experience is important.  You should go out and get some.

You don’t have any experience of your version of a 15 minute city because no one has ever suggested that it should be implemented. 

[jakee 1,558]

.

Edited December 27, 2024 by jakee

[wmw999 2,515]

And how do you propose to get those urban people to relocate to rural areas -- without changing the rural areas (do you think your town or city would change if it were to grow by 500%?, which would still be less than making all of the cities the same size as the rural areas). Crowding people makes some things change. The whole thing about being rural is that your actions don't impose on anyone else -- because they're farther away, not because they're so much less offensive.

You can shoot your gun at cans on the back fence if you live a mile away from anyone else. It's harder in a suburb, and harder yet in a city. 

You can speed pretty egregiously on rural roads, and race others. Try that in a city and you're killing a whole lot more people -- because there are people already there. 

You can play music as loud as you want, and have the wildest party ever, without impacting your neighbors. 

You have to be more polite in a city. Assholes (and they're all over) can be assholes in the country -- their impact is oversize in a city

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 226]

23 minutes ago, jakee said:

You don’t have any experience of your version of a 15 minute city because no one has ever suggested that it should be implemented. 

"No One" has "EVER" suggested.

You sound like trump with all the absolutes.

[turtlespeed 226]

32 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And how do you propose to get those urban people to relocate to rural areas -- without changing the rural areas (do you think your town or city would change if it were to grow by 500%?, which would still be less than making all of the cities the same size as the rural areas). Crowding people makes some things change. The whole thing about being rural is that your actions don't impose on anyone else -- because they're farther away, not because they're so much less offensive.

----You are changing the goal posts.  I suggested fixing the area they are already in.  Better education, more police presence.  MUCH higher taxes to pay for those things city wide.  Make the PEOPLE better.  Maybe a different kind of governance?

You can shoot your gun at cans on the back fence if you live a mile away from anyone else. It's harder in a suburb, and harder yet in a city.

----I'm not sure where that comes into play, unless it is for familiarity and training?

----That is available in a city gun range.  Your Cities have those, right?

You can speed pretty egregiously on rural roads, and race others. Try that in a city and you're killing a whole lot more people -- because there are people already there. 

---- OK - That goes to culture.  Street racing is illegal.  BUT - its not knocking over the      ----local liquor store in an armed robbery.

You can play music as loud as you want, and have the wildest party ever, without impacting your neighbors. 

----Agian - goes to culture.  What does that have to do with the subject of criminality and violence?  

---- If you want a loud party go get a venue.

You have to be more polite in a city. Assholes (and they're all over) can be assholes in the country -- their impact is oversize in a city

---- My experiences in the large cities is are that city dwellers are cold, impersonal, rude, and grumpy.  That is during the day.

---- The people in the night when I had to traverse areas to go work were apparently lacking any motivation to adhere to laws.

---- Thats governance.  

 

 

Edited December 27, 2024 by turtlespeed

[winsor 236]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

 

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

I also speak from a position of experience. And I'm not about to say that some city, somewhere, isn't going to go too far. I'm also going to say that it's no worse than some city, somewhere, saying that every adult HAS to own a gun (Kennesaw, GA). If you don't like it, leave. 

Wendy P.

 

Actually, when someone came in and said they didn't want anything to do with guns, the Sheriff said 'no problem.'

Turns out he was cool with people lacking the skill set to use firearms safely staying away from them.  The point was to convey the impression that committing crime in Kennesaw was a suicidal endeavor, and the crime rate dropped accordingly.

It convinced the unwilling homeowner.

It convinced you.

Mission accomplished.

 

Edited December 27, 2024 by winsor

[jakee 1,558]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

Turns out he was cool with people lacking the skill set to use firearms safely staying away from them.  The point was to convey the impression that committing crime in Kennesaw was a suicidal endeavor, and the crime rate dropped accordingly.

It convinced the unwilling homeowner.

It convinced you.

Mission accomplished.

Or alternatively, the gun lobby convinced you of something utterly unconnected with reality. 
 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kennesaw-gun-law/

[wmw999 2,515]

Well, got me!

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 226]

4 hours ago, winsor said:

Actually, when someone came in and said they didn't want anything to do with guns, the Sheriff said 'no problem.'

Turns out he was cool with people lacking the skill set to use firearms safely staying away from them.  The point was to convey the impression that committing crime in Kennesaw was a suicidal endeavor, and the crime rate dropped accordingly.

It convinced the unwilling homeowner.

It convinced you.

Mission accomplished.

 

Sounds like a worthwhile mission.

[billvon 3,059]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

Or alternatively, the gun lobby convinced you of something utterly unconnected with reality. 

Yep - all fake.

And given that the odds of accidental death rise over 50% if there is a gun in the house, wouldn't suprise me if the accidental gun death rate soared.  But of course that's OK with the NRA; they are still selling more guns.

[turtlespeed 226]

What are those ACTUAL odds?

From what I see there is a 1% lifetime risk.

That includes a LOT of cultural assumptions.

From Googles AI:

The lifetime risk of dying from a firearm in the United States is about 1%. However, the risk varies depending on factors like race and location: 

 

 

[kallend 2,105]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

What are those ACTUAL odds?

From what I see there is a 1% lifetime risk.

That includes a LOT of cultural assumptions.

From Googles AI:

The lifetime risk of dying from a firearm in the United States is about 1%. However, the risk varies depending on factors like race and location: 

 

 

 

Some 40 times higher than in other wealthy nations.  I wonder what they do differently?

 

Oh, it must be the culture!

[turtlespeed 226]

Just now, kallend said:

Some 40 times higher than in other wealthy nations.  I wonder what they do differently?

 

Oh, it must be the culture!

Sigh.

Take away the urban culture and what do you have?

The question was what are the actual odds. Are you able to answer that?

I'll also add, "What are the parameters used for determining those odds?"

[jakee 1,558]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Some 40 times higher than in other wealthy nations.  I wonder what they do differently?

Sigh.

Take away the urban culture and what do you have?

It may surprise you to learn this but other countries have cities too.

[billvon 3,059]

On 12/28/2024 at 11:17 AM, turtlespeed said:

What are those ACTUAL odds?

From what I see there is a 1% lifetime risk.

Right.  And a rise from .66% to 1% would be a 50% rise.

This is not to say that a gun will certainly kill you if you keep one in your house.  It simply demonstrates that a gun does not protect you and/or your family, and in fact does the opposite.

[turtlespeed 226]

17 hours ago, billvon said:

Right.  And a rise from .66% to 1% would be a 50% rise.

This is not to say that a gun will certainly kill you if you keep one in your house.  It simply demonstrates that a gun does not protect you and/or your family, and in fact does the opposite.

That doesn't prove anything.

During the home invasions I was subjected to, my statistics DO prove otherwise. 

Living proof.  Would you have that taken away from me?

I didn't get to see the opposite you refer to.

[billvon 3,059]

9 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

That doesn't prove anything.

Statistically you are at more danger of being shot and killed if you have a gun in your house.  You can prove that statistic; statistics, of course, do not mean anything for individual cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

Quote

During the home invasions I was subjected to, my statistics DO prove otherwise. 

Let's say you have saved yourself from certain death once.  I very much doubt that, but let's go with that for the sake of argument.

BillyVance used his gun to kill his two young daughters, his wife and himself.  And he used exactly the same arguments you make - he needs his guns to defend himself and his family.

So based purely on you two, guns are significantly more likely to kill you or your loved ones.

Now multiply that by millions - and you have that statistic.