10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gary_Sheldrake said:
I am always curious about people who claim the constitutional right to own a gun while wanting to take away constitutional rights to an abortion. On January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote the Supreme Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. The point is that the Constitution can be amended. If you don’t think it can be, then everyone should stop talking about ending abortion while carrying firearms and at the same citing the Constitution. It’s a dead argument, especially when the Supreme Court has also ruled that its powers extend to the ability to place limits on firearms that are not used for militias or military purposes.

From who? We have a military that is there to defend our liberties and freedoms, as well as local and state police. All of these are going to get together and turn on you? Federal, State and local governments have never coordinated that well. If they ever do, your gun isn’t going to be much help. However, we have elections and governmental checks and balances as well.

Guns only have one purpose, which is to kill. That’s what they were invented for. cars, knives, hammers, drugs and the host of other items have practical and useful purposes that are not primarily for killing.
Click to expand...
Gary I’ll try to right more later but I’m typing this on a kindle and takes too long. I own a gun use it a lot have never killed any thing or any one. I put holes in a lot of targets though.

Annie
 
phil_at_dayboro said:
Are you that insecure that you need a gun to walk around in case you need to defend yourself ?

Or is your lifestyle or neighbourhood that dangerous that you need a cannon for defence?

I need no weapon of any form where I am, best you stay where you are,

We don’t need insecure paranoid types around here,👍
Click to expand...
Why do you equate the right to defend oneself with insecurity and paranoia? I’m not insecure and paranoid but I’m also not naive.

I live in a low crime area, that area also allows people to carry guns for self-defense. Is there any wonder why there isn’t much violent crime where I live?

That’s fine that you feel you do not need a weapon to defend yourself but I bet you will be singing a different tune if you are ever in a situation where you need one. I hope that doesn’t happen.
 
freeRadical said:
Why do you equate the right to defend oneself with insecurity and paranoia? I’m not insecure and paranoid but I’m also not naive.

**I live in a low crime area, that area also allows people to carry guns for self-defense. Is there any wonder why there isn’t much violent crime where I live?
**
That’s fine that you feel you do not need a weapon to defend yourself but I bet you will be singing a different tune if you are ever in a situation where you need one. I hope that doesn’t happen.
Click to expand...
But I thought you only trusted true experimental designs where you can test for causality.

LOVE! ❤️
 
Robert_Sock said:
You need to provide your source for claiming that surveys, which are based on correlations, are of no value because they are not causal. Again, for example, much of public policy is based on these types of correlations, and the results are well regarded. You also need to provide a source for saying that ‘probability’ has nothing to do with establishing causality. All non-descriptive statistics are based on probabilities.

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
I don’t need to claim anything, its basic statistical analysis. I never said that survey data is of no value because they are not casual. I simply said that you cannot infer a casual relationship from correlation. Something you are doing in the thread. Yes, public policy is based on correlation, and look at all the bad public policy we get as a result. Actually, public policy isn’t based on correlation, it is based on trying to infer relationships between variables based statistical analysis done on data. Probability does not have anything to do with casual relationships. An if-then relationship has nothing to do with probability. If A, then B is a 100% relationship. If A happens, then 100% of the time B happens. That has nothing to do with probability.

Here is what you are doing:

This data set shows there is a positive correlation between having guns in the home and homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. Thus, if we ban guns, there will be less homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. Do you not understand why this is wrong?

At the end of the day, you have such a bias against guns that why would anyone pay any attention to anything you have to say about guns? You are going to twist any data you can get a hold of to reflect your agenda to ban guns. You have to much bias to discuss this subject and any data or evidence you present should be held circumspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top