Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
dude, your claim is that it was 5 counties that had most of the murders.
Now you are admitting it is 2% of counties. That's a lot more than 5 counties.
Here's the thing. MOST of the population lives in big cities. So yeah, most of the murders are goign to be in cities, that's where the people are.
Geesh.
Read past the title Dipshit
and you'll find that the murders are not spread evenly throughout those counties but are rather concentrated in very definable and distinct areas
Read past the title Dipshit
and you'll find that the murders are not spread evenly throughout those counties but are rather concentrated in very definable and distinct areas
I didn't have to. You said five counties.
2% of the counties are more than 5 counties.
Dear Brian Blackwell and Pogo
I hope you both continue to post here and anywhere else as well.
You are both very articulate and informative explaining your views, thank you!
Brian the problem I have found with liberal minded people
is they can't tell the difference between the govt/law
forbidding someone or a business from abusing someone illegally
and "discriminating" as in choosing not to "engage in a behavior of choice."
Withthe LGBT cake service lawsuits,
I tried to make a distinction between
* not serving customers because of their affiliation
vs
* not PROVIDING certain services they choose not to because of their beliefs
The choice of services are different from the people being served.
The LGBT arguments were blending this together.
Thank you kindly, Emily! You, too, are an asset to this site and to the world culture in general.
Excellent point! I posted in forums concerning that case, but did not make that distinction myself. This is a fundamental understanding for those who wish to argue that it's wrong to deny service based on bias. It would not have been relevant to my particular argument, however, since I support the right of the individual to "not provide a service" and to not "serve a customer" as they see fit.
I do not see how one can presume to dictate to a business owner how they must operate their business, as long as they are not violating the natural law rights of any individual. People to not have a natural law right to cakes that they did make themselves or otherwise acquire by valid means. If I make the cake, I get to decide what's done with it. Same with the services I provide.
Obviously, it's silly to deny cakes to people based on personal choices they make which are unrelated to the transaction, but if the baker chooses to adopt a twisted view of mythology and deny cakes on that basis, so be it. We also have a right to make his actions publicly known, and encourage "enlightened people" (a relative and dubious term) to boycott his shop. Honestly, I wouldn't want someone making me a cake if their heart wasn't in it, and it's a matter of self-respect to patronize establishments that appreciate you as a customer, so I think the baker did them a service by revealing the bias, if not by making the cake
Upon what do you base that claim? From what I have read at least 36 mass attacks (most were shootings, some were stabbings) have involved at least one shooter who was on or withdrawing from some psychotropic substance, and having homicidal and suicidal impulses are known side effects of most—if not all—of these substances. In the remaining mass attacks the medication status of the attacker was not known.
Do you know what I read. In every case of a mass shooting, the person was able to get a gun!
Every last one.
Don't let them have easy access to guns, no mass shootings. Amazing how that works.
Dear Brian Blackwell and Pogo
I hope you both continue to post here and anywhere else as well.
You are both very articulate and informative explaining your views, thank you!
Brian the problem I have found with liberal minded people
is they can't tell the difference between the govt/law
forbidding someone or a business from abusing someone illegally
and "discriminating" as in choosing not to "engage in a behavior of choice."
Withthe LGBT cake service lawsuits,
I tried to make a distinction between
* not serving customers because of their affiliation
vs
* not PROVIDING certain services they choose not to because of their beliefs
The choice of services are different from the people being served.
The LGBT arguments were blending this together.
Thank you kindly, Emily! You, too, are an asset to this site and to the world culture in general.
Excellent point! I posted in forums concerning that case, but did not make that distinction myself. This is a fundamental understanding for those who wish to argue that it's wrong to deny service based on bias. It would not have been relevant to my particular argument, however, since I support the right of the individual to "not provide a service" and to not "serve a customer" as they see fit.
I do not see how one can presume to dictate to a business owner how they must operate their business, as long as they are not violating the natural law rights of any individual. People to not have a natural law right to cakes that they did make themselves or otherwise acquire by valid means. If I make the cake, I get to decide what's done with it. Same with the services I provide.
