Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is not my thread. You claimed I made the argument, I did not.
You, however, cherry picked, which is what I pointed out.
I didn't cherry pick anything. If I did, then tell us what specifically I left out that I should have included.
Why did you pick out Russia and Finland while ignoring the other countries? Why do you keep pointing to gun crime then the thread is about all homicides and suicides?
Hint, it is because you are cherry picking in an attempt to prove how stupid you are. You could save yourself a lot of work, we already know.
If guns made a society dangerous we would have a higher murder rate than Russia.
We don't.
Who's claiming that gun control is supposed to prevent other-than-gun crime?
That would be people like Candycorn, Saigon, you, and everyone else that argues that gun control makes people safer.
Any other questions, idiot?
I didn't cherry pick anything. If I did, then tell us what specifically I left out that I should have included.
Why did you pick out Russia and Finland while ignoring the other countries? Why do you keep pointing to gun crime then the thread is about all homicides and suicides?
Hint, it is because you are cherry picking in an attempt to prove how stupid you are. You could save yourself a lot of work, we already know.
Well, why don't you concentrate on the foundation, which is at the bottom of everyone of your arguments, the 2nd Amendment itself. If I am going to argue against this silly notion of a Christian god, I am going to start with antecedent, where is there any proof of a god. In the gun argument, how can you get by "shall not be infringed?" Figure that one out and get back to me.
You're a dunce.
I'm someone who can reduce you to that kind of sputtering. You should apologize for falsely identifying this as a Harvard study.
It was propaganda crafted by special interests and published by a special interest.
it is a valid study and you can't overturn anything what they have said, becasue it is statistics.
Why did you pick out Russia and Finland while ignoring the other countries? Why do you keep pointing to gun crime then the thread is about all homicides and suicides?
Hint, it is because you are cherry picking in an attempt to prove how stupid you are. You could save yourself a lot of work, we already know.
Well, why don't you concentrate on the foundation, which is at the bottom of everyone of your arguments, the 2nd Amendment itself. If I am going to argue against this silly notion of a Christian god, I am going to start with antecedent, where is there any proof of a god. In the gun argument, how can you get by "shall not be infringed?" Figure that one out and get back to me.
If you are claiming that 'shall not be infringed' constitutes an inviolable absolute, getting by that is easy...
...reasonable people don't believe that, and never have.
I'm someone who can reduce you to that kind of sputtering. You should apologize for falsely identifying this as a Harvard study.
It was propaganda crafted by special interests and published by a special interest.
it is a valid study and you can't overturn anything what they have said, becasue it is statistics.
It's not a valid study because it is based on the absurd premise that gun ownership, or lack thereof,
is somehow related to murder rates that include murders not involving guns.
You might as well be comparing the percentage of households that own big screen tv's to the number of drunk driving fatalities.
Well, why don't you concentrate on the foundation, which is at the bottom of everyone of your arguments, the 2nd Amendment itself. If I am going to argue against this silly notion of a Christian god, I am going to start with antecedent, where is there any proof of a god. In the gun argument, how can you get by "shall not be infringed?" Figure that one out and get back to me.
If you are claiming that 'shall not be infringed' constitutes an inviolable absolute, getting by that is easy...
...reasonable people don't believe that, and never have.
Hmm, guess the founders who wrote that were unreasonable, huh?
I don't see where there were any exceptions, and you might want to look up the definition of "infringe."
Heres one of those reasonable guys now, Ben Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
You said:
"2. Will a Harvard man listen to Harvard research?"
It's not 'Harvard research'.
The authors and acknowledgments, directly from the paper itself, which of course you never read:
* Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional
lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. He may be con‐
tacted at [email protected]; 360‐666‐2688; 22608 N.E. 269th Ave., Battle Ground,
WA 98604.
** Gary Mauser (Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian crimi‐
nologist and university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.
He may be contacted at Gary Mauser, [email protected], and 604‐291‐3652.
We gratefully acknowledge the generous contributions of Professor Thomas B. Cole
(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Social Medicine and Epidemiology);
Chief Superintendent Colin Greenwood (West Yorkshire Constabulary, ret.); C.B.
Kates; Abigail Kohn (University of Sydney, Law); David B. Kopel (Independence
Institute); Professor Timothy D. Lytton (Albany Law School); Professor William
Alex Pridemore (University of Oklahoma, Sociology); Professor Randolph Roth
(Ohio State University, History); Professor Thomas Velk (McGill University, Eco‐
nomics and Chairman of the North American Studies Program); Professor Robert
Weisberg (Stanford Law School); and John Whitley (University of Adelaide, Eco‐
nomics). Any merits of this paper reflect their advice and contributions; errors are
entirely ours.
I see no merit or accuracy in identifying this as 'Harvard research'.
I suspect your habitual ignorance, moreso than your habitual dishonesty, is the source of this inaccuracy.
You're a dunce.
