CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Dermot i must play Devils Advocate here okay. People kill People not guns because a gun is an inanimate object. It cannot think nor can it feel. With that said no media covers the gun violence in Chicago which has the strict gun laws nor does the media cover the children killed in Chicago.
As you prove daily, there is nothing common about common sense. I suspect you don't like me citing statistics because the numbers may not be in your favor. Even so, it's a hard sell to claim I am lying when I provide not only the numbers, but the credible sources for those numbers.
“Mass shooting” is always defined in such a way as to confirm the bias of the author. As such, it is not a good indicator for getting at facts.
If you are going to say how many people were injured, ok. If you are going to say how many people killed, ok. But if you say X number of people were injured or killed, then you are not presenting the clearest picture, only the most favorable one.
In the US in 2016:
-4,947 non-firearm homicides
-1,781 blade homicides
-240 children under 11 killed by firearms
-684 children under 11 killed by drowning
-1349 children under 11 killed by suffocating
As of non-fatal injuries in the US in 2016:
-428 children under 11 suffered unintentional firearm injury
-20,685 children under 11 suffered injury from sexual assault (The Pope does his part to increase that number)
-79,296 children under 11 suffered dog bite injury (but Americans love their dogs and will not ban them)
-1,670,102 children under 11 suffered reportable injury from falling.
America is a big country with a lot of big problems. For the vast majority of us, guns are not one of those problems. Which means we are happy to keep them, and not need them.
“Mass shooting” is always defined in such a way as to confirm the bias of the author.
In other words, instead of simply accepting that mass shootings occur very frequently in the United States, you want to attack the semantics of the terminology itself, which only confirms your own bias, since clearly you are trying to "exclude" certain shootings from being classified as "mass shootings".
As such, it is not a good indicator for getting at facts.
I'll tell you a great method of "getting at facts". They will usually be the precise opposite of whatever you say.
In the US in 2016:
-4,947 non-firearm homicides
-1,781 blade homicides
This is an outrageously stupid variation of the tu quoque fallacy. Other homicides have nothing to do with gun homicides. Stabbing someone in the head is not evidence that shooting someone in the face is fine. I mean, it's literally retarded. The precise same statistics provide a significantly better argument that nuclear weapons should be legalised, since homicides from nuclear weapons are significantly less represented than drownings or blade deaths.
You are just pathetic. The insanity on this site is simply astonishing.
Other homicides have nothing to do with gun homicides.
Other forms of homicide are higher in the US than in other countries, as are gun homicides. I know it's a little bit sophisticated for you to grasp, but it's not Tu Quoque (I bet one day you will at least accidentally identify a fallacy). What this indicates is that the US is generally more violent, even with knives.
By pointing out other forms of death in the US, one can have a better picture of just what the gun violence means in relation to American death in general.
I'll tell you a great method of "getting at facts". They will usually be the precise opposite of whatever you say.
I think one of these days I am going to say shit that actually is a lie, just to get you to accidentally say true things that you don't know I agree with.
Other forms of homicide are higher in the US than in other countries
Which part of: "other homicides have nothing to do with gun homicides" are you having trouble understanding, you fallacious Jew prick?
I know it's a little bit sophisticated for you to grasp
If it were, I doubt you would have needed to ban his account from replying to your bullshit, would you?
But it's not Tu Quoque
Jesus Christ you're so obnoxiously stupid. It is a tu quoque fallacy because you are making an appeal to hypocrisy argument. You are posting statistics of other homicides to detract attention away from the homicides which are the focus of the discussion (i.e. firearm homicides).
You're a stupid lying prick with not one iota of intellect in your entire waste of a body.
Some people are suffering just being alive, so they want to end their own life but it is "illegal" or frowned upon.
Mostly because suicide causes suffering for anyone around them. Family, Friends, etc.
Some people say suicide is never the answer, but tell that to someone in pain everyday because of an illness, or someone simply being kept alive by machines in the hospital. There are plenty of situations where a person might want their own life to end, and telling them to live as long as possible so you don't feel sad is kind of immoral.
