You see if crime is increasing, they say they need guns to protect themselves. If crime is decreasing, they say "well, despite us having guns, crimes are decreasing". I think you first have to establish what criteria these people would like met in order for them to be content with stricter gun laws. Then negotiate the criteria. Then attack the criteria.
I'm not interested at all in arguing about this atrocity, suffice to say that this cartoon summarizes my feelings still.
Do you understand the word statistics? Why do you think the US is the only country with a few collectors who amass all the guns that causes a skew in the per capita number?
Why do you think firearms collectors are so prevalent across the rest of the world to where it does not impact the numbers? I understand statistics. It is your grasp of math I am becoming concerned about.
If you cannot see how people in more rural areas owning 20 or more guns per household can skew the overall per capita number in a state or region, nothing I post is going to help you.
I feel ya on your point, the US is probably the only country in the world with the type of disposable income that allows people to collect guns. I bet the per capita number on immaculate antique cars in the US is also the highest in the world.
