Tactics of desperation

What more do you want from me? How much more proof do you need? How many more citations do you require?

1) Regarding Questions #1: I cited home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/Future_of_Children_2002.pdf. How does this not substantiate my claim? How else can I further substantiate my claim than by offering a citation. I even told you how to just do a quick google search of "The Cost of Gun Violence Against Children", and you will find tons of free links. I guess you were too lazy to do even that. Now I've GIVEN you the free link here on this page. I wonder what your excuse will be now.
2) Regarding Question #2: Again, I've cited my sources (Brady Campaign website and the 1994 AWB). What more do you want from me? Do you want another link. Here you go http://www.bradycampaign.org/. Just scroll down the main page and you'll find the phrase "assault clips," which are in reference to magazines used on rifles and HANDGUNS. How much more proof do you want? Again, I wonder what your excuse will be now.
3) Regarding Quesiton #3: Once Again, I've cited my source, and I absolutely fail to see what more you want from me here.

You lie yet again. I have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, using dictionary.com and wikipedia, that my questions were not "loaded questions." Your rehashing of old lies further demonstrates your desperation.

Seriously, what else you do you want me to do that I haven't already done? Provide citations? I did that. Provide logical explanations? Did that. Provide links? Did that. It seems the "lazy" one here is clearly YOU.

 

Why are you so hung up on "dictionary.com"? We aren't talking about grammar when we told you that your questions were loaded. We were informing you that your questions are a logical fallacy called a "Loaded Question Fallacy". There is no doubt that the term has found a idiomatic meaning in popular vernacular, but what the prevailing criticism against your OP was NOT on some petty grammatical error but instead of a logical fallacy that presupposes the very answer to the question that you are asking us. This is a deceptive and disingenuous way to start a debate, and yet here we are and you are there railing against a supposed deception that you cannot even source to.

Ironic AND terribly weak.

Ahhhh, yes. Do you?

Wow. You MUST try to keep up, friend. Your post #56 didn't ONLY reflect on posting a particular source of Dictionary.com. You also stated in that post:

"It's sad when we get to the point where two conflicting sides cannot agree on something that should be obviously to anyone with a fair mind."​

OK? Your implication is that your Dic.com is the end-all/be-all as to your weak OP. Even though I previously have shown you to erroneously refer to it:

"You had previously misinterpreted the "dictionary" definition to say something it clearly did not do. Remember? You had said that "loaded question" meant; "A "loaded" question, by definition, contains a presumption of guilt". I duly helped you with this saying; "It's not about guilt, per se, but rather a loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.""​

THIS is revisionism. You ignored all of the evidence I gave you as to the proper fallacious meaning of the term and your use of this fallacy. I showed you with another link AND your own link.

THIS is what is referred to as revisionism. Get it?

No I haven't. Are you OK?

The point of this discussion from the very beginning is your lack of fair balance in your OP where you presuppose motivations to others that you never have supported. You further complicated your argument by (deceptively?) using Loaded Question Fallacies. These would hardly be necessary if you had started with a valid argument, but perhaps this wasn't your intention, I don't know.

Yes, I ALREADY said that. Way to stay right with the program there fella. You DO realize of course that by simply SAYING that Wiki agrees with you, that it doesn't make it so, right?

Is this too hard for you?

Blind and unsubstantiated dismissals aren't very compelling friend. Monty Python did a great skit on simple contrariety in "The Argument", but it was meant to be funny. Your use of simple contrariety is much more sad, really.

 

I want you to admit what we already know. Namely that you have concocted your argument solely out of ideology and not on logical facts. Simple.

More than Dictionary.com, you mean? Was THAT enough?

Really?

Well, I'm glad you asked.

First of all you STILL failed to show how the Million Mom March used this specific study. Don't you remember? Your OP said: "Anti-gun organizations, such as the Million Mom March, report ‘statistics’ that “eight children die every day due to firearms.” So support what you lay claim to. This isn't rocket science, friend. The rest of us here do it, why not you?

Secondly, your link is to a portion of a book by Cook & Ludwig called "The Future of Children, Vol. 12, No. 2, Children, Youth, and Gun Violence." In it they look at youth and children. Hardly what you claimed, I'd say. In their conclusion, they stated: "Guns exact a huge toll on America's children and youth,... Injury data for American youths under age 20 reveal that the threat of gun violence differs widely by sex, race, and ethnicity".
Hardly,... again,.... what you would have us believe, but hey, why let facts get in the way of your baseless rant?

How about logic and truth? Do you have an aversion to that? You have now decided to post sources for your OP claims, but nowhere are your claims supported by these links!!!!! All you did was post a link to the Beady center's web site. NOWHERE on that page did I see them stating ANYTHING about "semi-automatic assault weapon" which was the crux of your premise in your "example #2 in your OP, remember?

