And you are throwing in domestic incidents and gang violence into a discussion on spree shootings as indeed Charlie Kirk loved to do in order to “report stats like this in a misleading way”. Introducing noise into the data is a useful deflection technique to minimize data points that one wishes to avoid acknowledging. To borrow your analogy, you’re throwing as many bananas as possible into the blender to avoid discussion of the taste of beanspouts.
For example, in paragraphs like this..
…you pretty much drop the entire fruitbowl in. Interesting that even in the context of politically-motivated attacks you specifically reference Islamist and left-wing attacks while handwaving away right-wing attacks which over the past years and decades far outstrip the other two categories you mentioned.
By your own admission, you didn’t do any in the first place.
An interesting way of pre-emptively dismissing any data that doesn’t support one’s conclusions.
If by “guy in the audience” you mean Charlie Kirk, sure. And thank you for providing an example of what it would be like to have him here.
I think we understand them just fine. And the rhetoric as well.