View Single Post

Default 

January 18th, 2013, 03:49
Lest my detractors think I've abandoned the battlefield, let's take a look at all this so-called evidence y'all are so proud of. I've got to admit that when y'all got into such vigorous beard stroking and touchdown dancing over a broken link, it was pretty clear to me how much y'all were really paying attention. Anyhoo…
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
The objective evidence show that the states have an unusual amount of rampage killers and firearm murders compared to other western nations.
There's zero context for this supposed slam dunk. Is that for the last 2 weeks or the last 2 centuries? Since y'all love to use the invalid comparison of Europe, what might such a map look like, assuming we had the slightest clue what this one really meant. Really, folks, this is completely meaningless.
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Yet another pretty picture with no context. All it says is gun deaths. Aside from the complete lack of time frame, what does it count as a gun death? If I shoot myself, that's a gun death. Does it count? If the police shoot a dangerous criminal, that's a gun death. Does it count? If Sammy shoots a home invader, that's a gun death. Does it count? I mean, what we've got here is another completely worthless picture. I'm supposed to be impressed?
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Seriously? That's a wonderful bar graph. Not even a title. No axis legend. Nothing. I'm going to guess that it's average penis length. This is your evidence that you're so proud of? Seriously? Y'all should be embarassed. It does tie in nicely with your grande finale—I sure as shit can't explain this one.
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
This is terribly misplaced. It proves exactly nothing about the subject at hand. I'm sure it looked quite impressive in the textbook, though.
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Once again, we've got a beautiful scatter plot with exactly zero context. What qualifies as a firearm death? Without a proper definition, this proves exactly squat.
It would be interesting to see what the actual correlation coefficient on that data is. I'm guessing no better than 0.5.
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Are they legal?
You finally got a good one. However, all this says is that our legal screening isn't getting the job done. Now, I wouldn't be surprised that y'all would just throw up your hands and go straight for a ban, but wouldn't it make sense to work with the existing laws rather than pull out a ban that doesn't work?

Now, to address one other point—my reliance on Chicago data above all the other supposed proof like the garbage above:
The hypothesis is that gun control applied in the US will reduce gun violence. That's from y'all. I'd prefer not to drag out quotes, but they're there if y'all insist on being asses about that part. So, the only true proof of the point would be a situation where gun control is applied in the US. All other evidence can be considered, yes, but there is only one true proof of your point. That's basic logic. Because gun control in the US (at least, gun control as y'all are advocating) is basically unconstitutional, we don't have many applicable data points, nor will we have many any time soon. As such, we've got to give special consideration to the only data point that actually deals with your hypothesis. All the Euro bullshit need not apply folks, because that's not your hypothesis. Clear enough?

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#198

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,314