“In other words you included irrelevant statistics to fraudulently boost the number of people actually die of violent deaths in order to give the false impression of how died from firearm homicides.”
No. I gave more relevant statistics to include all deaths related to firearms, which is the greater concern. It would be even more relevant to include injuries. Homicides have much less relevance to do with firearm safety law as the greater, positive impact gun laws have on saving lives is in all areas, not just homicide. Saving more lives is more relevant. Limiting statistics to homicide only is ignoring the whole of the problem of people dying and being injured due to the prevalence of guns in people’s lives.
“All a firearm homicide rate is used for is to make a place that has way more actual homicides which is usually ran by liberals seem way safer than a place with less actual homicides.You are not more likely to die from a firearm homicide in Alaska than you in Illinois. Anyone claiming you are more likely to die from a firearm homicide in Alaska than you are in Illinois is either a liar or a brain dead idiot.”
I don’t think the statistics I gave are wrong. The fact is, if I go into a small town that has twice the ratio of murder rate than that of a large city, I am more likely to be murdered in that small town than that large city. Otherwise, the ratios would be different. If more likely in Illinois than Alaska, the homicide rate in Illinois would be higher. If you don’t get that, then I don’t know how you ever got through math class in school. If you went to school.
“Correlation doesn't equal causation”.
You’re not going to get scientific proof of causation in practically anything. If laws were promulgated on scientific proof only, there would hardly be any law passed. Statistically, when you get many states getting the same results from passing similar law, that is statistical support to say there is a relationship between the law and the result unless you can find another possible impact that is also a correlation relatively timed.
“Those laws didn't ban ropes or prevent people from duying of drug overdoses or jumping from a building.”
The point is, gun suicide went down and so did total suicide. So, it can be said those people that didn’t have easy gun access as before chose not to commit either suicide by gun or by other means. I don’t know what you mean to be the relationship between a gun law not addressing what you say. What’s your point?
“PLus those studies never explain how those laws stop people from committing suicide.”
As an example, requiring a waiting period allows a person bent on suicide time to cool-off. Universal background checks can find out if a person has been determined a danger to themselves or others due to mental condition.
The results, the facts, support stronger gun law to reduce gun-related death. Judging the success of such a law by homicide rate only is taking a small part of the whole as if representative of it all, and it’s not.
