That is an awful argument......and it kind of makes you an anarchist. Let me explain.
No law ever has completely stopped the crimes they outlaw. By your measure, no law should exist.
E.g. speed laws don't prevent speeding by all cars, theft laws don't prevent theft by all thieves, bribery laws don't prevent bribes by all real estate tycoons, drug laws actually increase drug related crimes, but firearm laws must prevent all misuse of all weapons, not even just all firearms, or forget it?!

Your requirements of gun control are completely...insanely... unrealistic.

Also...crazy cat lady is "using those cats to claw your face" just like shooting wildly into a neighborhood is "using a gun to shoot you". Her irresponsibility directly created a situation that endangered the neighborhood and caused damage, no? Damage caused by firing unguided fur missiles is always the shooters responsibility, not the missiles'.

this is an awful explanation, as there is nothing using the cat to "claw your face". guns are just a tool right? there are LOTS of tools. offer solutions that will actually prevent death, by all tools, and you will have my attention.

Idk, kind of not in the spirit of the original game at all.

The whole thing with Doom was it was alarming to turn a corner and have a monster RIGHT THERE in your face. Gameplay was FAST too, which added to the feeling of immersion.

I hear the pew pew pew of this plasma rifle that's firing anything less than 20 rounds a second and weep digital tears.

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

Jumping Spiders are like the Border Collies of the arachnid world. But instead of jumping up on you and licking your face, they kill you in your sleep.

Ant, you and I have a difference of opinion when it comes to cute things. In my, albeit limited, world view, things that wrap you up in its tentacles and chew on your face do not achieve cuteness.

Speaking from experience...do not try this with a full bottle of syrup. Boiling sugar and melted plastic are harder to get off your face than a little egg.

He did no such thing. That's never been the point, it's the obvious red herring, oh fishy one. Now, holding a confederate flag.......

Ratings and ticket sales....up.
The idea you might go to a game and not have to deal with a crazed Trump fan screaming in your face seems to be a winner.

When your message will be heard is always the wrong time for those that don't want to listen. If you liked the message or the messenger, you would love the method and moment.
Sports has historically often been about politics.

Trump has now given the protest against police brutality the attention, and momentum it deserves....he may have done some good.....accidentally....by opposing it. One more win, he's on a roll.

Hah, in your face, old man!

I sold my soul for a cheeseburger years ago....

They're talking about sugar, not carbs.

"Gary Taubes, who's made a living misrepresenting science."
How so? If you're going to make such a claim, back it up.

"Despite sugar consumption going down"
Really? I have yet to see any evidence that that's the case.

"Stuff your face with this food "
Eh, life is way too short to eat vegan food.

How ironic that the part where they talk about misrepresenting studies that they reference Gary Taubes, who's made a living misrepresenting science.

It's a common thing to compare fat vs sugar to make carbs look bad. But when you actually eat proper carbs (not sugar) then carbs win every time.

These people who ate 80% carbs, and only 10% fat, and effortlessly lose weight without calorie restriction or exercise: https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/stars/stars-written/

Also the fat you eat really is the fat you wear. They can radioactively mark it and find it again in your body.

Despite sugar consumption going down, diabetes and heart-disease is rising too.

Regardless of any study. Try eating 80/10/10 for a few weeks, and you'll see the results for yourself. Stuff your face with this food https://www.forksoverknives.com/recipes/?recipe_type=wraps-and-burgers

There's no portion or calorie restriction. Eat yourself thin.

Edit: And yes fat does definitely contribute to weight gain and heart-disease, take it from the only cardiologist to ever reverse heart-disease https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_o4YBQPKtQ&feature=youtu.be&t=6

Director: "Quick sound guys, whats-your-face, sneak over to sit at the bar like you're a customer and then just nod and agree with whatever the talking head says. Maybe adlib a little bit about a Mexican raping your job or something."

I think that's the best part of the entire clip. It's not set up with a right/wrong character or position. It's taking the grayness of race relations and actual real honest people and putting in your face. People are more than their race, and the trite simple 'rules' often used to decide if someone is good/evil and racist or not rarely apply in the real world.

Okay, but pointing a gun at your face is still not something you do even if you are sure it's not loaded. I am really just making light, though. Probably you don't read the gauge while the air tank is attached to the gun.