Thread: States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

Originally Posted by Wolverine

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

Breaking copyright? You want me to break the law in order to show that crime increases? An amusing idea.

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

No, I am adopting best practice and using evidence to support every aspect of my argument. I'm also using appropriate literature review methods, as shown by my use of empirical evidence to critique (in fact destroy) the evidence presented by Shiva

Unless you can provide the evidence that you claim your argument is based on , your argument means very little.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Unless you can provide the evidence that you claim your argument is based on , your argument means very little.

Adopting best practice always means a lot (and it would be irrational to do anything else). The anti-intellectuals may not understand that, but to advertise that anti-intellectualism has value in itself!

I do not disagree with your statement. However unless you can provide the supposed evidence, it has little or no value. I too can cite X and make any claim I want.

Originally Posted by Reiver

You'd have to assume that guns have perfect substitutes.

Is this a denial that coercion originates with the individual and not the object?

Of course there doesn't need to be a perfect substitute for coercion to exist. This would imply that coercion did not exist prior to the invention of firearms and that is blatantly false.

Of course there is a near-perfect substitution for firearms.... crossbows. They don't generally have the range or the rate of fire of modern firearms but they have a distinct advantage in that they are almost completely silent. Crossbows are still used in combat today often by snipers as well as by some police forces and are used by hunters for wild game. Today's crossbow designs are very powerful, highly accurate and definately deadly. So they're not a "perfect" substitute but they're a very, very good substitute for firearms.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

I too can cite X and make any claim I want.

Go ahead and try. I'll track down the source and, if there's evidence of deliberate misrepresentation, I'll give you a tut! That's the beauty of always following literature review methods. It becomes very easy

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Is this a denial that coercion originates with the individual and not the object?

Its acceptance of the evidence. Guns do not have perfect substitutes. Gun control is found to significantly reduce crime. The idea that you simply get a spillover into other forms of crime (with other weapons) is make-believe. Again, the evidence is all against you

Originally Posted by Reiver

Go ahead and try. I'll track down the source and, if there's evidence of deliberate misrepresentation, I'll give you a tut! That's the beauty of always following literature review methods. It becomes very easy

Yet you use sources that no one else has access to.

Very interesting.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Breaking copyright?

We're very concerned with copyright laws as Political Forum could be held liable which is why we require links to articles and generally prohibit complete copy and pasting of articles. For sources where an internet link cannot be found short quotations from a document can be used so long as appropriate credit is given to the author and source without breaking the copyright laws.

I felt that required clarification.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

Originally Posted by Reiver

Its acceptance of the evidence. Guns do not have perfect substitutes. Gun control is found to significantly reduce crime. The idea that you simply get a spillover into other forms of crime (with other weapons) is make-believe. Again, the evidence is all against you

Does coercion originate with the individual or does it orginate with an object?

That is a simple question.