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

subrosaDom -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 10:09:07 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. So according to that hypothesis, Switzerland should be the real life version of The Walking Dead.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 10:23:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. No I didn't of course in your world anything you don't like is a lie. You spent pages attacking this study when I posted it before. Prove I made it up. And the fact remains that gun free zones are a joke unless the bad guys obey them. And if they obey them they should post no crime zones.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/11/2014 10:37:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Can't get the link to work but type in fewer casualties with armed resistance \ then click on daily anarchist Now apologize you worthless pile of excrement

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/12/2014 3:20:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Can't get the link to work but type in fewer casualties with armed resistance \ then click on daily anarchist Now apologize you worthless pile of excrement That is not a study. That is just some random guy compiling a bunch of news reports. Maybe you don't have the faintest clue how science is done but that ain't how. To start with his inclusion and exclusion parameters are not defined they are purely subjective which makes the entire thing biased. We have absolutely no way of knowing what he included and excluded. He failed to include his data set and the list he provides is woefully inadequate to determine how many shootings he failed to include, which considering how many occur nationally must be many hundreds. Then he starts excluding incidents from each list for entirely subjective reasons that he also fails to explain, without providing a detailed appendix detailing each case as would be required by actual science. IOW that isn't anything but some utterly worthless list. AND furthermore it isn't even what you claimed it was you worthless pile of stinking excrement. No where in that stupid poorly written column does it make any claim at all that all the mass shootings not stopped by armed civilians were in gun free areas or that only those stopped by armed civilians were in gun permitted areas. So how about that apology you so boldly demanded?

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/12/2014 8:40:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Can't get the link to work but type in fewer casualties with armed resistance \ then click on daily anarchist Now apologize you worthless pile of excrement That is not a study. That is just some random guy compiling a bunch of news reports. Maybe you don't have the faintest clue how science is done but that ain't how. To start with his inclusion and exclusion parameters are not defined they are purely subjective which makes the entire thing biased. We have absolutely no way of knowing what he included and excluded. He failed to include his data set and the list he provides is woefully inadequate to determine how many shootings he failed to include, which considering how many occur nationally must be many hundreds. Then he starts excluding incidents from each list for entirely subjective reasons that he also fails to explain, without providing a detailed appendix detailing each case as would be required by actual science. IOW that isn't anything but some utterly worthless list. AND furthermore it isn't even what you claimed it was you worthless pile of stinking excrement. No where in that stupid poorly written column does it make any claim at all that all the mass shootings not stopped by armed civilians were in gun free areas or that only those stopped by armed civilians were in gun permitted areas. So how about that apology you so boldly demanded? Were you capable of reading you would know that I didn't say that it claimed that all mass shootings not stopped by armed civilians were in gun free zones. Exactly the kind of distortion I have come to expect from you. The fact that you dismiss this is no surprise. You don't like what it says so it doesn't count. Simple as that. Almost as simple as your mind.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/12/2014 10:03:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Can't get the link to work but type in fewer casualties with armed resistance \ then click on daily anarchist Now apologize you worthless pile of excrement That is not a study. That is just some random guy compiling a bunch of news reports. Maybe you don't have the faintest clue how science is done but that ain't how. To start with his inclusion and exclusion parameters are not defined they are purely subjective which makes the entire thing biased. We have absolutely no way of knowing what he included and excluded. He failed to include his data set and the list he provides is woefully inadequate to determine how many shootings he failed to include, which considering how many occur nationally must be many hundreds. Then he starts excluding incidents from each list for entirely subjective reasons that he also fails to explain, without providing a detailed appendix detailing each case as would be required by actual science. IOW that isn't anything but some utterly worthless list. AND furthermore it isn't even what you claimed it was you worthless pile of stinking excrement. No where in that stupid poorly written column does it make any claim at all that all the mass shootings not stopped by armed civilians were in gun free areas or that only those stopped by armed civilians were in gun permitted areas. So how about that apology you so boldly demanded? It is done better than the infamous CDC "study" which counted 25 years old killed in shootouts with the police as children killed by guns or the Bloomberg "study" which included students shot miles from the school and school shootings. He shows just what he used up front.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/12/2014 6:08:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Can't get the link to work but type in fewer casualties with armed resistance \ then click on daily anarchist Now apologize you worthless pile of excrement That is not a study. That is just some random guy compiling a bunch of news reports. Maybe you don't have the faintest clue how science is done but that ain't how. To start with his inclusion and exclusion parameters are not defined they are purely subjective which makes the entire thing biased. We have absolutely no way of knowing what he included and excluded. He failed to include his data set and the list he provides is woefully inadequate to determine how many shootings he failed to include, which considering how many occur nationally must be many hundreds. Then he starts excluding incidents from each list for entirely subjective reasons that he also fails to explain, without providing a detailed appendix detailing each case as would be required by actual science. IOW that isn't anything but some utterly worthless list. AND furthermore it isn't even what you claimed it was you worthless pile of stinking excrement. No where in that stupid poorly written column does it make any claim at all that all the mass shootings not stopped by armed civilians were in gun free areas or that only those stopped by armed civilians were in gun permitted areas. So how about that apology you so boldly demanded? Were you capable of reading you would know that I didn't say that it claimed that all mass shootings not stopped by armed civilians were in gun free zones. Exactly the kind of distortion I have come to expect from you. The fact that you dismiss this is no surprise. You don't like what it says so it doesn't count. Simple as that. Almost as simple as your mind. I am quite capable of reading and I'll even paste what is still in the thread that you wrote for your reading convenience since you seem to be pretending to have never written it again. quote: And gun welcome zones have less casualties as per a study I have already posted on another thread So for the above "study" to actual document what you claimed it did it would have to restrict its findings to only shootings in "gun welcome zones" in comparison to those in "gun free zones" which it clearly does not. So it is worthless for the very claim you claimed it supported. Now where is that apology?

