Mexico – Household Gun Ownership Appendix to Mexico household gun ownership article (PPTX) https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/mexico-household-gun-ownership/
Is it known just how many posts are made within a given day when address countless individuals who demonstrate an overwhelming absence of critical thinking skills, and who present a wide array of varying arguments that must be kept track of when addressing them? It is not a matter of ideology on the part of myself. It is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that it has never been explained precisely how more legally owned firearms, does anything to directly lead to an increase in firearm-related offenses being committed. Those who present the nonsense and claim it is proven fact, do not even bother trying to demonstrate just how it is proven. Instead they treat it as if it should be self-evident, when it is most certainly not. It it were a matter of fact, it could be explained by yourself, with ease, just how more legally owned firearms does anything to lead to more firearm-related offenses being committed.
Just search for hypocrisy! That should help. You don't do evidence based. You are ideologically blinkered, nothing more.
No effort has ever been made on the part of yourself to demonstrate that the statement is correct. When questioned as to how it works, nothing is done on the part of yourself except repeatedly pointing to the so-called "studies" that supposedly support and confirm the statement as fact. Meaning the basis behind it is not even understood by yourself, otherwise the science would be explained and pointed to. If the statement were indeed true and confirmed, there would be no difficulty in pointing to just how more legally owned firearms directly translate to more firearm-related offenses being committed. But such as not been done by yourself. Such has not even been attempted. That is why the argument is rejected, as it cannot be demonstrated by those that support it. They accept it on the basis of blind faith because it sounds good to them, not because of scientific objectivity.
Reiver, and Xenamnes, my personal opinion on the matter you're debating aside, neither one of you has put forth a convincing argument.
There is no evidence to be had. Evidence demonstrates not only that something did occur, but also how it occurs. How firearm-related restrictions directly translate into lives being saved, cannot be proven.
You reject evidence. You run from evidence. You simply grab any one of an uncountable number of junk science statistical analyses that support your position and parrot it without critical evaluation. You have an agenda you're pushing that fits your own ideological bent. You aren't interested in facts.
What is merely being done on the part of myself is demonstrating that what is being presented as evidence, does not amount to evidence.
Why you have to make ridiculous claims is beyond me. I refer to all of the evidence. It's basic sense
It is not evidence, and never has been evidence. Simply because someone with an official title and doctorate releases it, does not make it science.
First of all, welcome to this forum. I hope you'll find it a pleasant way to pass the time, gain information & exercise your mind. As I understand this thread, the OP suggests that in America, it is important to be knowledgable about firearms, respectful of what they can do and be basically proficient in their use even if it is only knowing how to safely unload one. I hope I have accurately represented the OP's sentiment & if so, I agree with it since there are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation in the US & you as well as the children in your life are very likely to exposed to one at sometime in your life. I have had a keen but not obsessive interest in firearms since I can remember and became proficient in a wide range of firearms in the US Military while going on to teach others the basics & currently target shooting as time permits. I do not claim to be an expert in spite of 60 years of experience shooting everything from Grenade launchers, .50 caliber, fully automatic, belt fed "machine guns" to .22 caliber revolvers. The argument, as I understand it is, do you agree that it is important to have a working knowledge of firearms & do you agree that is a lawful American citizen's right to own firearms "in common use" ( as per "Heller") like the AR-15? There's no "right" or "wrong" answer as everyone is entitled to their opinion. Thanks
Scholarly research isn't evidence because an ideologue says so? Your post truthing continues to be pathetic.
It is not evidence because the outcome is based entirely and exclusively on the opinions of not only the ones conducting the so-called "research", but also those who are providing the funding for the so-called "research" and have already paid for the outcome that they want.
I was referring to the debate/difference of opinion between Reiver, and Xenamnes, which is a bit different. Thank you for the welcome, btw.
Polls & evidence claiming to represent the views of NRA members and gun owners in general is grossly unreliable for 2 reasons: 1. Only the NRA knows who is genuinely an NRA member. 2. With the exception of naive Fudds, most legitimate gun owners are unwilling to tell the truth to a complete stranger because they fear of being put on a list for future gun confiscation schemes. On the other hand, individuals who do support gun control/confiscation however frequently claim to own guns & would like to perpetuate the falsehood that even gun owners support gun control. Please note the following: "Don’t Believe Fake Polls about the “Gun Control” Views of NRA Members" https://www.ammoland.com/2018/07/do...n-control-views-of-nra-members/#axzz5KK6olHy4 EXCERPT "The media love to cite national polls that claim NRA members and gun owners support gun control. That’s because they’re trying to push a gun control narrative, and the “poll results” fit their political narrative. But that doesn’t make it true. The media love to cite national polls that claim NRA members and gun owners support gun control. That’s because they’re trying to push a gun control narrative, and the “poll results” fit their political narrative. But that doesn’t make it true. The only legitimate poll of NRA members ever done was a national scientific survey commissioned by NRA. It surveyed 1,000 randomly-selected NRA members across the country and found that NRA members are united on today’s issues. 92 percent oppose banning the sale of firearms between private citizens. 92 percent oppose background checks on the sale of firearms between private citizens. 89 percent oppose banning so-called “assault weapons.” 93 percent oppose gun registration. 91 percent SUPPORT laws to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses. That is the only legitimate survey of NRA members in existence. It was conducted to expose the bevy of pollsters reporting false survey results."CONTINUED
I am still wondering if you support the right of law abiding Americans to own semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 & other semi-automatic firearms (pistols) that have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. My welcome still stands regardless of your opinion.
More than likely, it is a matter of simple curiosity. Based on past experiences others have had here, perhaps it is a bit of suspicion as well. Five years ago, a member going by the name "brainyblonde" approached the forum, asking for various individuals to present their views relating to firearm-related restrictions. A number of responses were presented by a number of participants, myself included, all from a wide array of standpoints and views on the subject. In reality, the individual behind the account was conducting an experiment, and gathering exchanges between those participating to use in a paper on why online anonymity is a bad thing and should be eliminated, forcing those who participate in online discussions to use their real identities when addressing others. There work can be found here for viewing purposes. http://sites.psu.edu/arimanicaprio/files/2013/04/Online-deliberation.pdf
"Five years ago, a member going by the name "brainyblonde" approached the forum, asking for various individuals to present their views relating to firearm-related restrictions." Except that I'm not the one asking for a point of view. Grau is.
Which is being acknowledged. One possible explanation is merely being presented for the time being. It is a basic characteristic of human nature to wish to define the world and others around themselves in round terms. To be able to typify and codify basic elements of existence in a neat, orderly, and coherent fashion. Some would even classify it as being a primal desire to recognize those that they associate with. That matter aside, it is acknowledged that the current back and forth may not be the most convincing of discussions to be had in relation to the topic of discussion in this thread. But despite best efforts, everything eventually wanders off topic. Once that happens, it is very difficult to get back on topic.
