Multiple people shot at church in Sutherland Springs

Hilarious.

 

A) you would not look at flat numbers as USA has way more people

B) you would look at homicide rate not gun violence rate. The means is irrelevant.

 

Why are we only looking at gun violence? I care about all violence.

 

also this

 

His name is Peter sweden. I think he knows......

 

Will Trump terminate the diversary lottery now?

 

Are you talking about the 2 gun related terrorist attacks the this year ?
Please STFU when trying to talk about something you don’t know and don’t ever consider mentioning France in any of your posts. You don’t deserve it.

 

I was worried about something like this, but for the Lonestar rally in Galveston. Either way, another sad day in America

 

I don't agree at all. The chances of a homicide happening obviously depends on the "means" available to an assailant. Give an unstable person access to an extremely dangerous and lethal weapon, and they are more likely to to kill a bunch of people then they would otherwise.

 

The purpose of a gun law is to reduce the homicide rate not the gun death rate. You would never use gun deaths unless you are being dishonest. In your above statement you are making an assumption that is unnecessary.

 

Did this man yell allahuakbar? We need to know before we label him a terrorist vs lone wolf.

 

How many deaths so far due to these bombs?

 

Prayers to the victims

 

The "means" is relevant if we actually care about reducing the homicide rate.

That our homicide rate due to gun deaths is so far and above other countries is a relevant statistic, because it shows what we need to focus on to bring our overall homicide rate down.

 

USA has over doublet he homicide rate of France though, so your point is STILL WRONG.

Gun violence is also the main driver of the difference in violence between a country such as France and a country such as USA. So yes, if you want to get USA's homicide rate closer to France's rate, you might want to reduce the main driver of the difference. It's just smart thinking.

 

If your goal is to reduce the homicide rate then you should probably look at homicide rates and not gun death rates?

pro second amendment advocates make two arguments (not saying i agree or disagree with either). First, they claim that if you take away guns, people will just kill using other items knives, cars, etc... If this is true then the gun deaths would go down and homicide rate would stay the same. Second, they claim that if you outlaw guns you will just be taking them away from law abiding citizens who would use them for proper self defense instead of criminals. IF this is true then deaths and gun deaths would go down (since no more self defense killings) but homicide rate would stay the same or even increase since people cant defend themselves. By using gun death rate you are not addressing either of the claims above. Homicide rate does though.


Like a said before, you are making an unnecessary assumption. You are assuming by reducing gun deaths or gun homicides that you are reducing homicides in total. No reason to make such an assumption. homicide rates are more available than gun death rates anyways.

 

Both arguments are weak.

 

This post is awesome.

#allviolencematters

 

It’s a shame there wasn’t a good guy with a gun. We need more good guys with guns everywhere!