I'm not saying suicides are a good thing, but it is definitely a grey area.
I just think it is interesting that everyone, whether from the US or not, seems to be ready to talk about America’s guns. This, despite more than half our gun deaths being suicides. This being the case, you would think people might have something to say about Japan, Hungary, Poland, Germany, France, Switzerland, or Belgium whom all have a higher suicide rate than the US despite tighter gun laws. People seem to care significantly more about American deaths from American guns, even though we have higher rates of death and violence by mean other than guns, indicating a cultural problem.
Fun Fact: Frances Suicide by firearm rate is 2.98. America’s Homicide by Firearm rate is 3.8, which isn’t much higher. If you account for gang violence, the rate drops closer to 1.6, which would put our gun homicide rate lower than Frances gun suicide rate.
People think of guns as simply a weapon used to commit murder, hunt with, or target practice.
They do not think Guns can be used in defense, so anytime they see anything bad happen with a gun they think "Guns, all negative, no positive."
You will see people argue that there is no situation where a person needs a gun, and if guns were removed they would be more safe. Which simply is not true.
If people cannot conceive of a time when a gun could be necessary, it's because guns aren't enough of a problem in their area for it to have ever crossed their mind. And if that's the case, then there is really no risk in gun ownership for the people in their area either.
Incidentally, the statistical tools in the OP are very easy to use and can provide the numbers to support ones position. For example, you can compare the risk of gun death to other forms of death.
What a ridiculous statement of course people are thinking so any opponents of your are unthinking , what you really mean is they disagree with your assertions
People think of guns as simply a weapon used to commit murder, hunt with, or target practice.
Strange that isn’t it ? I remember you said it was a “ tool” maybe we should think of them like we do a hammer or a saw
So what’s the function of a gun then in American speak ?
They do not think Guns can be used in defense, so anytime they see anything bad happen with a gun they think "Guns, all negative, no positive."
Really ? Course they can be used in defense although that’s something Americans seem to constantly worry about as in a fear of strangers and the government turning oppressive
You will see people argue that there is no situation where a person needs a gun, and if guns were removed they would be more safe.
I live perfectly safely in a gun free society , so tell me using this skewed logic of yours we should introduce guns into gun free societies to feel more safe , how would that work or is it just Americans who feel constantly under threat ?
Yes, you live perfectly safe in a gun-free society.
That's like me saying, "I live perfectly safe in a society with no fire department, fire extinguishers, or fire sprinklers. We simply do not get fires here!"
Yea makes it sound nice, "I'd like to live in a place with no Fires!" But then when a fire happens you'll be thinking "How stupid am I that I would put myself in a position that I have no way to reasonably stop a fire, my entire house burned down and I didn't have fire insurance either!"
No, the responsible thing is to have Fire Departments, to have a Fire Extinguisher, and to have a Sprinkler System to suppress fires. Is it because we expect our house to ever get caught on fire? No of course not, I've never even known a person who has had their house catch on fire, but I still prefer to live in a society that allows me to protect myself, my family, and my possessions from a Fire if it does happen.
Just like I prefer to live in a society that allows me to protect myself, my family, and my possessions from criminals if I happen to encounter one. Will it ever happen? Hopefully not and probably not. But it is the RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO to have a plan for if it does happen.
Yes, you live perfectly safe in a gun-free society.
Yes I know
That's like me saying, "I live perfectly safe in a society with no fire department, fire extinguishers, or fire sprinklers. We simply do not get fires here!"
What a spectacularly stupid statement even for you , we get fires here we have a fire department.
Yea makes it sound nice, "I'd like to live in a place with no Fires!" But then when a fire happens you'll be thinking "How stupid am I that I would put myself in a position that I have no way to reasonably stop a fire, my entire house burned down and I didn't have fire insurance either!"
I have insurance ace we have fire departments
No, the responsible thing is to have Fire Departments, to have a Fire Extinguisher, and to have a Sprinkler System to suppress fires. Is it because we expect our house to ever get caught on fire? No of course not, I've never even known a person who has had their house catch on fire, but I still prefer to live in a society that allows me to protect myself, my family, and my possessions from a Fire if it does happen.
