Certainly not by you.
1 Like
The major number of casualties (not counting disease) in war has been ordnance (explosives) since the mid 1800s. Bombs are far more effective at killing people than bullets.
Which still doesnât negate the fact that that banning guns works.
Stating it over and over and over does not make it a fact. Heck, you havenât even identified what âworksâ refers to. How can that be a fact?
Death and injury by guns. DUH!
So you have no facts ⌠DUH!
So you canât read then. Got it.
Still waiting for you to post one.
Death and injury by guns. There you go.
Thatâs not a fact, it simply a statement. You may as well have said death and injury from the flu or from drowning or from old age. The statement means nothing.
Heck, you havenât even identified what âworksâ refers to.
Death and injury by guns. There you go.
No itâs what your candidates are running on unabashedly for 2020.
No it hasnât. What caliber did Timothy McVeigh use? The 9-11 terrorists? How about the couple that instigated the Bath School Massacre?
If it did Chicago and DC would have been the safest cities in the country for the last thirty years.
That isnâtâ a fact itâs poorly parroted meme.
If you feel the inclination please provide the list of the last 30 bombings in the USA, the years of those bombings and the number of fatalities?
This forum has been provided with statistics relating to gun related deaths in the USA previously.
How many deaths in the last 20 years in the USA have occurred per the medium of bombings compared with the medium of guns?
Utterly irrelevant.
The fact is if you want to generate a mass casualty event the most effective means are explosives and incendiaries.
1 Like
And the fact remains that gun deaths in the USA in 2019 are far more problematic than the one that you are trying to articulate.
