Why The American Revolution Is Not A Model For Gun Ownership

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Interestingly, Wikipedia's regular users seem to form an "immune system" that protects Wikipedia from disinformation.  Tests have been done wherein someone inserts some false information to see how long it stays up before it is removed.  It never stays up very long.

Here's a good example of the Wikipedia immune system in action.

[mykcob4]

Interestingly, Wikipedia's regular users seem to form an "immune system" that protects Wikipedia from disinformation.  Tests have been done wherein someone inserts some false information to see how long it stays up before it is removed.  It never stays up very long.

Here's a good example of the Wikipedia immune system in action.

That's why a guy posted on Wiki that he was a mayor of a Chinese city and it lasted for 4 years. hmmm...guess you're right.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

So we have more guns than people and dogs in this county because Wikipedia is usually righ, but not always?  There just has to be a connection.  :-k

[barbarian]

here is my take on wikipedia, if you, and that is you yourself are looking up quick information on something it may get you off into the right direction. That in itself isn't a bad thing it is just when you start to argue a point of something that you the person that is trying to make the point should go further in making sure that your information that you are providing is as accurate as possible. I have heard arguments over wikipedia in this sense.

1stBS) I gave you the information and posted the source (wikippedia link exists)

2ndBS) Then you have someone else saying that what you have posted from that site is skewed and you should have followed up with other sources.

1stBS) Well the sources are right at the bottom for you if you wanted to check them you are just to lazy.

2ndBS) No you are just to lazy to double check the source you provided by either their own sources or possibly 1 or 2 different sources altogether.

So, now you have 1stBS accusing another 2ndBS of being lazy about something that may be true but skewed information. Why is it 2ndBS's responsibilities to make sure that wikipedia's sources aren't slanted. It isn't generally because the issue comes up in a debate situation.

If you really want your point to stick go ahead and use wikipedia but it is not the 2BS's responsibility to debunk whether or not wikipedia is being skewed or slanted or even incomplete on a subject.

Personally, myself if someone uses wikipedia for a source I do not click on the link or continue to to go back in forth with someone that obviously only took the time to read a condensed overlook at whatever may be that they are trying to rely. That is just me. why? I just see wikipedia as a parrot in the room that doesn't have a comprehensive overview on the subject and if I was really that interested in a condensed version I could just read wikipedia myself without the assistance of anyone pointing me to that as some type of an information source.

Secondly, is that the past few times I did go to wikipedia I get some church style collection basket window that hangs down half my screen preaching to me why I should give them money. If the  site is that good then flat out charge people to use it like many other sites. I know that I paid for information in the past on physic sites so that I could get good comprehensive information, I also paid for comprehensive books on subjects, especially going to college years ago. I used to have a set of encyclopedias that I would get a book every year (had to pay for it) to keep updated on current information.

It is up to you if you want to use wikipedia as your source not mine I won't tell you not to but I do laugh to myself when people peddle that site like a "god' source of information though, just my opinion. Then again i never have had a facebook, tweeter, google+, or other social media account, nor do I use youtube or cell phones and I still use an antenna for my TV channels, and hunt for my food so what the hell do I know. :ANAL:

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Or..as in my case usually,  I get tired of arguing bullshit that's not worth the time nor effort to spend hours researching more bullshit to backup the bullshit and don't feel like wasting bullshit time to type bullshit.  #-o

[Jack89]

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.

Not what I meat.  I was stressing that we need to focus on the people causing harm, and not the weapons, if we want results.  Look at what else I posted.

But let's look at what you're saying now that we're here.

Societies need to protect themselves from people who want to do them harm.

Sounds nice, but what exactly are you talking about?  Encouraging an environment where people live peacefully and cooperatively, minimizing violence? Or are you going for a society with a strong government and police force who regulate and control the actions of the people?  Maybe some of both?  OK, great, but can you eliminate all acts of violence by doing so?  You can attempt to create an environment that minimizes violence, and you might do a pretty good job of it, but you can never eliminate it.

If you're making this a personal responsibility of every person, you'll never get anywhere.

If you're not ultimately responsible for your own safety, who is?  Forget guns for the moment and consider what you're saying.  You can't hold "society" or anyone else responsible for your personal safety, that falls on you.  Unless you have a 24 hour personal body guard, or a cop in your pocket, there is no one else you can hold responsible but yourself.  Your decisions and your actions have the greatest bearing on your personal safety.  Staying out of bad situations is most often accomplished by your decisions, but when that's not possible, you're the only one who can immediately react.  There is no society force shield that's going to protect you, you're the one who's going to have to run, hide, or fight back.  Who else can you hold responsible but yourself?

