Needs Debunking: More Guns = More Crime

deirdre

Senior Member.
re; el presidente:

Bush has said he would sign a law requiring trigger locks with handgun sales but wouldn’t push such legislation. Bush has endorsed outlawing the import of certain high-capacity ammunition clips. Bush also would raise the legal age for handgun purchases from 18 to 21. Source: Judy Holland, Hearst Newspapers , Apr 14, 2000

Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips
  • Supports stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, would provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement programs such as Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia
  • Supports requiring instant background checks at gun shows by allowing gun show promoters to access the instant check system on behalf of vendors
  • Supports law-abiding American’s constitutional right to own guns to protect their families and home
  • Supports the current ban on automatic weapons
  • Supports banning the importation of foreign made, “high-capacity” ammunition clips
  • Supports voluntary safety locks
  • Opposes government mandated registration of all guns owned by law abiding citizens
Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ , Apr 2, 2000
Content from External Source
just saying
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
This study might be a little old.

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

METHODS:
We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS:
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Content from External Source
If having guns = possibility for accidental shootings, then guns don't make people safer by definition.

How rare is "very rare"? In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings. More than 600 of these shootings proved fatal. Is that "very rare"?

The total number of Americans killed and wounded by gun accidents exceeds the total number killed or injured in fires.

The number killed in gun accidents is 20% higher than the total number killed in all U.S. civil aviation accidents.

In 2011, the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted to ban drop-side baby cribs because these cribs have been blamed for "dozens" of infant deaths over the entire previous decade. The 600+ accidental gun deaths in any single year amount to 50 dozen.

Back when the Centers for Disease Control were allowed to do gun research, they found that American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/why-does-the-gun-lobby-fear-science-and-safety.html
Content from External Source
However, there are no sources for the figures in this article.
 
Last edited:

Balance

Senior Member.
Sorry bit off-topic, I had to share this for those that haven't seen it (it appeals to my brit sense of humour)

Of course guns are unsafe for children to handle
Not just children.

There's an old wise saying "Pride before a fall" aka The Tao.
Just before this highly-trained adult boasts to a class of schoolchildren "I'm the only one in the room professional enough..." bang, shoot self in leg!
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Found some stats on accidents, arranged into handy little graphs.

* In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.[120]

[121]



* Fatal firearm accidents in 2007 by age groups:


Age Group Fatal Firearm Accidents
Raw number
Portion of fatal accidents
from all causes


<1 yrs 1 0.1%
1-4 yrs 18 1.1%
5-9 yrs 20 2.1%
10-14 yrs 26 2.1%
15-24 yrs 155 1.0%
25-34 yrs 94 0.6%
35-44 yrs 91 0.5%
45-54 yrs 82 0.4%
55-64 yrs 57 0.5%
65+ yrs 69 0.2%
[122]

└ Non-Fatal




* In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents,[123] constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.[124]



* These emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents resulted in 5,045 hospitalizations,[125] constituting 0.4% of 1.4 million non-fatal accident hospitalizations that year.[126]


http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents
Content from External Source
So, I dunno, don't look real safe ta me.
But I guess this is about crime, not safety? I had in my head that the claim was more guns = more safety, but noticed the title is more guns = more crime.
So I guess these figures are off-topic.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
The media has to apply for a broadcast license. Without a license it is illegal and you face potential VIOLENCE. That is asking permission and being subject to the rules of the state. So regardless of anything else there is at least some valid claim that media is government influenced heavily.

Although I dont even think this is the best argument against gun-control but that is a story for another thread, if any.

"Liberterian". Try not to argue with people of this forum dude. I know you are just trying to raise awareness about state violence but there are better arguments than this that cant be made on a debunking forum as there is nothing to debunk in that they are axioms.

I have my own moral questions about it myself but people here are here to debate hard science mostly like chemistry and maths, not generally political science and government violence. I had to learn that the hard way so just saying you time.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Seriously...you chose the day of the second tragic shooting in Foot Hood, Texas,
to try to persuade folks that lots of guns make us safer, and Texas is our model. Wow!
While the Fort Hood incident may be tragic it is irrelevant to the original post. The topic is not guns make us safer. It is about the relationship between the availability of guns to the general public and the crime rate. There are always going to be firearms available on military bases.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
While the Fort Hood incident may be tragic it is irrelevant to the original post. The topic is not guns make us safer. It is about the relationship between the availability of guns to the general public and the crime rate. There are always going to be firearms available on military bases.

