Actually, these figures are probably good since 1500 AD because prior to 200 years ago, Whites living in the current territory of the US were were almost entirely constrained to portions of the territory of the 13 original colonies, and not much of that for most of this period of time. There were less than 4 million people enumerated in the 1790 census. To imagine that these people making an existence for themselves in the relative wilderness had nothing to do but rove the North American continent butchering millions of defenseless Native Americans is laughable.
By you own confession, you can't produce numbers any more valid than anyone else, so you can't prove any numbers I produce are wrong.
Unless you can provide such verifiable specific documented records with numbersx, you will in have in effect conceded my point.
So let's see, if neither of us can produce verifiable numbers, then I conceded your point?
So, a total number over 200 years of...
Trying to frame the debate around the last 200 years? Nice try, but it started in the 1400s.
several tens of thousands is reasonable for the territory covering the United States, noting that most of these were actually combat casualties in which Whites also were killed in substantial numbers.
First of all, killing tens of thousands while in the act of invasion and ethnic cleansing is an atrocity all by itself, although you don't seem to think so. Furthermore, if whites were killed in substantial numbers, they were killed while committing these acts.
The actual deaths by combat may have been in the tens of thousands, although even the US government says it's in the hundreds of thousands - no one knows for sure - but the diseases brought by Europeans to America are estimated to have killed millions of Natives who had no immunity to them. But I guess you don't have a problem with that either. After all, we didn't mean to infect them, it just accidentally happened while we were invading them and stealing their land, right?
Actually, these figures are probably good...
"Probably good", is that all you have? Pathetic.
Anyway, here are some estimates which, according to your logic, prove your estimates wrong since you can't produce solid numbers to refute them.
BTW, may I conclude that you agree with the point I was making in the post you originally replied to, which is that blaming violent video games for these shooting outbreaks is wrong?