-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
thought i'd pass this on
- Thread starter viperar15
- Start date
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
Good article!
Good article!
sprinklerguy28
Regular Member
imported post
Sounds news worthy to me. Of course I also believe in the constitution and that the government should work for the people by the people but what do I know.
Sounds news worthy to me. Of course I also believe in the constitution and that the government should work for the people by the people but what do I know.
EM87
Regular Member
imported post
I wish more people thought like that.
I wish more people thought like that.
viperar15
Regular Member
imported post
the best part is a guy on our pro sound forums posted the link for us over there. it was great seeing this on a non-gun related forum :-D
the best part is a guy on our pro sound forums posted the link for us over there. it was great seeing this on a non-gun related forum :-D
scot623
Regular Member
imported post
"An important detail that is neglected in news coverage is that all the multiple-victim public shootings in America - crimes in which more than three people were killed - happened where legal concealed handguns are banned."
Great article over all but this quote seems highly inaccurate.
"An important detail that is neglected in news coverage is that all the multiple-victim public shootings in America - crimes in which more than three people were killed - happened where legal concealed handguns are banned."
Great article over all but this quote seems highly inaccurate.
DanM
Regular Member
imported post
scot623 wrote:
scot623 wrote:
Which part seems highly inaccurate?
scot623
Regular Member
imported post
Seriously? You think the statement that ALL mutliple victim shootings have only happened in gun free zones is accurate? Using blanket generalities is never a good way to advance an argument. Here's a link to one of I'm sure dozens of examples of gang related shootings in homes or the streets that have multiple victims. It took me 10 seconds to find this article. I'm sure we have a few home grown examples from Detroit or Flint knowing those war zones.
But like I said, overall a good pro-gun article. We need more of them.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/compton-shootin.html
Seriously? You think the statement that ALL mutliple victim shootings have only happened in gun free zones is accurate? Using blanket generalities is never a good way to advance an argument. Here's a link to one of I'm sure dozens of examples of gang related shootings in homes or the streets that have multiple victims. It took me 10 seconds to find this article. I'm sure we have a few home grown examples from Detroit or Flint knowing those war zones.
But like I said, overall a good pro-gun article. We need more of them.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/compton-shootin.html
DanM
Regular Member
imported post
scot623 wrote:
I didn't say anything about what I thought of the accuracy of the statement. But you did. You said *highly* inaccurate. Since it's a fact that a very high percentage of multiple victim shootings are in CEZs, *you* are wrong with saying "highly".
I would agree if you say the statement is "inaccurate to the extent that it is true 95% of the time, but not100% of the time". Or something like that. At worst, it is a "bit inaccurate". Not "highly inaccurate". Words mean stuff . . . particularly when using adjectives.
scot623 wrote:
I didn't say anything about what I thought of the accuracy of the statement. But you did. You said *highly* inaccurate. Since it's a fact that a very high percentage of multiple victim shootings are in CEZs, *you* are wrong with saying "highly".
I would agree if you say the statement is "inaccurate to the extent that it is true 95% of the time, but not100% of the time". Or something like that. At worst, it is a "bit inaccurate". Not "highly inaccurate". Words mean stuff . . . particularly when using adjectives.
scot623
Regular Member
imported post
And where are you getting your facts that "a high percentage" of multiple victim shootings happen in CEZ's? Maybe only the ones that make the national news. And you are right, words mean things... like the word ALL which implies 100%. We are on the same side here, I'm just trying to not give our enemies reasons to poke holes in our positive stories.
And where are you getting your facts that "a high percentage" of multiple victim shootings happen in CEZ's? Maybe only the ones that make the national news. And you are right, words mean things... like the word ALL which implies 100%. We are on the same side here, I'm just trying to not give our enemies reasons to poke holes in our positive stories.
DanM
Regular Member
imported post
scot623 wrote:
Ok, if you want to travel down this road:firstly, you said "highly inaccurate". Define "highly inaccurate". That's somewhere between 0% and 100% inaccurate, because "completely inaccurate" is 100% inaccuracyand "completely accurate" is 0% inaccuracy. Discuss your method and measurement.
As for mine, as you mention the "news" is the only source I have to what is going on around me outside of my own personal experience with my eyes and ears. Since I have yet to experience even one incident of multiple victim shooting, I can ONLY rely on "news". The "news" that I follow daily nationally and locally indicates that multiple victim shootings occurs in locations which have a legal or private ban on lawful carry in at least 9 out of 10 times, if not greater because I am conservatively estimating on behalf of your argument.
Please share your method and measurement for the claims you originally made, as I request above.
scot623 wrote:
Ok, if you want to travel down this road:firstly, you said "highly inaccurate". Define "highly inaccurate". That's somewhere between 0% and 100% inaccurate, because "completely inaccurate" is 100% inaccuracyand "completely accurate" is 0% inaccuracy. Discuss your method and measurement.
As for mine, as you mention the "news" is the only source I have to what is going on around me outside of my own personal experience with my eyes and ears. Since I have yet to experience even one incident of multiple victim shooting, I can ONLY rely on "news". The "news" that I follow daily nationally and locally indicates that multiple victim shootings occurs in locations which have a legal or private ban on lawful carry in at least 9 out of 10 times, if not greater because I am conservatively estimating on behalf of your argument.
Please share your method and measurement for the claims you originally made, as I request above.
scot623
Regular Member
imported post
I would define Highly as less than 50% accurate. A very simple non scientific search for news articles published on the internet produces volumes of multiple victim shootings that are mostly gang related not happening in CEZ's. Since our country's news media has grown bored of gang violence it is almost never reported on the nightly news anymore, its relagated to the backpage of your local rag. Conversley, people being gunned down at college, school, military bases or at post offices makes great leads for headline news. So in that you only get your facts from nightly newsI can see how your sampling can be improperly skewed.
I would define Highly as less than 50% accurate. A very simple non scientific search for news articles published on the internet produces volumes of multiple victim shootings that are mostly gang related not happening in CEZ's. Since our country's news media has grown bored of gang violence it is almost never reported on the nightly news anymore, its relagated to the backpage of your local rag. Conversley, people being gunned down at college, school, military bases or at post offices makes great leads for headline news. So in that you only get your facts from nightly newsI can see how your sampling can be improperly skewed.