Will there always be military bases? I hope not.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
Work through this link site if you wish http://www.gunpolicy.org/
Down under in OZ tighter controls = less guns less crime & less gun deaths its a nicer place to live.
I own reload and shoot often (target only) but I'm more the happier with OZ tight controls. Sure its not perfect but for me its the best balance of my rights vs responsibility.

To add i have no quarrel with those who think otherwise and often envy US laws of ownership but truly dont want or need CCW semi auto hicap mags at home.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Work through this link site if you wish http://www.gunpolicy.org/
Down under in OZ tighter controls = less guns less crime & less gun deaths its a nicer place to live.
I own reload and shoot often (target only) but I'm more the happier with OZ tight controls. Sure its not perfect but for me its the best balance of my rights vs responsibility.

To add i have no quarrel with those who think otherwise and often envy US laws of ownership but truly dont want or need CCW semi auto hicap mags at home.

What do you call high-capacity? How many rounds?

nicer place to live.
Do I need to provide evidence or is it obvious that is just anecdotal and some people would disagree?
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
An established military has been around in one form or another for as long as there have been civilizations. I wouldn't look for it to disappear anytime soon.

Sorry I was a bit harsh. Your main point was about the thread and how it has digressed. Although some people campaign to end military bases, as such, would be offended by that presumption.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
What do you call high-capacity? How many rounds?

I subscribe to Bill Ruger's views 10 rounds more than enuff and predominantly down here the gubberment say thats mag cap limit as well. You could get hicap mag 20 or 30 in few states but why bother as semi auto almost beyond legal ownership you need strong justifiable reasons.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
I subscribe to Bill Ruger's views 10 rounds more than enuff and predominantly down here the gubberment say thats mag cap limit as well. You could get hicap mag 20 or 30 in few states but why bother as semi auto almost beyond legal ownership you need strong justifiable reasons.

Ok I was just seeing if your view matched the governments and it does. Its not for me to argue an opinion.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Sorry I was a bit harsh. Your main point was about the thread and how it has digressed. Although some people campaign to end military bases, as such, would be offended by that presumption.
I pointed it out because people frequently try to swing this type of discussion from crime statistics to the more emotional and unrelated topic of safety. It makes sense that having fewer firearms in the environment would increase safety but the same argument could be made for automobiles, power tools, liquor stores and a number of other topics. I have never understood how a death from a firearm is somehow more tragic and worthy of discussion that a death in an auto accident.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
I pointed it out because people frequently try to swing this type of discussion from crime statistics to the more emotional and unrelated topic of safety. It makes sense that having fewer firearms in the environment would increase safety but the same argument could be made for automobiles, power tools, liquor stores and a number of other topics. I have never understood how a death from a firearm is somehow more tragic and worthy of discussion that a death in an auto accident.

I concur 100%. =)
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
OK :)

To get state sponsored media claiming that we are made more safe by gun control laws, I'll just start with the really easy one, CNN.

Just last week Piers Morgan signed off on his last show indicating that advocating gun control has been a ""consistent and often very controversial" part of "Piers Morgan Live." You can take it from Piers, he's not lying about beating that drum.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...off-cnn-show-with-final-plea-for-gun-control/

In his closing diatribe, Morgan pulled on our heartstrings with this quote:

“I assumed that after 70 people were shot in a movie theater and then, just a few months later, 20 first-graders were murdered with an assault rifle in an elementary school, the absurd gun laws in this country would change,” he said. “But nothing has happened. The gun lobby in America, led by the NRA, has bullied this nation’s politicians into cowardly, supine silence. Even when 20 young children are blown away in their classrooms. This is a shameful situation that has made me very angry.”

He then asked the public to do its part to spur change.

“It’s your country; these are your gun laws,” he said. “And the senseless slaughter will only end when enough Americans stand together and cry: Enough!”

Since Morgan took the opportunity to trade on the death of school children, I think we should try to step back and focus on statistical result of his own country's knee-jerk reaction to a similar incident.
"1996: Handguns to be banned in the UK The British Government has announced plans to outlaw almost all handguns following the shocking massacre at Dunblane in Scotland.
On 13 March Thomas Hamilton walked into the gym at Dunblane primary school and killed 16 young children and their teacher. He also injured 13 other children and three teachers. Hamilton, a former scout master, then shot himself." http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm
Content from External Source
The result of the gun ban was a doubling of gun crime six and a half years after the ban took effect.
"Gun crime has more than doubled since 1996, the year of the Dunblane massacre, according to the latest Home Office statistics. Last year it reached its highest ever level with more than 10,000 recorded offences involving firearms...Although gun crime is usually confined to members of gangs, bystanders and victims of robberies are also involved"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...offences-more-than-double-since-Dunblane.html
Content from External Source
The Dunblane reporting highlights the underlying issue, which is that the majority of gun crime is committed by gangs. By disarming the general populace, the British authorities gave violent gangs a monopoly on gun violence and they used it.

