Originally Posted by
Abatis
One would expect that such a simple premise as "more guns = more gun deaths" would not require complex explanation to prove it.
You state it and you repeat it because of that simplicity and ease of understanding but now you demand that other comparisons / data be included in our consideration of your statement?
You have presented a premise with only one variable, MORE GUNS . . .
You posit the only unavoidable outcome of adding "MORE GUNS" to a society is "MORE GUN DEATHS".
That for the USA, over 25 years, the actual realized outcome is FEWER GUN DEATHS after 200 million guns are added, defeats your premise.
If you have a different theory, one that depends on more complex data then run with it.
The "more guns = more gun deaths" one is dead.
Bookmarks