Yes we have established both our societies have fire departments
Just like I prefer to live in a society that allows me to protect myself, my family, and my possessions from criminals if I happen to encounter one. Will it ever happen? Hopefully not and probably not. But it is the RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO
I think you need to move countries buddy to save yourself and your family from the constant threat you face from fellow Americans , what a fucked up country you live in
Either you are incapable of reading comprehension and understanding analogies, or you are purposefully misrepresenting me.
The problem for you is I’m quiet capable of reading and seeing through your nonsense , I didn’t “ misrepresent “ you I told you we had a fire service and fire insurance you idiotic brute
Pretty discouraging behavior to see on a website created for the purpose of debate.
What’s pretty “discouraging “ for fellow humans is the thought that a knuckle dragging imbecile like you claims a right to carry a lethal weapon
Having a gun in your house for defense is the same as having a Fire Extinguisher.
You hope your house or kitchen never catches on fire, but if it does it is responsible to have a Fire Extinguisher in your house and know where it is for an emergency.
You also hope your house never gets robbed and your family never gets attacked by a criminal, but a criminal does enter your home it would be responsible to own a firearm and know where it is for an emergency.
Do you understand the analogy now? Bad things happen, and even if they are rare and it wouldn't likely happen to you. It is still responsible to be prepared for such a thing.
Especially when I would much rather have my house burn down than have anyone in my family attacked, injured, or killed by a criminal. So I'd say if you have a Fire Extinguisher but not a Gun, you need to get your priorities strait.
Having a gun in your house for defense is the same as having a Fire Extinguisher.
Not if you attempt to put out a fire with the gun or shoot an intruder with a fire extinguisher as no doubt you’ve found out to your cost
I don’t have a fire extinguisher in my house and I don’t have a gun either so your point is ?
You hope your house or kitchen never catches on fire, but if it does it is responsible to have a Fire Extinguisher in your house and know where it is for an emergency.
It seems you Americans cannot be trusted around anything
You also hope your house never gets robbed and your family never gets attacked by a criminal, but a criminal does enter your home it would be responsible to own a firearm and know where it is for an emergency.
We have strange devices over here called house alarms maybe they will show up over there real soon , also we don’t have marauding criminals attempting to rob , maim or kill us
Do you understand the analogy now? Bad things happen, and even if they are rare and it wouldn't likely happen to you. It is still responsible to be prepared for such a thing.
I understand you’re an imbecile , using your logic why aren’t Americans allowed own an armoured tank just in case the government turns hostile ?
Especially when I would much rather have my house burn down than have anyone in my family attacked, injured, or killed by a criminal.
So you’d prefer your family to roast to death than be killed by a criminal ...Wow !
So I'd say if you have a Fire Extinguisher but not a Gun, you need to get your priorities strait.
I have neither , maybe you Americans need full time minders ?
Americans are allowed to own tanks... You didn't know this? (I'm dead serious, go look it up)
Just like when some of the first Americans sent a letter to the government asking if they were allowed to have Cannons on their ships to defend from Pirates. Our government said "OF COURSE YOU CAN HAVE CANNONS! You are allowed to defend yourself and your property!"
Americans are allowed to own tanks... You didn't know this? (I'm dead serious, go look it up)
😂😂😂 What a fucking country
Just like when some of the first Americans sent a letter to the government asking if they were allowed to have Cannons on their ships to defend from Pirates. Our government said "OF COURSE YOU CAN HAVE CANNONS! You are allowed to defend yourself and your property!"
"OF COURSE YOU CAN HAVE CANNONS! You are allowed to defend yourself and your property!"
There is a real problem in your country. If you can't differentiate between a weapon and a shield then, by the same logic, if Muslims were responsible for 9/11 (which they weren't, I'm just giving an example) they would have only been "defending" themselves from American aggression.
Funny how all the rules change when you're the victims.
If you are not American citizens you are not governed by our laws.
