SACair Forum

I feel like there'sbeen a few posts (i.e. gun control, support war) that are WAY biased.

sure

i'm not saying what they should do or what not. i'm saying the historical facts they try to use to justify their statments are usually untrue and it just makes the article not credible

how are they not true?

That may be, but the point is that a lot of the information is either taken out of context or misunderstood; and with no sources there is no way to check.

All arguements will be biased, because people have their own opinions. What I beleive in, is different than what you beleive in.

yes all arguments are biased. but if that argument is going to use a historical fact then they should look into how that event occured and not just "gun control passed in some country. 2days later 20,000,000,000 ppl died. if only they had guns". usually there's a bigger reason to why something occurs. not just because of one factor.

But again, its upon the person reading or listening to the argument to see into the details. Why the reader/listener? Because if the person making the argument is giving false or fictional information, and someone looks into it, the person making the argument loses credibility, and thus, a audiance who would want to listen to make beleive stories or lies (IE: Bush jr. )

I agree with tkasuya. Threads like this "written by a lawyer" shows that anyone with internet access can write crap and people can believe it.

[quote]

I read it on the net, it must be true..........

[quote="HeadShot"]both sides of Gun Control are reasonable...[/quote]