Media use of selective data

[Papewaio]

Ok I was reading the debate about RU 486 here in Aus. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/men-do-have-a-right-in-the-ru486-debate/2006/02/15/1139890803251.html)

The reporter came up with this statement:


In any case, there is no single female view on abortion. Opinion polls show views on the issue are not split on gender lines. And, despite the hype about a gender divide in the Senate last week, about the same number of men (21) and women (24) voted in favour of removing Abbott's authority.

So according to her spin of the data the vote was evenly spread between the genders. What she didn't reveal because it would rip out the heart of her own arguement was the spilt of the no votes.

Men (25) and women (3)

So the men voted 1:1 on the issue of RU 486
While women voted 8:1 on the issue of RU 486

Clearly women have a different set of values then men on this debate.

BTW the debate is wether RU 486 should remain the only drug in the entire pharmaceutical armoury that is only allowed to be used with the approval of the Federal Health Minister or like all the rest of the approved drugs handled by the medical professional body.

The main point is:
Do you have any other clear cut cases of selective data choices with reporters trying to give spin to their cases?

[Adrian II]

The main point is:
Do you have any other clear cut cases of selective data choices with reporters trying to give spin to their cases?Can I have a couple of years of your time? :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's a gem, an article on a .50 caliber rifle:



MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - When U.S. Soldiers need to penetrate a tank's armor from a mile away [Dead wrong. The reporter is unaware of the difference between a tank and an armored personel carrier, and seems to think a bullet's power doesn't decrease over range.], they count on a weapon that evolved from the garage tinkering of a former wedding photographer.

The .50-caliber rifle created by Ronnie Barrett and sold by his company, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc., is the most powerful firearm civilians can buy. It weighs about 30 pounds and can hit targets up to 2,000 yards away with armor-piercing bullets.

That kind of power has drawn a customer base of gun enthusiasts, Hollywood actors and Barrett's most loyal buyer, the U.S. military, which has been buying Barrett's rifles since the 1980s and using them in combat from the 1991 Gulf War to the present.

But the powerful gun has drawn plenty of critics, who say the rifle could be used by terrorists to bring down commercial airliners [ Nevermind its never been done and that even an accurate shot wouldn't bring down a plane ] or penetrate rail cars [Wrong, they'd bounce off according to makers of said rail cars] and storage plants holding hazardous materials.

For years some state and federal lawmakers have sought to limit or ban the gun's sale, as California did this year.

Tom Diaz, a senior policy analyst with the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, says the guns should be more regulated and harder to purchase. The gun can now be bought by anyone 18 or older who passes a background check.

"They're (.50 caliber) easier to buy than a handgun," Diaz said. "These are ideal weapons of terrorist attack [Nevermind they've never been used for such an attack before, and that it would be very impractical for terrorist to lug around a 30 pound rifle that is just a bigger caliber than AKs] . Very dangerous elements gravitate toward these weapons."

The majority of Barrett's sales come from military orders, for armed forces and police departments in some 50 allied countries. Every branch of the U.S. military uses the rifles, and the Department of Defense last year spent about $8 million on his firearms, Barrett said.

Barrett estimates about 1,000 of his rifles - which each cost between $3,500 and $10,000 - have been used in both the 1991 Gulf War and the current war in Iraq.

The guns are used by most civilians for hunting big game and in marksmanship competitions. Civilian sales are crucial to business because military and police orders can fluctuate year to year, Barrett said.

"It's like, what does a 55-year-old man do with a Corvette? You drive it around and enjoy it," said Barrett, 51, whose customers include doctors, lawyers, movie makers and actors. "I know all the current actors who are Barrett rifle shooters, some Academy Award-winning people. But they don't publicize it. They love to play with them and have fun. Shooting is very fun."

A 1999 investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office found the rifles were available on civilian markets with fewer restrictions than those placed on handguns. Ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor-piercing bullets even when an agent pretending to be a buyer said he wanted the ammunition for use against armored limousines or "to take a helicopter down."

Other reports have observed the rifles have made their way to terrorists, drug cartels and survivalists.

Joseph King, a terrorism expert at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said terrorists could use the weapon to take out a plane. [Wrong once again. Consider the TSA's official statement:“We are aware of what is being said about fifty caliber rifles. We just don’t feel it is high on the list of potential dangers.”]

"I don't understand what good a .50-caliber is going to do you," King said. "I don't understand any civilian use of it. [Translation: I say you don't need it, so ban it!] The only thing it's good for is for military or police application. You can't really hunt with it because it would destroy most of the meat. [Wrong (http://fiftycal.org/images/vhpmag.gif)]"

Barrett and gun advocates say the gun's power has been exaggerated and doesn't pose a threat to citizens because the weapons are too expensive and heavy to be used by criminals.

Barrett and other gun advocacy groups heavily lobbied the state of California, the first state to pass a law making it illegal to make and sell the gun. Several other states and some federal lawmakers have introduced similar legislation.

Despite these efforts, Barrett says sales are up nearly $6 million from last year thanks to recent military and police orders.

The New York City Police Department recently announced it's training officers in its aviation unit to use the rifles, which will be on board some of the department's helicopters to intercept potential attacks from boats or airplanes. In 2002, the Army placed an order for 4,200 of the guns, Barrett said.

Other manufacturers now make the gun, but Barrett dominates the market.

