Last edited by militaryspartan; 2014-05-16 at 12:36 AM.
Fact is, these studies are published in peer reviewed journals. That's part of what makes them scientific. You're completely free to analyze and dispute the findings, as is anyone. Go ahead and submit your published work, and allow the author the chance to rebut your findings. Or better yet, find someone else that's already done so, and published their work in a peer reviewed journal. Maybe even find a few studies that refute the findings.
Until then, I'll stick to the findings of the studies, and you can stick to your armchair analysis. I'm completely comfortable with that.
"(The Second Amendment) has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups I have ever seen in my lifetime."
-Former Chief Justice Warren Burger
The 'anti gun' argument broken down into 3 phases:Show proof.
1. Point out 'facts' and 'statistics' about how guns make society a dangerous place while arguing that no guns would make society a safe place.
2. Make up hyperbolic statements about how people who have guns are just fraidy cats.
3. Insist that you just want to make the world a better place and gun owners are misguided dolts who can't possibly be doing anything good or useful by being armed.
Originally Posted by Jevlin
- - - Updated - - -
whats bad, is any good points made by ruken...and theres been 1 or 2, are just completely negated by shit like that lol.