Cool, more fallacies. You argued nothing in the video, and attacked me.

Please, tell me how and what in that video was wrong, I'd be more than happy to hear it.

Why?

You are the one presenting fallacies, linking to a media piece doesn't show how bad morgan is it shows how bad the media can be.
Jones did a better job of demolishing Morgans credibility, but that job also includes Murdochs empire on a far greater scale.

Check the statistics and more importantly check their nature in relation to each other.
Even the main source cited on Fox puts a bloody big disclaimer on it.

They cited a British source. Is it accurate or not?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2HQDkC3re

No, make that two.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...orld-list#data

You dismiss Ben Swann and Fox News out of hand, using the usual demeaning joke name, but it would seem he has his facts straight on this.

Incorrect:
http://www.aquaexplorers.com/fossil%...ekin%20(7).jpg:know:

Daily Mail:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::hah a:
hmmmm...2009?
Even better they go back to 1997 as a measure even though that country completely changed their methods in a manner which means Britians figures cannot be compared with Britains figures.

Where is Britain on that table and why is data it from 2005?
Fox claimed 2011 and morgan claimed last year...does that make it irrelevant to the claims?

No I dismiss them after listening to what they are saying.
They are talking crap just like Morgan was talking crap.
Therefore they do not show how morgan was misinforming they are just misinforming.

Despite the obvious problems with different years different methodology and different categorisation which puts them all back to the academic level of back of the envolope calculations there are some glaringly obvious reasons why the misrepresentation is an epic fail.
Two further examples
Yemen:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:eve n a person bathed in ignorance should be able to see why you cannot use statistics from that country.
3 Carribean nations? don't they manage to destroy the whole supposed basis of the 2nd amendment?:hmmm:


Seriously Steve, you think would I dismiss Fox out of hand just because it is Murdoch any more than I would dismiss Morgan simply because he is a prat.
Hey I even read your Daily Fail before dismissing it just to double check that it was talking rubbish as usual.

Hey Steve, as a bonus question how does the politicians made up figures from the second article link directly back to Ben Swanns boss?

Yeah, and HITLER! :haha:

Alex Jones, doing more to hurt the pro gun cause than 50 Sandy Hooks.

To be fair, here's some crazy from the anti-gun side

Thanks, that leads to another line of bull Jones trotted out.

Poor old uncle adolf abolished the very tight gun controls that existed during the Weimar republic.
Hitler wasn't someone that took away peoples guns, he took away the governments restrictions on firearms.
Hitler was a gun nut:rotfl2:

Taking guns from the mentally unstable, stopping gun sales that do not do background checks for criminals and issueing licenses that have to be renewed so ongoing things which people agree should curtail your rights to a gun like felony convictions and mental problem can be checked.
Sorry I don't see the equation with the new world order global conspiracy nut who thinks the chinese civil war was won because only one side had guns

Wow I just saw the AJ rant on Peirs Morgan, painful to watch (probably because I can't stand either of them) :D
My opinion, Im in two minds about gun ownership, it has both advantages and disadvantages. But I reckon that in the current climate Americans should probably hang on their guns, since by handing them in now you'd putting complete faith in the frederal goverment, to: a) protect you, b) not screw you over.
I wouldnt bet on either.

My brain hurts after watching the Morgan-Jones "debate". :dead: When you run out of arguments, mock the accent of the other. :nope:
Considering Jones' loudmouth monologue, I will never complain again about the discussion culture in GT.

I wouldn't use the word 'he' for Fox News.
Just one example: check out how they lower the American numbers by using the criteria of justifiable homicides, but when they cite the British numers: nothing like that. It is a good example how they manipulate statistics, very obvious. Any first-grader would be thrown out of class for doing so. One law for the things they endorse, another law for the others.

Well, this one of the two points that Jones' got semi-right, besides the point that there have been more towers in New York. The 3rd Reich did indeed had less strict gun laws than Weimar had. However you also have to take into consideration who was eligible to execute the right of gun ownership. Only people who were not in opposition to the party line or otherwise seen as Untermenschen. People who were not worthy in the eyes of the Nazis had no chance to obtain a firearm legally. A major part of the political opposition were disarmed and/or arrested after the Nazis took power. Many members of the KPD, parts of the SPD and others had (illegal obtained) firearms when Hitler took power.
Btw, this is also an example that an armed population alone is no guarantee to stop tyranny. In 1933 there would have been good chances that an armed resurrection would have been succesfull, one year later not so much.

Here is a pretty good summary in English about gun politics in 1930s Germany: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf The article is certainly biased when you check out Halbrook's background, but the sources he quotes are legitimate. Just check out the facts that are documented, in other points he just makes up things to fit his agenda. Like I said before: there was no real lack of weapons among the Communists (and among the Nazis too) in the Weimar Republic, contrary to what he claims on page 487.

Can you show that the numbers are wrong?

Can you show that the numbers are wrong?

Can you show that the numbers are wrong?

You make sweeping dismissals, but can you show that the numbers are wrong?

But can you show that the numbers are wrong?

You call it rubbish, but you don't even try to show that the numbers are wrong. In fact, all you do is make high-handed, arrogant, dismissive talk.

Please show where the numbers are wrong.

How does anything you say link to anything of any relevance? Please show where the numbers are wrong.

I completely agree. Jones is a blight on pretty much everything.

So you believe that justifiable homicides should be counted as handgun murders? That, I think, is more bizarre than what you're condemning. How many violent crimes in Britain are justifiable homicides? How many shootings? How many muggings?

Follow the words, it is easy.

Mixed years cannot match for a measure, different methodologies cannot match for a measure, Yemen cannot be included at all in figures due to the nature of the state for the past 20+years, attempting to do so is making a misrepresentation.
Though the most blatent example of misrepresentation occurs right at the start with the different British figures where they make a misrepresentation to show that CNN made a misrepresentation with their British figures.


Look at the source of the numbers the Daily Mail is using.
Is it another case of you not reading what your links actually say?
It really is a classic Daily Mail, they build up the story, then tucked away is the detail that says it isn't really a real story

You really are having difficulty Steve, you follow with a good example of the difficulty you are having.....
What he said was very simple, I cannot believe you are able to so badly comprehend such a simple statement.
The statement only covers the massaging of figures to make a misrepresntation which was present in the piece. For balance the same occured in the CNN piece where nutcase removed one section of figures he wanted to compare while not removing the corresponding section from the other figures.