I can't believe you're still trying to defend this weak OP.

Why is that? Huh? Can you even address my observation in an earlier post that your argument is entirely one of semantics. I showed you sourced instances of other gun publications using the same term. This is ironic because you call the Brady Center as deceptive and Gun Digest as what, great Americans, perhaps?

No? Truthfully?
Really????

Where do I start?
You can't show that Kellerman's study was done by an "anti-gun crowd", you can't show that "The statement from Kellerman’s paper [New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60] referring that “a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense” is commonly repeated by anti-gun organizations",you didn't have the decency to show this with linked sources (because you can't), and you further dug a hole for yourself, saying "Despite the fact that this study that was published over 24 years ago has been debunked many times, it is still repeated as fact by those in anti-gun groups." Yet you STILL (after how many pages now?) cannot show any major pro-control organization using that study in their literature.

Game, Set, Match.

You FAIL.

 

LOL! Why am I so "hung up" on the dictionary?! I'll tell you why. Because we are talking about the DEFINTION of a term ("loaded question"). Let me educate you. A dictionary is a big book used to define terms. With the invention of the internet, it's even more simple. Just access dictionary.com, type in the word or term, and PRESTO, you'll get a definition.

Grammar?? Who mentioned grammar? Your off on another tangent again. Come on and focus now.

And I've proven you wrong many times over regarding this issue. I've said all that I've need to say about this.

You're all over the place with your rambling nonsense here. I'll just refer you back to the dictionary and wikipedia, since I have no more time dealing with your gibberish.

Again. No loaded question was used. I have proven this ad nauseum and I refuse to waste more time stating what has already been said a million times. Just answer the questions.

You seem to think that any question asked in a subjective manner is a "loaded questions." However, this is WRONG. If this were true, then pretty much every question on this forum can be construed as a loaded question. Thankfully, the dictionary agrees with ME, and you have absolutely no reference or reliable source that agrees with you. Face it, you've lost this argument, and it's time for you to move on.

 

LOL!! I guess it was my "ideology" that produced those valid references that you are predictably ignoring.

So the dictionary is not sufficient for obtaining the definition of a simple term? That's news to me.

How about all of the other references that I posted? Oh wait, you chose to ignore them as usual.

**Sigh....Here's a link to the Millon Mom March and their affiliates that have used this reference.
Moms against Guns: http://www.momsagainstguns.org/facts/
Million Mom March: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/may/09/usgunviolence.usa (Actually, their claim was TWELVE "children" per day)
Millon Mom March (Denver affliate): www.mmmdenver.org/mmm_brochure.pdf (Here, their claim is back down to only eight "children" per day)

Checkmate once again.

And how much more can I support my claim? How many more citations do you require? Face it: I'm right. Just get over yourself, and finally answer my questions posted in the OP.

The title of the ARTICLE is "The Costs of Gun Violence against Children". Yet, they include adolescents and ADULTS and fail to control for GANGMEMBERS. Now ask yourself, "Is a 19-year old gangmember really a good representative for a CHILD?" I didn't think so.

 

If you cannot find it (it's on the home page of their website, just search for the word "assault"), then you obviously need to go back to school and learn how to read! If this is how you choose to debate (through ignorance of a most EXTREME nature), then I won't waste my time any further with your nonsense.

 

I didn't say that the "data" was outdated. The data he collected in that study has not been questioned. It was his use of that data that was criticized. THIS is what I referred to as being "outdated", because he subsequently revised his methodology, making his results more accurate, Get it? I'm not here defending his methodology in his first study, but I AM finding fault in YOU for using his first study to the exclusion of his later work. This, coupled with the fact that you SILL cannot source to any major pro-gun control organization who are still saying that “a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense”. Your OP claimed this "is commonly repeated by anti-gun organizations" You claimed this, remember? I find your whole song and dance around this reality extremely disingenuous, especially since you are railing in your OP about OTHERS being deceptive.

The irony is deafening.

If you can prove your claims, then do it. If not, then admit your error and move on. Anything less is utterly disingenuous.

This is a fallacy of false choice. When reviewing studies, there is MUCH to consider. Errors CAN be made. Look, John Lott's work that claimed Conceal Carry laws have reduced crime has been widely debunked and yet I know of no credible researcher who has alleged that his work was a "sham". A "sham" implies deception and researchers do not last long when they engage in deception.

Your Black & White Thinking has led you astray here.

