1939
Rule of 400
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
1939 points (100.0% liked)
196
17078 readers
822 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts require verification from the mods first
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Fair point. I did not realize the "everyday" aspect in the original post. You're right that it's a gross over estimation (see point 3) but it still doesn't mean the average person gets shot every 400 days. It's a statistical percentage which doesn't account for birth rates or repeat shootings (although I'm sure those are more rare) and other external factors
Cool beans
After looking at the statistics the CDC puts out on daily shootings (roughly 327 are shot each day out of 400 million) this data point is grossly exaggerated at best. I agree that it doesn't make sense to round up to 1 person is shot a day when it equates to roughly 0.0000008%.
I still feel like the original post is not "useless" as it sparks conversation (as our replies have shown) and although it has an inaccurate data point, it doesn't negate the rest of the message.
As a member of the trans community, I don't think the original message should be discounted or ignored for having an exaggerated statistic (honestly it's just a lie in this case) because the original message still rings true.