Why The American Revolution Is Not A Model For Gun Ownership

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So you won't tell me why the police aren't included in your gun ban?

And although I am a mod, I have given no indication of any intention to ban.  Where did you get that idea?

PMs from other people that had to deal with you.

I know who you're talking about.  His ability to PM you raises questions about whether or not he was banned.   It seems to me that people who are banned can't post and can't PM.  You've been lied to, it seems, but the lies conform to your preset ideology so you won't ever question them.  Blue Rools Red Drools!

And you still haven't told me why the police aren't included in your gun ban.

And no, APA, the police don't count as the "well regulated militia."

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Oh, but a bunch of yokels with guns threatening to overthrow the government DOES count as a well regulated militia... Gotcha.  :roll:

[barbarian]

Actually law enforcement does not count as well regulated militia any more than the "bunch of yokels." A well regulated militia would look more like the National Guard which could call on citizens to help with what ever that state would be facing. People like to forget that the National Guard is suppose to be a state's militia and not part of the federal government's military. Along with that each state is actually considered its own country that we unite under one federated system. It would then be safe to say that a state could overthrow the federal government at a claim of Independence from. Likely hood of this happening are very slim. Also my state has its own constitution along with its own legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Oh, but a bunch of yokels with guns threatening to overthrow the government DOES count as a well regulated militia... Gotcha.  :roll:

Yeah, that's exactly what I wrote, word for word, not even a misplaced comma.

[Savior2006]

Overall, Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate as other recognized sources.

Whatever mods are in charge their do a decent job nowadays of cleaning out the obvious crap. I remember once in high school, I looked up the Lakers on the site and it said the basketball team was founded by two homosexuals ready to have buttsex.

No joke. But I haven't seen anything like that recently and you are supposed to reference what you put there at the bottom.

[Plu]

You're also supposed to click the "recent history" button to see how long it's been since an article was changed, and from what. That'll usually be enough to figure out whether it's trustworthy or not.

[mykcob4]

Its uncentralized nature provokes people to ignorantly criticize its reliability whenever it is a source of facts that others dislike.

Don't you know, accuracy can only come from the top down?

Since Wikipedia can be corrupted by anyone and is a majority consensus based format the information is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. It's like playing the game "whispers" but with over a million people.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.

The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.

To add to the debate, Life's Little Mysteries carried out its own, albeit small, test of Wikipedia's accuracy by consulting experts from two very different walks of life: theoretical physics and pop music.

Life's Little Mysteries asked Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at Johns Hopkins University and one of the scientists credited with proposing the existence of dark energy , to rate Wikipedia's "dark energy" entry.

"It's remarkably accurate," Riess said. "Certainly better than 95 percent correct."

Overall, Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate as other recognized sources.

[Plu]

Its uncentralized nature provokes people to ignorantly criticize its reliability whenever it is a source of facts that others dislike.

Don't you know, accuracy can only come from the top down?

Since Wikipedia can be corrupted by anyone and is a majority consensus based format the information is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. It's like playing the game "whispers" but with over a million people.

Check the facts. Wikipedia is trustworthy. See above post. And stop being an idiot and refusing to check the facts for 5 seconds, please.

[Shiranu]

Just going to throw on my opinion on Wikipedia; it's legit, it is only "proven to be inaccurate" like radiocarbon dating has been "proven to be inaccurate".

[Jack89]

It's true that more gun laws don't solve the problem, but what is the answer?

I think we need to start with the right questions.  What are the reasons for increased homicide rates, where are they occurring and who are responsible?  As you say, more gun laws won't solve the problem.  Probably because guns aren't the problem.

More and more guns and weapons easier to get with no restrictions at all so more people need protections from people with guns? This is insane. Solitary

Do people need protection from people simply because they have guns?  People need to protect themselves from people who want to do them harm, with or without a gun.

[Plu]

People need to protect themselves from people who want to do them harm, with or without a gun.

Societies need to protect themselves from people who want to do them harm. If you're making this a personal responsibility of every person, you'll never get anywhere.

[mykcob4]

Its uncentralized nature provokes people to ignorantly criticize its reliability whenever it is a source of facts that others dislike.

Don't you know, accuracy can only come from the top down?

Since Wikipedia can be corrupted by anyone and is a majority consensus based format the information is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. It's like playing the game "whispers" but with over a million people.

Check the facts. Wikipedia is trustworthy. See above post. And stop being an idiot and refusing to check the facts for 5 seconds, please.

Thanks for the personal insult. It certainly describes your worthiness of being a moderator.
fact is that Wikipedia is inherently not trustworthy as a valid source any more than say the bible. A consensus of multiple posters is not a valid display of facts. hers what Harvard has to say about it.
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?ke ... page346376

What's Wrong with Wikipedia?
 


 
 



















< PREVIOUS   |   NEXT >

There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.

The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't mean that it's wrong to use basic reference materials when you're trying to familiarize yourself with a topic. In fact, the library is stocked with introductory materials, and the Harvard librarians can point you to specialized encyclopedias in different fields. These sources can be particularly useful when you need background information or context for a topic you're writing about.

[Plu]

You seem to be confusing whether Wikipedia can be quoted as a source and whether the information you read on Wikipedia is correct. The former, no (because the information can change between when you source it and when the verifier reads it). The latter, yes (because the information has been researched to be as trustworthy as what you find in an encyclopedia)

Thus, if you read something on wikipedia it's as correct as if you read something in an encyclopedia (and you need to apply the same level of fact verification as when you read it in an encyclopedia), you just can't use wikipedia as a professional source because its contents can change.

Also, fuck you. I'm the only person in the moderation team who'se trying to be impartial when it comes to dealing with you, but you're making it really difficult.

[mykcob4]

You seem to be confusing whether Wikipedia can be quoted as a source and whether the information you read on Wikipedia is correct. The former, no (because the information can change between when you source it and when the verifier reads it). The latter, yes (because the information has been researched to be as trustworthy as what you find in an encyclopedia)

Thus, if you read something on wikipedia it's as correct as if you read something in an encyclopedia (and you need to apply the same level of fact verification as when you read it in an encyclopedia), you just can't use wikipedia as a professional source because its contents can change.

Also, fuck you. I'm the only person in the moderation team who'se trying to be impartial when it comes to dealing with you, but you're making it really difficult.

If you have to research everything on Wiki to find out if it is true, then why bother? The mere fact that you have to do that tells you that it isn't trustworthy or else you could trust it in the first place. Also just checking the sources isn't any help. The sources for wiki are just as untrustworthy.
Oh and thank you again for the insult, it really must be hard to be civil and impartial when you're really not.