But let's say for example that the Muslims who did 9/11 were American Citizens. If they wanted to, yes they could own guns, tanks, etc. But you are not allowed to infringe on anyone else's freedom with those. So running two planes into the Twin Towers is not considered an act of self-defense. It is also massive property damage (both the plane and the buildings were not theirs to destroy) and they killed and injured people who were not directly a threat to them.
No rules change at all. It would be wrong if we stole planes of another country and flew them into their buildings. We hold ourselves to the same standards.
He believes the offense nature of a tool or an act necessarily precludes its use for defense. He doesn’t believe you can punch someone in self defense either.
Concerning larger weapons, such as tanks, it’s not the easiest thing in the world to jump through go the necessary hoops. You can own a fully auto 50 cal, but not as easily as a handgun. Or are you referencing something else?
So what’s the function of a gun then in American speak ?
Depends on the gun. There are about 325mil people in the US and about as many guns. Most are used for recreation, hunting, and defense. Some are used for crimes.
I live perfectly safely in a gun free society , so tell me using this skewed logic of yours we should introduce guns into gun free societies to feel more safe
More guns in your society wouldn't make you more safe, but it wouldn't make you less safe either. Your neighbor wouldn't become murderous if he decided to purchase a shotgun.
You live perfectly safe in a stab-free society as well. Your blade murder rate is about .19, far lower than the US. More knives wouldn't really change that.
Your overall murder rate (.8) is lower than our non-firearm murder rate (1.56).
Many areas of the US have a violent culture. If you remove gang violence, our firearm murder rate is roughly the same as our non-firearm murder rate. Which means, other than inner city gangs, we are approximately as violent with and without guns. So are you.
Depends on the gun. There are about 325mil people in the US and about as many guns. Most are used for recreation, hunting, and defense. Some are used for crimes.
Most Americans cite defense claim as the reason they carry
More guns in your society wouldn't make you more safe, but it wouldn't make you less safe either.
It certainly would make me less safe and children less safe if the American model is anything to go on
Your neighbor wouldn't become murderous if he decided to purchase a shotgun.
You know this how ?
You live perfectly safe in a stab-free society as well. Your blade murder rate is about .19, far lower than the US. More knives wouldn't really change that.
Carrying a knife is illegal over here , tell me if we had no knives would there be knife deaths if so how ?
Your overall murder rate (.8) is lower than our non-firearm murder rate (1.56).
Many areas of the US have a violent culture. If you remove gang violence, our firearm murder rate is roughly the same as our non-firearm murder rate. Which means, other than inner city gangs, we are approximately as violent with and without guns. So are you.
Not going on your gun stats , I note also mass shootings a typically American phenomenon and accidents by gun a staggering 70,000 a year are not mentioned.
Most Americans cite defense claim as the reason they carry
Most of the time, if you are talking about carrying, you are talking about defense. But nobody thinks about the fact that you must open carry in order to hunt. Self defense is often the stated reason for open carrying when not hunting. But it is pretty clear that the reason they carry is to make a statement, utilizing their 2nd Amendment Rights in the service of their 1st Amendment Rights.
You know this how ?
How do I know that your neighbor will not become murderous as a result of owning a shotgun? Because there is no conceivable causal connection between a piece of metal and murderous intent. Just consider your Iceland example. They have higher rates of gun ownership than you, and a lower homicide rate than you. That's because guns don't make a person violent.
Carrying a knife is illegal over here , tell me if we had no knives would there be knife deaths if so how ?
If you had no knives, you would have a host of associated problems. Incidentally it is illegal to murder over here. Still happens.
Not going on your gun stats
It's the Center for Disease Control. It's completely legitimate. Denying a legit source is not an argument, and will not get your point any closer to truth.
accidents by gun a staggering 70,000 a year are not mentioned.
Accidental Death? Accidental Injury? Accidental weapon discharge? You need to be more clear. I provided links to my sources because they are valid and so user friendly. In 2016 there were 495 accidental gun deaths and 116,414 accidental firearm related injuries.
Most of the time, if you are talking about carrying, you are talking about defense.
