Another figure to take into consideration is white on black crime vs black on white crime. There is a discrepancy there as well. Instead of using the race of who died from a gun shot, it would be more informative to use the race of who did the shooting.

Let’s put this in perspective using your figures.

Using your figures of 26,054 and 15,290
White = 63%; close to 2020 census, more or less represents the population
White population per 2020 census (not incl. white Hispanics or mixed/multi racial) = 58%

Black = 37%; over 3x the amount in 2020 census. In other words, over represented by a lot.
Black population per 2020 census (not incl. black Hispanics or mixed/multi racial) = 12%

The U.S. is not an island. It’s like Mexico. And in Mexico there is a very strong gun ban. (Only one shop in the entire country where you can legally buy a gun.)

Mexico is a gun control person’s wet dream. Gun bans in the U.S. would work about as well as they do in Mexico. lol.

??? it’s widely available information. in 2021 there were 26,054 white people who died from a gun shot and 15,290 black people. 60 percent of the people arrested for carrying a weapon in 2019 were white people.

No refunds, well just about with normal ones compared to the injuries involved as for the experimental ones of the last few years yeah full legal immunity.

Yep. He’s pushing propaganda. It works.

Not one, single claim in that entire litany of lies was accurate. If i debunked every lie in that barely-coherent rant, my response would be twice as long as the original article, so I limit my response to a few of the juicier lies:

1) “Australia did that and has been incredibly successful in terms of reducing gun violence. New Zealand did that more recently. The United Kingdom did that.”

Forgetting, for the moment, the impossibility of comparing so-called “gun violence” statistics across various reporting platforms without ANY was to “regularize” the presentation of data (a statistics mistake that would get a college freshman an F in Intro Statistics), the “data” on the “effectiveness” of these countries’ gun control panics is HIGHLY questionable. Anyone want to argue that the rate of violent crime in, say, London has decreased since England decided to outlaw guns?? It hasn’t; it’s gone the other direction.

2) “At the federal level, our gun laws are now much weaker than they were in 1999. We eliminated the assault weapons ban.”

The assertion that our gun laws are weaker today than in 1999 is absurd on its face, and too stupid to be worth a point-by-point fisking, but the claim that the AWB was “eliminated” is just a flat-out lie. The AWB was finally passed in a compromise form, and ONE of the compromises was that the opposition to the ban insisted that it be for a specified period to test its effectiveness, AND that the “effectiveness” of the ban was to be tested prior to its sunset. Famously, the studies of it showed that there was NO demonstrable effect on rates of crime generally, or “gun crime” specifically. So the case for its renewal simply couldn’t be made. So it EXPIRED. It was not “eliminated”.

3) “We gave the gun industry incredible protections against lawsuits. I don’t know of any other industry that is so well protected against tort liability.”

.40cal has accurately disposed of this argument, above, but let me assure you, the PCCA does NOTHING but codify existing tort law in respect of firearms. NO other manufacturer, EXCEPT big Pharma, has sought (and received) protection against their own malfeasance in the production of their products. Mas Cool Arrow did a nice job with that argument. If I use a gun to commit a crime, there is no reason anyone other than I should be held responsible. Trust me, if I buy a gun, go to the range, and the gun blows up in my hands because of poor materials or production processes, I can (if I survive) sue the hell out of the manufacturer – just like EVERY other industry.

4) “There are stand-your-ground laws where you can defend yourself using deadly force not because you have objectively been threatened, but because you feel unsafe.”

NO such law, in ANY state, does anything of the sort. “Stand your ground” laws address one point, and one point only – to what extent you have a “duty to retreat” in a self-defense situation. California has and explicit, statutory law requiring you to retreat, if you can. In many states’ tort laws, the justifiability of your use of force will at least consider whether your ability to safely retreat counteracts your fear of eminent harm, making your use of deadly force ‘not reasonable’. “Stand your ground” means nothing more, or less, than the fact that (usually within defined spaces – your house, your office, your car, etc.) in a designated space where YOU are legally entitled to be, but the assailant is NOT (burglars, home invaders, carjackers) are NOT legally entitled to be, you have no duty to retreat (gee, no shit, Sherlock!!). That is the alpha and omega of “stand your ground”.

This guy could give that lying female dog, Shannon Watts, a run for her money on lies-per-statement ratio.

“We gave the gun industry incredible protections against lawsuits. I don’t know of any other industry that is so well protected against tort liability.”

Lie, the vaccine industry has stronger protections…