In the analogy I guess we are technically safer from an invasion by Mexico or Canadia. But I do not feel safer with republicans having more guns just because of stupidity and not even because they might do something. I am pretty sure there is a bunch of friendly fire takedowns before they even figure out which parking lot they are going to build their base in.
Doesn't say anything about proving residency. I suggest we all sign up. If anyone wins, I'll collect the prize.
Stats that don't separate the good deaths from the bad and neutral are not mistakes or accidental omissions. They are deliberate attempts to mislead.
Any person with common sense does not want to be around lots of general people with easy access to guns. That is a full on safety concern.
Funny you mention this because the NRA has suppressing data collection and gun violence research for decades. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun-violence-research Really makes you think who has a vested interest in obscuring that information
I am aware of the talking point, and so long as the goal of the "study" is a reductive conclusion of "more guns=more gun deaths," without bothering to parse out the good deaths from the bad and neutral, the idea remains nothing more than a transparent piece of propaganda. Now, how will some fucktard twist that one? "Nuh uh YOU'RE teh reductive, YOU'RE teh propaganda." Just wait.
All data should be collected. From there, in spreadsheet format, there would be a column for the type of shooting, intentional or unintentional, hand gun vs … every other type of gun, did the victim know the assailant, individual vs multiple victims, …. The fact that the CDC can’t even collect the data is as much a problem for the pro-gun advocates as it is for the anti-gun advocates.
Because the World Health Organization isn’t specific to the US. What other agency do you think should be collecting the data?
Same deal as car deaths. I don't know their mission statement, but it seems to extend beyond biological causes of disease. In humans, disease is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories. Diseases can affect people not only physically, but also mentally, as contracting and living with a disease can alter the affected person's perspective on life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease
And then every candidate or elected official who invokes that data for any reason will be required under penalty of death to use it in its entirety, without indulging in cherrypicking to make a dishonest point, right?
Says a lot that you think rapists and burglars might be confined to any particular race, you disgusting bigot.
Then, like every fucking thing else, it’s up to the voter to determine sift facts from bullshit. There are other options, but you’ll just shoot them down too. So, what? Do you just stick your head in the sand? Do nothing. Say nothing. See nothing. Hear nothing. I’d rather have the facts.
Sure, but no official who bangs that "CDC is forbidden" drum has any honest intentions, and I'll not see my freedoms eroded on a lie of omission.