Printable View
No wonder they didn't last! GORILLAS can't read ( at least that I', aware of) and the lack of an opposing thumb will cause issues with stuff made for human hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it appears guerrilla warfare is alive and well in the mid east. ;)
Why do I defend the 2nd Amendment, why do I whole heartedly support every American's RKBA
Attachment 115537
None were armed. They were peaceful.Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
But it was an eyesore for the White House.
These guys were beyond poor and too proud to panhandle, they just wanted an early payout on the money they were promised to go fight in the First World War.
@Carl
Here is a link for you I have not checked the numbers against Law Enforcement numbers but then again you said those were not right either :rofl2:
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online
Yeah - I can't spell lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wullie
I wouldn't call what's going on in the mid east alive and well Wullie.
Remember too that in most cases of civil war today - everyone is playing by crazy rules. Rules that would never take place in America for years to come. Imposing no-fly zones, is a serious disadvantage.
[Cangooner enters stage left, with the sole intention of commenting on the UK Press]Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
Very sorry to say, but anyone who bases an argument (even a facetious one!) on *anything* printed in the Daily Mail is playing a mug's game! It is a completely and utterly unreliable rag. Although I see that today's edition has an enlightening feature on Cheryl Cole tweeting a photo of her new jumper. Huzzah!
So, yes, I have to admit I haven't followed any games of duelling stats that appears to have been going on here and so realize that I may have missed other dodgy sources. The Mail link just caught my eye.
Caveat Lector.
[Cangooner exits stage right, successfully nipping tabloid press rant in the bud.]
[QUOTE=Cangooner;1076394Very sorry to say, but anyone who bases an argument (even a facetious one!) on *anything* printed in the Daily Mail is playing a mug's game! It is a completely and utterly unreliable rag. So, yes, I have to admit I haven't followed any games of duelling stats that appears to have been going on here and so realize that I may have missed other dodgy sources. [/QUOTE]
AHHHH, so what yer saying is that some sources are not reliable :p
Muhahahahaha
See I could bounce 1000's of Pro gun sources, and all the numbers I ever wanted, but I tend to only quote Law Enforcement raw number data before anyone massages them.. I would rather make my own inferences from the raw data...
Do you *really* want to tempt an historian into a discussion of the variability in the reliability, accuracy, and utility of source material? Better get comfy, as we may be here some time...
;)
(Speaking in general historiographic terms, not specific to this particular topic, of which I freely admit I am uninformed)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cangooner
Just to make sure here, basically what you are saying is that no data is good data so why bother using any, because that is what I just read
Oh no - sorry. That wasn't what I meant at all. The thing with sources of information, whether they are statistical, narrative, or whatever, is that one has to consider each source carefully, considering things such as:Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
- who wrote it?
- who was the intended audience?
- what was the purpose of the source (i.e. why was it produced/written)?
- who funded or facilitated the production of the source?
- and many others, depending on the source, subject, etc
and so on. So the point I was trying (quite badly as it turned out!) to make was that these are questions that historians have to ask of *every* source of information they use as the basis for their research. This information will pretty never be unanimous and speak with a single voice. So if you are studying Subject X, and you have five sources that speak to a particular aspect of that subject, you'll probably notice that source A differs from source B which differs from source C and so on. Which one is 'right'? Which one is 'reliable'? You can't just pick the one you agree with and run. You have to analyze each source, evaluate its reliability, consider the biases and intent of each one, weight the value of each source accordingly, and from there move on to your actual historical analysis.
As a result, historians have a tendency sometimes to get a little obsessed with how we evaluate and use information. :)
So I am most definitely not saying that all sources of information are unreliable and therefore nothing can be learned about anything. What I am saying is that if one wants to come to an open-minded, unbiased (as much as that is possible) conclusion about a subject, one has to subject one's source material to serious scrutiny. I suspect that when it comes to such passionate issues as guns, many people - on both sides - may have a tendency to latch on to studies, stats, etc., that reflect their own point of view, their own biases, and which support their own position.
That, and the Daily Mail is a rag. :)
EDIT: all the above assumes you're not a post-modernist in which case it's all BS so why bother. :)
