BSA1
member
You are attempting to offer a clever debate.
How do I know that before reading your question? You want to me have a favorable view of you before reading the rest of your post.
er - ok.
Another attempt to get me to get to view you in a favorable manner before reading all of your post.
This is a attempt to get the reader to agree to a undefined number of events.
Your position is there are so many mass shootings in the US but you fail to cite any statistics to define your question.
First of all what is your definition of mass shootings?
Second how many people need to be involved? Are you counting only those killed or those killed and injured?
Third over what period of time?
You are attempting to rebut an argument to your premise before it is presented. You want the reader to agree with your still undefined “mass shootings” events.
Seemly simple but trick question. Do more raindrops hit the ground in area that covers one square mile as compared to a area that is only one hundred square feet?
Another simple trick question. If there were no automobiles then wouldn’t traffic fatalities go down?
My counterargument for you is why has the United States with a population of about 321,000,000 and has a land area of 9,826,675 sq. km. had fewer terrorist attacks by people from the Middle East than France which has a population of 66,553,766 and has a land area 643,801 sq. km. during the last 5 years?
NOT A TROLL
How do I know that before reading your question? You want to me have a favorable view of you before reading the rest of your post.
- Serious Question
er - ok.
I am very pro gun.
Another attempt to get me to get to view you in a favorable manner before reading all of your post.
Why do so many (mass) shootings happen here in the US?
This is a attempt to get the reader to agree to a undefined number of events.
Your position is there are so many mass shootings in the US but you fail to cite any statistics to define your question.
First of all what is your definition of mass shootings?
Second how many people need to be involved? Are you counting only those killed or those killed and injured?
Third over what period of time?
even taking differences in population into account these "mass shootings" and even shootings in general don't happen nearly as frequently in other countries.
You are attempting to rebut an argument to your premise before it is presented. You want the reader to agree with your still undefined “mass shootings” events.
Barring terrorist type attacks, and "mass shootings" aren't more people shot here in the US than in other first world countries?
Seemly simple but trick question. Do more raindrops hit the ground in area that covers one square mile as compared to a area that is only one hundred square feet?
Would this number not go down dramatically if the civilian population didn't have access to firearms?
Another simple trick question. If there were no automobiles then wouldn’t traffic fatalities go down?
My counterargument for you is why has the United States with a population of about 321,000,000 and has a land area of 9,826,675 sq. km. had fewer terrorist attacks by people from the Middle East than France which has a population of 66,553,766 and has a land area 643,801 sq. km. during the last 5 years?