Guns in America

MadHatter wrote: As I said unless they link sources the data is bunk. You cant provide any nonbiased sources. You can only provide data not back by anything other then biased news paper bunk. Im sorry but your sources are of no use. My data is raw and untainted yours is not. That data is the most current out there. Your sources are meaningless until you can provide something that actually is collected by a nonbiased agency.

You think the FBI doesn't have bias? :whistle:

Anyway, listen, you need to read my sources and look at what data they're pulling from. Having an agenda is not an impeachable offense. If you refuse to accept the data that's being sourced, then you're not winning the argument, you're just refusing to look at evidence that contradicts your own.

Jamie Stick wrote: You think the FBI doesn't have bias? :whistle:
Anyway, listen, you need to read my sources and look at what data they're pulling from. Having an agenda is not an impeachable offense. If you refuse to accept the data that's being sourced, then you're winning the argument, you're just refusing to look at evidence that contradicts your own.

Your first post CLAIMS it used FBI data but guess what its not out so its bunk and useless. The second sites all antigun sources like mother jones. Sorry but nope not valid.

Finally the FBI sites how and where it gets its data and the terms it uses to define murder and what it excludes. Even if there is any ulterior motive the data is clean. Further if it DID have a bias it would be to ban civilian ownership of guns as it answers to an anti gun administration. Sorry but my sources are untainted yours are not. Its that simple. Either post something worth looking at or there is nothing to say. My sources are the most recent available and backed by actual research yours are tainted by antigun bias period.

we all understand that fbi and cdc statistics on violent crime and heart disease are more reliable sources than "usa today" or mother jones or whatever

it ok - everyone did their best and we dont all have to agree - no one here is going to change their mind or anyone elses

i think SF was right - the thread is surely as resolved as it i going to get

(im not saying dont post anymore; just that youll only be frustrated if you hope that anything you say at this point will make a difference in anyone elses thinking)

OB1Shinobi wrote: (im not saying dont post anymore; just that youll only be frustrated if you hope that anything you say at this point will make )

You're not saying it, but I am. I am gravely offended when a person wants to restrict my access to implements of self-defense, and goes beyond that by implying that I am errant or deviant for owning a gun while not being able to formulate an argument properly, or see the blatant subjectivity in their arguments' sources.

MadHatter was quoting the FBI and CDC, not the NRA. Are those sources biased? Maybe, but their bias would certainly be in favor of gun control.

I stayed out of this argument because I've had the gun control argument many times, in person and on countless corners of the internet. I state objective facts, the other side either agrees with me, or gets emotional and calls me racist or something. I'm just over it.

I can see that this argument's over.

MadHatter wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: You think the FBI doesn't have bias? :whistle:
Anyway, listen, you need to read my sources and look at what data they're pulling from. Having an agenda is not an impeachable offense. If you refuse to accept the data that's being sourced, then you're winning the argument, you're just refusing to look at evidence that contradicts your own.

Your first post CLAIMS it used FBI data but guess what its not out so its bunk and useless. The second sites all antigun sources like mother jones. Sorry but nope not valid.

That is an outright lie.

FBI homicide records, supplied by local police, are incomplete and do not include cases from states such as Florida, which the newspaper added to its study.

That is the only statement about the FBI in my first source.

Jamie Stick wrote: That is an outright lie.

FBI homicide records, supplied by local police, are incomplete and do not include cases from states such as Florida, which the newspaper added to its study.

That is the only statement about the FBI in my first source.

From your USA today source: A USA TODAY analysis of FBI records has identified 186 mass killings since 2006. That includes 146 mass shootings, which are defined by the FBI as incidents where four or more people are killed. Nearly half of those involved someone killing family members.

Sorry but they are either liars or claiming information contrary to the the FBIs own reporting.

Your other source is from activist today a slanted source who either links itself OR its ONLY other link is from a page called global research which when you go to that link uses mother jones and other BS opinion authors at its sources. Im sorry but your sources are NOT credible. Its that simple. Anyone who is even one semester into college would know that these are not sources you can use to back anything. My sources are better period. Further I put forward FOUR YEARS worth of data for you. You think suddenly the number is going to shift enough to matter? I think not. Especially when every single year the FBI has reported a down tick in crime. You have nothing to back you but opinion pieces.

Heck ill even play your game even if homicide rates sky rocketed to FIVE TIMES the rates I have shown guess what that is still only 2.5 to 3 percent of all deaths. Even if we said they were up TEN fold its still again at the 5 to 6 percent mark. Still statistically tiny.

:whistle: Makes me wonder how many of you pro-gun men frequent /k/

i'm pro-gun/anti government....

the only way the people can ensure that the government does not overstep it's power and turn into a dictatorship is to be prepared for revolution if needed....

Jamie Stick wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Those are the most recent four years of data put out by the CDC and FBI. They have not put out 2014 and sure as heck not 2015 so im sorry but 2010-2013 is NOT out dated when its the most recent four years available. Im sorry but your news sources are bunk when they cant get the CDC data as its not out.

Of course news sources have an agenda, but an agenda alone is not an impeachable offense. Your data is out of date and my news sources are compiling and reporting the data as they interpret it yet the data still impeaches yours.

Ousan Ka wrote: What makes guns different?

Because guns have little to no utility outside of killing.

Sure they do, many millions of people enjoy using them for sport and hunting. They also are great tool for pest control around farms and defending livestock from predators. Oh, and those sports cars...we don't need those either right? They don't have much utility outside of driving too fast and people might die.

Do you not see how telling someone that if there is not a use for it, you don't need and therefore we should take it away is fascist?

Also, you trust the government enough to decide who should or shouldn't have weapons, like only the government being armed?

Australia’s firearm act can be found at http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1996-74/current/pdf/1996-74.pdf.

Under our law you cannot own a firearm for self-defence. The laws are so incredibly stringent that blank firing devices, paintball, airsoft, cross bows, Tasers and even some parts are considered to be firearms. Illegal possession incurs mandatory jail time. Along with these laws we also have stringent control of other weapons such as nunchaku, knives and prohibition of non-lethal items such a capsicum spray and bullet proof vests. If you are under 18 you cannot even buy a kitchen knife (http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?document_id=26793, http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?document_id=37788).

You would think that with such stringent control of even non-lethal items and the complete removal of self-defence as a reason we would be a utopian society. Government statistics in my previous post show that simply isn’t the case.

If there is one thing Australia does prove it is that governments will just continue to prohibit beyond all reasonable limit and that anti-gun zealots will never be satisfied nor convinced otherwise. Sadly, while these two conditions exist real causes will not be considered so real solutions will not be implemented.