Today I placed my Smith & Wesson .357 Mag revolver on the table right next to my front door...

Today I placed my Smith & Wesson .357 Mag revolver on the table right next to my front door. I left 6 cartridges beside it, then left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor's son across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the "stop" sign near the front of my house.

After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was quietly sitting there, right where I had left it. It had not moved itself outside. It had not killed anyone. Certainly, even with the numerous opportunities it had presented to do that. In fact, it had not even loaded itself.

Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the hype by the Left and the media about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is wrong, or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world.

The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world. But if you take out just 5 'left-wing' cities: Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., St Louis and New Orleans - the United States is 4th from the bottom, in the ENTIRE WORLD, for murders.

These 5 cities are controlled by Democrats. They also have the toughest gun control laws in the USA.

It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data, right?

Well, I'm off to check on my spoons. I hear they're making people fat.

Attached: do ya feel lucky PUNK.jpg (661x496, 33K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=w2CxDu7jiyE
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Yeah, it's the same with the heroin I placed on my table OP. It clearly didn't do itself or kill any young kids, it just sat there.

except, the evidence is clear that heroin is bad for you at an individual level, whereas owning a gun is actually slightly beneficial

Attached: GUNS AND CRIME PREVENTION Injury Rates by Self Protection Method.png (1277x907, 66K)

Heh. Tell that to all the people that kill themself. Or people that accidentally kill themself or someone around them,

Heroin is beneficial to me as well.

>except, the evidence is clear that heroin is bad for you at an individual leve
So is cigarettes, drinking alcohol or shooting yourself in the head.

bump

>the evidence is clear that heroin is bad for you at an individual level,
So is fast food and driving around everywhere instead of just walking.

Don't split posts like this, it's annoying

Attached: 1503308747723_0.png (371x353, 126K)

>more than 10% of injury rates (by self protection mode) are from firearms
That's still 10% of injuries (by self protection mode) though. Want to know how many injuries there are in countries that have tighter gun laws?

>why are you two different people disagreeing with me instead of just one, it's annoying

Attached: bait-hand.jpg (625x626, 33K)

Attached: image_119.jpg (562x680, 62K)

>implying not having guns is the reason the UK is fucked up
No, it's their politics mang.

Just like in the US, having guns doesn't stop violent niggers from running rampant inside your country. Also, all those guns couldn't stop the Las Vegas shooter, could it?

Accidental deaths are really quite a small issue, less prevalent than drowning.

I support the right to suicide.

True.

>Want to know how many injuries there are in countries that have tighter gun laws?
I'll beat you to the punch. There really is no good evidence that gun control works for anything *except* "gun deaths"--which includes suicides and accidents. Pic related

Attached: australia-united-states-homicide-rates-before-after-gun-ban.jpg (1132x819, 117K)

Wasn't even my post, I just saw two posts with virtually identical typing and it annoyed me. I'm petty as fuck

Attached: 1517869107562.jpg (1280x720, 116K)

Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8.

I just like that meme, I don't take Sup Forums seriously enough to warrant discussion of topics like this

>Pic related
False correlation

Homicides are not necessarily done by guns. Another fun fact: homicides in the US has sharply declined since the 90s, but gun deaths have only slightly declined.

You're the hero Sup Forums needs, but not the one it gets.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand mass shootings. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of bullet trajectories most of the rounds will go over a typical victim's head. There's also the shooter's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Elliot Rodger's YouTube videos, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of the suspect, to realize that he's not just funny- he is saying something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike mass shootings truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in the shooter's existencial catchphrase "GOODNIGHT LAS VEGAS," which itself is a cryptic reference to The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as the shooter's genius unfolds itself on their television screens.. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a YOU CANT DODGE THE RODGE tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

Attached: Stephen Paddock.jpg (780x438, 47K)

Sounds like you have a shit gun, mate.

You should hand that in.

OK, so you're arguing that we should care more about suicides and accidents than murders. I disagree, people should have the right to suicide (though preferably through legal euthanasia), and again, accidents are statistically not such an issue.

>false correlation
lol

>OK, so you're arguing that we should care more about suicides and accidents than murders
That's not at all what I am arguing, you fucking dishonest piece of shit.

You're implying that a drop in homicides overall proves that gun deaths aren't related to guns, which is just a false equivalency.

Attached: gun-bans-dont-work-hurr-durr.png (1200x900, 36K)

>That's not at all what I am arguing, you fucking dishonest piece of shit.
Wow, no need to be so emo!

>You're implying that a drop in homicides overall proves that gun deaths aren't related to guns
I never claimed that, in fact in the very same post with the graph, I explicitly said that gun control works for gun deaths but not for homicide or death.

>which is just a false equivalency.
you're wrong (again) but I don't have the energy to walk you through it. In any case you would probably even be interested in studying more thoroughly the logical and scientific fallacies:
youtube.com/watch?v=w2CxDu7jiyE

again,
>implying I care about suicides and accidents more than murders
I don't, and thus I don't care about "gun deaths" as much as homicide or violent crime in general.

looks like thre was already a downword trend lol

The trend was continuing downward. It doesn't seem that it changed once the gun ban took effect.

>trying to mud the question by saying that since violent niggers still stab each other this proves that we shouldn't ban guns
You're retarded. You can BOTH ban guns, and deport violent criminals, you dumb shit.

As of 2013 there were more guns in Australia than before the gun ban.
In fact many of the guns handed in during the buy back were broken or not serviceable. Nearly half were replaced within 12 months of the buy back with new weapons.

>downward trend
Except it isn't. Feel free to run a regression line.