Obviously, it's silly to deny cakes to people based on personal choices they make which are unrelated to the transaction, but if the baker chooses to adopt a twisted view of mythology and deny cakes on that basis, so be it. We also have a right to make his actions publicly known, and encourage "enlightened people" (a relative and dubious term) to boycott his shop. Honestly, I wouldn't want someone making me a cake if their heart wasn't in it, and it's a matter of self-respect to patronize establishments that appreciate you as a customer, so I think the baker did them a service by revealing the bias, if not by making the cake
Well stated, again, Brian Blackwell
I'll just have to petition NASA to clone you when they
perfect that process. We need more like you, and even
a slightly flawed copy of you is better than naught!
I agree that people should be able to have this freedom of choice.
If we break it down into small enough communities, people
are more willing to let businesses they know to do things their way
and not make an issue.
The problem is when communities get too big, not everyone knows each other, and then these collective rules get applied top down not from the grassroots up.
Where I think we can reach a midway agreement,
is to not ban "people" from getting served on site,
but leave choice of services to people's discretion
that involve intellectual engagement and personal activity
or action. It's one thing to serve a customer one of the cakes
already in stock that isn't reserved for someone else. It's another
thing to decorate or serve one for a particular event or ritual
that is against someone's beliefs. If we can distinguish that legally,
it's just what we agree to respect, similar to "arbitrary" laws that recognize and bar abortion at the third trimester as the threshold.
IF we can agree.
If we can't, then I argue we should separate jurisdiction and policy.
On a govt level, we should separate benefits and social programs and terms of payment and collection by party, so each party organizes its own collective terms for its members democratically.
With the business issue, why not have all businesses offer "mediation waivers" similar to arbitration agreements that users sign online before using a service. Then both parties agree that if any dispute arises, the parties agree to settle it amicably by mediation conflict resolution and consensus, to avoid legal action and expenses. And if a dispute cannot be resolved, then the parties agree to refrain from doing business together and refund any unused money paid and return any items so it's fair and agreeable to both parties. If they don't even trust each other to follow that, they don't do business in the first place!
Then it doesn't matter which side had which belief, for or against, this slogan or that activity. A dispute is a dispute and either both sides can agree to settle it, or if one is litigious the other should have protection against someone who refuses to mediate instead.
This would have to be written up properly where people don't lose legal rights, the same with poorly written arbitration agreements. I believe that with mediation the complainant should pick the mediator or they both should, and with arbitration it's usually the business that selects this. So I prefer mediation that protects both sides interests and depends on a solution they both consent to.
Brian Blackwell
if people COULD agree to mediation and consent as the standard, then it would be okay to do as you suggest and let anyone have their reasons and freedom to choose. But this gets abused if people don't agree to respect each other's consent, and people start abusing lawsuits to haggle over the letter of the law. I hate that.
We should get tax breaks for preventing lawsuits, crime and abuse by mediating and resolving conflicts directly to save resources.
Then people who want to live under policies of coercing people can go bully each other, and leave the rest of us alone who don't need or want that!
Sick of paying for all that garbage that has mucked up the system, backlogged the courts and govt, and made it near impossible to focus on and solve real problems in sustainable ways. All our resources are taxed by problems perpetuated in a vicious cycle!
Dear Brian Blackwell and Pogo
I hope you both continue to post here and anywhere else as well.
You are both very articulate and informative explaining your views, thank you!
Brian the problem I have found with liberal minded people
is they can't tell the difference between the govt/law
forbidding someone or a business from abusing someone illegally
and "discriminating" as in choosing not to "engage in a behavior of choice."
Withthe LGBT cake service lawsuits,
I tried to make a distinction between
* not serving customers because of their affiliation
vs
* not PROVIDING certain services they choose not to because of their beliefs
The choice of services are different from the people being served.
The LGBT arguments were blending this together.
Thank you kindly, Emily! You, too, are an asset to this site and to the world culture in general.
