11! Why do you think meta-analysis confirms that the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected? To what extent does the nature of the evidence enforce anti-intellectualism amongst the NRA-type sheep?
10! Do you think the complete reliance on spurious conclusion reflects a personality flaw (say, a greater risk of dissonance)?
9! To what extent should suicide and crime data be separated? (i.e. could we use suicide analysis to imply even greater social costs from personal preferences)?
8! The empirical evidence into gun control shows typically significant 'gains'. Is this evidence deliberately ignored by the pro-gun herd?
I refuse to go any further. The idea that you could go 20 posts without making any intelligent comment just doesn't compute. I will assume that in the next post you actually did say something clever and relevant to the topic. Job's a good'un.
No me ole china, I'm not God. Why do you think the fellow refused to go for the obvious: intelligent discourse?
You've had your chance dear chap. You've met your purpose, so thanks for that. However, don't think you have anything else to say
Discussion? We didn't achieve that. And that's the glorious point. You were prepared to be immature and ignore discussion. Thanks; I've never met someone so willing to attack the pro-gunner's position. However, you serve no further purpose. Goodbye, hope my assumption comes true over your ability to say something relevant!
I ignored your brow beating and bullying. Compute? Really? maybe you're not as smart as you believe. You failed to take a hint at #17
I asked numerous questions, providing him with a chance to dazzle me with intelligent discourse. None was forthcoming. What amuses me is that you're so willing to support immaturity.