If you're going to compare the USA with other countries, whether they're "peer countries" or not, then all countries are fair game. Only comparing the USA to some countries is cherry picking.
No, comparing the USA with similar "peer" countries is not "cherry picking"
Selecting countries with a poorer record than the USA and comparing the USA to them would be more like that.
So if you want to make the USA look good, compare the gun homicide rate of Brazil and El Salvador. If you want to get a reasonable idea of how the USA is performing, compare it to similar, developed countries or "peer countries" that international comparisons actually do
So if you want to see how the USA is doing in adult literacy, don't look to where the USA sits in a world table of 200 countries, compare the USA to similar, developed countries. Like is actually done
You don't know what "cherry picking" is
So that would mean states like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California must have the highest violent crime, after all those states all have very liberal gun laws.
No, NY and NY have the most conservative gun laws in the USA
Arizona and Alaska have some of the most liberal gun laws in the USA and the highest level of violent crime
A state with few gun controls has LIBERAL gun laws
There is little state control on getting a gun in say Alaska - therefore Alaska has liberal gun laws
You need to learn what "liberal" means - it means fewer controls, less laws, less restrictions
Another example would be prostitution, it is legal in most places in Nevada. Nevada has the most liberal prostitution laws in the USA
Transportation and cable television is stuff you pulled in from left field, I don't see how it fits in with the topic at hand.
They are just two aspects you can draw comparisons between state or countries on
Like gun control or prostitution laws
My evidence is that school teaches you to think, I speak from my own experience on that...
I don't mean to be rude but it doesn't seem that your school did a very good regard in that respect
And I think you meant to say your experience and not your evidence
and gun grabbers don't think, most liberals in general don't think much.
Where is your evidence for that
Which liberals or "gun grabbers" (a poor sign of a reasoned assessment Btw to use such a slanderous term) do you know of that don't think ?
I would say that the responses to gun control arguments, from the right, are more akin to thoughtless, knee-jerk reactions
Labeling those in favor of gun control as "gun grabbers" is not a good sign of a thought process being employed.
Post #188:
...You could compare a place to itself based on the effects that take place after enacting more or less gun control.
So you were saying that we could compare a city (such as NYC) to itself from an earlier time
That may be the case, but such a comparison wouldn't be useful in examining where that places stands today when compared agaist its "peers"
In 2016, the year Constitutional Carry was introduced in W.Virginia the violent crime rate was 358 per 1000 people. In 2017 the violent crime rate in W.Virginia dropped to 351.
CCW stands for Concealed Carry not Constitutional Carry - so in 2016, W.Virginia introduced a more liberal CCW law
Where is the control group ?
What would violent crime have been without the liberalizing of its CCW laws ?
What happened in "peer states" with no change in CCW laws ?
Looks like violent crime in W.Virginia rose since 2016 and then fell - kind of matching US trends over all:
https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/Crime/state/WV
Maybe by you're standards they're sane but that's only because you're obviously one of them.
By any standards
An argument that 40,000 annual gun related deaths and 70,000+ gun related injuries and more than one mass shooting per day in 2019 is normal or bearable is not sane.
Neither is one that says the answer is more guns.
That is insanity.