Excellent point! I posted in forums concerning that case, but did not make that distinction myself. This is a fundamental understanding for those who wish to argue that it's wrong to deny service based on bias. It would not have been relevant to my particular argument, however, since I support the right of the individual to "not provide a service" and to not "serve a customer" as they see fit.
I do not see how one can presume to dictate to a business owner how they must operate their business, as long as they are not violating the natural law rights of any individual. People to not have a natural law right to cakes that they did make themselves or otherwise acquire by valid means. If I make the cake, I get to decide what's done with it. Same with the services I provide.
Obviously, it's silly to deny cakes to people based on personal choices they make which are unrelated to the transaction, but if the baker chooses to adopt a twisted view of mythology and deny cakes on that basis, so be it. We also have a right to make his actions publicly known, and encourage "enlightened people" (a relative and dubious term) to boycott his shop. Honestly, I wouldn't want someone making me a cake if their heart wasn't in it, and it's a matter of self-respect to patronize establishments that appreciate you as a customer, so I think the baker did them a service by revealing the bias, if not by making the cake
Well stated, again, Brian Blackwell
I'll just have to petition NASA to clone you when they
perfect that process. We need more like you, and even
a slightly flawed copy of you is better than naught!
I agree that people should be able to have this freedom of choice.
If we break it down into small enough communities, people
are more willing to let businesses they know to do things their way
and not make an issue.
The problem is when communities get too big, not everyone knows each other, and then these collective rules get applied top down not from the grassroots up.
Where I think we can reach a midway agreement,
is to not ban "people" from getting served on site,
but leave choice of services to people's discretion
that involve intellectual engagement and personal activity
or action. It's one thing to serve a customer one of the cakes
already in stock that isn't reserved for someone else. It's another
thing to decorate or serve one for a particular event or ritual
that is against someone's beliefs. If we can distinguish that legally,
it's just what we agree to respect, similar to "arbitrary" laws that recognize and bar abortion at the third trimester as the threshold.
IF we can agree.
If we can't, then I argue we should separate jurisdiction and policy.
On a govt level, we should separate benefits and social programs and terms of payment and collection by party, so each party organizes its own collective terms for its members democratically.
With the business issue, why not have all businesses offer "mediation waivers" similar to arbitration agreements that users sign online before using a service. Then both parties agree that if any dispute arises, the parties agree to settle it amicably by mediation conflict resolution and consensus, to avoid legal action and expenses. And if a dispute cannot be resolved, then the parties agree to refrain from doing business together and refund any unused money paid and return any items so it's fair and agreeable to both parties. If they don't even trust each other to follow that, they don't do business in the first place!
Then it doesn't matter which side had which belief, for or against, this slogan or that activity. A dispute is a dispute and either both sides can agree to settle it, or if one is litigious the other should have protection against someone who refuses to mediate instead.
This would have to be written up properly where people don't lose legal rights, the same with poorly written arbitration agreements. I believe that with mediation the complainant should pick the mediator or they both should, and with arbitration it's usually the business that selects this. So I prefer mediation that protects both sides interests and depends on a solution they both consent to.
Brian Blackwell
if people COULD agree to mediation and consent as the standard, then it would be okay to do as you suggest and let anyone have their reasons and freedom to choose. But this gets abused if people don't agree to respect each other's consent, and people start abusing lawsuits to haggle over the letter of the law. I hate that.
We should get tax breaks for preventing lawsuits, crime and abuse by mediating and resolving conflicts directly to save resources.
Then people who want to live under policies of coercing people can go bully each other, and leave the rest of us alone who don't need or want that!
Sick of paying for all that garbage that has mucked up the system, backlogged the courts and govt, and made it near impossible to focus on and solve real problems in sustainable ways. All our resources are taxed by problems perpetuated in a vicious cycle!
Hahaha Thank you again! Too funny, and too kind!
