I figured you would go after the number of shootings. To me any number of things like these are a tragedy. And your argument that this doesn't happen in other countries is simply false by the evidence I just showed, which clearly showed that in fact there were mass shootings in all countries you used as example for countries that alledgedly didn't have them.
I figured you would go after the number of shootings. To me any number of things like these are a tragedy. And your argument that this doesn't happen in other countries is simply false by the evidence I just showed, which clearly showed that in fact there were mass shootings in all countries you used as example for countries that alledgedly didn't have them.
The number of them is irrelevant. These other countries have had strict gun laws forever and still they happened, including two of your examples of "countries that don't have mass shootings". That alone should make ou ou that gun bans don' work. Germany is another one. Very strict gun laws, but shootings still happened, 7 of them.
But if you still want to go after numbers, take one of our role models, for example: Canada.
They have population of 36.000.000 and they have had 5 school shootings.
The US has 325.000.000 and 40 shootings.
This shows that both countries have a similar number of shootings adjusted by population.
36/5 =7,2
325/40 = 8,1
Which is compatible with the logic that the distribution of maniacs in developed countries is roughly the same.
Which essentially, for thinking beings means: the problem is not lack of gun control. The problem are the maniacs, regardless of how strict the gun laws are BECAUSE MANIACS DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT LAWS. SO THEY WILL BREAK THE LAW BY BUYING GUNS ILLEGALY AND BY KILLING OTHER PEOPLE.
And your great idea is: last pass a law that prohibits people who respect the law by not buying guns if they are banned(which are people that would obviously not make a school shooting in the first place).
You go on because you want to think that way. You said there were no shootings in those countries, I proved you wrong and you didn't address this fact.
"You go on because you want to think that way. You said there were no shootings in those countries, I proved you wrong and you didn't address this fact.
I showed it to you that the number of shootings adjusted by population makes the frequency equivalent in both countries, which makes sense because the number of guns don't matter, but the number of maniacs does, and the numbers show that the proportion of maniacs is the same.
Again, not being able to answer that, you bring the numbers of victims(which is completely irrelevant given that regardless of how many died, it is a tragedy and this is something that has several variables that can influence it). But if you want to go down that road, take the example from the UK: 14 killed. And I didn't even bring up the Paris shootings which killed roughly 130 people in one single event.
And this goes on and on because you and the people that think like that WANT to think like that, regardless of logic.
And the final and most important thing is what everyone like you runs from when confronted by it, as I said in the end of my last post:
"The problem are the maniacs, regardless of how strict the gun laws are BECAUSE MANIACS DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT LAWS. SO THEY WILL BREAK THE LAW BY BUYING GUNS ILLEGALY AND BY KILLING OTHER PEOPLE.
And your great idea is: last pass a law that prohibits people who respect the law by not buying guns if they are banned(which are people that would obviously not make a school shooting in the first place).
This shows that people like you don't want to solve the problem, because when confronted with these facts and logic, you run away, ignore my arguments and try to deviate the focus to some other irrelevant thing(like the number of vistims). What you really want to do is just pass your agenda, nothing more.
