- Messages
- 14
- Reactions
- 14
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One interesting flaw in such stats is actually pointed out in the article itself - we don't know if some liberal family bought their first gun, or some paranoid long time gun enthusiast is buying their 20th (before Obama bans them).
And how would that change the points in the article?
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk 2
Point being we actually don't know if number of gun owners is increasing, decreasing or staying constant. For example, if in fact the number of gun owners is decreasing, some may say that's what decrease in gun injuries and death is tied to.
Placing doubt in statistics that don't appease your own wishful beliefs, only shows the doubt you have in your own argument.
I don't doubt that firearms sales increased. I don't doubt that gun deaths/injuries decreased. What I said was that based on those two alone no pro-gun argument can be made.
But the gun hating liberals say more guns more violence period! So that means the data is valid against such nonsense.
Explain please.
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk 2
I don't doubt that firearms sales increased. I don't doubt that gun deaths/injuries decreased. What I said was that based on those two alone no pro-gun argument can be made.
So you admit it wasn't the fork that made your mama eat the fat cake, but her own will power & choices (which so called crazy people blame on 'voices'). Thank you. No i don't buy any person's argument when they claim they are 'crazy' & their brain made them do it like its some seperate tool from the rest of their body & their whole, including whatever you want to call a soul. It all needs to pay. A person's excuse trying to blame their brain as being crazy is much like you trying to blame another tool you so commonly blame, a gun. Or type of gun.
Eh ?
I think both sides of this argument of why the guy in CT, dd what he did, are taking the wrong path. Purposely, because they DO NOT know the answer. They both want to blame some codified simple tool for the reason behind this @$$hole doing what he did. One side is blaming the Gun, the other is blaming the Brain. It's neither. Obviously.
I don't doubt that firearms sales increased. I don't doubt that gun deaths/injuries decreased. What I said was that based on those two alone no pro-gun argument can be made.
So if the data showed an increase in crime / violence would you say that data supported the anti-gun argument?
I think both sides of this argument of why the guy in CT, did what he did, are taking the wrong path. Purposely, because they DO NOT know the answer. They both want to blame some codified simple tool for the reason behind this @$$hole doing what he did. One side is blaming the Gun, the other is blaming the Brain. It's neither. Obviously.
It would still be the same conclusion, that there is not enough information to link the two.
Part of successful reasoning lies in proper understanding of the opposing argument. I am not sure where you heard that stuff about blame being put on the gun. Most anti-gun theories related to this (and similar) incident are that the gun facilitated his actions, and should he had a harder time to obtain one, it may never had happen, or at least without so many casualties.