You do realize you have sunken low enough that you are trying to debate the definition of the word anomaly. I understand that you likely didn't know what it meant until I used it and you subsequently looked it up, but you actually looked up/provided the definition. Now that you know what it means, you are just being stubborn in hopes to not look like a complete idiot, yet in doing so, that is exactly what you like. There is no set number assigned to an anomaly but any honest person would recognize that we'll below 1% represents just that. Then again, you haven't ever proven to be honest.
Where do anomalies begin and end......oh boy. Desperation in its truest form
One of these rare and infrequent events will likely occur, probably in a low income black neighborhood. It will be important because it happens to human beings, and no matter how small the percentage, we will take it seriously. Just as the Islamic terrorist represent the anomalies of their religon, yet we still make a big deal about it.
This all stemmed from your sarcastic thread knocking Republican views, wherein you said they are normal occurrences so we will therefore do nothing about them. Your premise is dead wrong. They still occur to only a very small portion of the population, and each time they are tragedy. However, we aren't going to knee jerk over a few anomalies and deprive an entire country of its right to bear arms as a result of well less than 1% of the population.
If that is the case, we better start banning a whole lot of things, starting with water. Drownings are a serious problem
Debate it?
I've asked you to define it since you're the one who brought it up because you choose to look at shootings based on population rather than events
First you refuse to define it and then you say it's .00000001% and then you say that's just an arbritray example
Even though of course that example comes out to be less than a single person (i.e mass shooting would have to happen to less than 1 person to be considered an anomoly by the # you provided)
Why did you give that figure and then say it's only an "arbitrary" number
Let's look at abortions
By your standards I assume you agree they are an anomaly
The CDC reported that there were 699k abortions in 2012
Let's call that 700k and let's say there are 130,000,000 women in America who could potentially get pregnant (this is a 2007 figure so surely higher now given the increase in population)
700,000 / 130,000,000 = .005
So abortions are an anomaly too right?
How about cancer
The American Cancer society projected 589k cancer deaths in 2015
Let's call that 600k and divide it by 320,000,000
the answer is .00000018
Wow, cancer is an anomaly too
Lots of anomolies when you just look at gross population?
pretty convenient
BTW your arbritrary # was even much lower because you added a % sign. Ror exmaple .01% is .0001
so your .00000001% is .0000000001
but that's just an arbitrary # and doesn't actually apply to the argument you were trying to make....right