Editorial in my local paper

[Boghog1]

Most multiple-victim shootings occur in gun-free zones - Cabinet.com

Thought I would share, I apologize to those I misled this weekend in thinking he was a staff writer, the article was larger than most editorials and not on the editorial page. enjoy!

 

[NickW85]

Would you look at that! +1

 

[JakeF]

Nice piece! Forwarded it to some friends.

 

[ScottS]

Great editorial, and I'm stunned they published it in Das Kabinet.

 

[NHCraigT]

Thanks for posting!

MOST EXCELLENT READ

 

[[cerberus]]

It was a very good article, more people need to actually read it though.

 

[Realtor MA]

thanks for the post. I just posted the following on Facebook.

For those of you who wonder why I am so vocal about our rights under the 2nd amendment here's an excerpt from the attached article. "In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated." There is list in the article of similar incidents. If you read about the Armenian Genocide on Wikipedia you will also find the following "In addition to other legal limitations, Christians were not considered equals to Muslims: testimony against Muslims by Christians and Jews was inadmissible in courts of law; they were forbidden to carry weapons or ride atop horses;"
For those of you who wonder if I am afraid of tyranny or genocide in the United States of America. No. I am not. Because we have the 2nd Amendment.

Most multiple-victim shootings occur in gun-free zones - Cabinet.com

 

[Boghog1]

Great editorial, and I'm stunned they published it in Das Kabinet.

Tell me about it, that was my big surprise

 

[snitm]

Unfortunately it is 100% plagiarized from Ann Coulter: ANN COULTER: We know how to stop school shootings | The Daily Caller

I shared the cabinet.com post with an anti-gun co-worker "friend" (who is very gifted at logic arguments and has a trained eye for fact-based data) and he flipped the F*** out at me for the data points being recycled from here: A Little Gun History Lesson and then he did further searching and found the entire first portion of the cabinet "editorial" was plagiarized. He went over the top in attacking me (the points raised and data collected still speaks to my broader belief that concealed carry is a check on the bad people who see fit to commit mass murder).

So I truly feel like I lost a supposed "friend" over this. But that's fine. Just figured I'd share the pitfalls of encouraging others to read this cabinet.com post; best to point to Ann Coulter's editorial

 

[ScottS]

Unfortunately it is 100% plagiarized from Ann Coulter: ANN COULTER: We know how to stop school shootings | The Daily Caller

I shared the cabinet.com post with an anti-gun co-worker "friend" (who is very gifted at logic arguments and has a trained eye for fact-based data) and he flipped the F*** out at me for the data points being recycled from here: A Little Gun History Lesson and then he did further searching and found the entire first portion of the cabinet "editorial" was plagiarized. He went over the top in attacking me (the points raised and data collected still speaks to my broader belief that concealed carry is a check on the bad people who see fit to commit mass murder).

So I truly feel like I lost a supposed "friend" over this. But that's fine. Just figured I'd share the pitfalls of encouraging others to read this cabinet.com post; best to point to Ann Coulter's editorial

These two statement directly contradict each other.

 

[rwl1955]

Unfortunately it is 100% plagiarized from Ann Coulter: ANN COULTER: We know how to stop school shootings | The Daily Caller

I shared the cabinet.com post with an anti-gun co-worker "friend" (who is very gifted at logic arguments and has a trained eye for fact-based data) and he flipped the F*** out at me for the data points being recycled from here: A Little Gun History Lesson and then he did further searching and found the entire first portion of the cabinet "editorial" was plagiarized. He went over the top in attacking me (the points raised and data collected still speaks to my broader belief that concealed carry is a check on the bad people who see fit to commit mass murder).

So I truly feel like I lost a supposed "friend" over this. But that's fine. Just figured I'd share the pitfalls of encouraging others to read this cabinet.com post; best to point to Ann Coulter's editorial

*******
Who cares? He made his point with facts that the anti's will dispute anyway.

 

[Boghog1]

Unfortunately it is 100% plagiarized from Ann Coulter: ANN COULTER: We know how to stop school shootings | The Daily Caller

I shared the cabinet.com post with an anti-gun co-worker "friend" (who is very gifted at logic arguments and has a trained eye for fact-based data) and he flipped the F*** out at me for the data points being recycled from here: A Little Gun History Lesson and then he did further searching and found the entire first portion of the cabinet "editorial" was plagiarized. He went over the top in attacking me (the points raised and data collected still speaks to my broader belief that concealed carry is a check on the bad people who see fit to commit mass murder).

