| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
metbull
United States404 Posts
On December 15 2012 14:40 JingleHell wrote: Yes, if the evil gub'mint went all corrupt and decided to be tyrannical dictators, my 9mm and a couple boxes of ammo would STOP THOSE EVIL BASTARDS IN THEIR TRACKS! Want to buy a fucking bridge? I'm more in the market for ocean front property in Arizona. | ||
|
Esk23
United States447 Posts
On December 15 2012 14:41 sCCrooked wrote: Wow you're gosu. Using lolwikipedia as a source isn't a good idea if you want people to take you seriously. Since you apparently haven't read even the rest of this page, allow me to re-quote the excellent source already posted twice. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf You're obviously too emotional or biased to have a discussion. Empty responses won't make your point heard. Perhaps you should go educate yourself a LOT better before attacking others who actually do research this. Great link with FACTUAL info. Anyways, there is no way the US government can pass total gun bans on its people, MAYBE a little more gun regulation but if they push for total gun ban there will be a civil war here. People WILL NOT give up their guns and their rights to own them. | ||
|
Zooper31
United States5711 Posts
On December 15 2012 14:50 Esk23 wrote: Great link with FACTUAL info. Anyways, there is no way the US government can pass total gun bans on its people, MAYBE a little more gun regulation but if they push for total gun ban there will be a civil war here. People WILL NOT give up their guns and their rights to own them. It'd be like trying to make the south give up slavery, oh wait... | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5218 Posts
"The goal of Gun Facts is to provide a quick reference guide for civil libertarians on gun control issues." You don't think "Gun Facts" would be biased in anyway reporting the facts right? You don't think them reporting the facts is somehow a conflict of interest do you? The UN has no agenda and has interest in reporting the facts. Check it. http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf This reminds me of http://unskewedpolls.com/ the conservative poll site that said all the polls were Pro-Obama and thought Romney would win... look how that turned out. Get better sources... | ||
|
Esk23
United States447 Posts
On December 15 2012 14:54 Zooper31 wrote: It'd be like trying to make the south give up slavery, oh wait... That's a stupid comparison. Only %7 of the Southern population at the time owned slaves, a very small minority of Southeners, while %47 of American adults own guns and over %65 of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment. | ||
|
delarien123
United States14 Posts
On December 15 2012 14:38 BronzeKnee wrote: Wait, what? So gun control doesn't work? Let's check the facts. The fact is, the United States has the highest murder rate of any first world country (higher than many third world countries too), and the highest gun related deaths of any first world country (again, higher than many third world countries too). Check the charts. So when you combine these statistics: Gun related Deaths by Country (per 100,000 population) Japan 0.07 England 0.22 Ukraine 0.35 Spain 0.63 Germany 1.10 Israel 1.86 United States 9.00 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate With these: UNODC murder rates most recent year: Japan 0.3 Germany 0.8 China 1.0 United Kingdom 1.2 Greece 1.5 Iraq 2.0 Palestine 4.1 United States 4.2 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate You begin to see the issue. There is no reason for a first world country to have third world murder rates, and access to guns plays a gigantic role in that. Our homicide rate should not be more than Palestine and double what Iraq has... I'm not saying we should ban all guns, just saying that the United States is clearly doing a lot wrong with gun control, and the fact is, there are plenty of legal weapons to purchase a gun without any kind of background check, and that is wrong. The United States need some kind of real gun control, like every other first world country... I agree with a background check but that is it. It still is better to have guns than be ruled by an absolutely corrupt government that is not scared of the common population at all. It is this fear of the common people that can break a persons will to try to rule the country period. | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On December 15 2012 14:54 Zooper31 wrote: It'd be like trying to make the south give up slavery, oh wait... lol what sort of reasoning is this? So we need a massive Civil War to get guns out of peoples' hands huh? | ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
On December 15 2012 15:00 sCCrooked wrote: lol what sort of reasoning is this? So we need a massive Civil War to get guns out of peoples' hands huh? You need to shoot people into stopping people from shooting people! | ||
|
Esk23
United States447 Posts
