I stated that Australia passed a gun law after the 96 massacre and deaths from guns dropped, I posted a link to an article on the gun laws and posted the graph of the deaths from guns by year...
Your response? You wanted to quibble about the definition of a mass murder- how many is 'enough' to really be called a mass murder... Had my argument been "Australia has no mass murders" then maybe that would have been a somewhat reasonable response... but I didn't say that.
YOU wanted to shift the discussion to that pointless quibbling, because there you can keep the discussion away from the actual issues. This is why talking with you is pointless, you are not honest. You are a snake oil salesman hawking a product and you will do that using whatever means you find necessary.
The FACT is australia has LESS THAN ONE DEATH FROM GUNS PER 100,000 POPULATION. WE HAVE more than 10!
Meanwhile a law to block sales of guns to SUSPECTED TERRORISTS was blocked by the GOP!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-gop-votes-terrorist-gun-bill-article-1.2454448
At what point will you admit this is fucked up?! Just how deep does your cognitive dissonance go?
Current Events » in reply to I see Slate has apparently shifted the "mass shooting" definition back again.
I moved no goalposts- you just simply substituted the goalposts you wanted to talk about...
The whole thread (21 posts)
- Resettlement of 25,000 Syrians in Canada set in motion
- Good for Canada
- You have no idea how wrong I hope I am and about all of this.
- A bit of trivia for ROBVG et al
- The last laugh, eh?