1
28

[–] CervicalStrike 1 points 28 points (+29|-1) ago 

I'd like to see a pie chart break it down into just 3 categories:

-suicide

-niggers

-everything else

It's interesting to know that 65% would be suicide because I'd have assumed niggers would be the biggest piece.

1
11

[–] SweetChicken [S] 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

LOL I like you +1 I just spit my coffee out and my wife is now asking questions.

0
9

[–] OhBlindOne 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

my wife

Drawing a face on your hand doesn't constitute a wife.

0
4

[–] Fromundacheese 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Second that....draining the coffee out of my keyboard now! XD

0
10

[–] lemon11 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago  (edited ago)

https://i.imgjar.co/jar/bUeEB-iTQUG5Qe7DT9y83w.png

With some reasonable assumptions and the FBI's 2014 known-offender murder statistics:

  • 65% "suicide"

  • 24.6% by blacks (70.3% of firearm homicide)

  • 10.4% by non-blacks (including "other," white, and "white" by FBI standards)


From https://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/21/the-racial-divide-on-gun-deaths-in-america/ though the FBI figures don't say gun homocides, so I think these are total homicides (similar numbers here: https://www.westernjournalism.com/the-real-truth-about-blacks-and-gun-violence/))

With the 2014 FBI numbers having been released, we can see that of the 3,021 whites who were killed by guns, 2,488 were killed by other white people. Similarly, among the 2,451 black victims of gun homicides, 2,205 were committed by other black people. (As you’ll note from the graph above, the number killed by “legal intervention” is a barely measurable sliver.)

That shows 90.0% by blacks of black murder, 47.2% by blacks of nonblack murder

Then from the other's side's own statements: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-race-statistics/

Firearm homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans ages 1-44.

African Americans make up nearly 13% of the U.S. population, but in 2009 suffered almost 24% of all firearm deaths – and over 54% of all firearm homicides.

If the generalized murder stats hold for firearms, then

90% black-on-black of 54% black firearm homicides

and

47.2% black-on-nonblack of 46% firearm homicides

is 70.3% firearm homicides are by blacks

0
2

[–] ardvarcus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The interesting statistic to me would not be non-black homicides, but actual white homicides, in the true sense we use the term white -- which doesn't include Asians, Indians, Arabs, or Hispanics. I can only guess, but I would guess the percentage would be quite low, maybe around 10% of the total.

0
0

[–] Dr_Shekel_Nigger 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

needs latino breakdown too

1
0

[–] Javik2186 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Here is a straw poll to gather the info before I create it on IBM SPSS program.

0
9

[–] antiliberalsociety 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I got challenged by a physical therapist once, "I'm just playing devils advocate here, but WHY do people need machine guns?"

I simply pointed out that automatic rifles are already illegal (in most cases) and why did that gun law fail to prevent several tragedies? Why background check everyone buying a gun but not immigrants coming in the masses from countries torn up by gun violence? The laws already state we're supposed to screen them but they go unenforced, so why enforce gun laws on law abiding citizens but not criminals? The 2nd amendment was written so our government couldn't rise against its people by disarming them, it's not the deer we worry about rising against us. In WWII Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to get us out of the way, as they intended on invading the Philippines. They did not want to invade the main land because "guns are like blades of grass".

China outlawed guns in 1937, and we all know what happened with the Tiananmen Square protesters.

Then I told her of the democrat's slogan... Never let a tragedy go to waste.

Her only response was "...That's interesting..."

0
8

[–] ardvarcus 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Her only response was "...That's interesting..."

That was her spoken response. Her actual unspoken response was, "Fuck you, smartass entitled white male."

0
5

[–] lemon11 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

FWIW, the Democrat's literal words were "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." And he goes on to confirm the worst interpretation of that phrase. Obviously, a tragedy does qualify, but so do any number of otherwise unknown crunches in an office or administration.

0
0

[–] airfish 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Just like the Bush administration used 9/11 to greatly expand police and surveillance powers? It's not so much politics as it is human nature; the population wants action after terrible events and that gives politicians political capital.

1
-1

[–] airfish 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Lol, you think privately owned firearms would have made a difference against tanks at Tienanmen Square. Tanks were invented for anti-infantry.

1
0

[–] FireMarshallBill 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

The tanks were the 'shock and awe'. There was literally no method to fight back on an individual level after being disarmed. If the civilian populace had been armed, the army would have thought twice about such a provocation. Several people have said this much more eloquently than I ever could. The point is, you cannot rule the street corners by drone and tank 24/7. You need soldiers with guns. And they are susceptible to civilians with guns.

2
9

[–] WhoFramedReaderRabit 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

Nice solid post! I might try and make it into an infographic, if you don't mind. Gun Death are so over blown, the real tragedy is 500,000+ abortion performed every year.

1
4

[–] SweetChicken [S] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Thanks but I'm just sharing someone else's work.

0
3

[–] muzzieniggerjew 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

less degenerate single moms and babies i have to pay for then :)

0
1

[–] ButterBar 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Please make an infographic, I'd love to see the numbers visually.

1
-1

[–] TheWorstImaginable 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

lol no. within 20 years those 500,000+ abortions a year would start exponentially growing. It wouldn't be 10 million in 20 years, it would be 15 million. and it wouldn't be 20 million in 40 years, it could be more like 40-50 million. Fuck em. Mongrels controlling their own population is the best thing we could ask for.

0
7

[–] lemon11 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Justifying protecting rights with by virtue of statistical safety allows enemies to own the terms of the argument. It implicitly asserts or acknowledges that if conclusions differed, then it would be permissible to fail to protect inalienable rights, as they do now. They say, "only I deserve guns," and you reply, "but it's not true that nobody deserves guns, because we can use them effectively." It counters malice with bargaining, and that's simply part of losing.

0
3

[–] Asvnoyi 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I saw an article where this point was made about the 2nd Amendment. I'll use a profound quote from the article as a link:

The Second Amendment is special, not because it protects guns, but because its violation signals a government with the intention to oppress its people

0
3

[–] ravensedgesom 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I honestly have to add from reading statistics that if you remove minorities from the statistical equation the rate of gun violence in the population would be similar to that of canada who has strict gun laws.

1
2

[–] 10783805 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

You start off pretty weak, logically speaking:

Do the math: 0.009257% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant!

It's not about the ratio of gun deaths to LIVING PEOPLE; you should compare gun deaths to all deaths.

Of course, the rest of the analysis is better, but I would just scrap the quoted section altogether.

1
2

[–] SweetChicken [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I'm not sure I agree with you. Why not compare that number to the others? If someone wants to add those comparisons it would be appreciated.

0
0

[–] 10785124 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Furthermore, I already said why; the number of deaths [with cause X] should be compared to the number of deaths. Part to whole.

You didn't say why, and just stated that you disagree... Which was clear at the beginning.

0
0

[–] 10785117 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Why not include all 7 billion people on earth? (The answer to that is conceptually identical to the reasoning behind only considering deaths)

0
1

[–] 22jam22 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This will be copy pasted and spread. Thanks for breaking it down so perfectly.

load more comments ▼ (21 remaining)