"""Facts""" do not exist

Isn't it ironic that the internet has utterly extinguished the concept of "information." Does anyone even remember the truck attacks over the past couple years? How can they scream "Ban guns to prevent mass murder" ??? When a simple pickup truck could drive through a crowd of children after school and easily kill 50+ ?

Attached: BAN_ASSAULT_TRUCKS.jpg (960x720, 180K)

Other urls found in this thread:

buzzfeed.com/jessesinger/ban-cars?utm_term=.cnQQR0oY#.tf5mEOP9
crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
youtube.com/watch?v=MANmf29yUlk
justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
washingtonpost.com/outlook/school-shootings-are-extraordinarily-rare-why-is-fear-of-them-driving-policy/2018/03/08/f4ead9f2-2247-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.eeac4403c3d9
newrepublic.com/article/124445/beyond-gun-control
nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html
vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418208/guns-new-york-iron-pipeline
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

people are fucking retarded

The estrogen in the water makes people think very slowly. People are biochemically unable to chain thoughts together because of it. They cannot connect facts and history together. Everyone is effectively blind

Chemically lobotomized.

Attached: 1521711096286.gif (400x238, 1.91M)

Facts do exist, but a lot of mentally ill liberals don't believe it.

Plus, most of the things politics argues about are not concrete facts at all, they are debatable. Especially the statistics and studies done hoping to influence policy, they are often flawed.

Politics involves the study of people, who are oftne irrational or their motives are hard to decipher. The effects of changes are at best a wild guess, and most often debateable, they also often involve many parallel factors.

It is not so simple.

Paris just had another gun attack got swept up. It’s like they forget 50+ people were murdered easy in a country with no guns

Gun attack in a country with no guns
Sure...
Even though guns are illegal in the EU... there's still plenty of gun owners.

>not concrete

You are correct, but this situation is not one of those instances. This is very concrete. We have pristine, recent examples of enormous bodycounts from non-firearm. People shit their pants over ~20 or so dead from a fun attack? How the fuck do they not remember EIGHTY-SSEVEN EFFORTLESS KILLS, PLUS FIVE HUNDRED INJURED, from a TRUCK, NOT A GUN.

Even the vegas shooting barely surpassed that, and the vegas shooting required a fuckload more planning. It is so CLEAR. How do people not remember? How do republicans not bring this up at every possible chance?

Attached: 1506738000061.jpg (460x540, 37K)

Gun ban isnt about mass murder. The gubment doesnt want you to be able to defend yourselves against them

>shutin hermit
>never a normie

why would i care about this? normies invited these muslims over

have fun with that normies lmfao

Good point, but why do you stop thinking there ?

The next logical step would be to inquire why would-be mass murderers still prefer to use guns than trucks ?
Because the "fact" is that they do.

Don't you care about facts ?
Is your goal to defend your preconcieved ideas or to reach the truth ?

> isis uses trucks a couple of times in 10 years to kill people
> US gets a mass shooting a week

nice one, retard

It wasn't paris. But the fact ? it's that paris has less gun violence than washington despite being full of africans.

I assume because guns are perhaps more satisfying for the attacker? But given no access to a gun, a mind-broken faggot would have no problem leasing a pickup truck for $100 down payment and running over the children while they are crowded outside to get on the school buses, you know?

That's not the point. The point is, banning guns will still leave an extremely effective alternative to anyone who wants to murder 50+ people. Trucks are even MORE effective than guns for mass murder, it seems. Even the vegas shooting was barely higher bodycount than truck attack, and the vegas shooting was a really rare opportunity for the shooter

Attached: pepe_retarded_dumb.jpg (600x485, 40K)

Per capita numbers destroy your dumb argument. Stop being fucking retarded and admit that giving guns to a nation of literal fucking retards like the US is not a good idea. Switzerland has low gun crime rates because they are actually normal people

If guns were banned, the per capita murders would stay the same, they would just shift from guns to trucks. I mean you argue that yourself: If the problem is the people, won't those shitty people continue to murder no matter what?

