Needs Debunking: More Guns = More Crime

Soulfly

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 As Pete suggested, I have withdrawn the notion of state sponsored media because it is too muddy.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.
Do you not agree that there are many other factors that come into play with regards to the decrease in crime rates over the past few decades?

By saying more guns ( I'll assume you made an error above) = less crime you are implying that the only factor in the decrease in crime rates is because there are more guns being purchased.

You have to establish the causes for the decrease in crime rates before you can say what = what.

You cannot just add your opinion and call it debunked.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
The whole gun control debate always gets really heated with people in both camps making stupid arguments that don;t help anyone.

Every time there is a big shooting in the USA the gun control debate heats up.
The Government has to show it is trying to do something so gun control of some kind always comes up, and the gun lovers always come out with arguments the other way.

Firstly the pointless stuff: There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It is a meaningless term meant to try and distinguish an AR15 (which LOOKS like the M16 assault rifle) from any other box magazine semi automatic rifle with which it is is mechanically basically identical.
Secondly, the amount of ammunition you can carry in one clip is irrelevant to the people who commit mass shootings because they always just take more clips along. So any kind of gun control based on those kind of ideas is a waste of time.

HOWEVER, the whole argument Pro-Gun activists use (including in the OP) is that having the gun makes them safer. This is clearly shown to be false from many studies which show how many accidental deaths are related to a firearm accident, how many suicides each year (2/3 of gun deaths) are committed with a gun and how many times the victim of a shooting actually KNOWS their attacker (such as quarrel with family member or neighbour that would not have been fatal but for the availability of a gun in the house.

It is however, almost impossible to determine how many violent crimes are prevented by someone having a gun. many people who would claim the gun prevented something might have been able to prevent the situation WITHOUT the gun.

a quick glance at the wikipedia list of 75 countries firearm related deaths by 100,000 population (not at all complete as it is not all the same year, for example) shows the USA to be not as bad as most of South America and a couple of African nations, but worse than anywhere in Europe, 3 times as bad as Switzerland and 4 times as bad as Canada, as well as 40 times as bad as the UK.

It's all very well me not dying of being shot by a random violent gang member robbing my house, but if the chances are MUCH more likely that I will kill myself, or be killed by a relative or neighbour because I own the gun to protect myself, I think maybe I would rather take my chances with the burglar.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Anyone saying
more guns = less crime
more guns = more crime
less guns = less crime
less guns = more crime

or anything in between isn't doing their homework because it will probably be more like.

Less homelessness, less unemployment, better jobs, stricter punishment gun laws, less (or more) drugs on the street, more (or less) gun purchases, better education, lower poverty level = less crime.

Just to give a few examples of what can affect crime rates.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
absolutely. I WAS going to address the socieconomic factors behind crime rather than simply one particular weapon criminals might use but I forgot.

It would almost certainly be political suicide, but the idea of the government buying say, the ENTIRE Colombian cocaine crop at source and distributing it FREE to anyone that wanted it would probably cost them less money AND reduce crime drastically.
Compared to how much money is spent fighting the drug war, it probably wouldn't be a lot in it. but addicts who would otherwise steal or commit violence to get their fix wouldn't need to , and the big drug gangs would go out of business and have to turn legit so they wouldn't be shooting each other (and innocent bystanders) all the the time.


I am not ACTUALLY seriously suggesting this should be done by the way.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Actually since the majority of mass shootings occur during the day, its almost certainly caused by daytime television.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/
Rate of All Gun Deaths per 100,000 people seems be a good base line for comparing whats good and bad

US is about 10 : 100.000 vs Australia less than 1 :100.000

i put in a few other as you can do this compare and graph

DOAper100k.PNG






 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I have noticed that when driving in the US that the drivers are far more courteous than Australia.
I am much more likely to give the finger/profane other drivers in Australia... Probably because of my near certainty that the object of my finger/profanity isn't armed...

So... I guess that's not proof of much though... ;)
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
It's difficult to find a conclusive academic study describing the relationship between gun ownership and crime/murder rates. It's almost like the same statistics can be used to support both sides of the argument. A 2011 study published by our benevolent reptilian overlords suggests that gun homicides are a function of wealth, education, laws and the availability of firearms.

UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime --Global Study on Homicide 2011

guns1.png

Having said that, the same study shows that although US firearm homicides, are decreasing, they are still far higher than other western countries.

guns3.png

guns4.jpg

On a personal note, I simply do not understand the mentality of people that feel compelled to carry handguns on family trip to a national park. The father had double shoulder hostlers. The mother kept her handgun concealed in a diaper bag. Looking at the parents, I think it's fairly safe to conclude these two will not be splitting the atom any time soon.

Advance to 0:45

 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
It's all very well me not dying of being shot by a random violent gang member robbing my house, but if the chances are MUCH more likely that I will kill myself, or be killed by a relative or neighbour because I own the gun to protect myself, I think maybe I would rather take my chances with the burglar.

I agree with 99% of your post Eff.. there's just a couple things that I dont entirely go along with. The big thing are the "accidents." There's no such thing as a firearm accident.. any "accidental discharge" is caused by negligence, plain and simple. There are four very simple rules to follow that guarantee your weapon will never discharge unintentionally (aside from a 1 in a million chance of a round cooking off for no reason or the one in a million chance of a mechanical failure).

1) Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
I promise you that the vast majority of "accidental" shootings in the US were because "I didnt know it was loaded." or "I thought I unloaded it." If you treat every single firearm as if it was loaded.. even when you have it broken down, you will never EVER have it go off accidentally.

2) Never point your weapon at anything you dont intend to shoot.
Simple enough right? I promise you that you'll find that there's another massive amount of "accidents" that occur JUST because the person pointed the weapon at something or someone. This also ties back in to rule one.

3) Keep your finger straight, and off the trigger until you're ready to fire.
Again.. pretty simple. "The gun went off, I dont know how or why but it just went off." That's because they had their finger on the trigger, instead of on the trigger guard, or up over top of the trigger completely extended and pressed against the weapon.

4) Keep your weapon on safe until you INTEND to fire.
Same as the other three above, if the weapons on safe, it cant "accidentally" go off. Barring some sort of one-off mechanical failure, but as long as the other three rules are followed, no one will get hurt.

These four rules are not mutually exclusive of one another, but produce a synergy or sorts. Each one puts the others in check, and as long as each of the other three are followed, there wont be "accidents." If a firearm doesnt have a safety on it (mostly antiques), the other three rules will provide the extra measure of protection. Other than that, like I said, I do agree with you.

As to the rest of the debate... Earlier I mentioned negligence.. thats what the accidents boil down to. Kid shoots his sibling, its because the parents failed to 1) educate their children and teach them to respect a fire arm like they teach them to respect electricity, and 2) the parents didnt follow the rules stated above. It boils down to negligence and/or lack of education/respect for firearms.

Im not for or against gun control.. personally I think the whole argument one way or the other is impossible to solve. There are TOO many factors, and you guys have all brought up good ones.. Socio-economics being a big one, education about firearms being another.. and the list goes on and on and on and on. If firearms are banned completely (which I know isnt what the control side is asking for or wants), you end up creating a black market, similar to that for drugs (which is what the anti gun control guys say). That much of it I think we can all agree on.

What HASNT been agreed upon, and is largely ignored by both sides.. is that no one understands what creates the gun violence in the first place. There isnt ONE cause but a massive list of symptoms that creates it.. just like with any crime or violent crime in general. There's also no one single cause for crime, violent crime, and gun crime to decrease. The only thing that will ever totally wipe out crime, gun crime, and violent crime all together is respect for one another.. and even then, while itll decrease to nearly zero you're still going to have nature to contend with.. illnesses, emotional break downs etc.

There was a thought years ago that crimes of passion were the primary reason gun crime took place.. so we had the Brady Bill to allow for a 5 to 10 day cooling down period (among a laundry list of other things).. and if I recall correctly, there was a small decrease in gun related crimes of passion.. that still didnt stop weapons of opportunity being used.