Here is a Youtube video that someone did showing these two Dunblane links while Bob Costas calls for gun control after that football player's murder fiasco. Sorry for the cheesy music. I shouldn't even need to prove that big media is calling for gun control. We all know this is happening. So can we agree that both big government and big media are calling for gun control? We can then move on to thoroughly debunking the notion that it makes us safer.


Firstly, PLEASE don't send Piers Morgan back.
Secondly, I think this is impossible to "debunk"....................

Your piece from the Daily Telegraph is from 2003.
This is more recent.........
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/

According to bare statistics, the ban initially appeared to have little impact, as the number of crimes involving guns in England and Wales rose heavily during the late 1990s to peak at 24,094 offenses in 2003/04.
Since then the number has fallen in each year. In 2010/11 there were 11,227 offenses, 53% below the peak number, according to the official crime figures. Crimes involving handguns also fell 44% -- from 5,549 in 2002/03 to 3,105 -- in 2010/11.
Content from External Source
In the wake of the 1987 Hungerford massacre, in which one lone gunman killed 16 people, Britain introduced new legislation -- the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 -- making registration mandatory for owning shotguns and banning semi-automatic and pump-action weapons.
Within a year and a half of the Dunblane massacre, UK lawmakers had passed a ban on the private ownership of all handguns in mainland Britain, giving the country some of the toughest anti-gun legislation in the world. After both shootings there were firearm amnesties across the UK, resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and rounds of ammunition
.
Britain has never had a "gun culture" like that of the United States, (my bold) but there were about 200,000 legally-registered handguns in Britain before the ban, most owned by sports shooters. All small-bore pistols, including the .22 caliber, were included in the ban, along with rifles used by target shooters. Penalties for anyone found in possession of illegal firearms range from heavy fines to prison terms of up to 10 years.
Content from External Source
The point re Britain's non gun culture is relevant because in reality the legislation made next to no difference to the average Joe in a country that had only a tiny amount of firearms anyway. I have never even handled a real gun (not in England at least), I don't know of any of my acquaintances who have ever owned one, I wouldn't know where to buy one, and I have only ever seen them carried in public by police officers in airports. Point is this is how it was before and after the 1997 handgun ban. Most Brits seem happy with this arrangement in my experience.

In short, it's impossible to compare the figures from different nations because there are too many conflicting factors. (Geography for one. It's much easier to bring illegal weapons across land borders than on to an island.)

It does seem logical that less guns = less gun crime because there would be less guns to fall into the hands of criminals but for a ban to achieve this in the USA would take many, many years as the weapons gradually stopped filtering through.

Would a firearm ban reduce gun crime in the USA? In my opinion the only way to find out would be to "suck it and see". That will never happen.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
So, I dunno, don't look real safe ta me.
But I guess this is about crime, not safety? I had in my head that the claim was more guns = more safety, but noticed the title is more guns = more crime.
So I guess these figures are off-topic.
Comparing homes with firearms against homes without re: accidents is a red herring. This would be like comparing homes with cars against homes that use public transportation and arguing that we shouldn't have cars.

Gun crime specifically is argued by politicians and the media as being something that can be solved with gun control laws. And the opposite is true. Both with respect to gun crime and especially with respect to violent crime. Specifically the myth that more guns equates to more crime in society is the myth that I am focused on debunking. Because politicians and the media are doing us a dis-service by spreading bunk in this regard.

