PoliCHARTZ - Thread of U.S. Politics & the Presidential Election

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

I don't see how that matters to my point, unless you think that illegal immigrants are more likely to be deadly when they drive drunk.  (If the "vehicular homicide" sub-crime-rate is 1/20 or any other fraction of the overall drunk driving crime rate, how does that affect the point I made in any way? [edit: the crime rate still goes up with the removal of a lower-crime-rate subpopulation, and it seems to me that the risk to any random individual (for untargeted crimes) goes up by definition.])

Re-read the odds in the D20.  It's actually very basic.

With more people in the city.  All drunk driving will be more deadly, yet the chances of you personally getting hit will be almost unchanged.

In the situation without the illegal immigrant, there are 2 drunk drivers.

You roll 1 D20, twice... and if you get a 1... your dead.

In the situation with the illegal immigrant there are 3 drunk drivers.

You roll 1 D20 three times... as does the immigrant.  If you get a 1... your dead.

UNLESS the immigrant ALSO rolls a 1 on the D20... AND rolls a higher initative then you.  (Flip of a coin.)

This is because most drunk drivers don't hit people.  Since it's untargeted and a "wrong place at a wrong time" type crime.

What about that doesn't make sense?

The part where the crime rate of a particular crime (the subcrime of vehicular manslaughter while driving drunk) goes UP and the chance of the same crime happening goes DOWN.

Vehicle Manslaughter wouldn't go up crime rate wise.

Vehicle Manslaughter goes down in relation to drunk driving in relation to population... and the risk would stay fairly standard per person per account.

Drunk Driving as a crime rate would go up... but vehicular manslaughter would definitly go down.  It's simple statistics.

Hmm... I don't see it.  If I'm just lacking knowledge that would set me straight, I'm willing to learn, but you are certainly not required to teach me.  If you don't feel like it, I'm not prepared to simply bow to your knowledge on this one, so in that case it would be time to call it a day.  Wait!  See marker (@).

"Vehicle Manslaughter goes down in relation to drunk driving in relation to population"  I'm currently reading this as "VM down IRT (DD IRT POP)".  You are saying that (DD IRT POP) would go up and VM would go down.  I don't get why a greater percentage of the population driving around smashed would result in fewer people T-boning each other, unless you're implying a connection with population density.  Oh wait, now I see it as "(VM down IRT DD) IRT POP" since that would jive with my last sentence and make sense.  (@) Is this the case?