I noticed this Twitter item today, from the NY Times.....worth viewing. Topic? They wanted you to know (the Times) that California has the lowest death rate from guns per proportion of the state population. You can read the piece here.
I read through this for a minute....then I stopped. I went back to the original statement....'lowest death rate from guns per population'.
So, here's the blunt side of this.
California is basically two states. You go forty miles north of SF, over to forty miles east of Sacramento, down to Victorville/Barstow area, and then to Campo at the border. That's 'SAFE' California where marginal drug trafficking occurs, almost no gang stuff, and it's fairly clear.
The other state? Well...there's a fair amount of guns, crime and drugs.....but they've got four star hospitals, with great emergency room capability. You could associate it as a Army unit.....where you bring in a gunshot wound, and there's pretty good odds you will survive. It's not the odds that you'd get in Jackson, Mississippi, or in Philly.
Poorly analyzed article by the Times? They want to brand a message, but if you look at this....you'd say it's state A versus state B.
Disinformation? Well....yeah, it's what you'd create to fake people out.
No comments:
Post a Comment