Gun Control UK Style

Provide an explanation in the words of yourself, not what someone else told you to say in response to questions on the matter. Demonstrate actual critical thinking skills are present on the part of yourself.

 

I'm not interested in your opinion or your efforts to deflect from the evidence. Read the paper! Break your duck

 

I'll rephrase. How did the laws change, and what exactly was banned? Were the non-banned firearms just as capable for criminal activity as the "banned" and grandfathered "assault weapons"?

 

I won't rephrase. Read the article.

 

Cease pretending. It is already known that it is not a matter of disinterest in explaining matters in your own words, but rather it is an inability on the part of yourself to answer basic questions because they answers were not provided to you.

You were handed a script and a few talking points to present to the public, a few references to obscure sources to promote, and left to fend for yourself when someone begins digging deeper than the face value of the sales pitch being presented.

 

He's fishing from a moving boat.

 

I've not the time to go search for it. Can you link it?

Was it simple enough that you could tell use what laws were changed by the 1994 AWB?

 

Do you also want me to read it to you? Read it, get back to me. Easy.

 

Repost the link. Easy. I can take it from there.

 

Then let us begin with the dissection of this supposed "study" shall we?

http://omargarciaponce.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/cross_border_spillover.pdf

Second, the magnitude of this effect is contingent on political factors related to Mexico’s democratic transition. Killings increased substantially
more in municipios where local elections had become more competitive prior to 2004, with the largest differentials emerging in high narco-trafficking areas. Our findings are consistent with the notion that political competition undermined informal agreements between drug cartels and entrenched local governments, highlighting the role of political instability in mediating the gun-crime relationship.

Right in the abstract, it is admitted that this apparent increase in violence in the nation of Mexico was well under way before the expiration of the supposed prohibition of so-called "assault weapons" in the united states, and all in locations where there are already pre-existing high levels of crime being carried out.

Next on page two, we are treated to this passage:

We posit that the FAWB expiration served as an important shock to the supply of assault weapons in Mexico, given the extent of gun trafficking across these two nations.

The definition of "posit" is assume as a fact, to put forward as a basis of argument. In other words, those presenting this supposed "study" are admitting that they are simply guessing that the two are in some way connected, but do not have any actual proof that such is indeed the case. They have already reached their conclusion, and now are going to twist facts to support it.

Next we are treated to this particular passage:

The lifting of the federal ban thus made it plausibly easier to obtain assault weapons in Mexican locations closer to ports of entry into this latter group of states, providing geographic variation across municipios in resultant arms flows.

Plausibly. Once again, admitting to it being nothing more than guesswork.

The next problematic passage:

In addition, we document increases in crime guns seized by the Mexican military, specifically for the gun category that includes assault weapons, but not handguns, which further supports our hypothesis.

What the so-called "researcher" in this case fails to acknowledge, is that even handguns were classified as so-called "assault weapons" under the cited legislation.

Shall we continue with the dissection? Shall we address how the so-called "researcher" admits to dismissing the possibility of these crimes being committed in response to the drug trade increasing and political instabilities in the given areas? Shall we cover how one of the cited sources is the political advocacy group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, started and funded by Michael Bloomberg who made firearm-related restrictions his personal crusade, and interfered with official investigations by the ATF in order to do so?

 

You've broken your virginity and actually read a paper. Brings a tear to my eye so it does.

Unfortunately your attempt at dismissal was child like. The reason for these type of studies, as acknowledged by everyone except the pro gunners on here, is that multiple variables are at play. The authors are able to test gun legislation effects through a quasi natural experiment.

This is a childish effort. It goes back to your complete ignorance of statistical analysis. We never accept. We never refer to proved. We test hypothesis and then try to explain our findings

I'm saying 'we' and 'our' here as this isn't anything novel. Even you could do it! Fire up excel and input how many times you've whined about a paper incoherently. There will be a huge effect, but we can't use it to prove you are incapable of saying something intelligent on gun control.

Please do, you're making me laugh.

You forgot an argument. It isn't difficult. Demonstrate an empirical bias. You'd need to know some stats mind you.

Hahahaha, you're attacking the bibliography? Wow, that is in your top 10 of anti-intellectualism

 

Irrelevant, of topic, and factually incorrect.

Meaning those who presented the so-called "study" are simply guessing that certain firearm-related restrictions may have played a part, admit that they cannot say for certain, but are proceeding on the assumption that such is the case and dismissing all other variables that would potentially explain what they claim to be are their findings.

Nothing of substance has ever been presented on the part of yourself with regard to these citations. They are nothing more than opinion pieces and guesswork. This entire cross-border spillover nonsense simply cements such as being fact, as there was never a prohibition on specific weapons, only on the cosmetic features used to define them. An AR-15 is still an AR-15, even if the defining flash suppressor is removed and a new nomenclature is applied to it.

 

Hypocrisy in the extreme. "Post-truther" my ass. That's just your reflexive crap response when someone calls you on your nonsense.

You are neither "well read" nor "capable of intellectual dialogue." You're just a snide, self-righteous child with delusions of adequacy.

 

Someone who isn't a post-truther would arguably respond "I'm not because my position is based on this evidence: [insert reference list]". Wonder why you didn't?

 

We're not far behind them. Our conservative party is increasingly intersectional.

 

You don't accept any evidence that doesn't fit your narrative. I've watched you do it; even posted the studies myself that prove my point only to have you haughtily dismiss it (without evidence or justification) and responding with another of the junk studies you like to post.

Sorry, but I'm just not into wasting my time on such nonsense. It's not that anyone is a "post-truther"; just that you're an un-truther.

 

You're telling porkies again. I read all of the evidence, including Lott and Kleck. Why don't you present any?

Post-truthing is a particular problem for pro-gunners

 

Post-truthing is more accurately describe as the behavior of one who has to believe that the mere presence of firearms somehow compels one to engage in criminal acts they would otherwise refrain from engaging in if firearms simply were not accessible to them.

 

Those who suggest behavioural effects occur actually refer to the evidence (be it psychological or neuroscience). You might want to think more before typing!

 

This is why the board has an ignore function.

 

The human element cannot be predicted and accounted for in a scientifically sound manner. Human behavior is, by its very nature of being, irrational and unpredictable. To continue to deny such is foolish.

 

Scientists disagree post-truther!

 

I think that you have hit on something very important....
If Britain would stop licensing cars and drivers... then they would no longer have car accidents.

 

Scientists disagree with many things, but that does not make them correct. Scientists cannot even agree on whether or not the current climate is being directly affected by human activity.

 

Those dastard scientists disagreeing with your opinion!