16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 278:
Line 278: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Extreme Censorship: new section
::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup>
::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup>
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)
== Extreme Censorship ==
Recently I tried to make an addition to this article which pointed out that while it may be true that "Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: self-defense" (from the article aready), it is also true that a decrease in gun ownership rates leads to a decrease in homicides, which i then cited with 2 scholarly journal articles,
http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/455/1/63
http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=12000&article=00001&type=abstract
I thought, of course, this would be fine, i didnt remove any text, I meerly added what seems to be a legitimate if not universally accepted point.
However, my entry was deleted twice, according to Andy Schafly, was because he had seem me "push liberal untruths." (full response at http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly )
So my question is this... if Mr Schafly doesn't censor the truth, then why exactly does he delete well referenced points solely on the basis that he thinks they are 'liberal'?