RE: Must have used a knife

RE: Must have used a knife (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/10/2014 3:57:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm 404 page not found Didn't you try and verify the link before posting it? But the Kleck and Gertz study isn't of mass shootings so you simply wrong. It is of so called defensive gun use and it is self reported through a phone survey so no one knows if any of those "events" actually even happened. It is a terribly flawed survey that produced results so completely at odds with all other data that every one but the gun nuts ignores it. I had used it before and it worked. It is only at odds with the Brady bunch and the Bloomberg liars. Kleck and Gertz started out to prove that gun ownership doesn't help. The only argument you seem to have is to attack any who don't say what you want them to. Your claim that there have only been five cases of armed citizens stopping attacks is silly. I can beat that number off the top of my head. No they did not. They were always gun rights guys. You need to get your facts straight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck Not what he says. The facts are the facts. He has always done research in favor of gun rights never against. You can check his resume as easily as I did.

Kirata -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/10/2014 7:49:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No they did not. They were always gun rights guys. You need to get your facts straight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck Well here's a fact for you. There is nothing at that link to support your claim. [:D] K.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/10/2014 8:33:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No they did not. They were always gun rights guys. You need to get your facts straight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck Well here's a fact for you. There is nothing at that link to support your claim. [:D] K. When did that stop him. According to Kleck he started out to prove how dangerous it was to carry and his research changed his mind. Thus that study and those that followed ended up with a pro-gun result. His mind was made up by the research as opposed to Brady and Bloomberg who make up the results and throw out any facts that don't support it.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 1:28:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No they did not. They were always gun rights guys. You need to get your facts straight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck Well here's a fact for you. There is nothing at that link to support your claim. [:D] lying as always it includes the links to some of his papers preceding the study in question (if you had bothered to follow the references) and it includes a link to the FSU faculty page where both Kleck and Gertz work. There you can check out their entire resume's which conclusively proves the point. But you didn't do any of that or you wouldn't of made such a monumentally stupid claim.

