The choice of 1 almost certainly wasn't a deliberate exaggeration of the actual amount. It's just the nearest number that isn't too specific to distract from the overall argument and/or small enough that pro-gun advocates can use it as an argument for gun violence not being a problem at all.

[–] li10@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can’t say they’re just rounding up when they randomly decided to choose 400 as the starting point…

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So what you're saying is that 400 is completely random and because of that, it follows that 1 is meant to be accurate? 🤔

I'd say that it's much more likely that they're operating under the (incorrect but commonly believed) assumption that the US population is closer to 400m than 300m and both numbers are rounded up for simplicity.

[–] jaspersgroove@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

The post says “at least 1” which implies that if anything they’re rounding that number down, because on some days that number is 2. So they’re suggesting that on any given day between 800,000 and 1.6 million Americans get shot, or that every single person in the country gets shot every 13 months or so.

If they’re going to use a number that wildly inaccurate then I immediately assume that every other number in the statement is equally inaccurate, even if that’s not actually the case.