You obviously don't understand the difference between attack and defence and it's infuriating, because one has to watch you argue from a position of complete, almost childlike ignorance. Shooting someone is not a form of defence. It doesn't matter what they happen to be doing at the time. Shooting them is an offensive action on your part. That isn't necessarily to say the action is never justified, or that -- as per the adage -- attack is not sometimes the best form of defence, but it simply means that you are turning reality upside down when you define lethal weapons as forms of defence.
Because there is no conceivable causal connection between a piece of metal and murderous intent. Just consider your Iceland example. They have higher rates of gun ownership than you, and a lower homicide rate than you. That's because guns don't make a person violent.
But you’ve already admitted the problem is Americans so your example doesn’t work as statistically I’m far more likely to get shot by an American neighbour than an Icelandic one
If you had no knives, you would have a host of associated problems.
Like what ?
Incidentally it is illegal to murder over here. Still happens.
Yes I know kids get shot and injured in the U S and yous have that very American problem school shootings doesn’t stop people doing it does it ?
It's the Center for Disease Control. It's completely legitimate. Denying a legit source is not an argument, and will not get your point any closer to truth.
Yes , I’ve used them before
accidents by gun a staggering 70,000 a year are not mentioned.
Accidental Death? Accidental Injury? Accidental weapon discharge? You need to be more clear
I think it’s clear enough as in accidents with guns any mishap with a gun that injures or kills another
. I provided links to my sources because they are valid and so user friendly. In 2016 there were 495 accidental gun deaths and 116,414 accidental firearm related injuries.
You’ve already stated only your sources may be used why’s that ?
Use a source Luke
Who is Luke ?
Do you deny these stats ?
236 Mass shootings in the U S so far this year one for nearly everyday
456 kids under 11 injured or killed by a gun this so far over 2 for everyday of the year so far
1,917 teens between 12 and 17 killed or injured by a gun so far this year 5 a day for everyday this year
Why focus on the firearm suicide rate in the US and never mention the approximately doubled suicide rate in Japan or France? What is so special about American guns and deaths that make these other worse cases deserving of zero reference?
Oh they can? Then why are you trying to make an argument on the basis of stats?
but I'll trust the IHME over wikipedia
You linked a site called vizhub, which I have never even heard of. Furthermore, your link contains no relevant data. It is literally a blind link drop you are trying to use to disguise the fact that you were just disproved by Wikipedia. Do you even know what IHME stands for? Are you aware that you have not linked IMHE? Are you aware that the page you have linked gives NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER to your false claims? You're literally just a fucking liar, Amarel. Fuck off.
Especially since it is more current.
The page you have linked clearly states it is from 2016. The Wikipedia page is split into two tables. Up until 2017 and post-2017.
You linked a site called vizhub, which I have never even heard of
That's the site used by the IHME. You would know that if you had clicked on it. If you went to their site you would see that they are not gun friendly. A front headline reads "Six countries in the Americas account for half of all firearm deaths". But that would require just a little more mental effort than what you have available.
It is literally a blind link drop
It's really dumb to make claims that are immediately testable without first testing them. The links work fine.
The page you have linked clearly states it is from 2016
No it isn't you lying little retard. You haven't even told us who the IHME is, because you clearly do not know. Why doesn't the IHME use its own website, you ridiculously dishonest bag of twats? You read the acronym IHME at the bottom of the page you linked and thought it sounded authoritative, and that's the only reason you mentioned it. You're pathetic. Utterly, utterly pathetic. I doubt that you could even lie straight in bed, you crooked little retard. The IHME's website is here:-
Stop banning me for exposing you as a liar you pathetic little prick. The page you linked has got absolutely FUCK ALL TO DO with IHME, and it doesn't support the claims you made in the first place. The Wikipedia page linked by myself verifies the accuracy of its data up to April 2018.
Why not instead face up to the fact that the society you live in is dysfunctional going on the continual love affair most Americans have with the gun ?
According to the research organisation Gun Policy, the estimated total of civilian-owned guns in Iceland is about 90,000.