In the next few years, he said he plans to more than double the current number of employees, 80, and the size of his 20,000-square-foot gun-making facility located in Murfreesboro, about 30 miles southeast of Nashville.

A lifelong gun enthusiast, Barrett never went to college and worked as a commercial photographer and reserve deputy for years before he started tinkering with the .50-caliber Browning Machine Gun in the early 1980s.

The heavy recoil of the Browning made it nearly impossible to shoot without it being mounted on a turret, but Barrett's rifle reduces recoil to the point where it can be shoulder-fired, while the weapon rests on a bipod. [Wrong, Barret's rifle is not a tinkered with BMG]

Barrett says he was nearly $1.5 million in debt at one point trying to get the business on its feet. He sold his first guns to the military in the late 1980s and the long-range weapons gained popularity after they were used to attack Iraqi tanks [Wrong] in the 1991 war.

Barrett's son, Chris, who works with his sister at their father's business, said he watched his dad build the gun in the family garage and is not surprised by the growth and success of his father's business.

"He's worked hard all his life. I think he would do as well at anything he pursued," Chris Barrett said. "He's not one of these big suits, a CEO at the top of one these big money machines. He's not one to back down. He can make anything work, no matter what he's doing."

There's a buttload of misinformation and outright lies for you.

Crazed Rabbit

[Slyspy]

Yes, but I'm not sure whether it is entirely what Papewaio is looking for. I think he is looking for accurate data deliberately misrepresented, as opposed to mere inaccuracies. I shall have to try and find something.......

[Adrian II]

Yes, but I'm not sure whether it is entirely what Papewaio is looking for. I think he is looking for accurate data deliberately misrepresented, as opposed to mere inaccuracies. I shall have to try and find something.......All eighty annual volumes of The National Enquirer, anyone?

[Big_John]

Ok I was reading the debate about RU 486 here in Aus. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/men-do-have-a-right-in-the-ru486-debate/2006/02/15/1139890803251.html) [...]

So according to her [..] data the vote was evenly spread between the genders.

Men [..] and women [...] voted 1:1 on the issue of RU 486 cool, good to know. thanks pape :2thumbsup:

i don't know about your 'selective data' thread title.. but my selective reading is working just fine. :book:

[Tribesman]

There's a buttload of misinformation and outright lies for you.

Ever heard of Crossmaglen Rabbit .
"These are ideal weapons of terrorist attack . Very dangerous elements gravitate toward these weapons."

British Army body armour doesn't work very well when dangerous elements obtain Barretts .

[Major Robert Dump]

Are you kidding me? This happens all the time. It's all in the wording, and the editorial agenda of the staff.

[Papewaio]

True, but I'm looking for the times where you have hard data that can show the bias... not just a gut feeling.

[Sjakihata]

The biggest I've seen was when CNN declared Al Gore as the winner of the US election

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hard bias is very difficult to prove. As MRD said, mostly its just the subtle twisting of words, or what was said and left unsaid. I saw a study done in which researchers analysed which organizations the reporters included and the political leanings of said orgs. It concluded there was a slight overall leftist bias in American media.

I think its hard because bias is not listing the incorrect facts, but editorializing, giving one side more quotes, etc. This would include selective data, which I think the article I posted did.

Actually having the reporter lie about facts is very rare; usually they can get their point across without resorting to such.


Ever heard of Crossmaglen Rabbit .
No. What is it?

British Army body armour doesn't work very well when dangerous elements obtain Barretts .
Really? Does it sense an unsavory type has taken Ronnie Barrett hostage and go into shutdown mode?
Or are you saying that body armor is ineffective against the .50 caliber? Seeing as just about every rifle caliber, with the right ammo, is effective against body armor, I hardly see that as reason to get worked into a hissy fit. Heck, a 30-30 would be just as deadly and much easier to buy, hide, transport, and use. But don't let the facts (which you didn't comment on :laugh4: ) deter you.

Crazed Rabbit

[Adrian II]

I saw a study done (..)I dont agree with you, so your study is biased. :coffeenews:

[Tribesman]

I hardly see that as reason to get worked into a hissy fit.
Hey it wasn't me having a hissy fit , it was the British army and government , for some reason or other they got in a right state over the snipers killing their soldiers .

[Crazed Rabbit]

I dont agree with you, so your study is biased. :coffeenews:

My beliefs don't require you too. ~:cool:

Crazed Rabbit

[Reverend Joe]

I thought a "Barrett" was gin laced with LSD... shows how much I know.

[Tribesman]

But don't let the facts (which you didn't comment on ) deter you.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Riggggght .
[ Nevermind its never been done and that even an accurate shot wouldn't bring down a plane ]
It is a selling point on Barretts website , specifically penetrating plane engines or helicopters hydraulics . But thats the M82A1 , the M82A2 was designed as an anti helicopter weapon .

[Wrong, they'd bounce off according to makers of said rail cars]
Not according to the makers of the rifle . So who is using selective data the arms manufacturer or the railcar manufacturer ?

[Nevermind they've never been used for such an attack before, and that it would be very impractical for terrorist to lug around a 30 pound rifle that is just a bigger caliber than AKs]
But they have , both in Northern Ireland and in Afghanistan .

[Wrong once again. Consider the TSA's official statement:“We are aware of what is being said about fifty caliber rifles. We just don’t feel it is high on the list of potential dangers.”]