The Zero Hedge infographic that I lead with
 
Last edited:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
@Libertarian The only thing you have shown is that crime has fallen while gun sales have risen. It doesn't prove that gun sales are the reason for decrease in crime, it only shows a correlation. One could argue that new stricter laws like 3 strikes are the cause for the reduction in crime. Again it would just be a correlation, but one could argue it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#Effects_in_California
Violent crime, but especially homicide, has fallen in the Los Angeles area, as well as other areas of the southland—Los Angeles's 2010 homicide count was 297, less than a third of the 1992 high of 1,000 homicides. This statistic reflects overall national trends of decreasing violent crime, and may be unrelated to the three-strikes law. [20] However, this may just be a correlation and not the actual cause as shown by a previous study in 1999, comparing pre-three strikes crime rate (1991-1993) to post-three strikes crime rate (1995-1997).[21]
Content from External Source
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
The only thing you have shown is that crime has fallen while gun sales have risen. It doesn't prove that gun sales are the reason for decrease in crime, it only shows a correlation.
While this might be true, the opposite is also true regarding the myth that more guns = more crime. We can argue both that a correlation would not necessarily prove that gun sales are a reason for an increase in crime, if there was one...but that in addition to that, there has been a dramatic decrease in crime. So either they are not correlated and more guns does not equate to more crime, or they are correlated, and more guns most definately does not equate to more crime. So in either case the myth that more guns = more crime is debunked.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
While this might be true, the opposite is also true regarding the myth that more guns = more crime. We can argue both that a correlation would not necessarily prove that gun sales are a reason for an increase in crime, if there was one...but that in addition to that, there has been a dramatic decrease in crime. So either they are not correlated and more guns does not equate to more crime, or they are correlated, and more guns most definately does not equate to more crime. So in either case the myth that more guns = more crime is debunked.
What is the reason for less crime then?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Seems gun ownership is on a 4 decade decline.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0
The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.
Content from External Source
More gun sales doesn't necessarily translate into more people own guns.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Having read through this, seems it (the OP) was a screed against regulations of guns? (With the red herring as suggested by OP).

Surely any rational gun enthusiast and member of the various hunting/sporting enthusiasts sites cannot be opposed to sane and logical restrictions on certain types of firearms??

Instead, we see the NRA and Wayne LaPierre come out (along with many others from the far right of the American political spectrum), shooting from the hip (yes, intended) at everything they "perceive" (incorrectly) as an attempt to "Turk away yer guns!!". And, incorrectly spewing the "2nd Amendment" to boot.


 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
@Libertarian, I'm still not clear what you are debunking here. It seems like you are creating a bit of a straw man. You need to debunk actual specific claims, not your personal interpretation of what you feel gun control advocates think.

Who makes the claim that more guns = more crime? What's the exact claim? Where do they make this claim? What evidence do they use? What are their figures?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Some figures on the number of guns taken off the streets in the past couple of decades would be useful I think.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
So in either case the myth that more guns = more crime is debunked.
no. you cant ignore other causative possibilities and say it is debunked.

but mick is right. your OP says 'violent crime'. then you post links that deal with just murder/suicide. (vs. all violent crime). and then you say more guns=more crime is debunked.

theres a big difference between crime, violent crime, suicide. that's the main problem when anyone tries to argue or debunk this topic. pick a claim and stick to it.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.

Sorry that is just not accurate representation of the facts as reported in the article you linked.

The government was negotiating help of the NFL to promote the new health care policy...its was the NFL's sponsorship of the ACA- not the government sponsoring the NFL.

Never mind that the NFL declined to participate:

the National Football League recently declined to become involved in promoting the law.
Content from External Source
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-president-obama-republicans-attacks/2506633/

You do seem to use semantics and misleading questions in attempts veil your agenda.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
The meat of this one is that more guns do not equal more crime. As Pete suggested, I have withdrawn the notion of state sponsored media because it is too muddy.

But that more guns do not equal more crime is abundantly easy to prove. It is obvious in seeing that as guns have increased, crime has not. Crime has decreased. So while I can not prove that more guns equal less crime, I have already proved that more guns do not equal more of it.

Premise from OP: More Guns = More Crime

Fact: There are more guns.
Fact: There is less crime.

Thus More Guns =/= More Crime

The Premise from the OP is errant. It is a myth. There is no causal link between lots of guns and lots of crime. In fact there is strong evidence of a causal link between more guns in the hands of citizens and less crime. But it is plausible that the less crime could also be caused by other things or a combination of them, i.e. as the removal of lead from gasoline in the 1990s, for example.

The government and media need to stop hyping the notion that guns cause crime. Because it obviously is not true. They certainly cause deadly accidents when left in the hands of children. But the same is true of vehicles.
 
Last edited:

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
but mick is right. your OP says 'violent crime'. then you post links that deal with just murder/suicide. (vs. all violent crime). and then you say more guns=more crime is debunked.
The Harvard study dealt with both suicide and violent crime. With respect to violent crime, they found that nations that have more guns tend to have less murder (a violent crime).

With respect to murder, the study concluded that Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, and also has the lowest murder rate. Holland's murder rate, on the other hand, is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two other examples of nations with high murder rates and few guns.