[Plu]

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.

There isn't a source in the world you should trust without attempting to verify its correctness.

[Johan]

You show me a person who argues that a point isn't valid simply because wikipedia was used as a source and I'll show you a person who doesn't have much of a counter argument.

[barbarian]

You show me a person who argues that a point isn't valid simply because wikipedia was used as a source and I'll show you a person who doesn't have much of a counter argument.

You are absolutely right about it, just because wikipedia was used as a source that there may be still be a valid point. I see it as a condensed source of information, if you like using it nothing wrong with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I see this entry as skewed and incomplete and not very comprehensive, much like the old encyclopedias I had sitting on the book shelf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

I can find more people in the area that I live in that would stand on the issue of this definition as flat out wrong. On this definition issue if you take not at the sources used it is quite comprehensive but only for the person that takes the time to check all the validity of them and that once again if the sources used was skewed or slanted.

the bible has all the answers you need... bible thumpers
wikipedia has all the answers you need... wikipedia thumpers

"wikipedia" is "god"  #-o


Either way going back to what APA said most good debates that end in wikipedia arguments are generally not worth going back and forth on any way. Much like gun control debates, which got derailed over wikipedia. :rollin:

[mykcob4]

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.

There isn't a source in the world you should trust without attempting to verify its correctness.

But there are valid trustworthy sources, that by the very virtue of publishing you can count on as being well researched and valid. Wiki isn't anywhere near that credible.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Either way going back to what APA said most good debates that end in wikipedia arguments are generally not worth going back and forth on any way. Much like gun control debates, which got derailed over wikipedia

It did a bit more than derail. It crashed off the bridge and got hauled to a scrap yard and recycled into Wikipedia brand soup cans...or something like that.   #-o

[darsenfeld]

Yes, because modern USA culture has the exact needs and values as in the 1780s.  yeah..so they need guns because there's no police, and you have to sometimes shoot slaves who run away, yeah they're your property, but in all property there's risk of loss.......  

Call this judgmental, but then the scope for gun ownership bar recreation or police/armed forces work is very limited in modern society.  People who own guns are largely insecure, or think a gun makes them a badman or something.  A person who isn't a police officer, armed forces personnel or a gang leader/member who owns a gun isn't balanced IMHO....

[Moralnihilist]

Yes, because modern USA culture has the exact needs and values as in the 1780s.  yeah..so they need guns because there's no police, and you have to sometimes shoot slaves who run away, yeah they're your property, but in all property there's risk of loss.......  

Call this judgmental, but then the scope for gun ownership bar recreation or police/armed forces work is very limited in modern society.  People who own guns are largely insecure, or think a gun makes them a badman or something.  A person who isn't a police officer, armed forces personnel or a gang leader/member who owns a gun isn't balanced IMHO....

So a law abiding hunter unbalanced to you?
And a gang leader/member is balanced?


Do you actually think before typing this level of stupid?

[darsenfeld]

yes.  Gang leaders/members are such based on their environment and lifestyle. as they live in a crime-oriented/violent scope, they NEED guns to live.  Rationality is subjective.  I personally deem hunting immoral, but I don't care about the hunter.  I also don't think people need guns.

[Moralnihilist]

yes.  Gang leaders/members are such based on their environment and lifestyle. as they live in a crime-oriented/violent scope, they NEED guns to live.  Rationality is subjective.  I personally deem hunting immoral, but I don't care about the hunter.  I also don't think people need guns.

A gang leader/member, who will use their gun to rape, kill, rob, and or maim(usually all of the above) is a stable person? On what fucking planet does that make any fucking sense? Do you not see the sheer amount of stupid that you are posting? And since you just LOVE to post stupid without bothering to look anything up, a neat little bit of info for you. Gangs existed prior to guns, they conducted their business without guns for the most part until the late 60's. GANGS DONT NEED GUNS, IT JUST MAKES KILLING EASIER.

Hunters, for the most part need guns. There are very few people that can pull a bow with a heavy enough draw to down a deer or other large game. And another neat little bit of info for you, there are less murders committed by people who hunt vs the gang members you claim to be balanced.

Honest question for you. Did you by chance take the short bus to school?