13 Dead in Shooting in Thousand Oaks California

[EricHiggin]

sundin13 said:

EricHiggin said:

So other than the war stats, the rest are based on specific medical locations over specific periods of time? Are other medical centers better or worse at treating their patients? Do different locations have varying amounts of gun vs knife wounds? Is the time line of the studies long enough? Does it take into account what if there were no guns?

What about mortality rate of gun wounds vs motor vehicle wounds?

I feel like you are just throwing things at the wall and seeing if anything sticks. Half of these questions are either irrelevant or ridiculous. I don't even know what you are going for. You seem to have done absolutely no work in bringing a rebuttal of any substance here. Like, you say "the rest are based on specific medical locations" when the first link I posted refers to all gunshot vs firearm wounds. Is the time line long enough? The first link was over a span of five years. Then you bring up the mortality rate of motor vehicle wounds? First of all, what? That is a hard left turn into "whatabout", but the mortality rate for car crashes is less than 1%.

Like, c'mon. Put a little effort in...

First link was about Philly.

So if I got shot once and was injured but no too badly, but was also stabbed once and was injured considerably worse, that alone would be enough proof to turn a blind eye to everything you put forward, or would "whatabout" my links and claims come into effect? Why? Since they have more evidence than just what would've happened to me? Maybe that's why I posed those questions.

How many people in comparison to gun victims is that 1% though? My point about the vehicles is this. If guns should be heavily restricted or banned, so should vehicles. Lot's of bad, careless drivers around but nobody seems to care about that because they say, you can't just change the transportation system, it'll cause chaos. Well what about when you try to restrict gun ownership, or flat out try to take them all away? Won't that surely cause chaos? The answer to that seems to be 'who cares, we'll just change the second amendment, big deal, it'll be for the greater good.' Well so would banning vehicles based on that logic. It would decrease CO2 emissions, it would decrease healthcare spending do to less people in accidents or allow that to be put towards others who require medical attention, etc. There's a lot of things that could be done to fix a lot of problems in terms of deaths and injuries, but the left seems to like to go with the ones that least impact them first.