Sure he would have no problem. But would he actually do it ?
Mind-broken faggots are generally not people with an unshakeable determination. They are influenced by others, and they reflect on their options up to a point too (like most people actually).
So if for a reason or another spree shootings is more attractive than a truck attack, it's very plausible that for some people having guns easily available or not will make the difference between them deciding to go trough with it or not.

I think 'some' in this case is a significant number.
We can disagree on this, but we shouldn't disagree on the facts.

that's some interesting hyperbole there.

>That's not the point.
Why wouldn't it be ? The final number of victims is absolutely the point.

Finland and alot of the EU get more mass shootings per capita than the u.s, and more dead. U.S is 11 on that list, but number 1 if your going to be an idiot and not account for our population.

What are you babbling on about? Are you imply gun regulation always lowers the homicide rate?

Don't worry, they're going to ban the trucks too.

buzzfeed.com/jessesinger/ban-cars?utm_term=.cnQQR0oY#.tf5mEOP9

You say facts, but you are really just stating opinions on what murderers "might" or "might not" be thinking. If there is one fact I want to put on the record, it is this:

- Guns are not the only tool for mass murder.
- They are not even the most effective tool for mass murder.
- They are not even the most readily-available tool for mass murder (easier to lease a u-haul than it is to buy a gun)

That is all I want people to understand.

This gun thing is clearly being pushed very hard by very powerful people.

I know the public is retarded but even they take a lot of propaganda to get to the point where they are literally protesting to have their own rights taken away by the state. How did the Left ever convince their base, who are ostensibly about equality, that having the means to defend yourself from criminals and the state is somehow evil? It makes no fucking sense.

Right, I am arguing, that the final number of victims will be the same. The tool will simple change

Attached: dayum_shame.jpg (393x393, 80K)

>Couldn't help but notice some people are killed by random things sometimes
>I say that makes guns harmless and gun control useless
>checkmate brainlets
Are you mentally challenged user?

Someone doesn't know how to read stats. Nice spin when you have to use specific terminology to kick US down from a gun violence stat. Also calling BS on Finland, nice spin attempt kiddo

Attached: Capture.jpg (1726x556, 189K)

What are the facts?
Please specify.

Did you know that school shootings were more common in the 1990s than they are now? I didn't until recently.

.My post was quite clear.
People prefer guns to vehicles to kill.

It's a fact. I can find a few explanations (guns are more convenient to reach a specific target, for example), but regardless the fact remains.

Because of this the availability of guns makes a difference in the homicide rate even if trucks are always available.

>random
>as if it was just a freak accident
>it happened in your own country
>and you are bending over backwards to say it's alright

You know, in a way, you are surrendering right now. What a surprise

Attached: pepe_blanket.jpg (409x409, 42K)

white Americans do not have a lot of gun crime per capita, and America in general even does not have a high per capita rate of mass shootings compared to European countries
crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

The entire thing is a transparent attempt to disarm white americans

Because people just want guns banned. They don't actually care about school shootings or mass murder of any kind and ignore facts. They just don't want people to own guns and will exploit any tragedy they can to push their agenda.

If you look at statistics, vehicles, bombs and even knives have all been used more successfully than guns in instances of mass murder.
It's been demonstrated on multiple occasions that those things are just as deadly (if not more so) than guns. Yet guns are the focus because the people pushing this shit just don't want citizens to own guns.

You cannot say "People prefer guns", at least not conclusively.

That's like saying, in a dinner where only chicken is being served, that "People prefer chicken over beef"

Guns account only for a tiny part of deaths in any western country, yet leftards have been on a crusade against guns for the last 70 years. Stop pretending it has to do with actually caring about deaths and not blind ideleogy.

It's true, facts do not exist. Ideas are more true than facts are. A fact is basically an inferred statement made by someone. Much in the same sense that "history" in the original Greek, means "a related story about what happened", while in modern english it means "what really happened".

