Ars technica published a post about a hot button issue entitled "Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense." After a couple of dozen comments came in, the fifth-to-the-last paragraph was edited to say:
Finally, on the third page of comments, someone mentioned bananas. Redditor metageeek took a screenshot of the comments. Things got even sillier after that, with some readers mentioning bananas used as weapons, and other commenters totally confused. How about you? Do you ever comment without reading an entire post? Link -via reddit
That's the bad news. In the limited scope of the review, the primary positive effect assigned to guns is deterrence, and, more specifically, deterrence against violence. Although, "Results suggest that self-defense gun use may be the best method for preventing property loss," this doesn't count from a public health perspective. And that's only the start of the problems; as the National Academies of Science noted in a report quoted by the author, "self-defense is an ambiguous term." As Hemenway himself puts it, "Unlike deaths or woundings, where the definitions are clear and one needs to only count the bodies, what constitutes a self-defense gun use and whether it was successful may depend on who is telling the story." If you have read this far, please mention Bananas in your comment below. We're pretty sure 90% of the respondants to this story won't even read it first.
Finally, on the third page of comments, someone mentioned bananas. Redditor metageeek took a screenshot of the comments. Things got even sillier after that, with some readers mentioning bananas used as weapons, and other commenters totally confused. How about you? Do you ever comment without reading an entire post? Link -via reddit
Check out comments on someplace like Yahoo! News.
I think Ars Technica's 90% figure maybe a little optimistic.
And yes, I read the full post before sticking my foot in my mouth.
I can't tell, I shot 'em all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w
But I usually read the full post, I'm really thirsty of information.
Way to completely miss the point.
before any body even mentions it......
which is, of course,
bananas
Are you kidding? He totally PROVED the point! Not on purpose, but still...
Bananas.
@Splint Chesthair You don't need an ammendment for that. It's really silly and make Americans look bad. Gun laws and regulation doesn't mean you're not allowed to own a gun. It means that that crazy fucker down on the corner who has long conversations with his dog isn't allowed to own one. (Conversation, as in, the dog participates). Did you know that there are just as many guns per capita in Norway? The rules here are very strict. You have to have a hunting licence/certificate and a relatively clean record if you want to buy a rifle or a shotgun. If you want to buy a hand gun, you'd have to be an active member of a pistol shooting club for a year or two (cant remember, but at least a year), and for all guns, you need to apply to the police. Automatic weapons are illegal to own. Still, there aren't many shootings, and violent crimes aren't that common. Except for stabbings these days, and that's a whole other matter.
By the way, Neatorama may be described as somewhat liberal. I can't tell if you were serious about the "socialist fascist" comment. It's a dichotomy. You can't be a socialist, craving a classless society run by the people and at the same time strive for a society run by one tyrant and his oportunistic henchmen.
I try to learn from my mistakes.