How is that wrong ? they said it is not high on the list , not that they couldn't do it .....said terrorists could use the weapon to take out a plane. .

Selective data eh Rabbit ? ~;)

BTW did you know that the manufacturers say it isn't really designed for anti-personell use ?

Oh and as for ...No. What is it?

Type the word into your search engine ,you may be able to purchase one of the "danger sniper at work" road signs from there now that thay are no longer in use .

[Crazed Rabbit]

You just don't get it, do you? You seem to think shooting an unmoving plane on the ground is the same as shooting one traveling hundreds of miles through the air at least thousands of feet away.

And do you have any proof? I'm not going to search for data to back up your statements if you're too lazy too.


Type the word into your search engine blah blah blah.

It seems it's a town in N.I. with a popular soccer team and a large town square where British soldiers were killed during the troubles. Nothing on the first page of google about .50 caliber rifles though. Nor any comment from you on the fact that most every rifle will defeat body armor. :laugh4:

Please, I grow tired of your antics. You act like you're actually debating, when you ignore most everything, then state stuff that looks like you just made it up. Don't accuse me of using selective data when I don't include stuff from 'Tribesman's Book of Reality' which exists only in your head.

Crazed Rabbit

[TinCow]

87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[Tribesman]

You just don't get it, do you?
Rabbit you don't get it at all , repeatedly , whethter its poverty statistics , government subsidies for the auto industry or in this case Barrett rifles .
You just post stuff that you think you can make a point with , without even checking the accuracy of what you are posting .

If you want to learn about the gun and what its claimed uses are then go to the manufacturers website and read what they say it can be used for .
If you want to say that it hasn't been used for terrorist attacks then make sure that it hasn't been before you make the claim .
If you want to claim that it cannot penetrate a railcar then check its penetration properties .

Oh and if you want to claim that it cannot take out a plane then don't quote someone who is actually saying that it can:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Nor any comment from you on the fact that most every rifle will defeat body armor.
Ah , but I didn't falsly claim that Barretts have not been used in terrorist attacks . And since you want to talk about the light .50s and the debate surrounding them specifically then what is the relevance of other rifles ?

Oh and how do I know that you don't look stuff up ?????? Because you didn't spot the selective data I used on the anti-helicopter version , just like you didn't look up the World Bank poverty figures on Venezuela as you would have tried to pull me up on that one .
You don't like finding things out that much do you ,you just want a crappy article that you think you can agree or disagree with.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :book:

[Adrian II]

My beliefs don't require you too. ~:cool:

Crazed RabbitTsk, tsk. https://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2509/sunglassescool4rh.gif (https://imageshack.us)

Tribesman is right, you know. Sometimes you don't check other peoples' links at all. You did that some time ago in a debate with me on homosexual issues.

But you have major redeeming features, Rabbit; you can take a blow without crying and you are the best pirate on the forum! On me dead stepmother's grave, you young whippersnapper!

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's hard to check Tribesman's links some times, you know.

Tribesman, you think I don't know the .50 caliber is a useful anti-material rifle? Like I said, there's a huge difference between a sniper team infiltrating some drug cartel's compound and shooting unmoving planes in the engine blocks and terrorists shooting at a plane moving hundreds of miles per hour thousands of feet away.

And I'll take the word of people who design chemical rail cars, i.e. ones that normal rifle calibers couldn't penetrate, over you. After all, those rail cars have to survive crashes with huge amounts of force.
Here's something to enlighten you: http://www.fiftycal.org/frenchrebuttal0511.php



Ah , but I didn't falsly claim that Barretts have not been used in terrorist attacks . And since you want to talk about the light .50s and the debate surrounding them specifically then what is the relevance of other rifles ?

I was talking about terrorist acts committed against the US. And the IRA's action, as I assume you're talking of them when you talk of British body armor and a N.I. city, is, in this instance, more of a guerrilla warfare action. Most examples I've seen of unsavory types using a .50 caliber rifle are more paramilitary than terrorist actions like shooting planes out of the sky, which is what the anti-gunners in the US get into a froth about. Other rifles and their respective calibers are relevant because the .50, anti-personel wise, cannot do much other calibers can't. And its anti-material capabilities do not lend itself to terrorist actions.


Because you didn't spot the selective data I used on the anti-helicopter version

Was that supposed to be some 'gotcha' thing, since I didn't look it up and find it apparently doesn't exist? So what? You're right, I don't have the time nor the inclination to spend 30 hours a day researching claims made by orgites. Just the same, one version or the other wasn't very relevant, as one rifle could probably do both, but thanks for informing me of your tendency to lie. Just don't try and attack me for not calling you on every lie you state.


You don't like finding things out that much do you ,you just want a crappy article that you think you can agree or disagree with.

Yay...:dizzy2:... that's why I was captain of a knowledge bowl team that placed in the top 3 at state twice in high school, and why I'm in the honors college of one of the biggest universities in the state.

All you ever do is pick one thing out of a post, post some reply based on a logical fallacy, and then put the smilies in at the end. Nothing to advance the debate, just a bunch of lies and you think you're clever. :dizzy2:

AdrianII; Cheers, me hearty! ~:cheers:

Crazed Rabbit

[Kaiser of Arabia]

So...you have a baby killer as a politician, alongside a woman who had an abortion?

