tell me about how America's lack of gun laws increase violence when you're in a country with more gun laws and a higher death rate.
Relevant and on the point, as usual.
Last time I checked France had a much lower murder and gun murder rate than the United States.
Plus I'm sure you know that problems are the absolute majority of times caused by a big and diverse number of variables. It's super easy, and probably dumb, to look at gun laws and then violence, pick two examples that defend your idea and draw conclusions out of it. And it's a thing I'm affraid you have a huge tendency to do.
Instead of a simple MSGB equation Change of the number of guns = More/Less violence, you really should look more at a Guns+Who owns the guns+General Population Education+Economic Segregation+Country Stability+Quality of the police+Culture+(...) = Violence level of a country.
No one factor explains a consequence. Got economy, violence and stupid electoral systems alike.
As for the electoral college, I get the points to defend it, but it's still an archaic system. Small states are already over represented in the senate, and the electoral college sure can and often gets the right candidate, but a 5% failure rare when you're choosing a president is rather alarming. Bush 2 coming to power has all to do with the electoral college getting it wrong. Perhaps America would have stayed out of Irak if Al Gore had been president, ISIS wouldn't be a threat and wouldnt be getting the highest in flux of refugees since WW2. And maybe Obama wouldn't have become president, or Hillary for a fact, relations with Russia would have been better, Lybia wouldn't be in chaos and the hole world wouldn't be laughing at the big joke that this election is.
Well lots of ifs, and as I said earlier often one consequence can't be drawn out of only one change of variable, but all of them were made possible by a electoral college failure.
Edited 11/1/2016 11:07:24