Jesus, I can't believe I'm subjecting myself to this, but here goes.
Because the former results in the instant death and dismemberment of dozens of people, terrorizes entire communities, forces municipalities and private entities to install costly security infrastructure to make people feel safe, and leaves its victims with years of psychological trauma the likes of which you can't even imagine and which can completely incapacitate a person and prevent them from living a normal life. While the former results in a loss of, like $20 and a Charlie Card.The chances of you being killed by an assault rifle in Downtown Crossing — or anywhere in Boston — or anywhere in Massachusetts — or anywhere in the US — are probably just as low as having your purse snatched. So why all the constant hoopla about the need to ban assault rifles?
Because what BLM is protesting is not the mere fact that death occurs, but that the lives of black people in America have been both systemically and personally devalued in the name of creating a de facto apartheid state. In fact, their lives have been so devalued that some people even equate the killing of an unarmed black person with mere purse snatching! Can you believe that shit?The chances of an unarmed black man being killed by the police in Boston — or all of the US — are probably way way lower than Charlie's chances of being the victim of a crime in Downtown Crossing. I saw some stat that less than 25 or so unarmed black men are killed by the police each year in the whole US. So why all the BLM protests and riots and demands to defund the police? In the US more black men are killed by other black men in one weekend than unarmed black men are killed by the police in one year. Maybe BLM should stop trying to defund the police and try to find some way to "defund" black men instead. One thing they can be sure of is that "defunding" black men will save a lot more black lives than defunding the police.
Ok, so there's hardly any actual logic or reasoning to actually grapple with here, BUT you did seem to intuit something important: historically speaking, women and men have tended to perform different jobs! Do you have any guesses as to why that might be? Do you want to consider the difficulties that might pose for a woman who now wants to do a job not historically available to her sex? I highly suggest you take some time to think about this. Because I gotta tell you, dude, the fact that you have this statistic readily available and you eagerly apply it to a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with women shows that you might have some weird hangups.Feminists complain that women are paid some 30% less than men for doing "equal work", but some 92% of the people killed on the job while doing "equal work" are men. Maybe feminists should focus on increasing the number of women who get killed on the job until they're about the same as men. Then we can be sure that women are doing equal work and should be paid the same, and the difference in pay feminists complain about isn't the result of men doing more difficult or dangerous jobs, for which of course they should be paid more.