I think you're making disingenuous arguments, which is why I attributed it to ideology. But you're correct, this just started off with a casual comment from me, so I don't think I should be going into that territory, apologies.

▲ nailer 2 days ago | parent [-]

Thanks for the apology, I assure you I absolutely believe what I write.

I’m not sure if I have an answer one way or the other - I’d like it if I could buy milk in NY without someone threatening violence, and don’t think it’s right for jihadists to stand in the middle of London saying they’ll kill all the jews without the police doing anything, but I also don’t want to live somewhere where someone snaps and they have access to an automatic weapon.

▲ munksbeer 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Thanks for the apology, I assure you I absolutely believe what I write.

That the US is safer than other places because it has guns? I guess you can sincerely believe that, but the facts say something else.

	▲	johnisgood 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... Check out both tables and you will see that the facts do not say what you think they say, at all. Homicide rates by firearm per 100,000 inhabitants (2017): `Jamaica - 47.857 United States - 3.342 Serbia - 0.415` Ranking by country for civilian-held firearms per 100 population (2017): `Jamaica - 8.8 United States - 120.5 Serbia - 39.1` Those are just to compare three countries, but you will see a similar trend for all other countries. It shows that Serbia has loads of guns, yet barely any firearm-related homicides, whereas Jamaica has much less guns, yet homicide rates by firearm are way higher than the US. Thus, the statement that "More guns -> More gun-related violence" is evidently false.
	▲	nailer 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]