There's evidence for and against both sides, but I seriously doubt that there will ever be a consensus. The guns themselves arent the problem, just as Eff pointed out.. the size of the magazine doesnt matter, they'll just carry more magazines. You lay a gun on the table, its not just going to start shooting people. The real issue behind gun crime are the people, and thats why itll never be solved. If you ban guns, you create a market for them elsewhere.. if you relax gun laws then you end up with fire arms in the wrong hands again anyway. The absolute best thing we can do is educate people, teach them to respect fire arms as tools that can cause harm, and treat gun related 'accidents' as negligence. Until there's a way to determine what EXACTLY causes violent crime in the first place and can fix THAT.. this whole debate is going no where.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
1) Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2) Never point your weapon at anything you dont intend to shoot.
3) Keep your finger straight, and off the trigger until you're ready to fire.
4) Keep your weapon on safe until you INTEND to fire.
You are absolutely right on that one. but that's also the problem. I am from the UK where we don't have this gun culture, but am I right that in the USA, although you also have to do a lot of lessons and take a final test before they let you behind the wheel of a couple of tonnes of speeding metal than could kill someone, you just show some ID and wait a couple of weeks and then can buy a gun and some ammo? A device which is designed for killing. but you aren't forced to get a licence by taking any kind of shooting tests and more importantly looking after the thing tests. I have also heard the waiting period doesn't apply to gun shows so an 18 year old woman can buy guns for teenage kids at a gun show (Columbine)
Of course it;s easy if you have a gun for hunting. When you aren't hunting, you can keep it in a locked cabinet and have the ammo locked in a separate cabinet, but if it's for "home defence" then presumably you need to keep it loaded,and handy (not necessarily under your pillow) .
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
You do have to have licences for firearms, not in ALL states, but a fair number of them. When it comes to weapons and firearms it all literally depends on who wields it.. just as it does for motor vehicles and just about any weapon of opportunity you can think of. This is why I mentioned that it also boils down to respect for people and the weapon itself, outside of the occasional mental or emotional break down of "normal" people. The number of "accidents" with responsible owners is much much much much lower than of those that arent responsible.. exactly the same as with automobile drivers. People who dont drink and drive, drive offensively and defensively (depending on the situation) are less likely to be in "accidents." This is why their insurance rates are lower. Good drivers also have a lot of respect for what their machine can do, and for other drivers... they have their bad days too, their mind isnt where it should be, or theyve just had a fight with a loved one, but thats no guarantee that they're going to be in an accident.. the exact same thing applies to fire arms.

The difference, is that you cant stick a car in your pocket, and I think thats what really scares people the most.. the 'lack of control' they feel because they fear what they dont see. Like I said, I really do stand in the middle when it comes to the firearm debate.. I understand where both sides are coming from, and I agree with both sides on a lot of points.. what I dont agree with, is the fear mongering. I spent a decade as a US Marine, using and handling firearms was an everyday thing.. we also had those rules I mentioned (and you requoted) pounded into our heads day in and day out.. there is ZERO tolerance for the contrary.. and only one time in those 10 years did I ever see a negligent discharge.

When you clear a weapon, you remove the magazine, pull back the slide (or charging handle), check that the chamber is clear, send the slide (or bolt) home, aim the weapon at an open barrel filled with sand and covered by rubber tarp), pull the trigger, listen for the CLICK, put the weapon on safe and sling it, or holster it. This particular instance came at the chow hall in Macedonia, when a butter bar was laughing with his buddies rather than paying attention to what he was doing. He went to clear his side arm, but did the clearing out of order.. he locked the slide back, sent it home, but didnt remove the magazine first. So he ended up chambering a round. When he pulled the trigger, the weapon went off, and the MPs by the door responded by tackling him to the ground, removing his weapon and ammunition, placing him under arrest and removing him to the base commander's office. For the next three weeks, we had two hours of weapons classes every day where all we did was clear weapons, and repeat those four safety rules over and over and over and over.

Like I said in my earlier post.. when you teach people to respect firearms as the tools they are and not treat them like toys, then you change the culture. Even now, 15 years later, I chew people out for ignoring those rules.. and its slowly started making changes in them. This probably wont work for the US as a whole because, as was brought up before, the issues around gun violence is far too complicated to solve with laws and rules alone.. people have to learn how to respect fire arms for what they are, learn to respect one another AND figure out the root causes for the violence in the first place before any progress can or will ever be made.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
On a personal note, I simply do not understand the mentality of people that feel compelled to carry handguns on family trip to a national park. The father had double shoulder hostlers. The mother kept her handgun concealed in a diaper bag. Looking at the parents, I think it's fairly safe to conclude these two will not be splitting the atom any time soon.
There have been times when I was in the back woods of National Parks and Forrest that I wished I had something more than pepper spray, a walking stick and a hunting knife with me. It depends on the area and what you are doing. My area happens to have a healthy supply of bears and coyotes. Hanging out in the picnic area and tourist areas there is probably not a lot of need. Cross country hiking the need can arise.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
There have been times when I was in the back woods of National Parks and Forrest that I wished I had something more than pepper spray, a walking stick and a hunting knife with me. It depends on the area and what you are doing. My area happens to have a healthy supply of bears and coyotes. Hanging out in the picnic area and tourist areas there is probably not a lot of need. Cross country hiking the need can arise.