That's essentially why the forces that be are always pushing a certain "narrative". Because history is a narrative. So whatever is a "fact", such as for example, that i'm wearing a green shirt right now, is subject to interpretation by individuals. What if i'm lying and the shirt is really red? You can't tell if all you go by are "facts" because my word is the only "fact" you have to go by.

That takes us to truth. What is true, is not subject to interpretation by individuals. Therefore to find out the truth, facts are not sufficient, we need something more. And that takes us to metaphysics.

Attached: Plato disapproves.jpg (167x301, 10K)

Wow, suicides far outpace homicides in the US, really makes you think.

Actually if you adjust for Race.
You can see that the
Homicide Rate for blacks is 11.48
for US White's it's 1.18
for US Hispanic it's 3.22
So it's between France and Ireland.
Source here for context start around 11:00.
youtube.com/watch?v=MANmf29yUlk

Everyone understands this though.

Murderers preferring guns is indeed a fact.

That guns make a difference in actualizing their desire for violence is just a very logical conclusion. It's a general rule that people will do any one thing more often if their preferred method for it is more available to them.

It is in any case not worse of an opinion than "they will just use trucks every time". And that is all I want people to understand.

and yet the data shows that the US do not have a high per capita rate of mass shootings. And the only reason they have high gun crime is the black, and to a lesser extent the Latino, population

There was the silly new story a couple of years ago about how we average a mass shooting a day with the caveat that 99% of them occur in poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Needless to say, that story died quickly.

But assuming what you are saying is true. From gun regulation reports in the past we can see that regulation does not in fact affect homicide rate.
To be educated on guns in general see here.
youtube.com/watch?v=MANmf29yUlk
For the specific examples and numbers I'm pulling from to reach my conclusion see here.
justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

There are plenty of countries with the United States Gun Laws, and yet the USA is the only country with attacks like this every few months.

It's bizarre. What is it, that causes this in America? Is it the rampant inbreeding between races, is it the culture, is it the anti-depressant drug abuse or is it something more sinister such as false flag attacks to push a narrative to gain more power over the citizens of one of the most if not the most powerful nation in the world or chemicals in the water as some conspiracy theorists state?

When you see attacks like the ones we've seen in the last year in Europe, they're mostly from religious extremists (i.e. attacks from Muslims due to the war in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. etc.) which I guess is rather normal in times of strife and conflict. But this isn't the same for the USA.

What makes the USA different. This is something the media conveniently seems to "forget", is it on purpose or is the media simply pushing a narrative to "sell papers" so to speak.

When I bring this up to what Sup Forums would consider normies, they'd mention the mass shooting of Australia or the UK which happened around the same time, or the one in Norway, and yet these only happened a few times. When you try to tell them this, they'll state that they only happened a few times because guns were banned, and yet when you bring up different mass murders in the same places with just as many, if not more deaths using different means like cars, fires and knives, they'll brush over it or say it doesn't count.
And when I try to bring up the abuse of power seen in the UK wherein people are now being policed for would could classify as "wrong think" and relate it to some kind of Orwellian dystopian hell, they call me a conspiracy theorist, a racist or insane. Is this what is planned for the USA or other western societies?

Attached: bez.jpg (2010x2063, 332K)

See
That comparison would be true if americans had only access to guns like the diners have only access to chicken.
But they do have trucks and knives and fertilizer and everything else, and they usually choose guns.

They pull reports from Washington D.C., England and Wales, as well as Chicago.

>yet the USA is the only country with attacks like this every few months
Are you sure about that?

washingtonpost.com/outlook/school-shootings-are-extraordinarily-rare-why-is-fear-of-them-driving-policy/2018/03/08/f4ead9f2-2247-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.eeac4403c3d9

I don't understand what I'm supposed to glean from these posts.
Also, you haven't responded to my assertion and then backing that gun banning does not infact affect the homicide rate in any foreseeable way.

I will grant you, that, here is a better analogy: Suppose you have a room full of hungry people. They have both beef and chicken available, but most of them choose beef.