Look, if you can support your charge that

"Despite the fact that this study that was published over 24 years ago has been debunked many times, it is still repeated as fact by those in anti-gun groups"​

Then post it for all of us to see and evaluate. These vague conspiracies have zero value, where you make broad allegations and vague citations that don't actually exist. I actually looked where you suggested (even though you could have and SHOULD have posted the link), the references that you claimed could NOT be found. This only begs the question; misconception or deception on your part?

I agree, and I'm still patiently waiting for that.

Please explain how I am "defend[ing] indefensible behavior"? Because you SAY that it's indefensible behavior?..... Really?

73 posts and you STILL refuse to get it? Your OP was both inaccurate, deceptive and it used loaded question fallacies as I have repeatedly shown you in these many posts while you continue to plow ahead with zero substantiations to your claims other than Dictionary.com which was just plain silly, really. All this while using a false indignation and a short memory to continue to ask fallacious leading questions that have been FULLY addressed here by myself more than once.

So, let me ask YOU a loaded question:
Are you so desperate for attention that you will resort to lies and deception in order that you further your own blind ideology?

 

If you were indeed after knowledge on this you would NOT be referring to Dic.com. Not when there is wealth of wisdom on this particular fallacy in places that fully cover fallacies. I have nothing against Dic.com, but you are clearly not being honest if you believe their definition to be valid to the exclusion of others. Their definition happens to be incomplete, that's all.

Look, don't take MY word for it. You can refer to Wiki here where they say: "Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda"

You can refer here (Where I have previously quoted from),.......and here.

You can refer here, where they refer to your questions as "trick questions".

You can refer to 'Thefreedictionary.com' if you're really hung up on dictionaries, where they define: "the rhetorical trick of asking a question that cannot be answered without admitting a presupposition that may be false, as have you stopped beating your wife?"

Or, lastly you could go to 'urbandictionary.com' where they define the term as: "A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption.
The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a loaded question that presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded."


I doubt you will....

Pay attention. Do dictionaries typically cover fallacies or grammar? You would be correct if you chose the later and you would also be correct if you admitted that my point is entirely relevant. Dic.com's definition simply covers the idiomatic meaning (as stated in it's heading) and not the logical or fallacious meaning. All this should be obvious, really.

It's odd that you would think that your own quoted words are "rambling". Could it be that this is an act of desperation? Because you now understand the realities of your error? The post you are referring to by myself is very clear and any inability to comprehend it falls entirely on you, friend.

sigh,.... The "questions" are loaded question fallacies and are thus unanswerable or rhetorical, friend. I HAVE however fully addressed your flawed argument premises. Did you somehow miss this?

Arguing against the extremes won't help you, friend. I'm amazed you would continue with this futile ignorance of reality.

Compare these two loaded questions:
"Do you condemn the shady strategy of lying and deception that is so common in all of the major anti-gun organizations?"
and
"Do you still beat your wife?"

Both are loaded question fallacies, no matter how you cry crocodile tears to the contrary.

Now it's getting shameless. Have some pride.

 

Revisionism is the most kind thing I can say about that falsehood.

Which one in particular did I "ignore"? I recall that you posted a quote from Dic.com and a somewhat misleading quote from Wiki. Wiki actually goes on to clarify that particular comment. BOTH of those "references" were thoroughly addressed by myself here MANY times. You know this.

I hope you're not going to resort to deception now as an act of desperation. The truth should be enough to propel any valid argument, friend.

Good! Why did this take 70 something posts before you try to support your claims? Just now Googled it, eh?


First, NOT a link to the "Million Moms March" as was your OP claim.

Secondly, the link refers to a CDC data, and NOT a Cook/Ludwig study.

FAIL

OK, you have FINALLY sourced us to a quote by the MMM as to this Children" deaths. What you DIDN'T do however is:
1) show us how this number is incorrect (other than you SAYING that it isn't correct),
2) how this particular death total they used came from the Cook/Ludwig study as you clearly claimed in your OP,
3) AND the MMM directly quoted saying the "children" citation exclusively. I notice the reference was not with quotation marks so an error could easily have been made. Surely you can get a direct quote, no?

FAIL.

Here you've made a gross misrepresentation. Is this mis-comprehension on your part or rank deception? No need to answer as it's a loaded question.... See?

Seriously though, Your source specifically refers to children AND teens. How did you miss this? Here's the full quote:

"Every day 8 children and teens die, and many more are seriously injured by guns"
​

It's becoming clear that the deception is coming from you and not the people whom you claim to disagree with.
Pity when these acts of desperation happen.

FAIL, again.

Hey, you MIGHT be right as to the MMM somewhere saying this. Unfortunately for you, you haven't been able to show us this. Thus, your claim is unsubstantiated and your OP questions are Loaded. Simple.

You got anything else?