I find your ideas about dividing the parties very interesting, if I’m understanding them correctly. I have not heard this before, though as you may imagine, I generally avoid topics concerning the implementation of political solitions, being fundamentally anti-political myself. But this is an interesting division... it’s almost like a secession where the seceding population remains integrated. I know you don’t intend for it to be entire, but I like how the idea limits the people subject to a representative’s solutions to include only those who voted for them. It’s a tough sell, though, because as I mentioned, people generally vote because they want to dominate their opposition, not just have themselves governed in a particular way.
The mediation idea is great too, as it moves people closer to self-responsibility regarding business interactions. I appreciate the political Libertarian ideal of backing away from centralized solutions, and I enjoy walking this path together. It saddens me that in the end we must part company, as we are destined to remain the final two left standing - together in defense against the misanthropes of the world, but apart in that one will sacrifice a small portion of their freedom for security, and the other is not willing to make that exchange.
Oh Emily! Let me share this debate with you... I was listening to it this morning and am not quite finished. I think it relates to you and me particularly, as far as I can tell, and exemplifies the fundamental distinction between our views. If you choose to listen, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. But, of course, I would have you do as you desire; feel free to ignore it if it does not appeal. Enjoy your day.
Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.
I agree that all infringements should be met with equal outrage, but I do believe this focus on the second embodies the outrage about the others. Imagine a scenario whereby there is only one grocery store in town and all citizens have 10 rights regarding use of the store - the first being the right to an ID card that grants them access to the store, and the other nine giving them the right to buy certain types of food once inside. If the right to buy poultry, let's say, were infringed upon, people would be upset; but if the right to have the ID card were infringed upon, people would lose their friggin' minds.
The 2A is THE right that secures all other rights. It's the bottom-line claim to (quasi) self-ownership via self-defense. Though I largely agree with you overall, I feel this acknowledgement is missing from your argument (though I admit to entering the conversation late, so correct me if I'm wrong).
I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.
Absolutely, the discussion should be focused on mind and spirit, as law should be considered irrelevant, because it actually is. However, many people are still hypnotized by the illusion that law is the relevant factor, and so it is not misguided to remove this roadblock so we can get to the true issues at hand. This is the focus of my work on public forums.
This is difficult to do because government is ever-present. Despite its activity being fundamentally limited to control by threat of violence, its psychological influence is far broader. Since government builds roads, picks up garbage, provides education, investigates crimes, funds scientific projects, grants "permission" for driving, marriage, travel, construction, etc. people foolishly believe that government is the reason why we have these things, and that without it, these things would go up in smoke. Government is offered as the solution to every problem (particularly by government officials... go figure), and so people do not generally seek solutions outside of the governmental paradigm. The first thing people say when a conflict gets heated is "I'll call the cops!" or "I'll sue you!"
There is fundamental lack of self-responsibility due to the cultural indoctrination that says "government is the premier and proper channel for solutions and resolutions". It tempts us by dangling a sword of power over our heads, and encourages us to enter the arena and vie for its control. All the talk is about how government should work, and how tax money should be spent, which diverts us from questioning the fundamental validity of the institution (a question so taboo as to border on blasphemy). It's also important to recognize that there is a concerted effort to further this phenomenon (by those who have the wealth and power to influence the culture via mass media, public education, etc). So the culture that "leads government" is not pure; but is itself largely a by-product of the governmental influence to that point (of course, there are always other factors too).
To ignore government and its law when considering behavior and psychology is a huge mistake, in my opinion. And though I recognize the symbiotic nature of the relationship, government is so intrinsic to the culture, and influences it so strongly, that to say "culture leads government" is almost the same as saying "government leads government"... which is precisely what those who benefit most from government have intended all along.
See what I mean?
SMH
As noted before, I'm used to not being heard. I can only lead 'em to the water.
I’m raising points relevant to your topic. I’m pointing out aspects of the topic that I feel you are overlooking, and explicitly stated how they relate. If you want to remain myopic and utterly dismiss anything that doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived notion of that topic’s scope, so be it, but don’t try to spin it like you’re not being heard.
Please start a new thread for this video because it's over an hour
and we'd need space to break it down by each issue and point to cover it all!