Thank God I dont live in Austrailiastan.

[Tribesman]

but thanks for informing me of your tendency to lie. Just don't try and attack me for not calling you on every lie you state.
Ah poor Rabbit , you assume it is a lie .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Nope , everything that was written was true , the selective data was that the anti-helicopter version had a very short production run . It does happen to be a very illustrative example of selective data as the blurb from Barretts promoting that particular model is the item most often used on the anti-gun websites, even though they no longer produce that model .

Likewise with the world bank data , they no longer provide the poverty rates for venezuela , what they do provide are the figures for the 48 different criteria that are used to measure poverty rates .


And I'll take the word of people who design chemical rail cars
Ah I see , you have changed rail cars to specially designed high impact resistant rail cars , hey why not go the whole hog and recategorise it as those rail cas for really hazardous chemicals that are armoured so that even an artillery round won't penetrate them .

I was talking about terrorist acts committed against the US.
Do you mean against the US or against US forces ?
There was the debate amongst some of your military and politicians as to whether the Light .50s that have been used against US troops were privately purchased or were part of the arms deals to the terrorists by the US government via Pakistan . They came down in favour of the former .


just a bunch of lies and you think you're clever.
Poor poor Rabbit , your education and your honour place at a big university seems to have left you a little short changed . Or would you care to pick out any instance of a single lie here , let alone a bunch of them ?
You posted claims that were untrue , so either you lied or you mistakenly posted something without checking the accuracy of it . Which is it ?

[Big_John]

Do you have any other clear cut cases of selective data choices with reporters trying to give spin to their cases?pape, could you have hoped for a more well-illustrated answer to your question than this very thread?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sheesh, Tribesey. For all your yakkin' you still haven't made a substantial arguement. What are you classifying as a 'light .50', and what basis are you using for that? Any proof of their use against US forces?

In your rush to fling about red herrings as though they were flowers on May Day, you also seemed to ignore what I first posted:

But the powerful gun has drawn plenty of critics, who say the rifle could be used by terrorists to bring down commercial airliners [ Nevermind its never been done and that even an accurate shot wouldn't bring down a plane ] or penetrate rail cars [Wrong, they'd bounce off according to makers of said rail cars] and storage plants holding hazardous materials.

I (or rather, the article) already said the rail cars in question were were transporting hazardous materials. I'm not changing their specification, you're trying to claim I did.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Even your claim about the M82A2 being designed to penetrate helicopter hydralics was wrong, it was designed to be able to be fired from the shoulder, and thus fill a role in shooting small mobile targets (like helicopters, but it wasn't designed to specifically penetrate their hydralics, as you said): http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn02-e.htm. (BTW, that's called a link; it's helpful in providing sources of information and data to the discussion :book:).

You whole farcical argue...er..rhetoric is based on the flimsy premise that battlefield use of these weapons by a terrorist is similar to use against commercial airliners. Terrorist attacks on commercial airliners is what I was talking about, which you could see if you read the article, and my comments, carefully.

Lies? Here some: :laugh4:

Not according to the makers of the rifle .
Really, any proof of where Barrett said his rifle would penetrate rail cars transporting hazardous materials?


But they have , both in Northern Ireland and in Afghanistan.
Really, how many commercial airliners have they shot down?

Ah , but I didn't falsly claim that Barretts have not been used in terrorist attacks .
Nor did I claim such. What I did say was this:
Nevermind they've never been used for such an attack Implying, obviously, a certain type of attack.

Ah I see , you have changed rail cars
Nope, I didn't, as I pointed out earlier.

If you want to say that it hasn't been used for terrorist attacks then make sure that it hasn't been before you make the claim .
See the above debunking of a similar statement.

If you want to claim that it cannot penetrate a railcar then check its penetration properties .
Again, you are accusing me of something I did not do.

Oh and if you want to claim that it cannot take out a plane then don't quote someone who is actually saying that it can
Again with the lack of comprehending the difference between a cessna on the ground and a commercial jet in the air and what I claimed (see above).

Sorry for causing your thread to go off like a train crash Pape, hopefully its provided some good examples ~D.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

What are you classifying as a 'light .50'
The range of .50 calibre rifles manufactured by Barratt , they make quite a few versions you know .
I (or rather, the article) already said the rail cars in question were were transporting hazardous materials.
Oh Rabbit you poor poor boy , your education is really wasted , not only are you clearly lying you have even shown it in bold letters .
or penetrate rail cars [Wrong, they'd bounce off according to makers of said rail cars] and storage plants holding hazardous materials.
Compare and contrast the two statements .
You will notice the lack of anything at all refering to haz chem railcars , or to reinforced storage plants .

Even your claim about the M82A2 being designed to penetrate helicopter hydralics was wrong, it was designed to be able to be fired from the shoulder, and thus fill a role in shooting small mobile targets (like helicopters, but it wasn't designed to specifically penetrate their hydralics, as you said):
Oh dear , is your grammer really that bad , get your highly educated proffessors to start you off with the basics of the English language Rabbit
It is a selling point on Barretts website , specifically penetrating plane engines or helicopters hydraulics . But thats the M82A1 , the M82A2 was designed as an anti helicopter weapon .

Do you notice
specifically penetrating plane engines or helicopters hydraulics . But thats the M82A1 , the M82A2 was designed as an anti helicopter weapon .

