Gun Control UK Style

Oh! I am SKEWERED by your rapier wit! Ho Ho!

 

Your usage of the word "use" was also poorly done.

 

Very poor! I insist that you refer to gun issues before my head drops off shaking my head.

 

He's using one with the little ball on the end.

 

So it's even smaller than I thought.

 

I think you need something like "from" or "while" in there to help that make sense.

 

Given you were manipulated. Job's done. Please refer to gun issues so you're funny.

 

That's whats amusing about manipulating you.

 

You've been unfunny to ensure that I demand that you refer to gun issues? Cunning!

Let's get you funny. Refer me to one piece of evidence that shows that British gun control increased gun crime.

 

I'm sorry, I can't debate people who struggle with basic English.

 

Such a little request: "Refer me to one piece of evidence that shows that British gun control increased gun crime".

You're funny again!

 

There is no so-called "weapons effect" that motivates someone to commit a crime, simply because a weapon is present. This is nonsense being presented by the same psychologists who concocted the false notion of spontaneous suicides to explain away why they failed to pick up on the obvious warning signs that a patient is suffering from suicidal thoughts or tendencies, because psychology is not a hard science. It is nothing more than an excuse to let so-called "experts" avoid having to admit that it is people themselves who are the problem, by blaming outside influences that do not exist.

 

So, let's get this clear, you can't refer to one scientific paper in support of your position? All you've got is adding speech marks around the word experts?

 

Scientific papers say whatever the one funding them wishes to say, even if it is not the truth.

 

You're a great advert for the pro-gunners!

And not one paper in support of your position. Is the NRA too busy buying politician?

 

Those who demonstrate logical thought, critical thinking skills, and who will push others to defend and justify their positions, and explain the mechanics of what they propose, are in need all over the world. Too many individuals do not have the mental or moral fortitude to question anything that is presented by someone who hides behind their credentials, because they are too afraid of being shouted down by those who treat science like a religion or cult.

The only position on the part of myself, is that the position of yourself is not supported by facts. It has been pointed out how those being cited by yourself are not actually researchers, but rather political advocates who are funded by other political advocates to sell a particular narrative, even if it does not coincide with the truth.

 

You don't

You don't

You don't. That would involve reference to the research.

You ask petty questions. You achieve nothing. For example, where is your defence for deterrence theory offered by the pro-gunners? You're not even bleedin aware of it.

At least you're in a position to realise your error. Congrats!

 

And it is not possible for yourself to provide an answer without claiming economics are involved, or telling others to read the cited research.

And where is the defense of yourself in the position that economics somehow motivates others to engage in murder? Because someone else with credentials says so?

 

Pro-gunner research is reliant on economic criminology. Referring to evidence is just obvious (except to pro-gunner post truthers)

What on earth are you trying to say here? Try and construct an argument for a change!

 

Economics plays no part in a violent individual determining that they do not wish to face the risk of being killed by a potential victim who can actually fight back.

Then let us try this. You have no argument of your own. You are merely parroting what someone else has instructed you to say. You were provided with a script and a few talking points to promote something, and when presented with questions as to how what is being promoted would actually work, you have nothing to defend it with beyond telling others to read the work of others. Meaning the work of others is not actually understood on the part of yourself. Meaning that you are a shill, nothing more than a living advertisement billboard.

 

So you're rejecting pro-gunner use of deterrence theory?

I can weirdly support this comment. I don't have a bias on this issue. I simply have an outcome based on the evidence.

 

What is being rejected is the nonsense that economics plays any part in the matter. Someone who is predisposed to using violence to get what they want from others, is not going to suddenly contemplate the monetary value of their life, compared to the monetary value of what they want, and conclude that seeking honest and gainful employment is the best course of action to engage in.

It is not evidence, it is political ideology.

 

You're just confirming that you reject the pro-gunner research. Well done!

So now I have a person argument? Crikey, try and be consistent!

 

There are a great many times when both sides of the debate will be rejected because they are both wrong.

A great many problems are present on the part of yourself. Chief among them, being employed to defend the factually deficient opinions of others who cannot be bothered to actually do the work themselves, in defending their own work from critics who will ask questions that their work cannot and does not account for, because they relate to human behavior which cannot be scientifically mapped out and accurately predicted due to its own chaotic nature.

 

Speaking of climate, I noted earlier that virtually none of what gun ban advocates refer to as "Developed Countries" are as far south as the U.S.

In addition to innumerable other ways in which the US differs from "Developed Countries", virtually none of the "D.C."s routinely experience the oppressive southern heat that frequently incites violent behavior:

"Violent crime rates found to be higher during warmer months"
https://www.news-medical.net/news/2...-found-to-be-higher-during-warmer-months.aspx

EXCERPTS "Among police officers, there's a maxim: Being a cop gets a whole lot busier when it's hot out. Now, a study by a pair of Drexel University researchers appears to back them up.
Overall, crime rates were highest in the warmest months of the year -- May through September -- and highest on the hottest days."CONTINUED