Pro-gun myths busted

[SubDad]

had a guy run into parliament with a AK47

Correction, he ran into Parliament with a lever action .30-30.
On a serious subject, it's important to stick with facts.

He (the nutbar) was prohibited from having weapons because a judge said so, but nothing in Canada prohibits rational citizens from having a deer rifle once they pass a course on firearms safety.
The police are very,very interested by how nutbar got a rifle and want to know how he got a .30-30 after having been banned.

[BLACKCHARM88]

CorvallisBMW,

[2761377]

We don't have the strictest laws (or anywhere near), and it definitely wasn't an AK.

whether or not Canada has the strictest laws, he was still prohibited. his merely having a gun was illegal.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa-shooting-where-did-michael-zehaf-bibeau-get-his-gun-1.2811249

proving yet again the efficacy of such laws. I594 is the entrance to a rabbit hole.

[BraveUlysses]

Again, you won. Great what do you want? A cookie?

Explain this mr oregon next to your brother state washington

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/10/25/usa-washington-shooting-idINKCN0ID25120141025

Remember, the loonies will always get guns, NO MATTER HOW MANY LAWS ARE PUT INTO PLACE. Hell, Canada with one of the strictest gun laws in the world had a guy run into parliament with a AK47 the other day. What do you expect this thread to do?

You're 0 for 2, stupid.

[cale]

We don't have the strictest laws (or anywhere near), and it definitely wasn't an AK.

[E30NJ]

Again, you won. Great what do you want? A cookie?

Explain this mr oregon next to your brother state washington

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/10/25/usa-washington-shooting-idINKCN0ID25120141025

Remember, the loonies will always get guns, NO MATTER HOW MANY LAWS ARE PUT INTO PLACE. Hell, Canada with one of the strictest gun laws in the world had a guy run into parliament with a AK47 the other day. What do you expect this thread to do?

[ParsedOut]

This thread has been a waste of time since the start.

[CorvallisBMW]

I know :)

[BraveUlysses]

you're wasting your time dude

[CorvallisBMW]

What is biased about this study?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447915/
How about this one?

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/state-level-homicide-victimization-rates-in-the-us-in-relation-to-TNMKd0qUVn

Or this one?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/
Is this one biased?
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...urnalCode=ajph
No? Maybe this one then?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16434012

[BraveUlysses]

trololol

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.