What the fuck difference does that make? You're "more likely to be killed by..." was, and remains, a senseless and ridiculous "defense" of mass shootings.
No one is defending or advocating mass shootings. Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers is simply a way to calm down the histrionics of anti-gun nuts.
"Defense" was in quotes. Loren's "argument" is along the lines of "Why worry so much about mass shootings when you're more likely to be killed by lightning?" Which is a ridiculous and pointless argument. What the fuck do
lightning statistics have to do with anything??? Your attempt at defense of this silly argument does nothing to improve it.
BTW, I for one am not an "anti-gun nut", and yet I am
quite concerned about mass shootings in the country. "Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers" contributes nothing to the discussion of the problem and what to do about it, and does nothing to "calm down" my concern over the problem. Attempting to gloss over the problem of mass shootings as "not as bad as lightning" does nothing for the discussion. It's a pointless and useless assertion.
And it's still comical that Loren wanted me to "learn the difference" between the apple and orange that
he brought up.