On December 15 2012 14:56 BronzeKnee wrote: I'm almost crying I am laughing so hard. I checked your source and it says this: "The goal of Gun Facts is to provide a quick reference guide for civil libertarians on gun control issues." You don't think "Gun Facts" would be biased in anyway reporting the facts right? You don't think them reporting the facts is somehow a conflict of interest do you? The UN has no agenda and has interest in reporting the facts. Check it. http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf This reminds me of http://unskewedpolls.com/ the conservative poll site that said all the polls were Pro-Obama and thought Romney would win... look how that turned out. Get better sources... Is that really your best reponse? "You don't think "Gun Facts" would be biased in anyway reporting the facts right?" The purpose of the website is to destroy people like you, easily and efficiently in debates. Instead of people researching all this crap themselves which takes time, it's all there on the website. Looks legit to me. | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On December 15 2012 14:56 BronzeKnee wrote: I'm almost crying I am laughing so hard. I checked your source and it says this: "The goal of Gun Facts is to provide a quick reference guide for civil libertarians on gun control issues." You don't think "Gun Facts" would be biased in anyway reporting the facts right? You don't think them reporting the facts is somehow a conflict of interest do you? The UN has no agenda and has interest in reporting the facts. Check it. http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf This reminds me of http://unskewedpolls.com/ the conservative poll site that said all the polls were Pro-Obama and thought Romney would win... look how that turned out. Get better sources... You're really not doing anything for your own credibility by being so emotional. Your sources are no less biased and even worse, you're completely unaware of where your info comes from. Worse yet you think the UN is some savior organization and that they're all fact and no agenda. Understand the bias on your own sources and you'll be able to form an actual argument instead of all this silliness. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5218 Posts
On December 15 2012 15:00 delarien123 wrote: I agree with a background check but that is it. It still is better to have guns than be ruled by an absolutely corrupt government that is not scared of the common population at all. It is this fear of the common people that can break a persons will to try to rule the country period. I agree 100%. The 2nd Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that if everyone didn't have a musket over their mantle, they would have never been able to overthrow the English. And that is why guns are important. Again, I'm not asking for anything more than a background check, I don't think anything else would be right. But it solves a lot more than people think, and it isn't anything more than the mainstream "liberals" have been asking for since the 1990's... but there is a loophole now in the law where you can buy a gun at a gun show and there are no background checks required. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5218 Posts
On December 15 2012 15:03 sCCrooked wrote: Worse yet you think the UN is some savior organization and that they're all fact and no agenda. Understand the bias on your own sources and you'll be able to form an actual argument instead of all this silliness. And we're done. If you think the UN somehow gains something by altering data on homicide rates you're mistaken. And if you think a Civil Libertarian Gun Owner doesn't gain anything by altering data, you're also mistaken. Look up what a conflict of interests is. | ||
|
Straxis
85 Posts
But reallistically i dont think they will ever do something  | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On December 15 2012 15:08 BronzeKnee wrote: And we're done. If you think the UN somehow gains something by altering data on homicide rates you're mistaken. And if you think a Civil Libertarian Gun Owner doesn't gain anything by altering data, you're also mistaken. Look up what a conflict of interests is. Instead of attacking a broad source that cites sources, you should go after the individual sources cited in the article. What he linked was the equivalent of a wiki article in favor of 2nd amendment. Also, if you think that the UN doesnt have an agenda, you are insane. | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On December 15 2012 15:08 BronzeKnee wrote: And we're done. If you think the UN somehow gains something by altering data on homicide rates you're mistaken. And if you think a Civil Libertarian Gun Owner doesn't gain anything by altering data, you're also mistaken. Look up what a conflict of interests is. The only part I agree with is that "we're done". You know next to nothing about the UN or international policy or the dirty money that makes up the strings for their puppets in every situation. I can't discuss anything with someone who's so emotional and who spouts misinformation left and right while claiming their source is perfect, unbiased and always truthful. I might use sources with certain biases but at least I'm aware of them and take it into consideration when formulating my stance. I'd tell you some things to look up but based on what you've already stated, you don't know how to research very well at all. On December 15 2012 Scarecrow wrote: That Gunfacts website you linked is 100% biased and unreliable, I wouldn't even consider it as an academic source for an essay. If you think that qualifies as 'good research' then you're a lost cause. It's basically just a gun-lobby