Let me put it this way-- do you think the prevalence of influenza should include influenza in a lab or in dead, buried patients?
That’s not even close to an apt analogy.
A firearm in secure storage can the next day be taken out and used . It can be stolen . It can be given to someone or sold.
Maybe you want to include a package of parts that can be assembled into a firearm as contributing to prevalence.
Well that would represent a risk. Or do you think ghost guns shouldn’t be counted since they are just a collection of parts that the person does the final milling. ???
Perhaps you should include firearms in Canada or Mexico as part of the American firearm prevalence because an American can go into those countries and bring back a firearm.
Actually it would more be the other way around
Those firearm become prevalent when they leave storage.
Great. Then how do you count it at all since at noon four guns can leave storage and be used by four people hunting and then go back to storage at 7pm
How do you capture that in your use of prevalence.
What you are admitting is that your statement that as prevalence of guns increases then firearm violence increases is complete bs because you have no idea what prevalence is doing.
You presumption that every firearm everywhere contributes equally to firearm violence risk demonstrates you need for simplistic generalization.
Yeah. You gun banners gotta lie.
I have not been the one screaming about risk. That’s your concept. You state there is risk from just having a firearm . But then dismiss that risk when you state prevalence.
Don’t get upset because your own logic doesn’t make sense to you.
Your meaningless attempt to skew the discussion is recognized as bogus.
Not skewing anything my friend. Don’t get upset because you’ve hoisted yourself on your own petard.
You fail to recognize that civilian legal firearms produced the criminal firearm problem
Yet you dismiss that civilian firearms initially in “ secure storage, despite the fact that they can be stolen, given away or sold and end up I. The hands of criminals.
Your own logic isn’t consistent.
and you fail to recognize alternative responses to threat because you are chronically and deeply afraid.
Sport but you need to explain why we need to disarm Americans if you already admit that there is no reason to fear
Too many firearms in the USA should address all your concerns for an explanation.
See above .
Look to Canada for the answer if you are really interested.
You are the one making the claims here. Not “ Canada “.
You claim first we should fear all the violence in America then in the next breath claim there is nothing to fear.
So please explain. Which is it?