Lit, I was letting it go. I was joking. We aren't really getting anywhere; you can't convince me, at all. Your arguments are hollow at best.
Because I don't agree with you?
But OK; fewer guns will take care of both problems. If there weren't for the current restrictions, more people would commit suicide, more people would be killed by firearms. I don't understand the point with your comments. Do you think the numbers are OK? Do you find them acceptable? Are they an acceptable price to pay? I don't know if your statistics are correct; I can't be arsed to check them right now, but the exact numbers are not the point.
No, you can't be arsed, because your sister once was nearly killed by a gun, and that day you decided that guns are evil and should be restricted or, if possible, totally banned. You haven't even fired yourself one in your whole life. I say that restrictions don't stop the ones who want to kill themselves and are already in possess of a gun. Neither do they stop criminals who are just the slightest advanced. They only stop law abiding people who want to protect themselves from doing it legally and easily. And yes, for the sake of freedom, the numbers are acceptable. It's a pretty low price to pay. Cars, tobacco, alcohol and junk food each kill more people than guns, but that obviously doesn't bother you or other
haplophobes very much.
Did you know that the US states in the highest quartile of firearm ownership had overall homicide rates 60 per cent higher than states in the lowest quartile? Guns kill, Lit, and that fact is hard to avoid, even for you.
No, I didn't know, beacuse I count by gun laws, not by percentage of guns. Percentage doesn't make sense. Vermont has the most liberal gun law in the whole US, but not the highest death rates. You should count by gun laws and not by actual percentage of guns, because your "theory" is that liberal gun laws cause gun crimes but they don't. It's criminals getting access to guns that cause most gun crimes.