>Oh, of course! If they they really meant to say the opposite of what
>they said, then that would support your point. Thanks for pointing that
>out. I can't argue with "logic" like that!
Indeed, it depends on what your definition of "is" is. If you choose a very narrow category ("gun deaths in richest nations in 1994") then you can prove that America has a big problem with violence, when the reality is very different. Anti-gun logic is like that, which is why we despise it so much; this article was clearly written to push an anti-gun agenda, not to tell us anything useful.