But thats the M82A1 :book:

Lies? Here some
Oh my Rabbit , when you proffessors have finished teaching you the basics of the English language ask them to tell you what a lie is .
It seem you are not able to understand the word , but then as this thread has shown that you practice lying a lot .

[Crazed Rabbit]

It seems you don't understand the subtlety of the english language. :laugh4:

The part about containing hazardous materials was refering to both rail cars and storage plants. While it could be interpreted as only applying to storage plants, we can eliminate that possibility because the penetrating of wooden railcars is not important, unique, or relevant. Or are you trying to say rail cars with hazardous materials are the not the same as rail cars with chemical materials? Either way, you've been hoisted on your own petard.
http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/violent/detonate.gif~:doh: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

And with your M82A2 example, you again ignored how refering to a rifle designed to specifically penetrate one engine or a set of hydralics is different from penetrating one engine and another. The 'or' could lead one to believe that you are refering to two different rifles. Your very next statement refers to two rifles. Your 'But that's the M82A1' could refer to the rifle designed to penetrate plane engines only, which your next few words about the M82A2 being an anti-helicopter would seem to corroborate. But since I see you meant something else, I shall kindly withdraw my statement that you were incorrect. With the understanding, of course, that I do understand grammer.:laugh4: Nevermind, of course, that penetrating any type of engine is not a selling point of the M82A1 on Barrett's website. ~:doh::book:

And no response to your 'list o' lies' (as I like to call it ;p)? Boy, am I surprised! Not. Every time we post, your argument gets smaller and rests increasingly on semantics. It's like you've conceded the important points about .50 caliber rifles, but can't stop arguing.:dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

And no response to your 'list o' lies' (as I like to call it ;p)? Boy, am I surprised!
Would you like to start ?
OK .....
Not according to the makers of the rifle .
They say it is designed to penetrate amour and hardened targets , yourwrong statement refers to railcars or penetrate rail cars [Wrong, they'd bounce off according to makers of said rail cars]
You never specified highly armoured haz chem railcars did you , in fact you never challenged the chem storage at all .... and storage plants holding hazardous materials.
.....see no connection to rail cars and no mention of them not penetrating haz chem materials is there .
You chose an article that you thought said something that it didn't say .


But they have , both in Northern Ireland and in Afghanistan.
Really, how many commercial airliners have they shot down?

Read what you posted , that part has nothing to do with airliners does it , it shows the falseness of the claim made in the article you posted .

Ah , but I didn't falsly claim that Barretts have not been used in terrorist attacks .
Nor did I claim such. What I did say was this:

Bollox , that part of the article has nothing to do with airliners , it has to do with terrorists using the weapons and the ridiculous position that the rifle is toooooo heavy for a terrorist to carry , pure bullshit .

Ah I see , you have changed rail cars
Nope, I didn't, as I pointed out earlier.

The article you initially posted just says rail cars does it not ?

If you want to claim that it cannot penetrate a railcar then check its penetration properties .
Again, you are accusing me of something I did not do.

See above , you failed to specify that you were thinking about something that was completely different from what you posted . It helps if you actually write what you are on about .

Oh and if you want to claim that it cannot take out a plane then don't quote someone who is actually saying that it can
Again with the lack of comprehending the difference between a cessna on the ground and a commercial jet in the air and what I claimed (see above).

Does the TSA quote deal with a cessna on the ground or an airliner ? Since they are addressing the claims about terrorist attacking airliners then it must be the latter , they are aware of the threat , which means that the threat is real , but it is not high on the list as the top things on the list would be on board bombs and hijackers , followed by SAMs .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sheesh, this is too easy. :dizzy2: :laugh4: :laugh4: I've already shown that the 'rail cars' was refering to ones carrying hazardous waste. It's like you honestly don't understand conjugation. When you use the word 'and' in a list, you can have a modifier or description at the end of the list that applies to all objects listed. :book:
The statement about terrorists was, as I showed, refering to terrorist attacks against commercial airliners.


Since they are addressing the claims about terrorist attacking airliners then it must be the latter , they are aware of the threat , which means that the threat is real , but it is not high on the list as the top things on the list would be on board bombs and hijackers , followed by SAMs .
Here's what you said:

Oh and if you want to claim that it cannot take out a plane then don't quote someone who is actually saying that it can
The TSA quote said nothing of the sort. They said it was not high on the list of potential dangers. I.e. dangers that have not even shown themselves to be a real threat. Hijackers and SAMs are a real threat. A rifle is not. They did not say it can take out a plane.


Bollox , that part of the article has nothing to do with airliners , it has to do with terrorists using the weapons and the ridiculous position that the rifle is toooooo heavy for a terrorist to carry , pure bullshit .

Worng again. Huh. I said carrying the rifle was impractical, not that it couldn't be done. Oh, and read the first part of the sentence:

[Nevermind they've never been used for such an attack before, and that it would be very impractical for terrorist to lug around a 30 pound rifle that is just a bigger caliber than AKs]
The part before the comma. I didn't think I'd need to write it out so exactly (as in 'such an attack as a terrorist attack on a commercial plane), as I assumed that people here would understand what 'such an attack' refered to. Silly me.
Oh, and what about this? :laugh4:

Nevermind, of course, that penetrating any type of engine is not a selling point of the M82A1 on Barrett's website.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Sheesh, this is too easy. I've already shown that the 'rail cars' was refering to ones carrying hazardous waste. It's like you honestly don't understand conjugation. When you use the word 'and' in a list, you can have a modifier or description at the end of the list that applies to all objects listed.
The statement about terrorists was, as I showed, refering to terrorist attacks against commercial airliners.

