What about statistics for making an argument against an assault weapons ban?
In the context of refuting lies from gun-grabbers I might use statistics, but I would not use statistics to rationalize the 2A. I mean, if it could statistically be proven that gun bans reduce crime and murder are you going to give up your guns? I’m not. My God given and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms isn’t reliant on a societal statistic of the day.
Last edited by ChattanoogaPhil; 06-06-23 at 14:05.
The statistics are on our side for that one too. Did you see this thread that touched on that?
I asked Bard about crime and firearm ownership…
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/top...ink_source=app
I don't mind the anti's using valid statistics in their argument. I DO mind them from keeping me from doing the same to shred their biased and one-sided arguments. Put it all on the table, let the truth come out.
Seeing this locally. Our fair city is portrayed as The Wild, Wild West with running gun fights and blood in the streets. The problem with 'their' argument is this only holds true in about 15-square blocks. 98% of all shootings occur in that area. Outside of that area is VERY safe.
In no way do I make any money from anyone related to the firearms industry.
"I have never heard anyone say after a firefight that I wish that I had not taken so much ammo.", ME
"Texas can make it without the United States, but the United States can't make it without Texas !", General Sam Houston
Last edited by ChattanoogaPhil; 06-07-23 at 07:00.
As someone without a stats degree I wonder about this. There is a lot of math I am not smart enough to understand, but what I do manage to follow becomes useful and illuminating rather than confusing. Naively it appears to me that statistics is fundamentally about understanding and describing what you are sampling and the biases of the way in which that sample is taken. How does this high school perspective differ from statistics at an advanced level?
Bookmarks