Pro-gun myths busted

[E30NJ]

Know what? You win. You're completely right, just like you and the rest of the left wing.

[CorvallisBMW]

Know what? You win. You're completely right, just like you and the rest of America.

Fixed that for you

;)

I kid, I kid... But seriously, if you really believe that you can cherry-pick 2 data points that involve hundreds of variables and then claim it points to a firm conclusion, you're far too dumb to understand anything that I might post as a rebuttal.

[mrsleeve]

kinda like citing from mother jones, its kinda like the info wars of the progressive left ;)

[marshallnoise]

CorvallisBMW, casting stones? Are you as black as the kettle?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[BLACKCHARM88]

Completely false on both accounts. But good try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico#The_right_to_keep_arms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

But if anecdotal evidence is all you're looking for, Belgium has very few guns and very little crime, while Somalia has lots of guns and lots of crime. See? Using your logic, I just proved that guns cause violence.

Now do you see how stupid your reasoning is?

Check out Maryland's gun deaths, and they have the strongest gun laws in the country. Are you scared of guns? Is that why you post this thread OP?

[E30NJ]

Just because you have the power of the infectious liberal media and the power of the internet doesn't mean that you are correct. Seriously, you made this huge thread. And how many people did you change? ~1 or 2, i mean really c'mon

[BraveUlysses]

Just because you have the power of the infectious liberal media and the power of the internet doesn't mean that you are correct. Seriously, you made this huge thread. And how many people did you change? ~1 or 2, i mean really c'mon

That's a strange way to admit that you're unwilling to change your mind or examine your own views when faced with facts and data which contradict your beliefs.

[marshallnoise]

That's a strange way to admit that you're unwilling to change your mind or examine your own views when faced with facts and data which contradict your beliefs.

How did you arrive at that conclusuon?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[CorvallisBMW]

Just because you have the power of the infectious liberal media and the power of the internet doesn't mean that you are correct. Seriously, you made this huge thread. And how many people did you change? ~1 or 2, i mean really c'mon

So what you're really saying is just because I have facts, data, evidence, scientific studies and hundreds of example cases, it doesn't mean I'm correct. Sure.... right :loco:

If you can provide me with any real data or evidence that runs contrary to or contradicts the current data or evidence, I would gladly review it with an open mind and without judgement. Hell, I might even change my mind if the evidence were compelling. I've been known to do it before. But if all you have are some pulled-from-your-ass talking points and long-debunked catch phrases, then please shut the fuck up :)

[ParsedOut]

So what you're really saying is just because I have facts, data, evidence, scientific studies and hundreds of example cases, it doesn't mean I'm correct. Sure.... right :loco:

If you can provide me with any real data or evidence that runs contrary to or contradicts the current data or evidence, I would gladly review it with an open mind and without judgement. Hell, I might even change my mind if the evidence were compelling. I've been known to do it before. But if all you have are some pulled-from-your-ass talking points and long-debunked catch phrases, then please shut the fuck up :)

Says the guy who quotes wikipedia and mother jones for his "facts".

[CorvallisBMW]

Are you saying the numbers were made up? Because unless they were, then yes they are facts. Just because they come from a source that you disagree with on an ideological level does not mean that they are false, untrue, or otherwise incorrect.

Note that nothing I have posted could be considered an unbacked or unsupported claim of fact, let alone opinion. Everything is based in real data from scientific studies. The news outlet reporting that data may be liberal, or conservative, or belong to the Church of the SPM... but it doesn't change the underlying facts.

[BraveUlysses]

Says the guy who quotes wikipedia and mother jones for his "facts".

Tell us, specifically what's incorrect about the two links he used in this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...t_to_keep_arms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._by_crime_rate

The dude made his entire comment up and you're more willing to attack corvallis than someone who just made some shit up.

[ParsedOut]

Wikipedia == potentially made up shit (if you don't know why...sigh)
Heavily biased media (mother jones or alex jones, doesn't matter) == likely skewed statistics with potentially made up shit

None of these should be used as sole source for "facts".

For the record, my post was hardly an attack on corvallis, simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

[CorvallisBMW]

Wikipedia == potentially made up shit (if you don't know why...sigh)
Heavily biased media (mother jones or alex jones, doesn't matter) == likely skewed statistics with potentially made up shit

None of these should be used as sole source for "facts".

If you don't understand how Wikipedia works, that's pretty pathetic. All the numbers and statistics referenced in those articles come from journals, studies and other scientific literature. See the section that says "References" at the bottom of every page? That's where the data, facts and statistics come from, and those cannot be edited or changed. So no, it cannot potentially be "made up shit".

Oh and if you'd bother to read the Mother Jones article, you'd see that they are again referencing scientific studies and research, not doing their own. Simply linking to a scientific study and saying "here's a link to this study. It says X" does not impart any type of bias. It's literally just a link to the study, which, again, has no bias.

Look, I get it... you really, really, desperately don't want to admit that the facts don't support your viewpoints. And you're willing to do anything, including attacking the messenger (in this case me, or the websites I link) in order to keep yourself from having to accept it. But eventually you'll run out of excuses and lame attacks, and the facts will still be there, staring you in the face. Go read the sources that Wikipedia uses to compile it's tables and data, see for yourself where those very real and very accurate numbers come from. Go read the studies and research papers that Mother Jones uses to compile it's articles, read the original documents. You'll see that the original, unedited and unassailable sources of that data match exactly to what's said on the reporting website. There's no skewing, there's no made up shit, there's no manipulation.

There's no hypocrisy by me. I posted unaltered, unedited and wholly factual sources of scientifically acquired data. I asked that anyone who disagrees with me do the same. If you believe that constitutes hypocrisy, you should probably look up it's definition in the dictionary.

[ParsedOut]

^^^ Good for you thinking that all these scientific studies you reference really are unbiased. Don't you know that 95% of all statistics are made up?