IKEA apologises for child shooting a gun

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Bowerbird, Jun 27, 2018.

  1. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,038
    Likes Received:
    752
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a weird reply. You pretended that you read the evidence and then told me to present more for you to pretend to read.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  2. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,111
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What has been presented by yourself has indeed been read. That is why it is being stated that it is not and does not amount to actual evidence.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,038
    Likes Received:
    752
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That isn't true and you gave that away! Play pretend if you want. That you've never actually critiqued a paper, preferring to whine incoherently, surely strengthens your case mind you!
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018 at 5:16 PM
    Bowerbird likes this.
  4. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,111
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing presented by yourself actually amounts to evidence. Everything presented is nothing more than one opinion piece after another, all motivated by nothing but political ideology, amounting to nothing more than hypothesis and speculation based on that ideology, and funding by those who have a long and established track history of supporting restrictions on the second amendment to whatever degree is possible.

    Nothing has been presented by yourself, because nothing was brought into this matter by yourself. Opinion pieces mean nothing, as they do not correspond to reality. Instead they whine about what reality should be.
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,038
    Likes Received:
    752
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have neither read the evidence or, when you read the group thought sites, understood it. There's no doubt in that.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018 at 5:31 PM
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,111
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For all of the time and effort invested on the part of yourself, to try and argue that what is presented by yourself amounts to actual evidence, nothing has been demonstrated that would conclusively prove such to be the case. It is nothing more than the opinion of yourself that the bought and paid for opinions of others amounts to being actual evidence. There has been no citations to sources to conclusively prove this matter, just out of hand dismissal and denial of the fact that there is nothing on the part of yourself except for opinion pieces and blind guesswork.

    Stop wasting the time of others present. If nothing is going to be presented on the part of yourself except for opinion pieces by those who believe in pushing a political narrative at the expense of the truth, then there is no justified basis on the part of yourself to continue being present and participating in this discussion.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,038
    Likes Received:
    752
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None really. I've just read the evidence. From that I know you haven't. You pretend otherwise, but then you slipped up. Oops!

    Let's see if you can pretend better. Refer to one piece of evidence that you find important. Describe the methods used that you think are important, out-trumping other papers that you've read.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    40,623
    Likes Received:
    17,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pick a topic and we can have some “ research wars”
     
    Reiver likes this.
  9. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,111
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only pretending is on the part of yourself.

    Facts. Basic, actual facts, devoid of political ideology, are what is most important. Facts are all that matter, facts are all that is relevant. Narrative holds no value, nor do feelings and beliefs about how things should be rather than how they are.

    What is most important is that what is presented makes actual sense, and that it can be explained as how something does work. Not how it is supposed to work, not how it will work, but how it does work. That is what is lacking on the part of those who support firearm-related restrictions, as they lack the ability to demonstrate how the proposals they support will work as presented. All they have is hypothesis and guesswork, and blindly claiming that it will work. When pressed for technical details of how their stated goal will be accomplished, they have nothing to present to demonstrate that their positions and ideologies are valid.

    Beyond that particular matter, what is most important is that what is being presented actually work on a consistent, repeatable basis, no matter how many times it is repeated, or by whom it is repeated. If something only manages to work once, in theory, and only under specific and carefully engineered circumstances devoid of outside factors, it is not science, nor is it evidence.
     
  10. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,111
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps it would be best if the topic selected was by yourself, so no accusations can be made later on pertaining to the possibility of intentionally tipping the proverbial scales.
     
  11. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    7,148
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did they press charges?
     
  12. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    7,148
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you refuse to explicate that context or your point because?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018 at 8:29 PM
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,038
    Likes Received:
    752
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's summarise. We have reference to 2018 research that you have "read long before". Despite having access to the papers before they are published, you can't actually refer to any aspect. No critique of methodology, no means to show empirical bias. Instead you decide to go for a blanket 'all research, despite using publically available data, is biased'.

    Wow, you fellows are diligent in making ludicrous comment!
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  14. flogger

    flogger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,178
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You can't make people read what they don't want to see sadly. And you'll not find more willfully blind posters on any other sub forum :(
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 AM
    Reiver and Bowerbird like this.
  15. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    40,623
    Likes Received:
    17,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What part of company policy becomes state or Federal legislation? But basically this is a dodge. The guy did the wrong thing period
     
    Reiver likes this.
  16. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,111
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stores have very limited authority over the actions of its customers pertaining to business policies, especially when violations of said policies are carried out in a manner that is discrete and undetected.
     
  17. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,111
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then let us summarize the position of yourself in return.

    What is had with regard to yourself in this matter, is yet one more individual in a very long line of similar individuals, apparently waging a personal crusade against firearms and legal firearms ownership in the united states, bolstering their personal beliefs with what they claim to be "research" presented by like-minded individuals who hide behind their academic credentials to try and elevate themselves above the public and present themselves as experts whose integrity cannot be questioned simply because they do have academic credentials.

    These so-called "researchers" that are relied on as justification for the position of yourself, conduct their so-called "research" and present their so-called "findings" in a manner that is deliberately biased to sell a politically-based narrative at the expense of what is actually the truth, by analyzing the actions of convicted criminals in heavily crime-ridden areas and attempting to claim that the results are indicative of legal firearm owners throughout the entire country.

    This so-called "research" that is relied on as justification for the position of yourself, is provided with funding by organizations such as the Joyce Foundation, which has stated openly in the past that it supports all manner firearm-related restrictions, up to and including a total firearms prohibition if such were possible. These organizations have never once objected to a single firearm-related restriction that has been proposed or enacted, or gone on record as saying that they believed it went too far, thus indicating that they do not believe in or support so-called "reasonable, common sense restrictions" but rather support any and all firearm-related restrictions, regardless of how unreasonable or devoid of common sense they may be.

    When confronted regarding the shortcomings of the methodology utilized in compiling the so-called "data" presented in the so-called "research" and pressed for explanations, nothing of substance can be presented on the part of yourself beyond weak mention of the supposed empirical process, whatever that may entail with regards to what is presented, or how it applies to what is nothing more than hypothetical guesswork about how reality is supposed to work, as opposed to how it does work.
     
  18. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,111
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More accurately it is not possible to force someone to accept what is not the truth. The so-called "research" is no more factually based than the claim that fruit such as oranges taste exactly like chocolate bars when salted.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,038
    Likes Received:
    752
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No need. "I read the research" is pretty short already.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 8:32 AM
  20. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,111
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not research that is presented on the part of yourself. This matter was confirmed as fact twenty five years ago, when the debunked, discredited, dishonest paper by Arthur Kellermann was not only subject to the so-called "peer-review" process, but was also published in the New England Journal of Medicine. This incident demonstrated that it was not a sound medical position that was being argued from, and rather it was nothing more than political advocacy and junk science being presented by those hiding behind their credentials.

    Arthur Kellermann tainted everything for all those that would come after him, when he intentionally and deliberately conducted a heavily flawed, dishonest study, that still managed to be published as if it were sound medical science. It does not matter how sound subsequent studies may be presented as, they are still paying for his intellectual crimes, and the intellectual crimes of academia itself that promoted such flawed and factually deficient nonsense as if it were valid.
     

Share This Page