JS & Miss Henny have apparently completely misunderstood where I was coming from, made more notable by Js's reference of people per sq-k. I was speaking specifically of how many highly populated cities are there in the U.S. as compared to France. I even made a point of referencing at least 9 cities with populations of 1million+ in the U.S. A quick googling of France lists me.....Paris with over 2 million & ......Marseille with not even 1 million. OK, now do you see where I was coming from. Of course, with the U.S. HUGE desert and mountain regions, not to mention the size of the U.S. alone is going to make density quite small compared to tiny countries, but the point I was making was in sheer #'s as well as the many many locales with those huge #'s. Capice'?
Sirs, do you know what population density is?
The fact that the United States has huge tracts of desert is meaningless. Obviously, there won't be many homicides committed there.
Do you know what the definition of "rate" is? We are talking about homicide
rate. We aren't talking about sheer numbers. That would be ridiculous and unfair to the United States, statistically speaking.
Yet, we've established that France is more densely populated. Yet, it has a much lower homicide rate. Those two facts are not disputable. Now, once you've looked up the definition of
population density and
rate then we can continue this conversation. If you cannot understand those basic definitions then either 1) you simply aren't willing to have an educated conversation or 2) you simply aren't intelligent.
We both know that #2 is
not the case.
That brings us back to the original question.
"You propose increasing the death penalty as the solution for lowering our homicide rate. Clearly that isn't what they do in France. Why does your logic run counter to the facts?"
