Anti gun articles- discuss

[J Carter]

So I just read these 2 articles today. The first link I feel totally missed why I personally own guns. The second feel could have a point if it wasn't so insulting to all of us. Please go ahead and browse them and let me know what you think.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ckpiling-guns/


http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-gun-nu...ts-themselves/

[red442joe]

I read all that I could of both of those.
In a word....wrong.
Do not read either, remember only that they are wrong.

Very simply...if you want to have a gun, then, fine.
Those that don't want to have a gun, then, fine.
Those that don't want to have a gun, and don't want you to have a gun..WRONG.

Joe

[shadowthrone]

Both are BS, but for different reasons.

I saw the first one on Reddit and rated highly - already tells me it's anti-gun. It's a well written article, but deceptive.

Counting gun collectors in with the average Joes is how you make up scary statistics, and 95.7% of all statistics is manipulating facts until they give you the result you want. Trust me, I just quoted a statistic!
A gun collector may have 100+ guns, with some being passed down in the family for generations. That's a different category of gun owners, why would you lump them in with a person who owns 1-2, or even 1-10 guns? Besides making up statistics, that is?

One interesting this article presents is this: irresponsible people own guns, don't secure them, don't take any training, bad things happen.
All I can say here is DUH!? We need gun education in 12th grade and college, when people become legally allowed to own guns. A 12 hour course with an additional hour of range time can cover operational basics, some legal aspects and would go a long way to reduce or eliminate the ignorance and arrogance around gun ownership.

There is another half a good point in this article, but it is kind of hidden behind tasteless rhetoric: "We don't have a gun problem, we have a sociological/psychological problem - but we don't quite know how to solve that and it will not get us re-elected, so let's ban guns!"


Second one is just garbage - it's from Cracked, that's to be expected. That's like taking a The Onion article seriously.

Though the advice to just not read them is also solid, neither one is a good read.

[castrotikon]

So I just read these 2 articles today. The first link I feel totally missed why I personally own guns. The second feel could have a point if it wasn't so insulting to all of us. Please go ahead and browse them and let me know what you think.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ckpiling-guns/


http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-gun-nu...ts-themselves/

To be fair, cracked isn’t really the sort of scientific reading that you have in scientific American. Its not quite the satire that the Onion is but very few of the articles are actually meant to be taken seriously.

[DrScaryGuy]

wait, is that a white man playing the race card, saying that white men are stockpiling, without acknowledging the fact that minorities and women are driving the market?
Lost me at the title...

[10x25mm]

Both articles' reasonings process 'statistics' which are actually polling results. Both articles fail because their underlying 'statistics' are bogus.

Polling only produces statistical quality accuracy when the questions are anodyne, unfreighted with political or moral judgements. Pollsters can get honest answers when they ask how many computers someone owns. They do not get honest answers when they ask how many firearms a person owns, or whether they have ever used a firearm in self defense.

It is intensely satisfying to read Hillary supporters who treat polling data as metaphysical truth to shill gun control. They are not getting any smarter.

[Roundballer]

Both of those articles are straight out of the anti play book. The antis don't have any valid arguments, so they resort to "identify, vilify, marginalize" to make it seem like they are on the right side of the argument. It is equivalent to name-calling in the school yard to win a disagreement.

[10x25mm]

The Scientific American would be well served to do a better job vetting their authors. In December 2015, Jeremy Adam Smith wrote a piece in his Berserkly screed Greater Good Magazine about restraining our fears and not acting out on them after a bad experience with a criminal. Supposedly, someone nearly threw him on the tracks at a commuter train station in September 2015.

In December 2015 he tells us that we should manage our fears and not react to the life threatening acts of criminals. Now, in May 2018, we are supposed to immediately react and prohibit firearms.

This guy is someone's lying political tool.

[J Carter]

Both are BS, but for different reasons.

I saw the first one on Reddit and rated highly - already tells me it's anti-gun. It's a well written article, but deceptive.

Counting gun collectors in with the average Joes is how you make up scary statistics, and 95.7% of all statistics is manipulating facts until they give you the result you want. Trust me, I just quoted a statistic!
A gun collector may have 100+ guns, with some being passed down in the family for generations. That's a different category of gun owners, why would you lump them in with a person who owns 1-2, or even 1-10 guns? Besides making up statistics, that is?

One interesting this article presents is this: irresponsible people own guns, don't secure them, don't take any training, bad things happen.
All I can say here is DUH!? We need gun education in 12th grade and college, when people become legally allowed to own guns. A 12 hour course with an additional hour of range time can cover operational basics, some legal aspects and would go a long way to reduce or eliminate the ignorance and arrogance around gun ownership.

There is another half a good point in this article, but it is kind of hidden behind tasteless rhetoric: "We don't have a gun problem, we have a sociological/psychological problem - but we don't quite know how to solve that and it will not get us re-elected, so let's ban guns!"


Second one is just garbage - it's from Cracked, that's to be expected. That's like taking a The Onion article seriously.

Though the advice to just not read them is also solid, neither one is a good read.

I agree you can't take cracked very seriously, it's just fluff entertainment.

Thanks for the replies guys. I think it's important (if painful) to read things like these and understand what kind of rhetoric we're up against.

[Siamese]

I read as much as I could stomach. Which wasn't a lot.

It's sad to know that someone's brain works that way, compelling them to write these sort of articles. Sad, and rather hateful.