You are saying, "If the beef was taken away, few of them would eat any chicken, even though they are all hungry."

I am saying, "They are all hungry, they will eat chicken if they have to."

"They all want to murder. They will use trucks if they have to"

Attached: 1471096832677.png (594x838, 29K)

>facts don't exist
Correct

t. Scott Adams

Well buddy, I'm 100% in favor of banning assault cages. Your move.
(Obviously valid work trucks, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks etc can still operate, under license and scrutiny. I'm talking cages for personal transportation will be banned.)
Sincerely, your friend from /n/. Every day some cage tries its best to murder me. Cages are worse niggers than even a pack of niggers with assault raifus could ever be, because at least you can count on the niggers to shoot sideways and miss you. Unironically, ban personal transport cages for public safety.
If this is accomplished I wouldn't even give a shit if guns were or were not banned.

BAN MUSLIMS.
and outlaw multicultral invasionary tactics.
kids shoot kids because they get bullied by shitskins or dont fit into white society.people get run over in attacks because of shitskin jihadis.
multicultralism is a failure.always has been,always will be.
forced assimilation or relocation for the "betterment" of one society over another is genocide anyway you fuckin slice it.
ban muslims,end multicultralism.

this is nothing new, media has always been propaganda, the internet is simply a new channel for them

>call in bomb threat
>children evacuate into a giant mass in the play field
>truckening of peace
>???
BAN
ASSAULT
CAGES

Genuinely surprised that WaPo would publish an article like that.

The guy is still pro-disarming but he is actually being honest about the numbers which is just weird for that paper.

This actually happened, but on a college campus. Anyone remember the Tunisian refugee on the Ohio State University campus? Pulled the fire alarm, then stabbed like 10 people

Attached: 1489763748948.jpg (831x639, 128K)

The problem with gun regulation in america is that it was always half assed. It's pointless to have gun control in Chicago if guns are pouring in from accross the state border.
The principle of gun control seems sound to me, but its application must be rigorous or it will indeed fail. The point is not to have background checks or gun-free zones, those don't work, but to make guns unavailable legally and to make them very expensive on the black market by cutting the supply (which is the legal market) and emptying the stocks.

Reducing gun violence among the brown peoples is a good thing for the society that they live in.

The frogs and limeys aren't interested in an actual debate, they just want to cry

Not calling it an accident
You can't make trucks illegal but you surely can avoid selling guns to psychopaths
That would be if you country wasn't cucked by lobbys of course
kys

textbook cherry picking
>number of shootings is less important than number of casualties
>the US is not a huge empty shithole where nothing happens making all your "data" pointless
And yet
really activates my almonds

denying the US have a problem with guns make you sound like an autistic twat

There are two main problems with a complete ban:

1. Self-defense is a basic human right
2. Democide has claimed tens of millions of lives in the past century

Attached: knife_with_scope.png (982x350, 39K)

They're not using legally registered guns, and the violence is largely due to the illegal drug trade.

Dealing with this problem would be labeled fascist racism if ever actually attempted. These ethnicities are simply incapable of behaving themselves.

Furthermore the very presence of those ethnicities necessitates white americans being armed, because they will commit violent crime against them even if they only have knives.

per capita is literally the opposite of cherry picking.

The US has a problem with blacks not guns.

>but you surely can avoid selling guns to psychopaths

You really can't. We have background checks in place and if no red flags are on their file, then they can buy a gun.

There are far more lobbys in favor of gun control than there are in favor of the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, all the biggest companies are liberal. The liberal part spent 1.2 billion USD on Hillary's presidential campain, while Trump only spent 150 million USD.

Really vibrates the walnuts, doesn't it? Why are the selfish, gluttonous rich people in favor of gun control? Why are they all liberal? Almost as if the rich would benefit from having a spineless, defenseless middle class

Attached: feels_guy_dumb1.png (600x656, 75K)

>to make guns unavailable legally and to make them very expensive on the black market by cutting the supply (which is the legal market)

You're fucking retarded. The black market comes from Mexico, just like the European black market comes from Ex-Yugo countries. You can make guns illegals all you want, they'll always pour in from another war-torn, corrupt country.

