TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.newsweek.com/nras-more-guns- ... ium=Social

When it starts out saying you can have a gun in Washington DC, you already know its biased.

Makes you wonder if anyone even reads Newsweek anymore, there are no comments at all on the hogwash. I just love it when they use "statistical models" to reach conclusions, and then decide things only if they get the same result more than once. They did, not include "murder" statistics, in their "study" which is the standard for all studies showing a reduction. If they input that data, their whole model falls apart, as being able to further an agenda. Murder rates, have been steadily decreasing, with each new state, that passes, any form of carry. But if you take that out of the equation, you can get the "study" to say what you want.

This is not worth the paper it's printed on.

What do you expect from Snoozeweak?

Pawpaw wrote:What do you expect from Snoozeweak?

US News and World Distort? Time (for the trash bin)?

I saw this posted elsewhere, and it was torn to shreds in the comments by people with knowledge of statistical analysis and the general methodology for this type of study. Long story short, they couldn't support their agenda with real world numbers, so they made stuff up and ran hypothetical models to support their point. It's garbage masquerading as science.

Didn't bother looking at the study, but based on the comments in the thread, its safe to say its a skewed or biased study being manipulated to show what the author believes or wants to prove.

More guns do have a correlation with less crime... but I'm not 100% sure it could be pointed to as direct causation. Crime being a very complex thing in of itself, I suspect the sort of rational in the areas with lawmakers who pass CC and OC type laws, also tend to promote the types of agendas and laws that lead to lower crime. More good guys with guns are part of the equation, but I don't think it's the only part.

My .02 cent for what they are worth

Thankfully, they are fighting an uphill battle:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/ ... eedom.html

The actual Pew article: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/ ... with-guns/

Superman wrote:Thankfully, they are fighting an uphill battle:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/ ... eedom.html

This paragraph from the article above was excellent.

Another point worth noting is that while most gun owners could never see themselves not owning a gun, they have no desire to force others to possess them. Conversely, many Americans who do not own firearms have an almost compulsive desire to disarm law-abiding gun owners even as proof mounts against the efficacy of confiscation and disarmament. When guns are regulated away from those who seek them lawfully, only the criminals are armed.

The point that strikes home is the difference between wanting to force others to be like you, and allowing others to choose on their own. For me, this crystallizes the progressive vs. the conservative philosophy.

Lynyrd wrote:

Superman wrote:Thankfully, they are fighting an uphill battle:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/ ... eedom.html

This paragraph from the article above was excellent.

Another point worth noting is that while most gun owners could never see themselves not owning a gun, they have no desire to force others to possess them. Conversely, many Americans who do not own firearms have an almost compulsive desire to disarm law-abiding gun owners even as proof mounts against the efficacy of confiscation and disarmament. When guns are regulated away from those who seek them lawfully, only the criminals are armed.

The point that strikes home is the difference between wanting to force others to be like you, and allowing others to choose on their own. For me, this crystallizes the progressive vs. the conservative philosophy.

Exactly. I own guns, if you choose not to own guns, fine, I don't care. I don't own monster trucks, but if you want to own one, or more, that's also fine with me, I will never try to take away your monster truck(s).

An anti-gun study/article coming out of the bastion of communism.

What a shocker....

Jusme wrote:I own guns, if you choose not to own guns, fine, I don't care.

However, you can forget the idea that I'll supply you with guns and ammo when the stuff hits the fan. I'll have my hands full without toting your dead weight.

From the article:

“There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime,” Donohue said.

I believe that's perfidiously untrue, but even if it were fact it would not be justification for gun control.

Crime and justice are sides of a single coin. Justice applied en masse is not justice, it is tyranny. Justice is a matter of individuals in individual circumstances measured against law.

Crime is also not a product of society, it's a product of individuals. An individual victim with a gun has a chance to exercise his natural rights of defense.

Crime committed en masse isn't the product of criminals. That's the work of tyrants.

An armed society is a polite society. A defenseless society is a tyrannized victim society. Which is preferable?

The potential and thankfully very minimal risk of death by gunfire is far outweighed by the certain risk of life without firearms. I'll take a life that might end in an unhappy millisecond over a lifetime trapped in a liberal government's crosshairs. I don't want to die once. I surely don't want to die a thousand deaths in somebody else's idea of a very comfortable cage.

Just my opinion of course, I think shared by a few old guys who met up in Philadelphia a long time ago and wrote some words on paper. There's a lot more to the thinking than just guns, of course, but so is there much more to an arch than a mere keystone.

What's it called when a debunking is debunked? A dedebunking? Or undebunking?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.thetruth ... crime/amp/

A rebuttal.

OlBill wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/www.thetruth ... crime/amp/

A rebuttal.

That was published in November, 2014. Does that make it a pre-buttal?