propaganda site calling itself 'facts' and cherry-picking arguments/'facts' that suit its agenda. To say Gunfacts is no more biased than the UN's statistics on gun-related deaths and homicides is just ridiculous. EDIT: Now browsing through gunfacts (p.14-15). Funny how they're happy to cite UN statistics as impartial but you aren't. So far it just seems like the writer cherry picks situations in different countries and picks myths that suit him. The simple 'Myth' 'Fact' labelling is hardly academic. Like one is Myth: "Gun bans elsewhere work" (far too broad) and is 'debunked' with one fact each about China and the Philippines that are isolated of relevant statistics like gun related deaths or gun ownership per capita in comparison to the US. Japan's gun laws are apparently ineffective because they commit suicide enough to raise their death rate to compensate for America's gun ownership o.O How about America just cuts down on the gun related deaths? The 'they're just as bad' argument is for children. The Australian myth is also pretty bullshit. "Myth: Gun Control in Australia is curbing crime." Noone's saying that and it's misleading to focus on crime rather than more relevant statistics. Gun control is not about curbing crime in general. It's simply about reducing deaths and limiting massacres. The bullet points in this section are uncited and contain dubious statistics (particularly the 19% gun homocide increase post-gun banning, probably just selecting dates/years that skew the trend) that are against the general downward trend of both gun-related deaths and homocides in Australia since gun laws were introduced. The fact sites you're linking are also unreliable since its manipulated data to show your side. Your "sleuthing" is nothing more than showing your side which is no different than what I did. You're also cherry-picking facts to support your side. Do not deny you are doing the same thing or you're just showing your own ignorance. I do not care if my source cites the UN as impartial since that is the "official" stance they carry and anything that wants to be distributed must follow certain guidelines if its representing an organization. I know different is true as does anyone else with half their wits. Citing your wiki source again as a "fact" that somehow "debunks" this is utter nonesense. You can't use what we've already established is not a good source to cite. Any intelligent person looks for sources other than wikipedia if that's all that shows up to support them along with government propaganda. If you think your government isn't owned by the World Bank/IMF/Federal Reserve, you're very ignorant of blatant facts, but that is a whole other story. I found your rebuttal on the 20% rate increase in AUS to be utterly ridiculous. Its plainly clear that there was an increase. Trying to tag it with "well it was only for a year and then it dropped" doesn't change the fact that it DID go up for a year and just because the gun-related violence declined 25% doesn't mean that the vast increase of OTHER assaults and weapon-related crime suddenly doesn't count. Your argument is just picking facts out much like this pro-gun stuff is. It makes your argument no more credible, but apparently you can't realize this simple elementary reasoning. | ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
On December 15 2012 14:31 delarien123 wrote: Banning and limiting guns is the last thing we want to do. Guns keep the government from becoming a dictatorship. If everyone has a gun in the United States do you really think the government would try and oppress us? It sucks that people get hurt more, but it is far better to live with the fear of dying by guns than to live my life being oppressed by the government. The very real threat that any government can become a dictatorship will always be there. Just because we live in the USA does not mean it is not a real threat. Are you for real? Those views stems from a time when USA was filled with immigrants, who wanted to remove themselves from their government, the British government. Do you really think you stand a chance against the government just because you have a gun? Welcome to the 21st century! Anyway, if random maniacs can get a hold of a gun regardless of the gun policies, wouldn't the same be true for normal citizens who just wants to defend themselves? Sweden have very strict gun policies, and still we are one of the most democratic countries in the world. Democracy and freedom has nothing to do with your ability to defend yourself, it's all about having a well-functioned legal system. Having a firearm for protection is a ridiculous idea. You don't carry it at school, in the mall or at work, so you're completely vulnerable everywhere other than at your own house. So, more strict gun policies would certainly have advantages when it comes to violence outside your own house, because it would be harder for killers to obtain weapons. At the same time there are no disadvantages, since potential victims doesn't carry weapons either way. And when it comes to shootings at home, unless you carry the gun with you, you will be vulnerable no matter what. Shootings at home is btw close to non-existent in Sweden, where it's very hard to get a hold of a gun. In fact, if you get shot in Sweden, statistically you're expected to be some kind of criminal yourself. The typical murder weapon here is knives and random hard objects found in the house, and it's much easier to protect yourself from those weapons. Also, since they are close range weapons, it's easier to secure DNA samples. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