That’s 90,000 guns for 330,000 people. Roughly a third, so chances are if you are in a room with ten Icelanders, about two or three of them are gun owners. In the United States, by contrast, there are far more guns per household but the rate of gun ownership is just a little above one third, so similar to Iceland.
In spite of this high rate of civilian gun ownership, Iceland still has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Yep. Giving them more guns wouldn't make them more dangerous either. I'm glad you are coming around Dermot.
Yes it’s a fact Icelanders are more responsible and peace loving than Americans so you could double the gun rate and still no gun crime , meanwhile in the U S thecopposite holds true thank you for agreeing A that the problem is .......Americans
Well yeah. If the American murderer doesn’t use a gun, it’s in a different category, which we aren’t directly discussing.
Americans are the problem in American gun homicides. Not most Americans. Not even many Americans. But when it happens, an American is the problem. Iceland gun homicides are a problem with Icelanders. Homicides happen less there because of the people. They are less of a problem.
Incidentally, our higher rate of non-firearm homicides are also a problem of Americans. When those Americans murder, they usually could legally possess the non-firearm weapon they used, since it is simply a blunt object, a knife, or their hands. Just as gun murderers with guns are a problem, other murderers with whatever weapon they use is a problem.
When people commit crimes, they use whatever tools they have available for the job.
If the tool they require is a weapon they will use whatever weapon they can obtain that is effective.
Removing guns doesn't remove crime, it simply makes them choose a different weapon to perform the task.
Solving the environments which encourage people to commit crimes is what people should be looking at. Not removing the best defensive weapon ever invented.
When people commit crimes, they use whatever tools they have available for the job.
Guns are the most useful tools available to potential criminals, and you insist on selling potential criminals guns. Hence, you endanger all the people who are not potential criminals, and force them to buy guns for their own protection. The end result is madness.
No one is purposefully selling criminals guns. Your word "Potential Criminal" simply is a synonym for "Human".
Every Human alive is a "Potential Criminal". That's like saying "Why would you let a Potential Criminal babysit your child?!" or "Why would you let a Potential Criminal be your child's teacher?!" But instead you said "Why would you sell Potential Criminals Guns!"
All we do is allow everyone who isn't a felon and does not have an extreme mental illness the ability to protect themselves. I'm sorry you don't agree that people should be allowed to do such a thing. But I see that position as ridiculous.
Every person should be allowed to protect themselves, and they shouldn't be expected to become a Martial Arts Master to do so.
In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
So you tell me with each child dying from a drunk driver, why the Left is not all over the media pretending to be outraged over these innocent children's deaths? Do you have any idea how many more children are killed by drunk drivers than by guns in schools?
Where is the outrage and demand for alcohol regulations and back ground checks in public bars, nightclubs, etc.
If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't the Left propose laws mandating back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?
I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.
Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? Approximately 40% of drunk drivers are repeat offenders! They drive even when their licenses are revoked!
The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!
Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvenienced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?
You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?
I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abiding citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvenience from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?
A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.
You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns.
You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.
You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!
IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.
Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.
Guns. Fun with Numbers. What do the numbers tell you?
Well let's see!! You want to Ammy ??????
The Worst Mass Shooting in U.S. History Was Not in Orlando
The horrific massacre of innocents in an Orlando nightclub in 2016 was a tragedy of national and international proportions. The senseless, methodical killing of people just like us, in a place where they came to relax, was an affront to our humanity and civilization.
It was immediately dubbed “the worst mass shooting in American history” by many media organizations (and our President), looking to single out this event from the almost weekly incidents of gun violence that plague the U.S.
But this kind of categorization is very debatable and has been called out for “whitewashing” history. If we mean murder perpetrated by guns, the worst “mass shooting” in American history was the “Wounded Knee Massacre” in South Dakota, when 150-300 Native Americans were gunned down by the U.S. army in South Dakota.
Yes. Let's look at the numbers. Compare the number of those killed by guns against the total population. There are many things that are much more lethal.
Actually, nuclear weapons have probably saved countless lives. And auto accidents kill more children than guns have. Perhaps you should try to ban cars. Lol. Idiot.
