IKEA apologises for child shooting a gun

Citation please because that seems an odd amount I notice too that you are NOT giving the correct per 100,000 rate calculation which is standard

Oooops just went back through the conversation however a citation is needed

 

None of there are hallmarks of a third world country

 

Only when you present to ED after licking dried cane toads please do not expect the government to pay for your care

 

Always do. Discussing this topic without understanding of the research would be a ludicrous thing to do. Doesn't stop the ideologues mind you...

 

Regardless of such, they are still the law, and are subject to the rule of law.

Thus serving to demonstrate the point being made previously about the united states lacking respect for the rule of law, and not being a first-world, developed nation.

 

If citing the number of firearm-related deaths of various nations is regarded as a valid argument for attempting to shame the united states into changing its firearm-related restrictions to mirror those of other nations, then it is equally a valid argument to cite the same figures in illustrating how the united states does not qualify as being a first-world, developed nation.

 

Yeah, the NEJM helped push the Mediterranean diet fad and now had to retract the article they published as error prone and not correctable. Typical.

 

Perhaps it is not regarded as such, but it is not the same standard as what was cited regarding either texting, or being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle.

 

Disrespect for the rule of law, however, is arguably a hallmark of a third world nation.

Some other examples of how the united states qualifies as being a third world nation.

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Outside of infant mortality, the above applies heavily to the united states. There is very little economic growth occurring as most jobs are outsourced to foreign nations or are being automated. A significant percentage exists below the poverty line. Natural resources are poorly utilized locally. And with most everything in the united states being made abroad, the united states is heavily dependent on other industrialized nations to keep it functioning, as it is not producing its own goods at high enough levels.

The united states government is very unstable in how it conducts itself, with numerous redundancies integrated into itself, and is overly bloated to the point of being ineffectual at everything other than complicated whatever it gets involved in. Too many individuals are having children that they cannot afford to take responsibility for, and too many individuals are illegally entering the country and taking up residence. Illiteracy levels are growing as the education system fails. Diseases such as measles, which were all but eliminated in the united states, are now far more common and once again present a serious threat to the population.

The united states possesses most, if not all, of the hallmarks of a third world nation.

 

From 1892 until 1970 it was illegal to fly a kite on the National Mall. A group of kite enthusiasts challenged the law and it was overturned. The same thing is now happening in regards to the archaic marijuana laws in this country. It's a victimless crime, and it will soon be overturned.

 

Perhaps such will come about, perhaps it will not. Whichever development occurs, it does not change the facts of the paint that is being made with regard to rule of law in the united states.

 

I would be inclined to agree with you if I was advocating for repeal of drunk driving laws where damage to society is evident and obvious, but I'm not. Victimless crimes serve no purpose in society other than to generate income.

 

Which, again, does not change the point that is being made regarding the state of rule of law in the united states.

 

No; whether you realize it or not, you're still just another ideologue. You embrace the results of the politically biased research you present because it tells you what you want to hear, and refuse to accept anything contradictory to your agenda by dismissing it as "anecdotal" or "tabloidism".

When someone lives a certain reality, is raised to follow certain courses of action as being advantageous and beneficial, and sees the same positive results resulting from those actions throughout their lives; they come to recognize those things as simply being the reality of life. When someone comes along presenting a bunch of statistics and making snidely arrogant assertions 100% opposite of what the first person's life experiences have taught him, and dismissing his defense of his lifestyle as "tabloidism", guess what's going to happen?

 

Hell, this guy probably checks a statistical model before he has a bowel movement.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think those specific points are valid arguments; regardless of who's using them.

 

Rejecting tabloidism is basic sense. Conducting literature review methods is best practice. The idea that these methods are ideological is nonsensical. The methods used are diverse. For example, while I have reservations about deterrence theory, I have to consider the papers involved. Any rejection must be from critique (such as referring to empirical bias).

This is just inane effort to try and hide from the evidence.

I dont expect pro gunners to shift position. They're mainly ideologues after all. Most of their efforts are about hiding from the research. Try cheese in the ears?

 

Then these individuals should conduct themselves more carefully in presenting a particular argumentative point, if they do not wish for that same point to be utilized against their narrative at some point.

 

It is not research. No amount of continual citation will make it research.

 

Scholarly journals, using best practice hypothesis testing? Yep, I can see how it would confuse you

 

All making the same baseless, unsubstantiated claims that the implementation of certain hypothetical firearm-related restrictions will have a measurable impact on firearm-related incidents in a given area, and that it is possible to predict how many lives will be saved from this legislation coming into existence.

 

Nope. There is a multitude of findings. You're merely demonstrating that, on this topic, you're poorly read. Sure you're better with Mills & Boon

 

Everything that has been presented has been read, because it was read long before it was ever presented by yourself. And without exception, everything that has been presented is subject to serious logical fallacies that cannot be overcome and corrected for. The so-called "studies" that show how various foreign nations have strict firearm-related restrictions and lower levels of firearm-related incidents attempt to paint it as being directly attributed to the firearm-related restrictions being implemented, and make the claim that no other factor relating to the makeup of society played any part in such.

 

Given I often reference new research, you've given the game away with this bogus comment!

 

You are shooting yourself in the foot so to speak. There is a significant amount of research looking at interventions within the USA