This baseless accusation may well be suited for another Thread. Once again, all you've given us are broad accusations that rely entirely on YOUR say-so. Yes, the same person who didn't even post a source (weak as they were) for one of their OP premises until 70 something posts into their own thread, and then tried to deceive us by misstating what the source actually said.

Nope, sorry. I'll wait for something more substantial, thanks.

 

All you had to do was post substantiations of your baseless claims. It really shouldn't have been that hard. For you to resort to ad hominem attacks saying I should somehow do YOUR work for you is downright silly.

Look, You made a OP rife with biased and unsubstantiated aspersions. Fact. Now you're dancing around and acting indignant as though the rest of us can't see your deception.

Come on.

 

Pure spin. You called the article “outdated.” The main purpose of a research article is to gather data, analyze the data, and utilized the data/analysis to come to conclusions. Thus, by saying the article is “outdated,” you are saying that either its data is outdated or its data analysis process is outdated. Either statement would be incorrect, since data cannot be outdated (as I have already said), and analysis of data cannot be outdated. Instead of incorrectly substituting the euphemism “outdated,” you’d be more accurate substituting the term “sham.”

*Sigh* I cited the source of the quote, but I guess using Google to find the links to anti-gun websites was too much of an effort for you. Let me spoon-feed you some more. Here you go:
Violence Policy Center http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm (and they even cite Kellerman’s 1986 article as a source!!!!)
Checkmate yet again (I’m losing track how many times it’s been)

No false choice and no “black and white” thinking here. Logically, there is no room for grey area here. It’s either a sham or its valid (it cannot be both). Also, it cannot be “outdated” (as you said) because the data collecting process and analysis cannot be “outdated.” That wouldn't make any sense in this case.

Very good!!!

I’ve cited the source of the comment and links to the VPC page now (although a simple Google search would have gotten you to the same place as me). As I’ve asked a dozen times already, WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?!!

I’ve proven my argument with citations and facts. Stop stalling with nonsense and lies and answer the questions already.

Because you are defending the blatant “tactics of desperation” that many anti-gun organizations are guilty of (as described by my first post of this thread). It’s quite obvious really.

 

I was “after” the definition of a simple term. According to most educated people, the dictionary is the ideal place to find the definition of terms. You obviously know better, so tell me, where do you look to find the definitions of words?

So? This has nothing to do with my statements. My questions were clearly not rhetorical. Rather, they were based upon evidence that was established in the first post. Try again.

Thanks for the links: They only further buttress MY SIDE of this argument.

Both of these websites mimic dictionary.com and reverberate exactly what I have been explaining to YOU this whole time. This just adds more evidence to what I’ve said a million times: That you do not read/comprehend my posts, and your only purposes here is to argue for argument’s sake.
Thanks again for another source that supports MY side of this “loaded question” argument. In fact Thefreedictionary.com echoes precisely the point that I was making in earlier posts (almost verbatim), such as post #8 and post #15. Wow, it’s likely you totally ignored my prior posts. Go figure.

And you’d be wrong as usual.

You argument here is nonsensical as usual. Dictionaries are used to define terms. Dictionary.com, Wikipedia, 'Thefreedictionary.com', and 'urbandictionary.com' all agree on the definition of “loaded question.” They explain the meaning of the term and provide examples of it. Your statements again indicate that you either have not read or comprehended my prior posts.

My questions were clearly not unanswerable, nor were they rhetorical; by the definitions/explanations of multiple dictionaries (Dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com) and other sources (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question ), they clearly were not loaded. Stop with your nonsense.

Trust me, the only ignorance is coming out from your side of this argument.

Lets do it!!!

Question 1: Do you condemn the shady strategy of lying and deception that is so common in all of the major anti-gun organizations?"
We first, let’s understand that we should not look at this question in a bubble: There was large paragraph filled with evidence that preceded it. With that being said, I (if I were an anti-gun person) could answer it in multiple ways:
Answer 1: “Yes. Although I agree with the overall message of gun control that these organizations convey, I do condemn their strategies because I believe in open and honest debate. I believe that our argument has value and such tactics only serve to hurt our argument.
Answer 2: “No. I don’t condemn such lying and desperation because pro-gun organizations like the NRA use similar tactics (insert source here), and we should fight fire with fire. Taking the “high road” has no value when dealing with the NRA and their ilk.”

See. Although I ended up answering your questions for you, I did a good job illustrating that they clearly were not loaded questions, and appropriate answers could be given.

Question 2: "Do you still beat your wife?"
In complete contrast to my question, there is no way to answer this without appearing guilty of beating one’s wife (whether I answer “yes” or “no”, I will have admitted to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past).
Checkmate yet again.

I couldn’t agree more. You should have admitted defeat by now and walk away.

