>Not so. You have your perceptions, I have mine,
If I perceive you mean something.. you demand a direct quote.
One rule for me, one rule for you.
>Admission noted.
You admit to only caring about deaths caused by firearms whos physical appearance you fear? Nice.
That's a good start towards honesty. Probably hurt, well done.
>That's another of your unfounded allegations.
The function of these guns is no different to a semiautomatic pistol or rifle, but their
appearance caught your eye.
It's okay to be afraid of things you don't know anything about.
>Opinion noted.
I made the accusation that if you deflect, it's because your beliefs don't hold water, and what do you do?
Answer the query? No, you deflect.
This is evidence in the affirmative, you see how that works?
>No.
But when presented with actual numbers and a more broad reaching picture of firearm violence you go back to your very narrow statista plot.
Can you explain why?
>No, I supplied the facts rather than an interpretation.
You didn't even supply the fact though, just a place that the fact might come from.
Do you know what the fact is?
You're a bit light on facts in general though - you rely on the statista plot which is barely a drop in the mass shooting bucket - so I shouldn't really be surprised if you don't.
>To repeat; use your preferred definition and outline your solution.
To repeat: define mass shooting for me so I can provide a solution tailored to your line of questioning.