Thanks!
Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.
I agree that all infringements should be met with equal outrage, but I do believe this focus on the second embodies the outrage about the others. Imagine a scenario whereby there is only one grocery store in town and all citizens have 10 rights regarding use of the store - the first being the right to an ID card that grants them access to the store, and the other nine giving them the right to buy certain types of food once inside. If the right to buy poultry, let's say, were infringed upon, people would be upset; but if the right to have the ID card were infringed upon, people would lose their friggin' minds.
The 2A is THE right that secures all other rights. It's the bottom-line claim to (quasi) self-ownership via self-defense. Though I largely agree with you overall, I feel this acknowledgement is missing from your argument (though I admit to entering the conversation late, so correct me if I'm wrong).
I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.
Absolutely, the discussion should be focused on mind and spirit, as law should be considered irrelevant, because it actually is. However, many people are still hypnotized by the illusion that law is the relevant factor, and so it is not misguided to remove this roadblock so we can get to the true issues at hand. This is the focus of my work on public forums.
This is difficult to do because government is ever-present. Despite its activity being fundamentally limited to control by threat of violence, its psychological influence is far broader. Since government builds roads, picks up garbage, provides education, investigates crimes, funds scientific projects, grants "permission" for driving, marriage, travel, construction, etc. people foolishly believe that government is the reason why we have these things, and that without it, these things would go up in smoke. Government is offered as the solution to every problem (particularly by government officials... go figure), and so people do not generally seek solutions outside of the governmental paradigm. The first thing people say when a conflict gets heated is "I'll call the cops!" or "I'll sue you!"
There is fundamental lack of self-responsibility due to the cultural indoctrination that says "government is the premier and proper channel for solutions and resolutions". It tempts us by dangling a sword of power over our heads, and encourages us to enter the arena and vie for its control. All the talk is about how government should work, and how tax money should be spent, which diverts us from questioning the fundamental validity of the institution (a question so taboo as to border on blasphemy). It's also important to recognize that there is a concerted effort to further this phenomenon (by those who have the wealth and power to influence the culture via mass media, public education, etc). So the culture that "leads government" is not pure; but is itself largely a by-product of the governmental influence to that point (of course, there are always other factors too).
To ignore government and its law when considering behavior and psychology is a huge mistake, in my opinion. And though I recognize the symbiotic nature of the relationship, government is so intrinsic to the culture, and influences it so strongly, that to say "culture leads government" is almost the same as saying "government leads government"... which is precisely what those who benefit most from government have intended all along.
See what I mean?
SMH
As noted before, I'm used to not being heard. I can only lead 'em to the water.
I’m raising points relevant to your topic. I’m pointing out aspects of the topic that I feel you are overlooking, and explicitly stated how they relate. If you want to remain myopic and utterly dismiss anything that doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived notion of that topic’s scope, so be it, but don’t try to spin it like you’re not being heard.
It's not my topic actually, although I do agree with its starting point. And what I've been trying to do is follow that starting point, where you and even the OP want to venture off elsewhere and ignore it. Seems to me that's not my error.
As already noted it's nothing new to not only not be heard but watch those apparently uncomfortable with the point, shift it off to tangents. I figure y'all will start listening when you're ready, whenever that is.
So you didn't even understand the title so you won't understand this graph
See where it says the 5% of counties that are the most dangerous have 68% of murders? ( I rounded up to 70%)
And 70% of those occur in very small areas of just 5 counties.
And since those 70% of murders are mostly young minorities with criminal histories killing other young minorities with criminal histories you people don't give a shit about them
Do you really want to go there Joe?
Thoughts and opinions...
Is it time for a National Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card: National Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card
"To achieve this uniformity in American gun laws we would like to propose the idea of a National Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card system that would apply to EVERY American citizen from birth."
I'm more in favor of branding the foreheads of those who don't want to exercise their god given right to protect themselves.
Mabel get my gun...............we gonna have some possum pie tonight....thems the biggest damn possums I've ever seen....
’Merica bitches!