These people were trying to visit the Peace Arch Park which straddles the Canada US border in a populated area of northern Washington state. They made a wrong turn and ended up at the Douglas border crossing in Canada. I believe Peace Arch is a day park, no overnight camping. Wildlife consist of some raccoons and squirrels, certainly no bears, wolves or mountain lions.

All the hand guns had rounds in the chamber.

peacearch.png
 

Bill

Senior Member.
These people were trying to visit the Peace Arch Park which straddles the Canada US border in a populated area of northern Washington state. They made a wrong turn and ended up at the Douglas border crossing in Canada. I believe Peace Arch is a day park, no overnight camping. Wildlife consist of some raccoons and squirrels, certainly no bears, wolves or mountain lions.

All the hand guns had rounds in the chamber.

peacearch.png
I didn't watch the video, I'm just saying sometimes a gun would be nice to have in the National Parks and Forrest.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
...sometimes a gun would be nice to have...

I'd prefer a Phaser, set to "Stun". In a wide beam. (less need to "aim", as it were).

A projectile weapon, in terms of accuracy, implies that the person wielding it HAS the skills necessary to BE accurate. Yes, or no?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
These people were trying to visit the Peace Arch Park which straddles the Canada US border in a populated area of northern Washington state. They made a wrong turn and ended up at the Douglas border crossing in Canada. I believe Peace Arch is a day park, no overnight camping. Wildlife consist of some raccoons and squirrels, certainly no bears, wolves or mountain lions.

All the hand guns had rounds in the chamber.

peacearch.png
You might be surprised how far into urban areas mountain lions are willing to go.
Palo Alto is on the peninsula in San Francisco Bay Area.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Palo-Alto-visit-fatal-to-cougar-Cop-shoots-cat-2776914.php
 

Bill

Senior Member.
I'd prefer a Phaser, set to "Stun". In a wide beam. (less need to "aim", as it were).

A projectile weapon, in terms of accuracy, implies that the person wielding it HAS the skills necessary to BE accurate. Yes, or no?
It doesn't matter what you have, if you carry it and don't know how to use it you are part of the food chain. At the time I could still hike I also had the skills to use the equipment I carried. I wouldn't go looking for a confrontation with predators but if forced into one I would like to have something besides a knife. If nothing else the noise from a firearm can buy you the time to get away.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The noise?

OK....I see your point. But again, I think it was mentioned in this thread elsewhere(??) While I am not advocating the inhibition on gun ownership (in the USA)... But, certainly, is it not eminently reasonable to require the barest of minima, as with a Driver's License, in order to be allowed to operate a gun (or any device that fires a projectile)?

Not to veer the thread, but...really, in every discussion I've ever seen (here in the USA), every reasonable suggestion of this nature is met with hostility. And yet, those of us who are able to function in society and operate equally deadly machines, understand a need for training and licensing associated with them.

ETA: My father was in law enforcement (U.S. Customs). My Step-father was in law enforcement (LAPD).

THEY both, as part of their professions, received extensive training in the handling and use of firearms. It just seems rational to expect something similar for the general public, in terms of licensing requirements, at the very least.

If I wished to go out tomorrow and buy a weapon, something that I can easily choose to do, then I would be damned certain that I took proper training and lessons in safety, handling, and also ability to aim and fire with some measure of accuracy.
Can the same (above) be said for EVERY owner of a projectile weapon in the USA?
 
Last edited:

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
More and more states are moving that way Weed, but they're going to face the exact same resistance that registering vehicles ran into decades ago. It'll be a slow, painful process with people moaning and bitching that its a violation of their rights and that the government is going to use it as a way to take away their rights... and I do agree that it may help a LITTLE, but the real issues will still need to be addressed. MV deaths dropped after the causes for those deaths were accounted for.. lap belts to mititgate ejection, shoulder straps to help reduce head injuries, abs, better tires, crumple zones, bumpers, airbags, child car seats etcetcetc.. each were created and added into law when it was proven that each of those safety features prevented injury and death.

