|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Quote the data here then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Coyote writes:
The difference being that bicycles serve a useful purpose. Criminologist: 'More Youngsters Killed in Bicycle Accidents' Than with Guns Is that you admitting that their ultimate goal is not saving kids lives in schools?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
... so you would be okay with ammo\powder having micro-confetti to track sources and buyers, I'm okay with it existing, but I wouldn't buy it or shoot it.
but don't want to register your guns because of some kind of NRA paranoia, and you think they don't have all the information they need already? Regardless of what they already have, I am not going to help them by giving them more.
So you're part of the problem? Come at me bro.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm not sure why you would smile at that...
In those two years, apparently, more kids will die in bicycle accidents at school. If your ultimate goal was saving kids lives at schools, then your efforts would be better focused on bicycle safety. If you say that you're ultimate goal is saving kids lives at schools, and then you focus on things that will save less lives, then you're either stupid or lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why? In light of the heinous actions of the NSA, I'm not going to trust the Feds with something that purposefully provides them with more information about my guns, or bullets. They are simply untrustworthy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Now you're just being disingenuous. You, the unsupported assertion police, are now accepting unsupported assertions as "data".
I guess its all good as long as you like what you hear. And you have the gall to berate us for acting like creationists. lulz Welcome back to being ignored, troll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Theo is citing a news report on a study that hasn't been released yet.
I don't care who you are, that don't pass as "data". But yes, of course we would want to look at the raw data. Since when did we start accepting unsupported assertions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Curiously I can be focused on bicycle safety at the same time But we're talking about those Moms and Mayors...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Neither is it an unsupported assertion, and you've left the ambiguity of the term "data" unresolved. Theodoric is using the term "data" to refer to the results and conclusions of studies, while you're using it to refer to the actual reports themselves (when they become available), or perhaps you mean the raw data. But I think most people would think you well within your rights to insist on seeing the report before deciding whether or not it's a point in favor of Theodoric's position. "There's a study that shows you're wrong." Now that's an unsupported assertion. --Percy Sure, in theory. But in practice? Not a chance. A bare link, called "some data", that links to a news piece? Really? How do you think the responses would have been different if the article said that the data went the other way? ಠ_ಠ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Okay, this one elicited a reply. Only because you couldn't be more exactly wrong. Although, I suspect you designed your reply that way because you're so good at trolling. I no longer believe that you could be this stupid. I'm only pointing this out for those who don't realize that you're not really this stupid, and are, in fact, trolling. I probably won't reply to any replies from you to this.
Are you asserting we would act like you? No. I'm asserting that you would act like you. I'm asserting that the way you've acted in these replies is not like you. You saw a result that you liked, and you opted to not post the information that suggested that you tried to defeat it by... well, you know, posting as much shit about the author that you can, and trying to discredit what they said, and reacting generally like you already discounted the information a priori. You know, like you always act when confronted with stuff you're skeptical about. Instead, you're posts suggest that you've swallowed the claim whole. Now, maybe you did look into it and found nothing damaging, but, you could have posted that info as well. "Look, guys, this shit is legit. Here's the links where I looked into it." But no, you didn't. You acted differently instead. Now, here's the kicker. You made fun of your opponents for acting like creationists when you acted the exact same way. Pure hypocrisy. Granted, maybe you did look deep into it and discover all the facts (and thus were not actually creationist-like), but your posts don't indicate that you've done anything like that. Instead, your posts indicate that you've done the very thing that you are berating. That's really only what I wanted to point out.
Your argument here does not reflect well on you. It is like a fundie trying to attack atheism by claiming it is a religion. I'm not interested in my reflection. Besides, the reflection is only superficial. I don't act like I'm not doing it. You do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Background checks work. Do you think that what you quoted supports your conclusion? What happened to your skepticism such that you'd accept correlation as causation? Where were the spikes? Were they significant? Do we need to make a decision? Would the people who committed the murders have been prevented from obtaining the gun that they used through a background check? How many of them could have obtain the weapon despite the background checks? Do you think these things are worth considering?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And if the end result is fewer gun deaths, then it is a positive result. False. Just like the NSA's spying on us is not worth the reduction in terrorist attacks. We shouldn't give up liberty for security. Especially, when we cannot trust our federal government. Use your brain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
background checks cannot affect legitimate use, but it can affect illegitimate use. Whoa, wait. If people are obtaining guns illegally, like they borrow it from their cousin, then how can background checks affect that? The only ones that background checks can affect, are those who are obtain their guns legitimately. You have it exactly backwards. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm not sure where your question is stemming from.
Are you talking about giving up liberty for security? Or are you talking about providing the Feds with personal information for background checking and bullet tracking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The Feds are untrustworthy and I'm not going to give them any more information. And its not worth giving up liberty for a sense of security.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024