Reply With Quote
Btw thanks for the heads up. I just saw the url and wasn't aware it was a rebroadcast.
Oh and btw that site had 26 scripts on it. I was very uncomfortable with that. I turned them on temporarily though to watch it.
Really when you compare this studies that actually try to control the variables to weed out alternative cause versus that cherry picking of stats after he rebuts the one is kind of annoying. Did you ever read the Yale Law Review study or the one done by the British Department of Public Health I posted?
Btw thanks for the heads up. I just saw the url and wasn't aware it was a rebroadcast.
Why would I read an article on the effects of a CCW when that was never my argument to begin with? You keep bringing it up and I keep ignoring it for a reason, it doesn't apply to my FACTS. Why would I read something about Britain, I live in the USA.
Back to square one in the USA.
Gun sales up.
Crime down.
More guns do not equal more crime. Never said more guns equals less crime, "don't speak for me"
Did you read the book More Guns Less Crime and look to their methodology?
I'll just tell you because I know your ignorant ass hasn't read the book.
The premise of the books argument is that people with Shall Issue permits are the most likely to be out and about and be in a position to stop non-home crimes. They looked at multiple types of crime other than home stuff. They controlled for that and address your concerns in the book. Further the study that indicated a causal link between gun ownership and less crime used this same methodology.
One thing that is contemptible is that you try and hold me to this standard of where I need to look at what you say and even look up what you say for you; hoever, when I present counter evidence you come up with cheap copouts.
It's not like what you are claiming as an invalidation was not considered in either set of studies. But you wouldn't understand the reasoning behind controls much less how to go about it.
I just ing told you I hadn't read the book, nor your article because I never once brought up CCW's and a reduction of crime, ever. And the book and your article are speaking to shall issue permits. Find me a quote where I speak of CCW's making crime go down and we can discuss it, until then, shut the up and stay on topic. I never mentioned anything about guns preventing crime, ever. dude this is getting tiring. I don't give a about your counter evidence because it counters nothing of which I am discussing. Your stupid ass has run rampant finding all these studies that have jack to do with what I am talking about, how can you not see that. I'd like to say I trolled you and had you go hunt down a bunch of evidence but you did that on your own, and completely studied up on something irrelevant to the discussion. Stop bringing CCW's into this argument, they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about you dip , you've wasted a lot of time haven't you.
You can not deny the FACT that gun ownership over the last ten years has skyrocketed, you can not deny the FACT that over the last ten years crime has gone down. For the last time................
Gun ownership up, Crime down
Knowing this, I can without a doubt say that guns do not cause more crime. Again, do not cause.
If you want to continue this discussion with me please stay on topic. We are simply discussing these two facts. Tear them apart at your leisure, but leave all your other bull aside.
You don't get to define the topic so piss off nor do you get to define the parameters of the debate. You sure are a megalomaniac.
So scientific studies that have been done control for several variables and whose methodology has been supported by both sides of the debate is trumped by your general raw statistics that are in no way qualified? Your facts are meaningless without context. If you were to read the study that supports your hypothesis you would know this but I believe you don't have the mental capacity so you resort to this simpleminded attempt.
Yours is the analysis of a simpleton.
I do get to define the topic, it is my topic. If you wish to participate you will stick to the guidelines. If not, start your own topic and get your rammed in by someone else.
your topic
Simpleton
I'm in your room Raleigh.
You'd think it'd be easy to prove a simpleton wrong no?
Simpleton
I'm in your room Raleigh.
While your hypothesis could turn out to be true, you get an F in statistics.
Fair enough.... I don't like cable news either, and Ben Swann is much too honest to even be offered a job at Faux News, so no need to worry there, tbh...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