 

I’ve stated no “falsehood,” and your calling anything that I’ve stated as “revisionism” is nothing more than another one of your lies.

I think the more valid question is, What haven’t you ignored? Your citations of other websites mimicked Wikipedia and dictionary.com. Thus, you obviously ignored the definitions that these sites (Wikipedia.com and dictionary.com) illustrated. Otherwise you wouldn’t have listed websites like http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html, since by doing so you only add support my argument and make yourself look foolish.

As a matter of fact…YES!! I just Googled it (it really was that easy).

You lie yet again. There were TWO links to the Million Mom March: The first link was from the Guardian (a left-leaning publication) which quoted a spokesperson from the Million Mom March. From the Guardian, the journalist wrote “ The Million Mom marchers point out that 12 children are killed in the US every day by a firearm.” Are you now arguing that the left-leaning Guardian purposely misquoted the Million Mom March? Now, where’s YOUR evidence? The second link was the Million Mom March Denver affiliate, and they state: “ Every day 8 children and teens die, and many more are seriously injured by guns.” Again, checkmate!!

I also posted a third link to Moms Against Guns, a similar organization to the Million Mom March, to prove MY point that such deception was widespread amongst these anti-gun organizations.

Wrong. Moms Against Guns do cite the CDC as a source for their statement “eight children die every day due to firearms.” However, this would be an invalid and incorrect citation, since the CDC never states such a thing (and they do not provide as to WHERE in the CDC database such data exists). The CDC is merely a database that lists the number of deaths due to many causes, and it lists the age groups as well. It would not make a blanketed, one-sided statement such as “eight children die every day due to firearms.” The CDC would at least define the age of the deceased before making a statement. Thus, I am 100% sure that this citation is a lie, and they are just reverberating nonsense that likely originated from Cook and Ludwig’s paper or a similar biased source.

Anyway, your argument here is besides the point, since it is clear that the Million Mom March and Moms Against Guns echoed Cook and Ludwig's incorrect statement that “eight children die every day due to firearms.”

Are you kidding me? I must have done this A THOUSAND TIMES. As per Ludwig and Cook’s Paper and the CDC, the number is only correct if you include everyone below age 20 (including gangmembers).

Umm, because they MATCH verbatim!!!

Prove it. Prove that a left-leaning publication misquoted them. I’ll leave this one to you.

Yeah. I presented direct quotes from the Million Mom March website (Denver affiliate) www.mmmdenver.org/mmm_brochure.pdf and from the Mom’s Against Guns website http://www.momsagainstguns.org/facts/ , both of which say the same exact thing. It's their own websites, so what more proof do you want here?

I agree. Epic fail on your part.

So by including “teens,” does it make the statement any less dishonest? If I state, “Strokes kill more than 140,000 children and adults each year,” it make be technically factually accurate, but it is still dishonest because the connotation here is that children make up the majority of the 140,000 people that die from strokes (since “children” is mentioned first), when the fact is only a extremely tiny amount of children will ever get a stroke. Also, the statement does not come close to mentioning that, of the “adults” that die from stroke, the vast majority of them are elderly. Thus, while the statement may be factual as written, the implication that it clearly gives off (as it is written) is most certainly disingenuous.

The statement regarding “Every day 8 children and teens die by guns” is dishonest in the same exact fashion (this analogy is perfect). While it is technically accurate, the suggestion is clearly made to the reader that a large amount of children die secondary to guns, when the fact is that only a same amount of children will be killed secondary to gun usage. Also, of the “teens” that die due to gun usage, the vast majority of them are actually ADULTS (between 18-19), and they are usually CRIMINALS.

On the contrary yet again, I have proven my point perfectly, and you have done nothing but ramble about nonsense and complain about minutiae.

 

More and more nonsensical ramblings out of you. How much more facts, evidence, and PROOF do you want?! It seems that no matter home much evidence and proof I provide, you just ignore it. I am convinced without the shadow of a doubt that your purpose here is to argue for the sake of arguing.

For instance, I could make a statement such as, “I am a man.” You would counter by saying, “No you aren’t.” I would then post a picture of my facial hair and prominent Adam’s apple, but you would still say, “You aren’t giving me any evidence.” I would then provide pictures my chest, devoid of breast development with plenty of body hair, but you would still counter with, “You haven’t presented any evidence.” Next, I would give you a picture of my genitals and a sperm count, but you would still say, “There’s not enough evidence. I would finally give you a sample of my blood, for you to do a chromosomal analysis, but you would counter, “You should do your own work.” So next, I’d give you a detailed chromosomal analysis, proving that I am indeed XY, but you would finally counter, “I don’t trust the analysis, since there is a possibility that it could be wrong.”