Rubbish , the statement covers many things , when it covers many things you need to be specific about which of those things you are challenging .
In this case which is it is it "rail cars " or "airliners " or "storage plants" . You are just playing mix and match with the article Rabbit .

The TSA quote said nothing of the sort. They said it was not high on the list of potential dangers. I.e. dangers that have not even shown themselves to be a real threat. Hijackers and SAMs are a real threat. A rifle is not. They did not say it can take out a plane.

Rubbish , if it was not a possibility then it wouldn't be a potential danger , as it is a potential danger then it is a possibility . It is a potential danger isn't it , thats what the TSA are saying isn't it .
Though if you read the full statement from which that TSA quote is taken it is quite funny .

Worng again. Huh. I said carrying the rifle was impractical, not that it couldn't be done. Oh, and read the first part of the sentence:

Full sentance ....."They're (.50 caliber) easier to buy than a handgun," Diaz said. "These are ideal weapons of terrorist attack [Nevermind they've never been used for such an attack before, and that it would be very impractical for terrorist to lug around a 30 pound rifle that is just a bigger caliber than AKs] . Very dangerous elements gravitate toward these weapons."

Terrorist attack , they have been used . so what are you trying to say , they are bigger than a handgun so they are impractical ? Well hey a tonne of explosives is bigger than a rifle , does that mean terrorists don't use them .
As for carrying the rifle it does come with a carrying handle , for practiacal carrying , and it comes with a carry case (for when it is disassembled) so how can it be impractical to carry ?

The part before the comma. I didn't think I'd need to write it out so exactly (as in 'such an attack as a terrorist attack on a commercial plane), as I assumed that people here would understand what 'such an attack' refered to. Silly me.

Oh silly me , I didn't realise as it is not mentioned at all , I thought you were talking about rail cars , but they are not mentioned either , ah maybe it was game hunting terrorists , oh no they arn't mentioned . It just says terrorist attacks doesn't it .

Oh yeah ...You can't really hunt with it because it would destroy most of the meat. [Wrong]"

More correctly it doesn't destroy the meat if you use the correct ammunition , thats the full statement isn't it , selective data eh ~;)


Oh, and what about this?
My mistake , thats from the Militarywarehouse site that led me to Barretts own site .

[Slyspy]

I was talking about terrorist acts committed against the US. And the IRA's action, as I assume you're talking of them when you talk of British body armor and a N.I. city, is, in this instance, more of a guerrilla warfare action. Most examples I've seen of unsavory types using a .50 caliber rifle are more paramilitary than terrorist actions like shooting planes out of the sky, which is what the anti-gunners in the US get into a froth about. Other rifles and their respective calibers are relevant because the .50, anti-personel wise, cannot do much other calibers can't. And its anti-material capabilities do not lend itself to terrorist actions.

You lose any sympathy I had with your arguments with this casual brushing aside of The Troubles.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I said in that one instance the IRA was committing something more like guerilla warfare than plain terrorism. I am well aware they had a long history of terrorism that caused a lot of grief in Ireland and England. I was not trying to brush it aside. I have limited knowledge on The Troubles, and could not go into great depth of discussion on them.



Rubbish , the statement covers many things , when it covers many things you need to be specific about which of those things you are challenging .

Right! I'm glad you got it! It does cover many things, which is why you shouldn't say I am making inaccurate claims if you latch onto an interpretation that is less probable!:idea2:


In this case which is it is it "rail cars " or "airliners " or "storage plants" . You are just playing mix and match with the article Rabbit .
Both. I am not 'mixing and matching'. I am following the most logical path of what type of railcars terrorists would want to attack, and if the article mentions such a possibility.



Rubbish , if it was not a possibility then it wouldn't be a potential danger , as it is a potential danger then it is a possibility . It is a potential danger isn't it , thats what the TSA are saying isn't it .
Everything is a potential danger. Let's look at the definition of potential:
1 : existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality
Someone saying it is a danger that is only possible, but has not developed into an actual danger is much different from someone saying it could take out a plane. You said I quoted someone who said it could take out a plane. That was wrong. You are right in saying that the TSA are stating it is a potential danger-not what you were claiming earlier, that they were saying it could take out a plane.:book: :laugh4: :laugh4:



Terrorist attack , they have been used . so what are you trying to say , they are bigger than a handgun so they are impractical ? Well hey a tonne of explosives is bigger than a rifle , does that mean terrorists don't use them .
As for carrying the rifle it does come with a carrying handle , for practiacal carrying , and it comes with a carry case (for when it is disassembled) so how can it be impractical to carry ?

