Thread: States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

Originally Posted by Bondo

Ayuh,... Reciever don't need relevant data,....

Data is not enough. That data has to be used within relevant empirical methodology capable of ensuring robustness checks. Folk would know that if they had bothered to peruse the available evidence! Unfortunately that seems like an alien concept for those blinded by the NRA message, as they follow the party line and ignore individualism and rationality

Originally Posted by Reiver

Data is not enough. That data has to be used within relevant empirical methodology capable of ensuring robustness checks. Folk would know that if they had bothered to peruse the available evidence! Unfortunately that seems like an alien concept for those blinded by the NRA message, as they follow the party line and ignore individualism and rationality

you have yet to present a single shred of evidence in support of your argument. studies that only YOU, conveniantly, have access to, do nothing for your argument. You lose by default, since you refuse to provide evidence to back up your arguments. That's how debate works.

That is true, the studies need to be posted. It is rather silly to simply cite them if no one else has access to them.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

That is true, the studies need to be posted. It is rather silly to simply cite them if no one else has access to them.

it's what he does. he's been doing it since he joined here. The only time a study he cited was actually posted(which was posted by another member who found it for free) it was torn to shreds and exposed as severely biased.

he has yet to make the mistake of citing a paper that can be accessed again.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

That is true, the studies need to be posted. It is rather silly to simply cite them if no one else has access to them.

No matter the circumstance, from consultancy to discussion board, there is no reason that best practice shouldn't be followed. An evidence based approach must certainly be based on the utilisation of peer reviewed scholarly output. That ensures the avoidance of mere opinion and the slide towards political hack tabloidism. Everything I've used on this thread has been supported by the evidence. That isn't a comfortable outcome for the dogmatic who have been told that they are righteous 'no matter what'

Originally Posted by Reiver

No matter the circumstance, from consultancy to discussion board, there is no reason that best practice shouldn't be followed.

I believe it would be hard to argue that Sarah McKinley should be denied the Right of Self Defense by owning firearms that allowed her to defend herself and her baby when two men broke into her home. I challenge anyone to argue that she should have been denied gun ownership so that she could have been raped and murdered. Those firearms provided her with the only logical means of self defense.

The "best practice" is unquestionably to allow law abiding people the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guarenteed by the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

The "best practice" is unquestionably to allow law abiding people the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guarenteed by the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

Who said otherwise? The important point is that we cannot ignore coercion created through our personal preferences. That wouldn't be consistent with the celebration of freedom.

Its obvious that, to understand the coercive effects, we need to understand the empirical literature derived from criminology. Ignoring that literature is certainly tacit support for coercion

Originally Posted by Reiver

No matter the circumstance, from consultancy to discussion board, there is no reason that best practice shouldn't be followed. An evidence based approach must certainly be based on the utilisation of peer reviewed scholarly output. That ensures the avoidance of mere opinion and the slide towards political hack tabloidism. Everything I've used on this thread has been supported by the evidence. That isn't a comfortable outcome for the dogmatic who have been told that they are righteous 'no matter what'

The studies are not the issue, it is that you are not actually posting the studies.

You are simply copieing and pasting and we have no means of determining whether or not it is true.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Who said otherwise? The important point is that we cannot ignore coercion created through our personal preferences. That wouldn't be consistent with the celebration of freedom.

Its obvious that, to understand the coercive effects, we need to understand the empirical literature derived from criminology. Ignoring that literature is certainly tacit support for coercion

It would be wonderful if we could live in a world without coercion but that only exists in the town of Utopia which really is located somewhere in FantasyLand.

The truth is that if guns we'ren't being use for coercion then knifes would take their place and if we got rid of knives then sticks and stones would be used. It really isn't the object that creates the coercion but instead the individual that creates the coercion and those individuals will do it regardless of any objects that might be available for use.

I always find it both sad and humorous when I go through TSA at the airport because they'll confiscate a 2" pocket knife but allow a person onboard with an 8" ballpoint pen which is actually far more lethal. The perceptions of threats are often quite different than the actual threat itself.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

It would be wonderful if we could live in a world without coercion but that only exists in the town of Utopia which really is located somewhere in FantasyLand.

I haven't referred to utopia so that's another red herring. I've referred to an evidence-based approach which, due to rationality, is motivated by reacting to coercive relations. In contrast, you've preferred tabloidism and- except for the Lott and Mustard error- ignored that evidence.

The truth is that if guns we'ren't being use for coercion then knifes would take their place and if we got rid of knives then sticks and stones would be used.

Another fallacy. You'd have to assume that guns have perfect substitutes. There are no studies that support that proposition. Not one