Danct, “debating” you has been like debating a brick wall. Unless you provide some substance in your future posts, I have no choice but to add you to my ignore list.

 

Ahhh, the infamous Kellermann and Reay study of 1986.

One thing that I see is that you are really cutting the argument fine. For one, there are thousands of "anti-gun organizations", everything from HCI to an individual that writes his own rant-blog.

However, the results of that antiquated and flawed study are not to hard to find on the Internet.

http://www.veganpeace.com/gun_control/SelfDefense.htm
http://hylo.tripod.com/nra.html
http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp

And since the report predates common Internet useage (and was largely discredited), it is no wonder that most large organizations no longer reference it. However, that did not mean they were not screaming about this study when it first came out.

There actually was a history of Popular Media prior to the Internet. This is when you basically only heard of HCI and NRA, and not many other organizations existed. And I remember when the various Arthur Kellerman studies came out (there were 3 of them, 1986, 1988, and 1993). Every time they came out, you saw spokesholes on every news program from 60 Minutes and 20/20 to Nightline and the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour.

But lots of groups still use that line even today. Even though it was largely discredited 25 years ago.

 

That's what I said! The article is outdated, but the data is not. Why is this so difficult for you?

My goodness, talk about "spin". You omit my rational for my position and then argue as if I didn't say it. Look, in your OP, you claimed that a phrase is"commonly repeated by anti-gun organizations": “a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense”, and you STILL cannot actually show this to be valid.

You really shouldn't be making charges of "spin" Mr Top.

No I'm not.

And which I have already stated "I didn't say that the "data" was outdated. The data he collected in that study has not been questioned. It was his use of that data that was criticized. THIS is what I referred to as being "outdated", because he subsequently revised his methodology, making his results more accurate, Get it? I'm not here defending his methodology in his first study, but I AM finding fault in YOU for using his first study to the exclusion of his later work."

Try to keep up, friend.

Then, to take your argument to its logical conclusion, John Lott's research is a "sham" then. It's a pity your Black & White thinking trips you up so often.

Research CAN be revised and improved upon. It's done all of the time, thus if earlier work is found to be flawed, later work can address these flaws making the earlier work outdated. This appears to be too hard for you.

Duh!

Yeah, of course you "cited the source". The "source" was a particular study by Kellerman, but that has NEVER been in dispute. You knew this, friend and chose to confuse the conversation with this inanity. It is precisely the type of deception that you railed about in your OP, completely oblivious to your contradiction.

Nope, it's much harder than that to cheat at chess, friend. Let's look at your so-called evidence, shall we?

You linked to a website with no quoted text (interesting omission) that would support your claim that they had supposedly referred to a claim that “a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense”. That was your claim in your OP remember?REMEMBER?

Where did they say that in your link?

Stop the games and deceptions, friend. If you can support your wild clams then do so. If you can't (as you obviously cannot) then admit your error and move on.

You just confirmed my point. Thank you.

Your contention that a piece of research is only either valid or a "sham", is not valid. Your contention is simply not supported by fact and rationality. It's like saying that a student's wrong answer on a test is willful deception, instead of what it is; a simple error. Your Black & White thinking continues to trip you up.

It has taken you some 86 posts here before attempting to post an example of your OP's contention that “a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense” [Kellerman] is oft repeated by "anti-gun organizations". Unfortunately for you, and what your false indignation fails to address is that your link DOES NOT say this.

Why is this? Huh?

Can you honestly address this?

No you haven't!!

This is the whole point! Almost 90 posts in your thread and yet you are STILL unable to show anyone claiming what you SAY they said.

FAIL. Have some pride. Your whole thread is a sham.

 

It has EVERYTHING to do with your post, because you did NOT establish any factual evidence in your OP to support it. You keep claiming that your OP was factual even though you STILL have not been able to support it. Don't you understand rationality?

My, but you ARE stooping to new lows, now. Do you REALLY think that we will think you're smart for offering blind denials with NO substantiations? Really?

Nope. Not "exactly", which is precisely why I quoted them for you above. My links explores the fallacious use of the term which matches your very use of them in your OP.

Admit it.

Your "points" were addressed and dispelled by me and others. You probably know more than us though. The lynch-pin of your argument is that your presuppositions are factual, but after almost 90 posts, you STILL cannot substantiate them here. Thus, if you cannot show your suppositions to be factual, then they are the very definition (yours and mine) of loaded question fallacies.

See how simple this is?

Then show us how your suppositions are valid and true? You have apparently even assumed that your assertions are true and valid with NO evidence to support them.

FAIL.

Good.

Whoa, there fella. Not so fast.

