3 ms·
Considering actual firearm violence has actually shrunk a lot in recent decades, I feel you have just a hint of bias based on a political agenda there.
by TallGuyShort 9y ago
Considering actual firearm violence has actually shrunk a lot in recent decades, I feel you have just a hint of bias based on a political agenda there.
- AlexandrB 9y agoIt's shrunk a lot relative to the US peak [1]. Relative to other western powers it's still in a league of its own [2]. I think your comment is more indicative of a political agenda than mine. And for the record, if the United States as a society decides that gun ownership is important enough to let the mass shootings continue that's OK with me. What bugs me more is the perennial argument that gun control wouldn't solve anything or that it's impossible for the US to address its gun violence problem even if it wanted to. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-...
- T2_t2 9y agoThere is no USA (only Zuul). The USA is a country of states each with various characters, economic sizes and problems (Miami and Minneapolis are vastly different environments). No one holds Germany responsible for EU partner Croatia's outcomes, yet USA wide outcomes are - despite massive local variations. In a lot of areas of US policy (excluding defence) local budgets will dictate results much more than federal ones. That's the real challenge for the USA, how to cope with inequality that is as much a factor of geography as politics.