>HURR MUH LOBBIES

Except the NRA is just an associaton that takes donations from its members ; normal everyday gun owners, who use those donations to defend the right of gun owners. You want to ban that too, faggot?
Meanwhile Soros is pourring billions into anti-gun ideology throughout the world, hiring actors, organizing protests (you think those protests are spontaneous and that the people behind it are just normal "children"? Think again).

You people are a fucking disgrace to this country.

This is my favorite liberal soberish article, Obama telling niggers to fuck off about black violence.

newrepublic.com/article/124445/beyond-gun-control

I'm not asking whether it was half assed or not nor am I trying to speak of hypothetical.

Can you prove to me that the gun regulation was half assed. For that matter is it also half assed in Wales and England. Is that why it hasn't affected homicide rates. You're just throwing away evidence with general statements and we can speak in hypothetical all day to suit our ideals but that doesn't prove anything.

It's like saying but if people really believed in communism than it would work or real communism has never been tried. If we look at the data and the general trend (which it is) that guns don't affect homicide rates than that's what I'll go off of. The onus on you is to prove otherwise through facts (numbers, data, studies ect.)

Also you just speaking in ideals mate. I'm looking at what has been done in the past how it's worked and using that to decide action in the future. Also the problem as the video shows isn't the weaponry it's the demographics. I really can't recommend the video enough. Why don't you watch it and then we can discuss it afterwards?

That's better, but that analogy also is biaised as it doesn't include comparable costs and benefits.
Murder isn't as easy as eating chicken, nor is it as necessary.

People can abstain from murder, they are even educated to do so.
Some do it anyway, but a lot give up when faced with difficulties (that's how the fear of the cops or of prison or death line works -up to a point- to dissuade murderers)
People don't usually give up eating.

Say that the dinner is not free and that the chicken is more expensive than the beef, and that the people can just not eat, go home and be fine.
Some will go home without touching the chicken.

>Reducing gun violence among the brown peoples is a good thing for the society that they live in
When Obama effectively tells them he doesn't care, how do you expect that to happen?

Why go after guns so hard when vehicular crashes kill like 100x as many people every year? If you gave a shit about saving lives, not just taking away toys from the other kid because you're a pissy little cunt, you'd be talking to ban cages first.
The problem with the french is that the muslims aren't killing them fast enough.

There is only one way to save our world, onions and hispanic music. Una vaina loca que me lleva a la gloria!

Attached: 1521917702706.jpg (700x900, 58K)

It's a good article, for what it is, but since the basic reason behind all this can absolutely never be addressed it's kind of all a charade.

Attached: 1413863569096.jpg (800x1000, 208K)

Que brutal.

PER capita but also PER *non specified* number of shootings
There's more than one way to cherry pick
It's a pointless task to compare the US with any other country to begin with
Wether you compare state by state or full US, it just doesn't add up to a clear idea of the situation anywhere
Pic related from your link, still nothing wrong, move along

>normal everyday gun owners, who use those donations to defend the right of gun owners
AWWW that's so cute
It's not an "association" if it involves billions of dollars and has direct ties to the state
They're not selling fucking cookies are they?
It's not like manipulation is something a very powerful company would do to serve its own (((interest)))
How brainwashed do you have to be? You're not even a burger

Attached: Homicide-rates-OECD-2011-or-latest.png (612x458, 53K)

>Less gun violence
>Not less violence

You missed the part about blacks. Blacks commit that much murder everywhere they live on earth. White americans have a murder rate comparable to White Europeans

Anti gun people are stupid. There is literally nothing more to it

Pierre I already addressed the Homicide rate... And how if you look at the White American's it's inbetween good old France and Ireland.