"evidence" Is only "evidence" if it is valid and verifiable. You didn't even include any links in your "large paragraph" that you are now holding up as some sort of unquestionable reality. Your "evidence" consists solely of suppositions, which makes your concluding questions fallacious loaded questions.

If you wish to talk about your "evidence" then do so instead of this whole song & dance sham. Now THAT would be the logical place to start instead of what YOU have done by begging the question by presupposing the evidence and filling in the questions to suit your own ideology. You can't see this?

And what if the question presupposes something that is not true and not supported by fact? THEN what are my options of response to such a loaded question?

Correct, and there's no way to answer YOUR question without agreeing that there is "lying and deception ... in all of the major anti-gun organizations". I think you finally get it now.

Good work.

 

I see. You wish to sit back and make baseless accusations, eh? Even though I included factual, and verifiable quotes by yourself to back up my contentions.

Your responses are looking more and more like acts of desperation, friend.

Now you want to change my question? Really?

You had accused me of "ignoring" "all" of your "other references". I have duly addressed ALL of your limited references, so this falsehood obviously requires your attention.

Stop dancing around the truth, now.

How?

How does my links and quotes support your argument? You conspicuously left out that nasty little detail.

Accusations are easy, friend. Try some validity.

Yes, I got that. Have you found anything yet that actually confirms your OP? No?

Well keep trying I guess.

Are you serious? You gave me three links.

Your first link (I was very clear) was NOT about the Million Moms March, as you had alleged. I suggest you look again at what you wrote here. Be careful of deception, friend. It won't help you.

So, once again:
First, your first link is NOT a link to the "Million Moms March" as was your OP claim.

Secondly, the link refers to a CDC data, and NOT a Cook/Ludwig study, which was another OP claim.

FAIL

I know, I already raised this with you, remember?

1) show us how this number is incorrect (other than you SAYING that it isn't correct),
2) how this particular death total they used came from the Cook/Ludwig study as you clearly claimed in your OP,
3) AND how the MMM directly quoted saying the "children" citation exclusively. I notice the reference was not with quotation marks so an error could easily have been made. Surely you can get a direct quote, no?

FAIL.

Please.

Learn how to play chess. Your referenced link above was your THIRD link and not your second. I seem to know what you wrote better than yourself.

Then which one is it? Is it "wrong" or is it correct? Your response above confirms my statement was correct. You linked to a source to substantiate your claim that MMM used Cook/Ludwig to state that "Anti-gun organizations, such as the Million Mom March, report ‘statistics’ that “eight children die every day due to firearms.”

Your link was neither from the MMM, nor was it statistics from Cook/Ludwig, therefor your link failed on both counts.

Whether they did or not is NOT substantiated by that link, friend. Wasn't that your intention? Thought so.

Yes, IF, that is, IF you assume that this number from your links are from Cook/Ludwig study (which you did not show, by the way), you still haven't shown that they are calling them "children" to the exclusion of "youth". Why you haven't even quoted the relevant text from the study in question, for heavens sake. It's all one big charade that asks us to accept your word for some thing when your word has not been proven to be reliable thus far. You clearly need something more substantial and if you haven't been able to come up with it YET, then I suspect you won't be able to, either.

Says you, right? Is this your unimpeachable source now, your word?

One cannot prove a negative, friend. Nice try though. Your source does not include that particular line in quotes which means it is not a direct quote. Don't you know how reporting works?

I've already shown you your deception as to this link, friend. Shall I repeat your falsehood again here now? You claimed in your OP that “eight children die every day due to firearms.” Your argument being that deception was used because they had referred to children incorrectly. Right? Well this link shows your claim to be false and deceptive because they clearly stated: "Every day 8 children and teens die, and many more are seriously injured by guns". How did you miss the inclusion of "and teens". Huh? Hmmmm? Can you explain this deception?

Big time FAIL.

You should quit while you're behind.

How about the truth, Let's try that for a change. Yeah that would be cool. They DON'T say the exact same thing and none of them cite Cook/Ludwig.

I'll give you credit for trying to explain this glaring hole in your argument, but I'm afraid you fell far short. When one attempts to make an argument that a particular link states something that it clearly does not, as you did, then this implies a deception no matter how you try to spin it. You made claims as to representation of "children" exclusively, but you link showed your claim to be false because they referred both to children AND teens.

Simple.

FAIL again.

I see. So, 18 and 19 year olds are NOT teens? Really? What exactly makes your deceptive use of the term teen any more deplorable than what you accused the MMM of? Can you explain this contradiction?

 

I'm not sure, frankly how you could consider what I wrote as anything like "rambling". Are you sure you're not avoiding the reality of the situation?


