> I like how you started this by framing that the countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to.

My assertions so far are:

• People use things other than guns to kill each other
• Guns are inanimate objects not demons.

Neither of those is untrue and neither of those vary from country to country.

My point is that when you look at countries over time, their homicide rate and their gun laws don't always track like you'd expect. It has nothing to do with what I want or don't want.

My other assertion, delivered passive-aggressively I know, is that the problem of violence in the United States is complicated and does not hinge on any one factor, including means. Even if we limit it to that, there is a whole lot of nuance and footnotes that have to be added.

I know nothing about his incident than people were hurt, a gun or guns was used to do the damage, and it happened at a funeral. I don't know why it happened, if someone was targeted, if it is related to any other issue like crime or domestic abuse, if the guns were acquired legally, recently or anything else. I do, however, know that all of those could affect the "how do we stop things like this from happening in the future" equation.

Tell me what you think we should do and then how do you think we should implement that on a practical level, please. What do you think is the likely outcome?

> I like how you started this by framing that the countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to.

Just a countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to. Call it even then ...?