I have stipulated that we are ignorant about the empirical process and how hypothesis testing is conducted. that's why I have asked you to reform a hypothesis that closer reflects the complexity of the proof. Failing that please explain the proof in the same simple terms as the hypothesis is presented. if neither of those things can be done then you can just collect your parlor tricks and magic trinkets and move along and let us just bask in the ignorant glory of the fact that: In 1990, 16,218 people out of a population of 249,464,396 were murdered with a gun. In 2010, 8,775 people out of a population of 308,745,538 were murdered with a gun. 20 years + 60,000,000 people + at least 80,000,000 guns = 7743 FEWER ANNUAL HOMICIDES?
AHHH I get it now, we are all just too stupid to understand the the greatness of your irrefutable logic and proof. ERRR wait, what logic and proof have you posted? (I know I know I need to teach myself something) But But Wait a second Could it be that it just doesn't matter what value we bring to the debate because no one serious or believable is publicly attempting to make your point with any success? Does it really matter since Our 2nd amendment stands fast and that the outcome of your perverse argument will result in exactly ZILCH changes to our gun laws. Might I offer an opposte suggestion for you, Your debate offers no value. Go and learn something basic that will actually help your discussion. Thanks
My logic and proof? I've just bothered to ensure an evidence-based position. It should be the norm. Its certainly not difficult to achieve, An interesting aspect of pro-gun perceptions is often their lack of perspective. They seem to think gun control is a recent phenomena, typically created by some rabid liberal communist (I know, I know, its cretinous isn't it?) who has trampled all over the 2nd amendment. They often don't know that the US has always had gun control and that it actually strengthened following the 2nd amendment. I also find it interesting that folk believe the constitution demands irrationality. I switch from amusement to contempt over that, but interest is maintained. Why do you think pro-gunners are so contemptuous of the use of evidence? I think its an example of cultism, but happy to hear your thoughts on the subject
No, discredited by those with an anti-gun agenda. In the third edition he refutes every attack on his data and his methodology.
err nope try again, more logic and proof has countered your assumptions through and by multiple posters than by any logical strech of your imagination and they all had evidence based positions. Those responses are the real norm Just because you believe that you've bothered to ensure anything doesn't make it so. Emperical evidence being what it is, I could positively say your position has been countered, please offer proof to the contrary Circular arguments are positions of the weak. An interesting aspect of pro-gun perceptions is often their historically correct grasp of perspective. They believe that gun control no matter when it began has no historical or scientific proof it works and that they are historically correct in their belief that the rabid anti-gun crowd isn't so much interested in saving lives or preventing crime as they are about controlling guns and the way others live their lives. (I know I know It flies in the face of your logic but hey history has a way of correcting such misguided beliefs especially those that government controls actually work) Anti-gun fanatics have a way of getting beaten back by the constitution and by that virtue pro-gun rights citizens actually have their rights strengthened therefore vindicated by the decisions of SCOTUS. Which BTW fall completely in line with comments about firearms from the founding fathers. I find it fascinating that folks believe the constitution demands the irrational belief that big brother knows best when in all actuality the founding fathers and most current citizenry believe and practice the belief that individuals know best what is right for them. Finally I'm not switching any emotions based on comments from you. I find solice in the fact that it has already been decided not only by SCOTUS but by a majority of states, gun control doesn't work. I struggle with your "evidence" when in fact more counter fact based evidence has been proiduced for you than you can ever refute (which you avoid very predictably) I think you Anti rights folks are low information voters who take their cues from the liberal media. I think that because factually I can follow you arguments by simply reading MSM news stories. Any intelligent fact reviewer would be able to produce point/counter point discussions with an understanding that there is a historical value in the equation. Lacking historical proof for your assertions and working on pure emotions makes the gun control folks the real cultists.
There was nothing of interest in your post, except this chestnut. Our disagreement can be simplified to: I think you know nothing about the available empirical evidence, whilst you've convinced yourself otherwise. I'm happy to be proved wrong. Can you provide the references for the top 3 empirical studies that you'd use to support your position? Your choice will be enlightening!