So I truly feel like I lost a supposed "friend" over this. But that's fine. Just figured I'd share the pitfalls of encouraging others to read this cabinet.com post; best to point to Ann Coulter's editorial

So did he dispute the facts or was he more pissed that someone plagiarized coulter?

And sounds like he is using rule 5

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

I say through it right back in his face.

 

[NHCraigT]

Unfortunately it is 100% plagiarized from Ann Coulter: ANN COULTER: We know how to stop school shootings | The Daily Caller

I shared the cabinet.com post with an anti-gun co-worker "friend" (who is very gifted at logic arguments and has a trained eye for fact-based data) and he flipped the F*** out at me for the data points being recycled from here: A Little Gun History Lesson and then he did further searching and found the entire first portion of the cabinet "editorial" was plagiarized. He went over the top in attacking me (the points raised and data collected still speaks to my broader belief that concealed carry is a check on the bad people who see fit to commit mass murder).

So I truly feel like I lost a supposed "friend" over this. But that's fine. Just figured I'd share the pitfalls of encouraging others to read this cabinet.com post; best to point to Ann Coulter's editorial

Oh well...... Don't know why you'd miss him (I would never call a person like that a friend) .....

 

[snitm]

So did he dispute the facts or was he more pissed that someone plagiarized coulter?

And sounds like he is using rule 5

I say through it right back in his face.

He was more pissed that I was asking him to read something I held to be interesting when its just slapped together points he has seen before. Very odd logic to defeat the content (regardless of whether it was copied or not), so yeah I agree it was weird. He backed off and apologized but he still holds the editorial to be regurgitated screed with no original thought that is "full of logical fallacies", e.g.: "most multiple shootings occur in gun free zones!"

He went on to say: "the whole gun free zone is just a talking point. if someone has done legit research on this and actually found causation, I'd be interested in looking at it." So basically he is in denial about the inherent danger of a "gun free zone" unless some academic or govt. research can be presented to him on a silver platter.

Anyway, no need to labor over my idiotic debate with an anti. I ultimately just wanted to let you guys know that 1) the editorial was plagiarized 2) don't let someone else dodge the content by enabling them to dismiss it as regurgitated plagiarism -- just reference the original source. Or don't.. just figured I'd give a word to the wise based on my experience.

 

[NHCraigT]

He was more pissed that I was asking him to read something I held to be interesting when its just slapped together points he has seen before. Very odd logic to defeat the content (regardless of whether it was copied or not), so yeah I agree it was weird. He backed off and apologized but he still holds the editorial to be regurgitated screed with no original thought that is "full of logical fallacies", e.g.: "most multiple shootings occur in gun free zones!"

He went on to say: "the whole gun free zone is just a talking point. if someone has done legit research on this and actually found causation, I'd be interested in looking at it." So basically he is in denial about the inherent danger of a "gun free zone" unless some academic or govt. research can be presented to him on a silver platter.

Anyway, no need to labor over my idiotic debate with an anti. I ultimately just wanted to let you guys know that 1) the editorial was plagiarized 2) don't let someone else dodge the content by enabling them to dismiss it as regurgitated plagiarism -- just reference the original source. Or don't.. just figured I'd give a word to the wise based on my experience.

Realize that anti's function primarily on emotions. Their favorite tactic, in response to actual statistics and data, is to turn the focus onto something irrelavent (sp), and not part of the actual point being made.

 

[Boghog1]

He went on to say: "the whole gun free zone is just a talking point. if someone has done legit research on this and actually found causation, I'd be interested in looking at it." So basically he is in denial about the inherent danger of a "gun free zone" unless some academic or govt. research can be presented to him on a silver platter.

So he is willing to support a ban on firearms that shows no causation with firearms, but dismisses the fact that mass shooting happened in traditionally gun free zones as coincidence. This is a reason I gave up arguing with morons, call them a moron and walk away

 

[BD481]

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637

the cited study can be downloaded here