Trollheimig is back!
Well, that shouldn't make me happy.
Anyway, can any of the pro-gun people explain to me why making killing easier is a good idea? We can't make it impossible to kill people unless we have a cop behing each of us. (And still, cop kills people too). But we can make things harder. That's why we got stuff like burglar alarm. Not because they make burglary impossible, but because they make it harder. Not having easy acces to a wand that shoot little pieces of emtal real fast make it harder to kill people.
Of course it should make you happy when I pop in here. Someone has to play the lamb for this progressive slaughterhouse.
Anyway, the thing is, guns are a separate kind of crime. Gun crime is a made-up name. All those crimes still happen without guns, so why choose guns as the defining criterion is categorizing them? It may be easier to use a gun, but actually, people don't kill on a drop of a hat. When people kill, it's because something built to a breaking point, and "Is it easy?" has nothing to do with their decisions. The husband that shooting a cheating wife could beat her to death. The situation and his mental state caused the murder, not a fake "gun violence" compulsion.
Trollheiming, given past experience, source your graphs.
In an ideal world, people would point out contradicting information rather than airily dismiss data with nothing of their own. No one has ever pointed out how
any of my data has been wrong in the past. Cast doubt continually, yes; make a solid case against, no. The big controversial graph was the revenues-to-GDP chart, and
that was drawn from data presented on the Whitehouse website itself!
So drop the nonsense with these claims that there's a real "past experience" where my data was bad.