I'm not really asking for that much. Most valid OPs have linked sources to prove their premises. Yours did not and after 90 posts you STILL haven't supported your claims by any reasonable measure.

I understand your frustrations with this glaring reality, but you really shouldn't blame the messenger, friend. Your answers can likely be found within.

 

Ah, This was not the study in question, friend. This link refers to later work by this researcher. The OP expressly avoids this reality. Don't make the same mistake.

This blog could hardly be called a major gun control group, by any stretch. I believe they have the date and study mismatched as well.

Once again, this source refers to two later studies done by this researcher, and not the specific study that the OP referred to.

Irrelevant to anything. He didn't claim that the study saw wide acclaim in the 1980's. No, he claimed specifically that it "is commonly repeated by anti-gun organizations". More importantly, he claimed that "it is still repeated as fact by those in anti-gun groups".


The poster nor yourself have confirmed this simple fact. This makes his premise invalid as to this and his question a fallacious Loaded Question. A glaring weakness that he is afraid to address.

None that you can show though? (other than a short blog that is)

Look, I appreciate your attempt to rehabilitate your friend, but I'm afraid his effort is beyond hope. He has made unsupported claims in his OP in order to further a biased agenda. His argument is based purely on ideology and not facts. Hardly a good way to construct a valid argument.

 

For one, I do not believe in hugely long posts, so I will answer your major points.

The claim that guns kill 43 times more friends and family is from the 1986 study. That is what was being talked about.

And you keep going back and forth between "major gun groups" and "gun groups". And I gave several examples of groups that still use this study to this day, but you apparently reject them all.

You can't have it both ways. How about telling us what anti-gun groups you consider to be "major". One of the groups I listed is the "Legal Community Against Violence", LCAV. That group has been around for almost 20 years, has chapters in all 50 states, and has argued gun cases in front of the US Supreme Court. In fact, they have been one of the major fighters in both District of Columbia Vs. Heller and McDonald Vs. Chicago. They also have published a series of legal articles designed to assist city, county, and state governments in outlawing both handungs and "assault rifles".

I do not know about you, but I would consider that to be one of the main anti-gun organizations in the country. And they still accept and pass on the faulty 1986 data as being correct.

 

Yes, This much should be obvious to anyone here. Unfortunately, what you have sourced us to was to pro-control groups who do NOT refer to that particular study, but rather to a later work (other than the one-person blog, that is).

You're mistaken. You gave me three linked sources and only ONE of them referred to that particular study that makes the "43 times" claims. As far as I can tell, this link is to a one-man, one-page blog. Hardly an "anti-gun" organization by ANY stretch.

You can't see this?

I'm not picky, just show me ANY pro-gun control group that uses that study in their claims. The OP had mentioned the Million Moms March, and the Brady Campaign and specifically asked in one of his loaded questions: "Why do you think it is necessary for major anti-gun organizations such as the Million Mom March, Brady Campaign, and others to resort to such devious tactics to prove their point?"

This wasn't MINE, but rather the OP's parameters.

WHERE?????? Your link did NOT show this, friend. Your link referred to a LATER study that made NO "43 times" claim. How did you miss this? I already explained this to you in my previous post.

 

Blah-blah-blah-blah.

And yes, it did show this.

http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp#14

Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

Rather than conferring protection, guns in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

These taken from faulty Kellerman "studies". Granted, they are "updates" that he did in the 1990's and early 2000's, but they still use the same faulty methods and have been widely debunked as inaccurate and biased.

Two of the biggest issues with the Kellerman Studies is in how the shootings are classified.

For one, in order for the person to be considered to be a criminal, they must have been convicted of a felony before the study incident happens.

It also places not a single "friend or family member" as the victim of a self-defense shooting. After all, it is well known that most victims of rape, assault and murder know their attackers. But if a person was defending themselves from rape, the shooting in these studies always ends up as a "friend or relative", and never as a "criminal perpetrator".

Especially if the person attempting the rape was never convicted of a felony before that.

 

All this must be too difficult for you. You claim that Kellerman's later work made the 43:1 ratio claim and yet you are unable to actually show where. Have you forgotten that this is what the discussion is about? The OP claimed that "major anti-gun organizations" make this specific claim (43:1 ratio) from Kellerman's 1986 study. Unfortunately for him and now YOU, you can't actually support this nonsense. I realize that facts haven't kept your ilk from making baseless accusations in the past, like your false accusation about "major" gun groups as opposed to "gun groups". Facts obviously don't play a major role in your dogma. Sorta like acts of desperation, I'd say.

Way to Google, friend. Unfortunately your observations have zero relevance as to whether or not major "anti-gun" organizations use the 43:1 ratio claim.

I apologize if this is more than you can handle.