Wrong again. People decide to commit suicide, then they select a method. They do not select a method and then decide to commit suicide. And gun control in Australia did not reduce violent crime - it increased it 44%.
People decide to commit suicide then they select the method. A firearm is often their first choice, but if a firearm is not available they do not change their mind. They just use another method. Thats what happened in Australia after the 1996 gun ban, people just switched to hanging (the #1 choice) and poison. You continue to FAIL. When will you learn? Even a mule learns eventually.
It is not per capita that is being discussed, nor are total firearm-related deaths being discussed. The only matter being discussed are total numbers of firearm-related homicides in various states. Cite such figures, and only such figures.
The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference, does such make overall? Why does such even matter?
And the fact of the matter is that firearm-related suicides do not count for anything, anymore than rope-related homicides count for anything.
Per capita statistics are nothing more than an excuse concocted by states with larger populations to try and misrepresent facts to an ignorant public. They are essentially saying that because they have more people living within their territories, their homicide levels do not count because they have more people to spare.
You present nothing, no facts, no data. Zip. The AUS crime reports, AUS suicide reports, USA FBI UCR, CDC, all destroy your argument. Thats why you never present data, just propaganda from VPC. You just troll.
Discussion of per capita statistics as opposed to actual numbers is the plea of the ignorant and the dishonest who wish to push a specific narrative.
So what purpose is it that you think owning assault rifles can possibly serve in civilian life then ?
Which does not change the fact. Discussion of per capita statistics as opposed to actual numbers is the plea of the ignorant and the dishonest who wish to push a specific narrative. Simply because the so-called "studies" rely on per capita statistics to bolster their narrative, does not mean their usage is the correct approach.
It does not have to serve a purpose to be legal in the united states. The federal government, and even state governments, lack the legal authority to dictate that a commonly available firearm, sold on the public market and available for ownership, cannot be owned by the public at large, regardless of how often it may be misused by the criminal element for illegal purposes.