It is in fact a demographic problem. Europeans are just different from Africans and Latinos and the communities and the way we act are different as well it's okay...

Well maybe not for you, I don't know if Macron is okay with naughty hate facts.

You cant even compare european blacks to american blacks. Theres worlds between them

Also would you like to address my other statements with data or... are you working on that?

Also Pierre I could make the same snide remark about governments but it proves nothing. If you looked at the viiiiiiddddeeeOOOOOOO....
You would see how miniscual and irrelevant the gun lobby is compared to various other lobbies.

For once, a leaf makes an excellent point!

Sorry what?

wow good post, stay out of canada day of the rake brother

you cant 360 noscope with a truck though

>Can you prove to me that the gun regulation was half assed
I can. It was half assed because guns are still easily available, as proven by gun ownership rates and the number of legal guns ending up into illegal ownership.
nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html
vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418208/guns-new-york-iron-pipeline

>If we look at the data and the general trend (which it is) that guns don't affect homicide rates than that's what I'll go off of
You went from saying that gun control doesn't affect homicide to guns don't affect homicide. Which is it, and can you prove it ? (preferrably with documents and statistics from good sources than I can check quickly and not youtube videos).

For the example of england, I'd like to know the number of illegal guns per person to know if their gun control policy was half-assed.
But according to the stats I can find, after a peak in the years after the 1997 gun law, the firearm homicide rate is consistently going down.

And I'm being very practically minded here. I'm saying gun control works only if it really affects the material availability of guns. I don't see where you find idealism there.

I just felt the need to point this out. I agree with you. It is a demograpic issue

According to the gun violence archive which tracks 'mass shootings,' a mass shooting is any incident in which gunshot(s) leads to 4 or more injuries. The injuries don't even have to be caused by the gun - if a gunshot went off and you ran away and sprained your ankle, that's still an injury caused by a shooting for them. It leads to the number of so-called mass shootings bring vastly overstated.

imagine if he jumped out of window, did a 360 and blind fired a headshot on someone before he died

Frankly... I don't expect that to happen. As far as I can see the US are politically completely fucked up.
I'm just trying to make you people understand, just to see if I can, that there are facts and that you're being just as or more dishonest with them as those liberals you criticize.

It's funny, isn't it? I coincidentally did some research on the hippie movement, and found large and by far they were against the state infringing on their individual rights. They viewed the USSR invading Czechoslovakia as being an example of state aggression, despite the USSR spreading communism. The modern day left has no right to compare their movement to the movement in the 60s: they were libertarians, these people are statists.

Don't punish us because our retarded grandfather's didn't want to pick their own cotton.

The black population of London in 2010 was just over 12%, yet black males were responsible for 54% of street crimes and 59% of gun crimes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom

Looks like the exact same pattern to me

There's two frenchfags here.
He's Pierre, I'm Paul.

Looks like I was wrong then

But how are they different? I mean I remember from some study that supposedly most American blacks have like 10% on average white admixture but other than that (which still doesn't help them apparently.)

Sorry Paul. I'm going to have to reread your stuff now.

They arent. I always thought they werent as worse as in america but thats not the case. See

Because trucks have other uses

>brainwashed

As a matter of fact, I'm giving money to an association that defends the rights of gun owners in France and in Europe, which largely helped people who were going to get their guns illegally seized because of zealous prefincts
The same association combined with other European ones, helped to tone down a little the latest EU gun law, ensuring that not everything that politicians originally wanted banned would be banned.
Associations are a human right, but somehow when it doesn't fit your political ideology it shouldn't exist, right?
It's funny how the European media called those associations the "gun lobby", just like in the US, the evil lobby that is preventing the nice politicians from banning everything for our own good, as if the few European gun makers left would give a fuck about the tiny civilian market.

You are not American either, and here you are arguing as why you think people in another country should have their rights removed. You're only parotting the shit you hear from the left wing media, with not a single thought on your own, you're just riding on the mainstream, only acceptable ideology in France and somehow I'm the brainwashed one? That's fucking rich.