Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I was buying a gun today and the salesman was a former student of the middle school I used to teach in, as we were waiting for the government to approve me to buy a gun, even thought they already have, I asked him if I was right about my feeling that any student there could send a text and get a gun in 20 minutes and he confirmed that was the case. Gun control laws are all pretty much useless because of that.
What works really well is to target people who commit crimes with guns and take them off the streets and when they get out to pay them to become decent citizens. About 1 in 10,000 people is a habitual gun criminal and those guys are the ones committing 90+% of gun homicides. It makes no sense to make a law that the criminals will ignore and will just be a hassle for the 9,999 people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Huh, that's an interesting stat, where did you get it? Because, frankly, it smells like something you pulled out of a certain somewhere, if you'll pardon my saying so.
LOL, I'm not that creative. Use whatever sources you trust to look up "Richmond gun violence program"
So, you have no source. That's what I thought. Okay, thanks.
Oh, so you are just calling me a liar then, because you didn't want to investigate for yourself? It's pretty lame in the internet age, I gave you the search terms, was I supposed to go find a link for you? am I supposed to know what sources you will like and find credible?
here is a link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Well, right, see, here's the thing. I've not offered any argument, merely asked you to back up the "facts" you stated in reply to my comment. And no, I didn't call you a liar. I said your stats are fiction. I make shit up for a living, it's cool with me, but call it what it is.
people who make up fiction an purport it as fact are liars. Don't try to dance around it.
Uh, hey, you quoted a stat then said, don't believe me, look it up. That's when I called bullshit. So, if you don't want your "facts" questioned, when you write "news-ish" stories, use sources.
And if you're uncomfortable with that title, then share full details, or don't quote statistics.
And yes, when you quote statistics, the burden is on your to provide some sort of factual basis for them. You're writing a hell of a lot of "news-ish" articles here, hardly any of which are even moderately sourced, except from highly opinionated echo chamber blogs and sources. You don't really interest me all that much, because statism is on the way out, as it should be, but you're not exactly a reliable source of information.
I might have but you were a jerk about it with you little allusion to shit. So uncalled for. If you don't like them then stop clicking on them. Yeah my "highly opinionated echo chamber blogs and sources." like Newsweek, The Washington Post and ABC. Brilliant.
No, that's not how this works. When you come here, you take the praise, and the questioning. Don't tell me what to click on. Don't put up highly charged poltical rhetoric then not be prepared for a response. Where's your source on the stats? Which one did YOU get it from? Don't know? Don't quote it.