You are again ignoring the words 'such an attack'. Consider where I wrote that: right after a statement by Tom Diaz, a member of the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun organization. This organization is constantly hyping the danger of .50 caliber rifles (http://www.vpc.org/50caliber.htm). I was speaking about such civilian terrorist attacks they outline (but have never happened). It's all in the context, baby. ~:cool:


Oh silly me
Indeed.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

And no, they aren't impractical because they're bigger than a handgun, but because they're so much bulkier and heavier than an AK and wouldn't do that much more damage (which you would have understood had you read my statement). And explosives do a heck of a lot more damage than bullets, and terrorists must find that makes them worthwhile (duh). :book:


More correctly it doesn't destroy the meat if you use the correct ammunition , thats the full statement isn't it , selective data eh
The statement I said was wrong said that it could not be used for hunting at all because it would destroy most of the meat. That is wrong, as you seem to agree.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

They do when the poor bugger is manning a checkpoint and the range of the penetrative abilities exceed those of ordinary rifles .

I have limited knowledge on The Troubles, and could not go into great depth of discussion on them.

So you cannot talk about terrorism and .50s then can you , You are approaching this as a US gun law problem , it isn't that is it .
BTW any luck on finding out about terrorist attacks on US forces using Barretts ?
Hey bubba we didn't supply them , that means that your government didn't supply them , that means they got them through non-governmental routes .
Would you like to venture that the terrorists in Afghanistan do not have Barretts or that they have not used them ?
If the government didn't supply them then that means they bought them on the open market . Sooooooo terrorists can't buy them and certainly can't use them eh ?????

The statement I said was wrong said that it could not be used for hunting at all because it would destroy most of the meat. That is wrong, as you seem to agree.

No rabbit it is nothing of the sort, it is selective data , if you didn't use the correct ammunition it would . if you used the correct ammunition it wouldn't .

Se what Pape was saying , you have chosen an article from the Ra that attacks an article by an anti-gun group that contains rubbish , yet in itself it contains rubbish, both use bullshit don't they .

Both. I am not 'mixing and matching'. I am following the most logical path of what type of railcars terrorists would want to attack, and if the article mentions such a possibility.

Well Rabbitt luckily you are not a terrorist , or unluckily . For maximum publicity impact (which is what terrorists seem to crave)then what you would be aiming for would not be a few bombs on commuter routes or some haz-chem railcars , what you would be aimong for would be two high speed commuter express derailments at the same location with the trains travelling in opposite directions . No bombs , no snipers , just a couple of iron bars on the rails . And how the hell is any anti terrorist legislation going to stop that ?Or any gun control legs .

The article you posted is full of selective data , in response to an already discredited article that was using selective data .

Oh by the way your VPC link is coming up dead It's all in the context, baby. but thats OK I have already read it , and I notice that Barret have not sued them for defamation have they , does that mean that their quote from the Barretts sales pitch is true . Surely if it was false then they would have sued , thats a nasty sales pitch isn't it , thats encouraging terrorism isn't it , is that why they have changed their sales page ? Perhaps they should instruct the Milwarehouse to change it as well .

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you cannot talk about terrorism and .50s then can you , You are approaching this as a US gun law problem , it isn't that is it .
...blah blah blah...
If the government didn't supply them then that means they bought them on the open market . Sooooooo terrorists can't buy them and certainly can't use them eh ?????

My statement was in response to Slyspy. Your pathetic attempts at strawmen are irrelevant.
Oh, ever hear of a thing called the 'black market'? It's where people buy and sell goods and services without the oversight of government or care for the laws of the land. :idea2:


No rabbit it is nothing of the sort, it is selective data , if you didn't use the correct ammunition it would . if you used the correct ammunition it wouldn't .

So, I agree with you, and you say it's nothing of the sort? The statement that hunting with a .50 caliber will destroy the meat with any bullet type is wrong. Saying that is not using 'selective data'. It is the truth. It is not the selective truth. Saying that 'hunting in certain circumstances with a .50 caliber rifle will destroy the meat' is wrong, because people have hunted with it and not destroyed the flesh of the animal, would be use of selective data.


Well Rabbitt luckily you are not a terrorist , or unluckily . For maximum publicity impact (which is what terrorists seem to crave)then what you would be aiming for would not be a few bombs on commuter routes or some haz-chem railcars , what you would be aimong for would be two high speed commuter express derailments at the same location with the trains travelling in opposite directions . No bombs , no snipers , just a couple of iron bars on the rails . And how the hell is any anti terrorist legislation going to stop that ?Or any gun control legs .

Um...we're talking about .50 caliber rifles here. :book: ~:doh: :laugh4:


Oh by the way your VPC link is coming up dead It's all in the context, baby. but thats OK I have already read it , and I notice that Barret have not sued them for defamation have they , does that mean that their quote from the Barretts sales pitch is true . Surely if it was false then they would have sued , thats a nasty sales pitch isn't it , thats encouraging terrorism isn't it , is that why they have changed their sales page ? Perhaps they should instruct the Milwarehouse to change it as well .

Thanks for the link info. Turns out there was an extra parenthesis at the end. Here you go: http://www.vpc.org/50caliber.htm .

I'm not arguing about Barrett's sales pitch. He probably uses it more for his military rifles now, though. I was arguing that the statement 'such an attack' refered to attacks on commercial airlines and such, as the VPC yaks about all the time.

I'm glad you agree with me on the chemical rail cars and terrorist attacks on commerical planes issues now, and on the TSA statement. ~:)

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

My statement was in response to Slyspy. Your pathetic attempts at strawmen are irrelevant.

No strawman there Rabbit , you talked about terrorist attacks , you don't want to talk about terrorist attacks that contradict your position do you , because your position is full of holes .