The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

that gun killed the mailman and the neighbour's son didn't it?

I didn't say any of that

I'll lay it out for you again, crystal clear:

There is no good evidence gun control has any effect on homicide or violent crime rates. There is good evidence that owning a gun on an individual level increases personal safety.

We should care more about violent crime and murder in general than "gun deaths".

Shits too long. Not gonna read but will assume op is being a faggot again.

>There is no good evidence gun control has any effect on homicide or violent crime rates. There is good evidence that owning a gun on an individual level increases personal safety.
These two statements are either mutually exclusive, or personal safety is not relevant to homicide and violent crimes.

You were lucky this time, punk! If you'd have a kid he could have started toying with it, maybe even killing somebody by accident.

*sigh*

>These two statements are either mutually exclusive, or personal safety is not relevant to homicide and violent crimes.
No, no, no, no, no. You can have two bodies of evidence that point in different directions, because we have imperfect knowledge. Obviously. It could even be the case that it's both true that owning a gun is your best option as an individual, but banning them is the best option as a society (John Nash?).

Are you trolling, or are you really this much of a brainlet?

>removing guns from the picture doesn't reduce crime or homicides overall, therefore guns don't affect crime or homicide
>but adding guns to the picture reduces crime and homicides, so therefore it's actually beneficial to own a gun

Ad hominem is automatic forfeit in a debate or argument. It's proof that you know you're incorrect and are degrading the discussion in an attempt to force victory on an entirely separate level.

Attached: 9d81e62c611529b92abc79e2f7b3de4c-sample.jpg (717x1000, 156K)

phew. Thought someone was really that stupid for a second.

>It's proof that you know you're incorrect
not really. Most people don't even know what "ad hominem" means. I've tried to describe it to several brainlets but they all still didn't get that it was a logical fallacy. Even if the average brainlet tries to be correct and thinks he is, he will still stumble through every imaginable fallacy.

There's not enough data from pre-ban years to say that actually. Doesn't seem to be any clear trend.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-29 at 11.25.32.png (2070x2052, 224K)

If you can't fight your point, you don't have a point. Simple as that.

>Doesn't seem to be any clear trend.
NO SHUT UP NO MY IDEOLOGY m-M-M-MUH IDEOLOGY

>If you can't fight your point, you don't have a point. Simple as that.
Not true, people can have something meaningful and maybe even correct to say, but they might be brainlets who can barely string a sentence together, and get sidetracked by emotions (since they're brainlets).

WOW GOOD JOB MANIPULATING THE DATA. LOOK, UNLIKE YOUR "DATA", THE REAL SCIENCE SHOWS THAT GUNS CAUSE CRIME AND WE SHOULD BAN THEM RIGHT NOW.

I LIKE HOW YOUR """"""""STUDY""""""""" DIDN'T EVEN ADJUST FOR POVERTY.

OP check your gun for cum.

Why?

If you live in Austin,
I'd check it for cum.

>if you take out all the places where the murders happen we don't have any murders

Stopped reading there

because of Ghost?

Jokes on you, with that level of scrutiny you should've stopped much earlier, and that makes you a brainlet

Because I live in Austin

If you don't count death from gunshot wounds, the gun deaths in the country drop to 1. That poor, pistol whipped bastard.

Prefer my Ruger Service 6, thank you

I'm refuting the claim that there was a declining trend in the data BEFORE the ban.

The ban obviously had an affect, the mean for all the pre-ban years is 562.1 gun deaths per year, whereas the mean for the post-ban years is 272.19 gun deaths per year.

So the ban clearly had an effect, I simply refuted the claim that there already was a declining trend before the ban (implying that the ban had little effect).

>the gun ban had an effect: gun deaths dropped by almost half
>despite brainlets claiming there is, there weren't a declining trend in gun deaths before the gun ban took effect

b-b-b-but muh ideology and m-muh second amendment

Actually, over 200 people died from pistol whipping in the US the last five years. People watch too much TV and thinks that a pistol whip only knocks you out, but in reality it can cause some serious trauma to neck and head.

ITT: samefags from the Tides Foundation

>individual gun deaths doesn't matter because we like to look at society as a whole
>individual benefits from owning a gun does matter, fuck the society

>m-m-muh ideology

The rate of downward change is actually less after the ban. Dumb kangaroo fucker.

>Stabbed
Corey Feldman

>Bomb
Boston marathon

>Hit by vehicle
Black lives matter march

See Also
>downward change flattens out when there are no guns left to kill people
WOW, stop the press!

Except it flattened without reaching that point. Still pelnty of guns in fuck kangaroo land.

And your bullshit graph there is made up from thin air, not data.

But still, the average annual gun deaths dropped by almost half if you compare pre-ban to post-ban.

>made up from thin air
The numbers are from which includes the fucking source, you dumbass.

>pretending you don't have one

It's only a matter of time before someone shorts out Samsung cell phones as an incendiary device, kek

>>pretending you don't have one
My views change with facts, user. Unlike you, I don't have to invent an entire alternate reality where people who disagree with me are somehow deep state agents in cohort with communists.

Class interest explains it all better than conspiracy. But the bourgeois neoliberals aren't very big on non-false consciousness, either.

Model 686 sweet piece

That's actually an interesting statistic. I was being a dumbass earlier, but that's a genuinely interesting piece of information, user.

"1979 - 1985" kek

>in the ENTIRE WORLD, for murders
not true.

>black lives matter
Huh huh, doesn't count, we're talking about human beings

Using that logic, the muslim truck of peace doesn't matter either as French people are subhuman frogeating cucks.

>guns kill