Yzermandius19

nope you picked the data you cherry picked it take the 67 away and Norway still has more mass shooting deaths relative to population same with France clearly your more guns and less gun control are the main drivers of mass shootings narrative is false based on your own cherry picked data

Norway mass shootings relative to the population dummy way higher than America despite far less guns and way more gun control same with France if amount of gun control or number of guns are the main things that explain who has the most mass shootings explain how America has notably less than them your own data doesn't match your narrative

grabbing a steering wheel isn't a crime and she is just repeating a rumor she was not there when Trump supposedly "grabbed the wheel" her testimony revealed no crimes that Trump committed

your own data confirms I'm correct nice own goal

guns certainly qualify as part of personal security

that's a blatant strawman due to the cognitive dissonance of being confronted with an argument you have no rebuttal for

section 7 of the Charter gun rights exist in Canada too the government just frequently violates them and you support them doing so

like the violent crime rate like the homicide rate like the acceptability of using violence to resolve disputes like the acceptability of using gun violence to resolve disputes like socioeconomic conditions like mental health differences like the influence of the media etc. why would just assume gun control is the primary difference maker? particularly to the point that you feel it necessary to make jokes about how little the impact of other factors is on gun crime? Norway has more mass shootings per 100k than America Norway has far more gun control than America and far less guns if gun control was the primary difference maker in gun crime to the degree you suggest and a wide variety of other factors could be hand waved away as you did in the above post then how do you explain that?

you gave no evidence evidence that some places with low gun crime also have gun control isn't proof that gun control is the cause of the low gun crime what proof do you have that gun control is the cause and that various other factors aren't driving the low gun crime rate that you are attributing to gun control?

that's not proof lots of countries that have high gun deaths have gun control lots of countries have higher gun deaths after implementing gun control you're cherry picking and you have yet to link levels of gun crime to gun control levels

calling a war a political exorcism and calling the enemy the devil doesn't make it not a war nor does it justify a war in fact, this is one of the dumber justifications for war I've ever seen if you're going to be a Russian troll the least you can do is come up with better propaganda to peddle

America having more firearms homicides than Canada has nothing to do with the amount of guns in either nation Switzerland has a lot more guns than many countries with much higher firearms homicide rates, for instance just because someone owns or carries a gun doesn't mean it's inevitable they shoot someone with it that's not how it works

targets equipped to defend themselves are hard targets no mass shooters are targeting gun shows that's not a coincidence your theory that if someone starts shooting in a place with lots of armed people that a bunch of innocent people are going to get shot automatically doesn't have any real life examples backing it up it's entirely a figment of your imagination

mass shooters usually don't pick on hardened targets they pick on softer targets so evidently you don't have much of a clue on how they think at all

The Democrats will sink just as far or further to pwn the GOP you act like it's a uniquely Republican thing but it's a bipartisan impulse

Scalia's position is far closer to the founding fathers than yourself originalist is a real thing you use this strawman because you have no rebuttal to the actual point being made Scalia's interpretation reinforces people's rights your interpretation takes away people's rights you want to go back even further on time than any originalist

Democrats block Republicans from passing good bills too it's far from uncommon on either side welcome to politics, noob

bullshit if 20k people have guns no mass shooter is going to target them in the first place there is a reason so many of them choose soft targets and don't go light up the police station it's not a coincidence

that's not what happens what happens is the shooter gets shot and your dreams about massive collateral damage if people are armed in a mass shooting never comes to fruition that's the real world you're just so triggered by guns that you assume they are never the answer even to stop a mass shooter

Democrats are worse

people get guns into those zones because criminals don't follow laws they don't follow any of your other gun control laws either your plan only works if all bad people with guns listen to the laws, but that's not how it works and it never will be you are designing laws for fictional society that will never exist and assuming that will work in the real world

yes there is and they are most common locations where most mass shooters choose to go on their shooting sprees because their victims are less likely to be armed and be able to shoot back

are you finally going to remember what automatic weapons fire is actually useful for, next time it comes up? or are you going to keep going on about how it turns mass shooters using AR-15's into killing machines with no training?

oh bullshit every time I discuss it with you in depth you have nothing to add but denial then you pretend like I am incapable of discussing it in depth when that is actually your own fault projected on me you aren't capable of reasonably discussing this issue with anyone you are too easily distracted by woke buzzwords to dig any deeper into how they actually use them you just want them to mean what you think they mean by them and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change your mind

Scalia was an originalist the ruling was originalist it was not a new interpretation it was the old interpretation applied to a new case