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/12/2014 6:16:39 PM)
So for the above "study" to actual document what you claimed it did it would have to restrict its findings to only shootings in "gun welcome zones" in comparison to those in "gun free zones" which it clearly does not. So it is worthless for the very claim you claimed it supported. It shows that armed resistance lowers casualties, now clearly that armed resistance would occur in areas that are not gun free. I did not make the claim you said I did so here is your apology. I am so sorry you are an idiot.

GotSteel -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/12/2014 7:12:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It shows that armed resistance lowers casualties, now clearly that armed resistance would occur in areas that are not gun free. According to that no true scotsman logic no one has ever been shot in gun free zones. In other words gun free zones are 100% safe from shootings.

Kirata -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/12/2014 8:20:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It shows that armed resistance lowers casualties, now clearly that armed resistance would occur in areas that are not gun free. According to that no true scotsman logic no one has ever been shot in gun free zones. In other words gun free zones are 100% safe from shootings. [8\|]

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/12/2014 8:23:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It shows that armed resistance lowers casualties, now clearly that armed resistance would occur in areas that are not gun free. According to that no true scotsman logic no one has ever been shot in gun free zones. In other words gun free zones are 100% safe from shootings. That is the logic of gun free zones, not mine.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/12/2014 9:21:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So for the above "study" to actual document what you claimed it did it would have to restrict its findings to only shootings in "gun welcome zones" in comparison to those in "gun free zones" which it clearly does not. So it is worthless for the very claim you claimed it supported. It shows that armed resistance lowers casualties, now clearly that armed resistance would occur in areas that are not gun free. I did not make the claim you said I did so here is your apology. I am so sorry you are an idiot. Wrong! That is the no true Scotsman fallacy as Got Steel as already pointed out.

GotSteel -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/13/2014 10:11:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It shows that armed resistance lowers casualties, now clearly that armed resistance would occur in areas that are not gun free. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That is the logic of gun free zones, not mine. I'm pointing out that you can't just throw a bunch of consense together to define your position into correctness. If it were valid for you to do, it would be valid for everyone to do at which point gun free zones would be 100% effective, condoms would be 100% effective, 100% of Christians would belong to the KKK and being a conservative would be un-American.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/13/2014 2:10:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It shows that armed resistance lowers casualties, now clearly that armed resistance would occur in areas that are not gun free. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That is the logic of gun free zones, not mine. I'm pointing out that you can't just throw a bunch of consense together to define your position into correctness. If it were valid for you to do, it would be valid for everyone to do at which point gun free zones would be 100% effective, condoms would be 100% effective, 100% of Christians would belong to the KKK and being a conservative would be un-American. If gun free zones worked there would be no need for them because it would mean that people follow the rules. The only people who are going to follow the rules are the ones who there would be no need to worry about in the first place.

mnottertail -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/13/2014 2:13:41 PM)
Then dismiss all traffic signs, and the police.

BecomingV -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/13/2014 5:00:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It shows that armed resistance lowers casualties, now clearly that armed resistance would occur in areas that are not gun free. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That is the logic of gun free zones, not mine. I'm pointing out that you can't just throw a bunch of consense together to define your position into correctness. If it were valid for you to do, it would be valid for everyone to do at which point gun free zones would be 100% effective, condoms would be 100% effective, 100% of Christians would belong to the KKK and being a conservative would be un-American. If gun free zones worked there would be no need for them because it would mean that people follow the rules. The only people who are going to follow the rules are the ones who there would be no need to worry about in the first place. While I normally hesitate to jump in once you two are "engaged," THAT ^^^ needs debunking. On the planet I inhabit - NO ONE follows all of the rules. Humans are incapable of perfection. Keeping reality in mind may help the discussion.

GotSteel -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/13/2014 6:02:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If gun free zones worked there would be no need for them because it would mean that people follow the rules. The only people who are going to follow the rules are the ones who there would be no need to worry about in the first place. Hold on, before changing the subject, did you manage to understand the point I'm making?

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/13/2014 7:44:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If gun free zones worked there would be no need for them because it would mean that people follow the rules. The only people who are going to follow the rules are the ones who there would be no need to worry about in the first place. Hold on, before changing the subject, did you manage to understand the point I'm making? Do you understand that I am not changing the subject.

GotSteel -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/13/2014 8:36:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Do you understand that I am not changing the subject. Sounds like my point went over your head. This hasn't been me taking a stance on gun free zones, it's been me pointing out an informal fallacy in your previous argument. If you don't understand that I'm willing to walk you through it in greater detail. If you do understand then by all means either attempt to fix your argument or cede the point that it's a failure in which case I'm perfectly happy to continue discussing your next argument.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/13/2014 8:45:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Do you understand that I am not changing the subject. Sounds like my point went over your head. This hasn't been me taking a stance on gun free zones, it's been me pointing out an informal fallacy in your previous argument. If you don't understand that I'm willing to walk you through it in greater detail. If you do understand then by all means either attempt to fix your argument or cede the point that it's a failure in which case I'm perfectly happy to continue discussing your next argument. There is no fallacy in my argument. Gun free zones do not work. Armed resistance will thus happen almost exclusively in non gun free zones as those people who carry legally will, in general, obey the signs. I know that I do.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02