2nd Amendment gun deaths per 100,000

Captain Caveman

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
18,016
Reaction score
11,059
Points
1,138
Location
England
Per capita, gun deaths -

USA - 4.054

New Zealand - 1.230
Canada - 0.889
Australia - 0.103
France - 0.100
Germany - 0.065
UK - 0.047

So evidently, the reason for high gun deaths in the USA is the 2nd Amendment.

So question - why not implement a safer system in such countries highlighted above? None of them have tyrannical governments.
 
Per capita, gun deaths -

USA - 4.054

New Zealand - 1.230
Canada - 0.889
Australia - 0.103
France - 0.100
Germany - 0.065
UK - 0.047

So evidently, the reason for high gun deaths in the USA is the 2nd Amendment.

So question - why not implement a safer system in such countries highlighted above? None of them have tyrannical governments.
Well because the criminals in America would never turn-in their guns.
Gun crimes would probably increase if the criminals knew that everyone was defenseless.
 
Meh,

OIP.zvuQ1cdZRfR5i6BAcnGjVQHaFj
 
Well because the criminals in America would never turn-in their guns.
Gun crimes would probably increase if the criminals knew that everyone was defenseless.
In the countries that I listed, which ones do the criminals hand their guns in? You're still in the same boat.
 
Per capita, gun deaths -

USA - 4.054

New Zealand - 1.230
Canada - 0.889
Australia - 0.103
France - 0.100
Germany - 0.065
UK - 0.047

So evidently, the reason for high gun deaths in the USA is the 2nd Amendment.

So question - why not implement a safer system in such countries highlighted above? None of them have tyrannical governments.
Now do demographics.


 
How does a second amendment cause gun deaths?
-What -is- a 2nd Amendment gun death?
-If other countries listed do not have a 2nd Amendment, how can they have 2A gun deaths?
-If they do not have 2A gun deaths (apples) how are their numbers of gun deaths (oranges) meaningfully comparable?
-How does the fact our gun deaths are higher prove the reason for those higher gun deaths is the 2A?

The OP presents mindless nonsense as a hook - don't take the bait.
 
Last edited:
Per capita, gun deaths -

USA - 4.054

New Zealand - 1.230
Canada - 0.889
Australia - 0.103
France - 0.100
Germany - 0.065
UK - 0.047

So evidently, the reason for high gun deaths in the USA is the 2nd Amendment.

So question - why not implement a safer system in such countries highlighted above? None of them have tyrannical governments.
So...how wide was the gap before those other nations instituted gun control?

Meaning... did gun control in those countries vastly reduce their murder rates?

Spoiler alert...the answer is NO.

 
So question - why not implement a safer system in such countries highlighted above? None of them have tyrannical governments.
Also wrong.

None of them has a culture that celebrates violence as in the United States; in the US violence is an acceptable means of conflict resolution.

Eliminate the culture of violence and acceptance of violence and access to firearms becomes moot – regardless that ease of access.
 
Per capita, gun deaths -

USA - 4.054

New Zealand - 1.230
Canada - 0.889
Australia - 0.103
France - 0.100
Germany - 0.065
UK - 0.047

So evidently, the reason for high gun deaths in the USA is the 2nd Amendment.

So question - why not implement a safer system in such countries highlighted above? None of them have tyrannical governments.
The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – you can’t compare two different things one having nothing to do with the other.
 
If Roe can be overturned so....
Irrelevant to the fact your statement is a lie.
You cannot demonstrate the jurisprudence surrounding the 2nd -- the issue you presented -- causes the difference in firearm-related deaths in the US v any of those countries.
In fact, you do not even know HOW to make such a demonstration.
 
Last edited:
If Roe can be overturned so can Heller/McDonald/Bruen – there’s no such thing as settled, accepted precedent anymore, conservatives have seen to that.

If conservative justices can ignore settled, accepted case law, so can liberal justices.
Umm, one is protected by the constitution, the other isn't.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom