Thread: Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

Originally Posted by Reiver

Repetition in emptiness? Crikey! Get back to me when you can respond with mature remark. Cheers!

Fail Always fail.

Originally Posted by Reiver

This is actually nonsense. Most studies use datasets available to all. Its therefore very easy to test the validity of a paper's methodology. If a paper is biased you should be able to refer to a counter-paper that details that bias. Why can't you?


Tabloidism isn't of much use. Those that argue the Queen is a Lizard Person also utilise it. Stick to the evidence! Reference something that supports your stance

Reiver, you always refer to others data or papers. I will note here that you seem to have no actual experience or data of your own. You sound like a wonderfully gifted plagiarist, as well as one who can affect an educated appearance without any actual real world experience. I referred to my actual, hands on, first hand, experience in this area. Your charge of "tabloidism" and references to "lizard people" is something that a person does when they are on the verge of being unmasked as a pseudo-intellectual. Good try tho........

Originally Posted by greatgeezer

Reiver, you always refer to others data or papers.

An empirical based approach must be taken on this topic. Its through that which we can avoid bias and refer directly to gun effects.

I will note here that you seem to have no actual experience or data of your own.

Wrong. I'm from a gun owning background. Folk use tabloidism to hide from reality (because that's what evidence describes!).

Your charge of "tabloidism" and references to "lizard people" is something that a person does when they are on the verge of being unmasked as a pseudo-intellectual.

No, it neatly summarises the limitation in your approach. The lizard people conspiracy theorists also refer to tabloidism. Its a means to maintain an unsupportable position after all

Originally Posted by Reiver

An empirical based approach must be taken on this topic. Its through that which we can avoid bias and refer directly to gun effects.


Wrong. I'm from a gun owning background. Folk use tabloidism to hide from reality (because that's what evidence describes!).


No, it neatly summarises the limitation in your approach. The lizard people conspiracy theorists also refer to tabloidism. Its a means to maintain an unsupportable position after all

Reiver you are bring a fool here. An empirical approach means your opinion of a data set or information that is presented. My empirical view may differ from yours. I have already shown you that you are wrong here.

Simple data analyses is the best solution. There is no need for peer review of anything as long as the data sets are not contested. We can make our own conclusions from the data and numbers do not lie. There is only one conclusion looking at the numbers only.

Gun control will reduce the homicide rate in some cases but the overall violent crime rate generally remains the same with normal fluctuation. Why? Substitution of knives for guns. Still just as much crime with a little less death. And yes it moves from the guns to the knives.

Gun control is a good idea, i have always believed this and from reading these forums, not likely to change my mind.

To be clear though, in cities and urban centers. If people own land and want to hunt, then fair enough. But i dont see the point of owning firearms in urban sprawls, where the slightest argument could result in bullet death.

Btw, i have no idea on the data either.

Originally Posted by GeneralZod

Gun control is a good idea...Btw, i have no idea on the data either.

The data leads to straight forward conclusion: gun control reduces deaths

Originally Posted by Reiver

The data leads to straight forward conclusion: gun control reduces deaths

Which does seem obvious in it's simpliticy. It is hard to argue against "although many have and will try on this part of the forum"

Just exactly where did you get your Queen Elizabeth / lizard people reference? I used no such "tabloid" terminology. You attack with spurious innuendo when caught pontificating on subjects you have no experience with. Oh, and for the record, you coming from a gun owning family does not make you knowledgeable in this area, any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. You do however, entertain me, with your pseudo-intellectual claptrap. I have yet to stop chuckling. Again, nice try.

Originally Posted by greatgeezer

Just exactly where did you get your Queen Elizabeth / lizard people reference?

We get the same reaction: i.e. a selective use of sources designed to ensure bias remains unchallenged. The only difference is the severity of the bias.

I used no such "tabloid" terminology.

You haven't understood the comment. Tabloids refer to specific examples (a variation of 'in my experience') in order to provide a skewed understanding that ignores the objective evidence. You're doing the same.

Oh, and for the record, you coming from a gun owning family does not make you knowledgeable in this area, any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

It describes how you make assumptions in order to feed your bias. I don't have to bother with such malarkey. I refer only to the evidence

Originally Posted by GeneralZod

Which does seem obvious in it's simpliticy. It is hard to argue against "although many have and will try on this part of the forum"

There is a total disregard for the evidence. That's a shame but understandable I suppose. Folk don't like their core values challenged by the unfortunate nature of reality