I'm someone who can reduce you to that kind of sputtering. You should apologize for falsely identifying this as a Harvard study.
It was propaganda crafted by special interests and published by a special interest.
I love gun ownership by citizenry
You're a dunce.
I'm someone who can reduce you to that kind of sputtering. You should apologize for falsely identifying this as a Harvard study.
It was propaganda crafted by special interests and published by a special interest.
Do you know what this means: 'a distinction without a difference'?
"A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things even though there is, in fact, no actual difference."
Distinction without a difference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're never satisfied until you prove you're a dunce.
1. Published by Harvard....that allows "Harvard study"
2. "propaganda crafted by special interests and published by a special interest"
Since the CDC agrees,
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf
The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.
...then, by what passes for logic among you Liberals, the CDC must be a producer of "propaganda crafted by special interests."
I suppose, now, you are looking to fight with Dutch over who has the right to 'Lying Fool'
Who was first....?
Actually....it's another distinction without a difference.
it is a valid study and you can't overturn anything what they have said, becasue it is statistics.
It's not a valid study because it is based on the absurd premise that gun ownership, or lack thereof,
is somehow related to murder rates that include murders not involving guns.
You might as well be comparing the percentage of households that own big screen tv's to the number of drunk driving fatalities.
It is absolutely valid study
a study is not being built on a premise, a study build on a thesis.
This one is simple statistical analysis and does not have any thesis
Statistics which show exactly what you hate - gun ownership reduces homicide rate.this simple truth is proven even by analysis of statistics which I provided
I'm someone who can reduce you to that kind of sputtering. You should apologize for falsely identifying this as a Harvard study.
It was propaganda crafted by special interests and published by a special interest.
Do you know what this means: 'a distinction without a difference'?
"A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things even though there is, in fact, no actual difference."
Distinction without a difference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're never satisfied until you prove you're a dunce.
1. Published by Harvard....that allows "Harvard study"
2. "propaganda crafted by special interests and published by a special interest"
Since the CDC agrees,
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf
The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.
...then, by what passes for logic among you Liberals, the CDC must be a producer of "propaganda crafted by special interests."
I suppose, now, you are looking to fight with Dutch over who has the right to 'Lying Fool'
Who was first....?
Actually....it's another distinction without a difference.
You labeled it a 'harvard study' in your OP to make a point, aka, to take a shot at the president.
I would rather argue the merits of the study in detail with you or anyone here, but no one, including you, seems inclined to do so,
aka, business as usual.
It's not a valid study because it is based on the absurd premise that gun ownership, or lack thereof,
is somehow related to murder rates that include murders not involving guns.
You might as well be comparing the percentage of households that own big screen tv's to the number of drunk driving fatalities.
It is absolutely valid study
a study is not being built on a premise, a study build on a thesis.
This one is simple statistical analysis and does not have any thesis
Statistics which show exactly what you hate - gun ownership reduces homicide rate.this simple truth is proven even by analysis of statistics which I provided
Since the study to the best of my knowledge never shows cause and effect,
it can't be of any value to support the conclusion I bolded.
So the study purports to show that gun control doesn't control murder by means other than guns??
lolol, my first literal LOL of the day!!!
If guns made a society safer, we'd have the safest society in the history of the universe. Instead we have one of the most violent and are "raised in violence" according to one guy on this thread.
Gee, I wonder why?
[qu
it is a valid study and you can't overturn anything what they have said, becasue it is statistics.
So the study purports to show that gun control doesn't control murder by means other than guns??
lolol, my first literal LOL of the day!!!
If guns made a society safer, we'd have the safest society in the history of the universe. Instead we have one of the most violent and are "raised in violence" according to one guy on this thread.
Gee, I wonder why?
Tell you what, you guarantee me that neither I nor my wife nor anyone I care about will never ever be the victim of a violent crime and I will gladly slag my firearms.
But you can't can you? You know why you can't?
Because people are a violent species always have been always will be.
So I'll be keeping my guns.
no, you did not. Canada is not comparable to the US. Too few of the people.[qu
it is a valid study and you can't overturn anything what they have said, becasue it is statistics.
Okay, then here are my statistics:
The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 3.60 per hundred thousand
The U.S. gun ownership rate is 94 guns per 100 residents
The Canadian firearm homicide rate is .5 per hundred thousand
The Canadian per gun ownership rate is 30 guns per 100 residents
...so, did I prove that Canada has fewer gun murders because they have fewer guns?
Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If guns made a society safer, we'd have the safest society in the history of the universe. Instead we have one of the most violent and are "raised in violence" according to one guy on this thread.
Gee, I wonder why?
Tell you what, you guarantee me that neither I nor my wife nor anyone I care about will never ever be the victim of a violent crime and I will gladly slag my firearms.
But you can't can you? You know why you can't?
Because people are a violent species always have been always will be.
So I'll be keeping my guns.
Your big central government via the 2nd amendment is protecting your right to own guns. But no right is or should be unlimited.