Until people can nail down WHY gun violence and violence in general occur in a very very small amount of the population and not as a whole, making all the laws in the world wont do any good. Its a security blanket to give people warm and fuzzies and putting a band-aide on a snapped limb. I completely agree that education and licensing will help, but it wont get to the root of the problem.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
To a point, yes.. but is it poverty ALONE that causes it, or are there issues around poverty that contribute? From what I recall, there are instances where poverty stricken areas in the US have a higher gun violence rate than others but I dont think its been conclusively proven that its the ONLY factor. I do agree tho, that if the poverty problem in the US were resolved, then we'd see a reduction in violent crime across the board and not just with firearms. The whole situation is a quagmire.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
they need to stop putting all the types of gun violence together in statistics. if you really look you can find gang on gang violence vs domestic violence vs stranger shootings and hold ups etc. but when politics get involved, people tend to group them all which muck up the whole conversation.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Im not 100% sure there's a way to clearly separate them all tho Dierdre.. would be great if it could be done tho, I agree.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Im not 100% sure there's a way to clearly separate them all tho Dierdre.. would be great if it could be done tho, I agree.
its easy as pie.

if its gang related the cops designate it GR
domestic violence DV
bar fight BF
robbery R
mass shooting MS
Accidental shooting AS
Defensive shooting DS

for instance mental health laws are obvious and great, will reduce MS and DV but not GR,R,BF etc.
gun safety devices will reduce AS only etc.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
So if a gang member shoots a family member who's in another gang.. is it gang related or domestic?

Trying to be "funny"?

My computer hiccupped, and I lost a previous post...but essentially, it was this:

The USA (of which I am a Natural Born Citizen) has this thing in the Constitution, called the "Second Amendment".

Now....let's set aside firearms for a moment. And consider...swords. Or, more modern, automobiles.

A sword is not a "machine", and not a "gun"...but it is a weapon. An automobile is not designed as a "weapon" (to differentiate it from a sword or gun), but it IS a machine. ALSO, car can be used as a "weapon"...although, again, not designed for that purpose.

Licensing. Car. Airplane. (Sword? I dunno....was thinking "Game of Thrones", so digressed!)

Car? Transport. Airplane? Transport. Both require licensing. Can they be used as a "weapon", although not their original design? Yes.

Gun? Weapon. By design. License? Nope (or minimal).....
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Not intentionally trying to be funny TJ, just trying to illustrate that things are never as black and white as they appear to be. And as I said, I do agree that it would make sense to license firearms, but as I also said.. it wont fix the problem as a whole, it'll only put a band aide on a broken limb.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Trying to be "funny"?

My computer hiccupped, and I lost a previous post...but essentially, it was this:

The USA (of which I am a Natural Born Citizen) has this thing in the Constitution, called the "Second Amendment".

Now....let's set aside firearms for a moment. And consider...swords. Or, more modern, automobiles.

A sword is not a "machine", and not a "gun"...but it is a weapon. An automobile is not designed as a "weapon" (to differentiate it from a sword or gun), but it IS a machine. ALSO, car can be used as a "weapon"...although, again, not designed for that purpose.

Licensing. Car. Airplane. (Sword? I dunno....was thinking "Game of Thrones", so digressed!)

Car? Transport. Airplane? Transport. Both require licensing. Can they be used as a "weapon", although not their original design? Yes.

Gun? Weapon. By design. License? Nope (or minimal).....
Firearms can be divided into categories as well. Rifles and shotguns are tools for food gathering that can be used as weapons while handguns and automatic rifles have only one purpose. They are weapons. I have never really had any heartache about registering handguns and automatic firearms including rifles but have always been hesitant about the need for registering a regular rifle or shotgun. In all cases I think you should have to show you have taken classes before you can make a purchase. I collect bladed weapons including knives (tool), machetes (tool and weapon), bayonets (weapon) and swords (weapon) and in most states the laws governing items in my collection are stricter than the firearm laws. I have always thought this was a logical disconnect.:confused:
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
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
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 42
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
Mick West Burying the Debunk: How Fake News about "Pyramids" in Antarctica Creates False Balance Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Mick West Debunking911.com offline - How to Preserve Good Debunking Sites? 9/11 3
Sam Hill Debunking "That's not a Space Station, it's an airplane" Flat Earth 1
Mick West When Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence in Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 35
Rogerpenna Debunking Flat Earth with the Southern Hemisphere Flat Earth 11
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top