Nope I refer to scientific evidence, where theory is only used to construct coherent empirical specification (avoiding issues with data mining)
You need more research on pro-gunners. You still haven't shown why any study you bring means anything with regards to gun control, either.
I already know you fellows don't do, or understand, evidence. Don't bore me with repetition over it pretty please!
Everything that has been presented by yourself on this matter, quite literally everything, has been read and reviewed, and it can be said with accuracy that none of it is evidence that supports the position being presented by yourself. The speculation of economists about the effectiveness of firearm-related restrictions in specific areas of the united states, does not and cannot amount to proof of anything.
Damn. Now we have to try every NRA member as a russian spy. Im sure Fox News will be the next Russian spys
This is just whinge over why you want to ignore criminology. I already know you fellows aren't evidence-based, so save your thumbs and keyboard.
You know absolutely nothing about Criminology, or evidence, or science, you know a few words, and repeat them ad nauseam ad infinitum. Evidence is needed in prosecution, you rely on faith to prove your claims, not evidence... And whinge ? Perhaps you meant Whine ? whining ? Do you want any cheese with your whine ?
Simplistic pottage, crime is independent of firearms, not causal, so ends your "claims" of science approach.
Round in round in circles you go. The evidence shows otherwise. If there was independence the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis would be rejected. It isn't. Bleedin obvious point mind you.
These are the people who propose "studies" in the middle of Compton to show that more guns = more death. When you ask them to do a study on the "more guns = more death" scenario in say, Oak Ridge, TN, they're not as enthusiastic. All of their "moar guns = moar death" is like studying shark attack prevalence on swimmers at Seal Island, South Africa and equating that to your chances of being attacked by a shark in your bathtub. In a nutshell, they are slide rule morons.
To the uneducated a spurious conclusion is indeed classified as a fact. Of course they aren't in a position to see the stupidity of that.
What is presented by yourself is not evidence, and can never, under any circumstances, ever be considered as evidence by those who actually know what they are doing.
Nor are those who buy into the half-baked conclusions of these supposed "studies" being presented by those who do not have a clue as to what they are doing, and do not care so long as they get their funding to do as they are told in presenting a false notion about a subject they do not understand.
You just keep fooling yourself Professor Moriarty, because you are not fooling anyone, with your constant repetition of Empirical Evidence this, and Scientific that, and those of us that really know the Truth laugh at your lack, by presenting mere studies that fall flat. Think about it, have you ever faced an Armed assailant ? Probably not, if you had, you would not take up the Anti Gun parable and repeat fantasy as fact. I know gun control is a hoax, how you ask ? Anti Gun people do not know the difference between a Criminal and a good guy, so the try to apply Gun control equally to all, and thus is a grave error as we can see that the criminals that are Murdering others care nothing about Laws or the consequences of violating those laws.
