sc94597 said:
Your math is actually wrong for two reasons: 1. Population size changes over time 2. Death rates (and homicide rates change over time.) Why does it matter if somebody is murdered by a gun or some other means? The important argument is whether or not total homicides will decrease at a faster rate if guns were restricted. Comparing absolute numbers or just gun homicide numbers is deceptive and silly. Plus the poster I quoted was specifically talking about mass shootings. How do you suppose we make the mass shooting rate zero in a country of over 320 million with over 300 million guns? |
The point I was trying to make is that according to your data 2.1 million American's alive today will be murdered. Regardless of how it happens, that number is too damn high. Secondly, we can't make the mass murder rate zero without mind control so as responsible people who care for our live and the lives of the people we love (I don't know if you love anyone but work with me) we need to make an effort to keep guns away from certain people. Your right to own a gun will never supercede anyones right to not be killed. We still have a sky high homicide rate and most are from guns.
The thing about owning a gun is that you have to be responsible with it. Obviously, this country is chalk full of people who do not respect this responsibilty. My brother and his wife were shot so maybe you have to lose someone to relize that human life is more important than guns and that innocent people are dying while no one want to address either the gun access problem or the overarching issue of violence in this country. It really disgusts me that this man was able to kill 50 people. It disgusts me that our government couldn't pass a law to keep suspected terriorist from buying guns. I mean this is so basic. Even if you give a fuck about my personal story, surely we can agree on this.