To quote the report:
If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Content from External Source
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The Harvard study dealt with both suicide and violent crime. With respect to violent crime, they found that nations that have more guns tend to have less murder (a violent crime).
in crime stats murder is murder and violent crime is murder, (usually suicide included), aggravated assault, rape, and maybe armed robbery...not sure about he armed robbery.

I'm fine just sticking to gun deaths. vs. 'violent crime' but are we taking suicides out? or are we counting them?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
and whats that country with the armed militia...where everyone has an assault weapon? I heard yesterday they had the highest murder rates per capita but I cant look it up cause I cant remember the country. ; /
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
C Needs debunking: Forensically disproves NASA photos Flat Earth 16
S Needs debunking: Pentagon plane could have been shot down 9/11 10
V Needs debunking: flat earthers claim this reflection to show a harness in ISS video Flat Earth 10
Edward Current Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity Science and Pseudoscience 7
A Needs Debunking: Proposed COVID Vaccine will become part of our DNA, make us programmable Coronavirus COVID-19 37
gtoffo Needs Debunking: "UFO crash" near Rio de Janeiro UFOs and Aliens 17
Code-Beta Needs Debunking: CE-5, humans initiating UFO sightings UFOs and Aliens 15
Bill Statler Needs debunking: "Magnetic water" for treating diabetes Health and Quackery 8
G Needs debunking: Video of a solar eclipse is fake because we cannot see the moon covering the sun Flat Earth 5
Syrez Needs Debunking: NYPD transmission, 9/11 Exploding Mural Van" 9/11 31
Alchemist Needs Debunking: Leaked DARPA Document General Discussion 6
mynym 9/11 Youtube video... needs debunking. 9/11 29
xtristarx Debunked: National Weather Service needs writers - on Craigslist General Discussion 28
derwoodii ISIS suicide bomber's car explodes in mid air, needs analysis General Discussion 15
Beaker Need help further debunking: IJVTPR (International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research) paper titled "Worse than the disease?" Coronavirus COVID-19 17
Mendel Can US churches be debunking? Practical Debunking 12
D Help debunking local UFO claim Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
T Need Debunking: Alfred Kinsey claims that child sex abuse is harmless General Discussion 6
T Need Debunking: Sayyid Qutb was a Liason for the Communist International General Discussion 2
Mendel Standards for debunking Practical Debunking 6
Oystein Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021) 9/11 36
C Need Debunking: Concert photograph from 8/27/21 (Billy Strings) fans claiming UFO. No eyewitness that I know of. UFOs and Aliens 12
ki_cz Need help debunking FE video Flat Earth 46
FatPhil Debunking backfiring Practical Debunking 36
M Need Debunking: Apollo 12 LM caught on a wire Conspiracy Theories 12
P Need Debunking: "Experimental Vaccine Death Rate for Israel's Elderly 40 Times Higher Than COVID-19 Deaths" Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Mick West Gabriel Sterling Debunking Trumps Accusations from the Raffernsperger Call Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunking Correlations Between 5G deployments and Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
Mick West TFTRH #34 - Stian Arnesen: Debunking, Censorship, 9/11, and UFOs Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
H Need Debunking: Hernando County platforms from more than 10 miles Flat Earth 9
Mick West TFTRH #14: Rory – Flat Earth Debunking and Spiritual Journeys Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Qulaey Two problems need help debunking and debating tips? please. Flat Earth 9
Scaramanga The Easy And Logical Debunking Of UFO 'Size' UFOs and Aliens 1
Mendel MediaWise #IsThisLegit program Practical Debunking 1
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
mudr0 Need Debunking: Video claiming zigzaggin objects and movement prove EVA filmed in pool General Discussion 33
vooke Need debunking: Writings in the sky Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Mick West Debunking 9/11 Microsphere Myths 9/11 0
Starman Debunking Bob Lazar's drawing of S-4 hangers UFOs and Aliens 15
Mick West Debunking Guidelines for: "Convex Earth - The Documentary" Flat Earth 0
T Debunking needed – anomalous mp3 recording distortion Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 12
Mick West Here's to the "Debunker"! Practical Debunking 1
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
Mick West NY Times: In Italian Schools, Reading, Writing and Recognizing Fake News Practical Debunking 60
Mick West Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation Practical Debunking 5
Rory Where online is debunking most effective? Practical Debunking 14
Whitebeard Martymer 81 Practical Debunking 4
N Neeson's anti-debunking thoughts Site Feedback & News 15
Mick West Fireproof Cabbage, Burning Snow, Flat Earth - Are Some Things too Silly to Debunk? Practical Debunking 7
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top