Kirata -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 2:21:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No they did not. They were always gun rights guys. You need to get your facts straight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck Well here's a fact for you. There is nothing at that link to support your claim. [:D] lying as always it includes the links to some of his papers preceding the study in question (if you had bothered to follow the references) and it includes a link to the FSU faculty page where both Kleck and Gertz work. There you can check out their entire resume's which conclusively proves the point. But you didn't do any of that or you wouldn't of made such a monumentally stupid claim. There is nothing in their CVs that says anything whatsoever about their attitudes or philosophy, let alone anything that proves "they were always gun rights guys" from the start. You're just making shit up because you can't deal with their findings. K.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 10:31:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No they did not. They were always gun rights guys. You need to get your facts straight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck Well here's a fact for you. There is nothing at that link to support your claim. [:D] lying as always it includes the links to some of his papers preceding the study in question (if you had bothered to follow the references) and it includes a link to the FSU faculty page where both Kleck and Gertz work. There you can check out their entire resume's which conclusively proves the point. But you didn't do any of that or you wouldn't of made such a monumentally stupid claim. There is nothing in their CVs that says anything whatsoever about their attitudes or philosophy, let alone anything that proves "they were always gun rights guys" from the start. You're just making shit up because you can't deal with their findings. Weird how Kleck is supposed to have turned around on guns after the paper in question but had published several pro gun papers before it. But you ignored that fact in order to claim things that simply aren't correct as usual. For instance, and because rubbing your lies into your face is so much fun, Kleck authored this book http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X 3 years before the survey in question. But it also is very pro gun use. shocking. Then a further 3 years earlier we have this http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/800663?uid=3739656&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104497533337 Which is also blatantly pro gun use. Then 5 years before that http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1983.tb00300.x/abstract Another anti gun control paper. I think that is enough to prove my point.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 12:11:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No they did not. They were always gun rights guys. You need to get your facts straight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck Well here's a fact for you. There is nothing at that link to support your claim. [:D] lying as always it includes the links to some of his papers preceding the study in question (if you had bothered to follow the references) and it includes a link to the FSU faculty page where both Kleck and Gertz work. There you can check out their entire resume's which conclusively proves the point. But you didn't do any of that or you wouldn't of made such a monumentally stupid claim. There is nothing in their CVs that says anything whatsoever about their attitudes or philosophy, let alone anything that proves "they were always gun rights guys" from the start. You're just making shit up because you can't deal with their findings. Weird how Kleck is supposed to have turned around on guns after the paper in question but had published several pro gun papers before it. But you ignored that fact in order to claim things that simply aren't correct as usual. For instance, and because rubbing your lies into your face is so much fun, Kleck authored this book http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X 3 years before the survey in question. But it also is very pro gun use. shocking. Then a further 3 years earlier we have this http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/800663?uid=3739656&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104497533337 Which is also blatantly pro gun use. Then 5 years before that http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1983.tb00300.x/abstract Another anti gun control paper. I think that is enough to prove my point. His first paper turned him around.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 3:45:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No they did not. They were always gun rights guys. You need to get your facts straight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck Well here's a fact for you. There is nothing at that link to support your claim. [:D] lying as always it includes the links to some of his papers preceding the study in question (if you had bothered to follow the references) and it includes a link to the FSU faculty page where both Kleck and Gertz work. There you can check out their entire resume's which conclusively proves the point. But you didn't do any of that or you wouldn't of made such a monumentally stupid claim. There is nothing in their CVs that says anything whatsoever about their attitudes or philosophy, let alone anything that proves "they were always gun rights guys" from the start. You're just making shit up because you can't deal with their findings. Weird how Kleck is supposed to have turned around on guns after the paper in question but had published several pro gun papers before it. But you ignored that fact in order to claim things that simply aren't correct as usual. For instance, and because rubbing your lies into your face is so much fun, Kleck authored this book http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X 3 years before the survey in question. But it also is very pro gun use. shocking. Then a further 3 years earlier we have this http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/800663?uid=3739656&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104497533337 Which is also blatantly pro gun use. Then 5 years before that http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1983.tb00300.x/abstract Another anti gun control paper. I think that is enough to prove my point. His first paper turned him around. The one on capital punishment? That seems an odd one to change someone's mind on gun control. You might want grasp at some other straw. I can't get the whole thing but he seems to argue that the murder rate increases the gun ownership rate which increases the murder rate and vice versa. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=60398

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 4:02:53 PM)
The one on capital punishment? That seems an odd one to change someone's mind on gun control. You might want grasp at some other straw. I can't get the whole thing but he seems to argue that the murder rate increases the gun ownership rate which increases the murder rate and vice versa. Thank you for this info. You finally admit that he started out anti gun and did not become pro gun till he researched a paper on guns. The great thing about debating is that eventually you will prove I am right.

Kirata -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 4:31:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Weird how Kleck is supposed to have turned around on guns after the paper in question but had published several pro gun papers before it. You're making shit up. Nobody claimed that their views originated with the paper that was mis-linked. What is under dispute is your claim that they were "always gun rights guys," with the attendant implication of bias. But you have presented nothing that substantiates either claim, and when you dismiss their work as "blatantly pro gun use" and "anti gun control," instead of confronting the findings and facing the data, the only bias in evidence is your own. K.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 5:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The one on capital punishment? That seems an odd one to change someone's mind on gun control. You might want grasp at some other straw. I can't get the whole thing but he seems to argue that the murder rate increases the gun ownership rate which increases the murder rate and vice versa. Thank you for this info. You finally admit that he started out anti gun and did not become pro gun till he researched a paper on guns. The great thing about debating is that eventually you will prove I am right. No. That article isn't anti gun. He doesn't argue for more gun control and does argue that more gun ownership results in a deterrent effect.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 5:31:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Weird how Kleck is supposed to have turned around on guns after the paper in question but had published several pro gun papers before it. You're making shit up. Nobody claimed that their views originated with the paper that was mis-linked. What is under dispute is your claim that they were "always gun rights guys," with the attendant implication of bias. But you have presented nothing that substantiates either claim, and when you dismiss their work as "blatantly pro gun use" and "anti gun control," instead of confronting the findings and facing the data, the only bias in evidence is your own. Since they have only co-authored one paper and the claim is they were anti gun before some research changed their minds then the only possible conclusion is that it is this survey that is supposed to be the one that changed their minds. Despite the indisputable fact that both have a record of pro gun research before this.

