Britain Is Bleeding

Deliberately obtuse.
You reject and ignore the most salient critical data in your infernal mono mania quest for gun control.

 

I'm typing to someone that just doesn't understand how data and econometric analysis is undertaken. You make ludicrous comment purely to hide from inconvenient evidence. As I said, it grieves me that pro-gunners are so ignorant of the empirical process. You won't be someone cheering me!

 

Any idea how a case group that's almost 90% Black is "random"? See #473.

 

Your efforts are childish. I've referred to several papers. Some using random sampling and some not. The difference reflects the empirical methodology adopted. Do you attack with anything relevant? Nope. Its the standard "I donner likes it so I says its biased". At least present a paper that agrees with your position. Get referencing and stop boring me!

 

You brought in the Philadelphia study, and that study about school shootings, both of which were childish in their efforts and claims. Neither of them had results that reflect the real world or supported claims about the results.

 

I brought in study after study. You brought in nothing. Why's that?

 

Why should I have to? I'm not making any claims other than that your studies are invalid. I don't have to prove anything about the individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

Bit obvious really. I have provided multiple studies in support of a particular hypothesis. If you disagree with it you either have to show all those papers are wrong (which you can't and your efforts to do so have only confirmed that you know very little about the empirical process) or offer an alternative. Go on, provide an alternative! It should be easy if I'm wrong...

 

I also provided citations showing how poorly the empirical process is for studies. You've yet to comment on those.

The ironic part is that even if every study you presented had valid conclusions, not one is sufficient to attack the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

Didn't I laugh at the effort to ignore evidence? Have a look back!

Crikey, you don't understand irony either!

 

You are helpless. Good luck in your future.

 

I'm but evidence driven, sorry it doesn't comply with your blinkers. Improve in the future!

 

Your responsa is well oiled and polished to a high luster, all superficial as termite ridden furniture that crumbles into dust when one attempts to lift it.

You and those of your ilk have yet to prove that firearms are of themselves of no benefit to society, you may or may not have read the essays by Cesare Beccaria in 1764, on crime and punishment, and many others.

I fail to see how you ignore the important facts in the matter for the lesser and unimportant details.

**************************************
_____________


Cesare Beccaria, circa 1764
An Essay on Crimes and Punishments

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree. "

_____________

References
Cesare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments

 

Imagine if you spent the time looking at the evidence rather than attempting to sneer at someone that does?

 

that's the problem the gun banners have. they only have ONE VALID argument--that their schemes to restrict the rights of honest gun owners (remember criminals are already completely banned from any contact with firearms) will substantially and definitely increase our safety. If they cannot prove that they have Absolutely NO OTHER ARGUMENT

yet we have numerous arguments that are NOT DEFEATED EVEN IF THE GUN BANNERS PROVE their schemes increase safety. and since their arguments are not effective in countering our other arguments, they lose

they cannot argue that freedom is a bad thing

they cannot argue that there is no constitutional right

they cannot argue that millions do not enjoy firearms ownership

all they can claim is the public safety argument and at best, the data is inconclusive

 

your fail is that your evidence does not counter our rights

 

His evidence is weighed in the balance and found wanting.

 

\

gun banners never ever acknowledge there is any value to people owning guns so they balance it like this

on one side-public safety (which assumes facts not in evidence)

on the other side-nothing-people wanting to own guns is not a value gun banners admit exists

so of course they claim gun bans "win"

 

It does not matter how much evidence you provide. You are talking to the willfully blind

 

You ignore all evidence as you cherry pick the quote and omit the evidence.

 

It would be helpful if actual evidence was presented in the first place.

 

No it would not be helpful. It could come from god himself and you would deny it

 

To actually look at the evidence, evidence must first actually be presented. What has been presented by yourself is not evidence or anything, except that criminals are more likely to engage in illegal behavior while armed, rather than those who actually abide by the law while armed. It does not matter how many studies are cited to try and demonstrate that the studies are scientifically valid, it proves nothing.

It is not even possible for yourself to explain, in your own words, just how the presented studies are actually valid. Rather when questioned, all that can be done is referring to hypothetical sciences, because the matter is not even understood by yourself.

 

And yet it is not. Rather it is being presented by one who does not even understand the data themselves.

 

And yet it is. The blind can not see