[tucaz]

Since I’m not a fan of people downvoting myself without an explanation here’s the explanation of why I did it.

You should avoid making statements such as “while the right maybe be more likely to resort to guns” without offering any sort of data to back that up.

Statements like this offer such information as a premise and lead the conversation towards the wrong direction because they have no base in reality.

[AnimalMuppet]

The statement was tangential, and matched (so far as I can tell) most peoples' perception. As such, I didn't feel the need to document it.

You seem to be saying that "the right may be more likely to resort to guns" has "no base in reality". That would surprise me, for two reasons. First, gun culture seems to be much more prevalent in parts of the country that lean right. Second, the topic was mass shootings, and there have been several prominent mass shootings lately that have been done at least in the name of the right, whereas the Dayton shooter is the only one that I know of that was claiming positions of the left.

Neither of those are hard data. On the other hand, you seem to be the one claiming that what "most people know" is wrong; do you have data?

[tucaz]

Most people perception really have no importance here or anywhere where science is used. That is a fallacy. If most people think that I’m blue it doesn’t make me blue.

Gun culture is more prevalent in the right. Yes. Now saying that right wing people are more likely to resort to guns is a different statement. Would you agree?

That’s the kind of nuance that makes that statement a perverse premise in my opinion.

No. I don’t have any data, but I’m not making any claims so the burden of proof is not on me :)

[ajurna]

You are making a claim. You are claiming that both sides a equally likely to resort to guns and as such the burden of proof on that claim lies with you.