Kirata -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 5:52:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen both have a record of pro gun research before this. Ah, "pro gun research." Well I suppose that would cover any research that calls into question your lurid imaginings about reality. But I don't see why you portray it as a fault. You're a lunatic who makes shit up. You need to get used to the feedback. K.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 5:54:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The one on capital punishment? That seems an odd one to change someone's mind on gun control. You might want grasp at some other straw. I can't get the whole thing but he seems to argue that the murder rate increases the gun ownership rate which increases the murder rate and vice versa. Thank you for this info. You finally admit that he started out anti gun and did not become pro gun till he researched a paper on guns. The great thing about debating is that eventually you will prove I am right. No. That article isn't anti gun. He doesn't argue for more gun control and does argue that more gun ownership results in a deterrent effect. Then you can't write in English as you stated that he said that gun ownership causes a rise in the murder rate.

Kirata -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 6:03:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen He doesn't argue for more gun control and does argue that more gun ownership results in a deterrent effect. From the Abstract... EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING A CIRCULARITY OF GUN OWNERSHIP AND HOMICIDE, WITH HOMICIDE PUSHING UP GUN OWNERSHIP AND GUN OWNERSHIP INCREASING HOMICIDE. On what planet is that arguing more gun ownership results in a deterrent effect. K.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 6:06:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen He doesn't argue for more gun control and does argue that more gun ownership results in a deterrent effect. From the Abstract... EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING A CIRCULARITY OF GUN OWNERSHIP AND HOMICIDE, WITH HOMICIDE PUSHING UP GUN OWNERSHIP AND GUN OWNERSHIP INCREASING HOMICIDE. On what planet is that arguing more gun ownership results in a deterrent effect. K. On Kens planet when it means that when Kleck started actually researching guns he changed his view. And I want to thank Ken again for proving our point.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 9:55:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The one on capital punishment? That seems an odd one to change someone's mind on gun control. You might want grasp at some other straw. I can't get the whole thing but he seems to argue that the murder rate increases the gun ownership rate which increases the murder rate and vice versa. Thank you for this info. You finally admit that he started out anti gun and did not become pro gun till he researched a paper on guns. The great thing about debating is that eventually you will prove I am right. No. That article isn't anti gun. He doesn't argue for more gun control and does argue that more gun ownership results in a deterrent effect. Then you can't write in English as you stated that he said that gun ownership causes a rise in the murder rate. So? Did you read the paper? He doesn't call for restricting access to guns. The man's CV is pro gun from day one.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 9:56:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen He doesn't argue for more gun control and does argue that more gun ownership results in a deterrent effect. From the Abstract... EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING A CIRCULARITY OF GUN OWNERSHIP AND HOMICIDE, WITH HOMICIDE PUSHING UP GUN OWNERSHIP AND GUN OWNERSHIP INCREASING HOMICIDE. On what planet is that arguing more gun ownership results in a deterrent effect. You shouldn't just read the abstract. It's a 30 page paper.

Kirata -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 9:58:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen He doesn't argue for more gun control and does argue that more gun ownership results in a deterrent effect. From the Abstract... EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING A CIRCULARITY OF GUN OWNERSHIP AND HOMICIDE, WITH HOMICIDE PUSHING UP GUN OWNERSHIP AND GUN OWNERSHIP INCREASING HOMICIDE. On what planet is that arguing more gun ownership results in a deterrent effect. You shouldn't just read the abstract. It's a 30 page paper. You shouldn't make shit up. [:)] K.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 10:01:36 PM)
But while making fun of you two has been fun back to the original topic, BamaD tried to pass off this lie quote: It proves that gun free zones don't make a difference by your own words. And gun welcome zones have less casualties as per a study I have already posted on another thread The study does not exist. He made it up.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02