Emmeran wrote:

Directed arguments to the fellas in the pub doesn't result in you being right or wrong my friend, they only result in that the fellas don't come to the pub when you are around.

Make a statement, try to make it fun and move on.  We aren't going to solve anything here but we do enjoy a beer and a laugh at the world.

Yeah, I think you are mostly right. No one is likely to change anyone's mind engaging in this kind of thing.

As I indicated early on in this discussion (in a different thread) I fucking hate this issue. It is thankless, unsolvable and tends to be highly emotional.

For what it's worth, I generally agree with the perspectives about guns which you have shared recently.

Smudge wrote:

hedgewizard: "The numbers floating around out there have a lot of liars figuring, and your numbers come from them cherry picking."

Great. Please point EXPLICITLY to the incorrect facts, and then provide your (presumably more credible) facts, and more reliable sources, because my cards -- and my data and sources -- are on the table. So far, I'm the ONLY one is this discussion to provide numbers, data, statistics and graphs -- and sources for all of those. And I'll continue to if this discussion continues. But you won't get very far by challenging hard facts, from known and credible sources, against unverified and largely off topic generalities -- which is what you're attempting to do now.

I apologize, I see you don't know where the data in the graph came from.  The we own more guns than anyone else data comes from a 2007 Small Arms Survey and doesn't include guns in the home owned by the government (for example Swiss and Israeli numbers are very low because of this).  It also doesn't take into account the percentage of the country owning guns, but rather the number of guns per 100 people.  The other problem with the graph is it focuses on firearm homicides rather than total homicides. If you use the data that way more firearm ownership leads to fewer total homicides.  I have no interest in debating gun control one way or the other.  I'm simply pointing out that people providing that kind of information often distort it in ways to make their point.  I don't know what would have happened if the numbers in the JAMA article were run differently, I definitely want to know why they made the choice they did before I even start to believe.  I'm not even going to start on how graphs can distort things by setting the axis in strange places etc. 
Since you want graphs, I just used the Google to find an article for you:

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/compa … countries/

Watch at least a couple of minutes. John Oliver was 'on' the day he made this one:

Smudge wrote:

More people view the National Rifle Association (NRA) negatively than positively, according to a new poll...

God, I hate polls.

Demilitarize state and local police. Problem solved.