So, I agree with you, and you say it's nothing of the sort?
Nope , both the rifle association and the French article are using selective data , each are making some statements that are true but neither is including the conditionals that make them true .

Um...we're talking about .50 caliber rifles here.
Hey you wanted to talk about the practicality of terrorist attacks , if you want to be specific about airliners rather than rail cars then how much does a Stinger weigh ? is it more impractical to carry than a pistol ?

I was arguing that the statement 'such an attack' refered to attacks on commercial airlines and such, as the VPC yaks about all the time.

But there is nothing in the article that specifies that is there . See if you want to argue about specifics then you are better writing you own words rather than posting someone elses words and saying "this is what I mean" when what you post hasn't said that at all .


I'm glad you agree with me on the chemical rail cars and terrorist attacks on commerical planes issues now, and on the TSA statement
Errrrrr......Rubbish , if it was not a possibility then it wouldn't be a potential danger , as it is a potential danger then it is a possibility . It is a potential danger isn't it , thats what the TSA are saying isn't it .

The TSA are aware of the possible danger posed to aircraft by high calibre rifles are they not , but its not high on the list , I wonder how high on the list kamikazee attacks on high rise buildings were before Sept.11th? was it above the threat of swarms of terrorist ducks ?

Oh, ever hear of a thing called the 'black market'? It's where people buy and sell goods and services without the oversight of government or care for the laws of the land.
Ah that explains it , your government had to ask itself if they had supplied the terrorists with Barretts .....no they bought them elsewhere , they would never give dangerous weapons to terrorists.......any luck on trying to buy back the anti aircraft missiles that they gave the terrorists yet ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

No strawman there Rabbit , you talked about terrorist attacks , you don't want to talk about terrorist attacks that contradict your position do you , because your position is full of holes .

Let's see, shall we?
The straw man logical fallacy is defined thusly:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. :book:
And that is exactly what you did::idea2: :laugh4:

I said:
I have limited knowledge on The Troubles, and could not go into great depth of discussion on them.

You said:

So you cannot talk about terrorism and .50s then can you , You are subsituting a distorted version of what I said and drawing assumptions from that.

You are approaching this as a US gun law problem , it isn't that is it .
This has nothing at all to do with The Troubles or my knowledge thereof.
:no:
Those terrorist attacks by the IRA do not contradict my position, because my position is not that no terrorist groups have ever used .50 calibers, but that no terrorists attacking civilian targets such as commercial airlines have ever used .50 caliber rifles to do so. :book::laugh4:


Hey you wanted to talk about the practicality of terrorist attacks , if you want to be specific about airliners rather than rail cars then how much does a Stinger weigh ? is it more impractical to carry than a pistol ?
I was talking about the logic behind the rail cars in the article being chemical rail cars, and what types of rail cars one would use a .50 caliber rifle against. I was not talking about terrorist attacks in general. You might have noticed that the article was about .50 caliber rifles.


But there is nothing in the article that specifies that is there . See if you want to argue about specifics then you are better writing you own words rather than posting someone elses words and saying "this is what I mean" when what you post hasn't said that at all .

As I said earlier...

You are again ignoring the words 'such an attack'. Consider where I wrote that: right after a statement by Tom Diaz, a member of the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun organization. This organization is constantly hyping the danger of .50 caliber rifles (http://www.vpc.org/50caliber.htm ). I was speaking about such civilian terrorist attacks they outline (but have never happened). It's all in the context, baby.


The TSA are aware of the possible danger posed to aircraft by high calibre rifles are they not , but its not high on the list , I wonder how high on the list kamikazee attacks on high rise buildings were before Sept.11th? was it above the threat of swarms of terrorist ducks ?

Despite your silly rhetoric, I've already discussed this:

The TSA quote said nothing of the sort. They said it was not high on the list of potential dangers. I.e. dangers that have not even shown themselves to be a real threat. Hijackers and SAMs are a real threat. A rifle is not. They did not say it can take out a plane.
...
Everything is a potential danger. Let's look at the definition of potential:
1 : existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality
Someone saying it is a danger that is only possible, but has not developed into an actual danger is much different from someone saying it could take out a plane. You said I quoted someone who said it could take out a plane. That was wrong. You are right in saying that the TSA are stating it is a potential danger-not what you were claiming earlier, that they were saying it could take out a plane.


Ah that explains it , your government had to ask itself if they had supplied the terrorists with Barretts .....no they bought them elsewhere , they would never give dangerous weapons to terrorists.......any luck on trying to buy back the anti aircraft missiles that they gave the terrorists yet ?

What a nice red herring. All your blabbering about Afghanistan is irrelevant. :laugh4: :laugh4:

It's funny you watch you constantly retreat from any debate and fight a rearguard action based soley on pathetic rhetoric and fallacies. In your last post you revived arguments you let die after I dispatched them several posts ago. It seems you can't answer the real arguments, so you just wait until you can respond and look like you're not ignoring the substantial parts. :dizzy2: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

[Big_John]

wow. you live in a special little world, rabbit.



who is responsible for this awful thread?? i demand reparations!

[Crazed Rabbit]

wow. you live in a special little world, rabbit.

Um...thanks, buddy! ~:cheers:


who is responsible for this awful thread?? i demand reparations!

My lawyer has told me not to discuss the case before it goes to trail.

Crazed Rabbit