On December 15 2012 15:15 TheRabidDeer wrote: Instead of attacking a broad source that cites sources, you should go after the individual sources cited in the article. What he linked was the equivalent of a wiki article in favor of 2nd amendment. Also, if you think that the UN doesnt have an agenda, you are insane. The thing is, cherry picking sources to back up either side of this argument is pretty trivial. I find that article dubious, and if a "pro gun control facts" version existed and was written with the same style, I'd find that dubious too. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On December 15 2012 15:00 delarien123 wrote: I agree with a background check but that is it. It still is better to have guns than be ruled by an absolutely corrupt government that is not scared of the common population at all. It is this fear of the common people that can break a persons will to try to rule the country period. Wake up, you think Australia or any other country with strict gun control is in danger of being taken over by a tyrannical dictator? If your main argument for widespread gun ownership is to help protect against your own government, you're a complete nutjob. The post you quoted sums it up nicely, Americans just have their heads in the sand. On December 15 2012 15:22 sCCrooked wrote: I'd tell you some things to look up but based on what you've already stated, you don't know how to research very well at all. That Gunfacts website you linked is 100% biased and unreliable, I wouldn't even consider it as an academic source for an essay. If you think that qualifies as 'good research' then you're a lost cause. It's basically just a gun-lobby propaganda site calling itself 'facts' and cherry-picking arguments/'facts' that suit its agenda. To say Gunfacts is no more biased than the UN's statistics on gun-related deaths and homicides is just ridiculous. EDIT: Now browsing through gunfacts (p.14-15). Funny how they're happy to cite UN statistics as impartial but you aren't. So far it just seems like the writer cherry picks situations in different countries and picks myths that suit him. The simple 'Myth' 'Fact' labelling is hardly academic. Like one is Myth: "Gun bans elsewhere work" (far too broad) and is 'debunked' with one fact each about China and the Philippines that are isolated of relevant statistics like gun related deaths or gun ownership per capita in comparison to the US. Japan's gun laws are apparently ineffective because they commit suicide enough to raise their death rate to compensate for America's gun ownership o.O How about America just cuts down on the gun related deaths? The 'they're just as bad' argument is for children. The Australian myth is also pretty bullshit. "Myth: Gun Control in Australia is curbing crime." Noone's saying that and it's misleading to focus on crime rather than more relevant statistics. Gun control is not about curbing crime in general. It's simply about reducing deaths and limiting massacres. The bullet points in this section are uncited and contain dubious statistics (particularly the 19% gun homocide increase post-gun banning, probably just selecting dates/years that skew the trend) that are against the general downward trend of both gun-related deaths and homocides in Australia since gun laws were introduced. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On December 15 2012 15:45 sylverfyre wrote: The thing is, cherry picking sources to back up either side of this argument is pretty trivial. I find that article dubious, and if a "pro gun control facts" version existed and was written with the same style, I'd find that dubious too. Fair enough, but if the sources cited are correct you cant say the source is necessarily a bad source. Biased? Sure, but possibly accurate. Find an article that has the opposite and make up your own mind on the facts of the two. | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
Still, I don't see how gun control will work in USA, because it is clearly as light that Americans LOVE guns. No Senator will want to risk his carrier to push something like that. Still even if there are steps toward gun control, there are countless amount of guns that already out there. Crazy bastards are everywhere in the world, but a crazy bastards with guns are much more deadly when he was with only melee weapons. | ||
| ||
WardiTV 2025
Playoffs
MaNa vs GeraldLIVE!
TBD vs uThermal
TBD vs Shameless
TBD vs MaxPax
ByuN vs TBD
Spirit vs ShoWTimE
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney League of Legends  34229Horang2 3623Bisu 1500Jaedong  1002Shuttle 939Mini 362EffOrt 330actioN 316Larva 308BeSt 286[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games B2W.Neo1238 Pyrionflax267 Fuzer  249RotterdaM133 XaKoH  97Sick88 Mew2King75 Livibee32 ZerO(Twitch)8 QueenE1 |
|
OSC
YoungYakov vs Mixu
ForJumy vs TBD
Percival vs TBD
Shameless vs TBD
The PondCast
WardiTV 2025
Cure vs Creator
TBD vs Solar
WardiTV 2025
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo League
Ladder Legends
BSL 21
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
