Did I do alright, /k/? Also general pro-gun stats, arguments, etc. thread.
>inb4 "gun politics have nothing to do with guns," t. mods
Ya did good man, but with that level of groupthink going on I don't know if it'll do much good. Still, you provided facts and gave statistics without hyperbole. If they start attacking you again you'll know that you're dealing with lost causes.
Still, glad you tried at least.
pro gun argument picture thread pls?
>>30307319
Thanks, /k/omrade, I try my hardest.
>>30307297
no
TL;DR
OP reporting in, this is the last I got.
>>30307297
You should post their responses. I stopped doing this on the internet because I realized that 99% of people can be bludgeoned with facts but will still retort with muh feelings.
>>30307415
>Nearly half of deaths are tobacco.
>Heart disease isn't even listed
Ayyyyyyylmao
>>30307415
>>30309360
>>30307297
Not horrible. I have found that it's best not to insult or assume anything about who you're debating. It doesn't help anything and odds are they will see that insult and totally derail the argument "because you're mean."
>>30307380
You need at least one more 9 after the decimal place in that first boolet point senpai
>>30307297
aint nobody gonna read all that shit.
taylor your arguments to suit the forum.
liberal web pages/ FB pages where everyone goes to circlejerk are just going to delete your comments anyhow.
multiple hit and run attacks with no more than 3 sentences and a link to back what you're saying
no swearing or name calling, but you can embarass them with sarcasm
>>30307297
You could have condensed that down a fair bit.But other wise fine.
But honestly, I would think the green guy had more of an effect on the original poster.
>>30307297
Just in case you need it, here's a long list of politicians saying they want to take away your guns. http://thewriterinblack.blogspot.com/2014/09/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns.html?m=1
Every time I see people calling for stricter firearm regulation they, without fail, demonstrate that they don't have a clue what they're talking about. They always misuse terminology they heard once in a game or on TV and often cite completely false things. I am 100% for "common sense" gun law. I just don't think that someone who doesn't have some baseline level of knowledge should be in charge of what common sense means.
"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all." U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman
what the actusl fuck?!
>>30310108
operation pink panther is a go
>>30307297
Your concept of how a .223 Rem/5.56 NATO bullet behaves is incorrect.
55gr FMJ fragments when it tumbles as it slows through a soft(er) medium. It will still punch through drywall and put a hole in something on the other side.
>>30310188
Any round with a hope of stopping anyone will go through four layers of drywall with ease. 5.56 carries a lot less wounding power when it comes out the other side, because it relies on velocity to wound, and it sheds that velocity fairly readily going through barriers.
Something I like to have in my repertoire for arguing, specifically against the ”well-regulated militia” drivel is to point to the actual legal definition of the US militia; that is, US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311. Specifically for the purposes of arguing against antis, Subsection a and Subsection b, Paragraph 2. Kinda hard to argue with the literal codified law of the land when it comes to what the word militia means.
>>30310150
Sounds like it's more for breast cancer than anything.