So you didn't even understand the title so you won't understand this graph
See where it says the 5% of counties that are the most dangerous have 68% of murders? ( I rounded up to 70%)
Guy, you didn't say "5%". You said "5 counties".
Here's your original quote, buddy.
And 70% of those occur in very small areas of just 5 counties.
And since those 70% of murders are mostly young minorities with criminal histories killing other young minorities with criminal histories you people don't give a shit about them
Not 5% or 2% of counties, but FIVE COUNTIES. That's what you said.
So you didn't even understand the title so you won't understand this graph
See where it says the 5% of counties that are the most dangerous have 68% of murders? ( I rounded up to 70%)
Guy, you didn't say "5%". You said "5 counties".
Here's your original quote, buddy.
And 70% of those occur in very small areas of just 5 counties.
And since those 70% of murders are mostly young minorities with criminal histories killing other young minorities with criminal histories you people don't give a shit about them
Not 5% or 2% of counties, but FIVE COUNTIES. That's what you said.
Forgive the fuck out of me for not noticing a fucking typo
Now with that out of the way do you care to address the facts I gave you?
Couple of random examples of the Gun Culture, from posts in the last little while....
Thoughts and opinions...
Is it time for a National Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card: National Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card
"To achieve this uniformity in American gun laws we would like to propose the idea of a National Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card system that would apply to EVERY American citizen from birth."
I'm more in favor of branding the foreheads of those who don't want to exercise their god given right to protect themselves.
If it really needs to be pointed out to the obtuse, "exercise their god given [sic] right to protect themselves" here is not some reference to "rights" or "Constitutions" or even "gods" but a euphemism for "Firearms". Unless that is understood this point will be lost. IOW the poster wants to brand the foreheads of anybody who declines to join in the worship of Almighty Gun.
Then there was this, ostensibly in a thread about "opossums":
Mabel get my gun...............we gonna have some possum pie tonight....thems the biggest damn possums I've ever seen....
See what I mean? The immediate thought is "shoot 'em". Conquer. Kill. Destroy. Slaughter.
Here's another thread that just went up.
’Merica bitches!
Doesn't get a whole lot more obvious than that. "must..... shoot... must..... blow.... up..... must....destroy....."
Gun porn for the addicts. Again --- the fetish: worship of an inanimate object.
Finally, an example from the outside world, Department of Tone Deaf....
Local youth baseball raffle features AR-15 rifle, other guns
>> EAST CANTON [Ohio] Leaders of a local youth baseball league are once again hosting a fundraising raffle where the top prizes are an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and other guns.
Similar youth fundraisers have sparked controversy in communities across the country.
The East Canton Youth Baseball Association, which oversees baseball for kids 5 through their early teens, has held a gun raffle for five years.
.... “This is a volunteer-only sale ...,” Spencer said. “We do not own the guns. We would never own a gun. This is not a private sale.”
This year’s featured prizes are an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a 7mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and a Taurus handgun. <<
"We would never own guns". But we'd be happy to raffle them off --- for, of all things, a program for kids to play baseball. And if the winner comes back and mows down the infield, hey at least it keeps our registration fees low.
Values.
I'm not even looking for this shit. These all crossed my path in pursuit of other interests and I just harvested some examples for those who can't acknowledge them.
Sorry for being on-topic.
Based on past experience I expect this post will be removed and/or I'll be banned from this thread and/or this site. That's how blasphemy usually goes down when the "church" finds out about it.
Forgive the fuck out of me for not noticing a fucking typo
Now with that out of the way do you care to address the facts I gave you?
In my experience, anyone calling you “Guy” and “Buddy” every two seconds is being condescending in a lamentably pedestrian way, which is strong evidence that he will be incapable of an earnest and intelligent discussion.
Forgive the fuck out of me for not noticing a fucking typo
Now with that out of the way do you care to address the facts I gave you?
Yeah, actually.
Most of the population lives in that 5 PERCENT of counties, so of course, they will have the most homicides.
Homicide is the killing of a person, and that happens where people are.
