(December 3, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Cato Wrote:
It's sort of interesting that you'd say something like that when you'd kudo a post like this in my thread about the France terrorist attack/mass shootings:
Quote: I'm guessing it has to do with lower per-capita murder rates, as spelt out above. You might want to read that post.
While you're at it, you might want to read, and perhaps answer if you're not too tired, my first post in this thread.
Finally, let me just say that your putative argument falls afoul of the guideline of let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. Simply because a law doesn't eliminate all acts it outlaws doesn't mean that law should be stricken.
I'd suggest that you start thinking without allowing your agenda (obvious as it is) to be your mental filter (again, obvious).
Is the per capita murder rate not important to this discussion but important to that one? Or is it possible that your agenda is controlling your mental filter? I almost never see it brought up in the threads about mass shootings unless it's to compare it to the UK or the small amount of countries in western Europe with low crime (excluding Switzerland and Norway.) Even though those countries have always had lower crime than the US, even when they had similar gun laws prior to the 1960s.
The per capita murder rate is the most important stat when it comes to this issue and yet very rarely discussed. At best you get a 'gun deaths' stat, which groups in suicides and pretends to be the per capita murder rate. (Which again, was exactly what the quote above was actually dishonestly refering to, it wasn't even a per-capita murder stat, which is why I made this thread to start with.)
I'm not even particularly pro-gun. I just wish there was more honesty from the anti-gun crowd on these forums, and less appeals to emotion and propaganda.