What did this girl have that she needed?

[Blind groper]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... a/1937041/

Seth

If you are going to quote data, it helps to make sure first that it is correct. When you said there were less than 100 mass shootings in the USA in 50 years, you should have realised that a lie like that is easily shot down with even a tiny bit of research.

The reference above says 900 mass shootings in 7 years, so it is even worse than I originally calculated.

You should also wake up to the fact that your "more guns, less crime" is demonstrated only by Lott. Since he has been denounced by other researchers, and since he has an obvious money motive for lying, that is not exactly a credible claim.

[Seth]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... a/1937041/

Seth

If you are going to quote data, it helps to make sure first that it is correct. When you said there were less than 100 mass shootings in the USA in 50 years, you should have realised that a lie like that is easily shot down with even a tiny bit of research.

The reference above says 900 mass shootings in 7 years, so it is even worse than I originally calculated.

Liar.

More than 900 people died in mass shootings during the past seven years, and a majority of them were killed by people they knew, according to a USA TODAY analysis of gun-related slayings.

The 934 deaths account for less than 1% of all gun-related homicides, and nearly half involve a suspect slaying his or her family members, the detailed examination shows. USA TODAY combed through FBI records and news accounts to identify 146 mass shootings since 2006 that matched the FBI definition of mass shooting, where four or more people were killed.

There were not 900 mass shootings. Moreover, the definition used includes familial incidents where an individual kills family members, which is not the sort of "mass shooting" we've been discussing.

Bloomberg and his pet mayors use the broadest possible definition to include shootings that are not related to the private individual's need to carry a gun in public.

You should also wake up to the fact that your "more guns, less crime" is demonstrated only by Lott.

It's proven by crime statistics. More guns in the US, fewer crimes in the US, over decades. More guns, less crime. QED.

Since he has been denounced by other researchers, and since he has an obvious money motive for lying, that is not exactly a credible claim.

I denounce you, and you have a motive for lying, therefor you are not a credible source. Your ad hominem fallacy is once again ignored.

[JimC]

Problem is, Seth, you are not "an other researcher", whose qualifications may allow us to accept their denunciation of a data set. You have no qualifications in assessing statistical evidence, therefore your denunciation has no weight whatsoever.

[Seth]

Problem is, Seth, you are not "an other researcher", whose qualifications may allow us to accept their denunciation of a data set. You have no qualifications in assessing statistical evidence, therefore your denunciation has no weight whatsoever.

Then again, neither does yours, or BG's or anybody else's on this forum.

I simply state the obvious fact that the addition of many more guns to US society has not resulted in an increase in crime. Crime continues to go down. Therefore, the thesis "more guns, more crime" is definitively refuted.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Ok, I was in error, in that I said 900 mass shootings, where I should have said 900 people killed in mass shootings. I apologise for the error, which was inadvertent.

However, it does not obviate my point which was that the number of mass shootings in the USA, even in 7 years, is much, much more that the less than 100 you claimed for 50 years.

And I have told you so many times, with evidence, that the drop in murder rates from the 1990's happened over 24 western nations, not just the USA. Therefore, it had nothing to do with any purely local change in gun ownership just inside the USA.

There is absolutely zero credible evidence. Zip. None. Zero. Nada. Of any 'more guns less crime' factor. However, many very reputable researchers within the USA have clearly shown a 'more guns, more murders' relationship.

[JimC]

Problem is, Seth, you are not "an other researcher", whose qualifications may allow us to accept their denunciation of a data set. You have no qualifications in assessing statistical evidence, therefore your denunciation has no weight whatsoever.

Then again, neither does yours, or BG's or anybody else's on this forum.

BG (or other members) were't denouncing the data set or the researcher from his own authority. His words: "...he has been denounced by other researchers..."

Given that being the case, my point stands...

[pErvinalia]

Yabbut if everybody in the schools was packin' heat, man, and the nutters knew that, they'd all turn sane immediately and abandon their crazy plans. If one or two of them unaccountably persevered with them, the teachers would outdraw the baddies with already drawn guns because even though they are concentrating on telling Jimmy to stop pulling Jacky's plaits. Teachers are always that much faster on account of being the goodies. For the same reason they never miss their target, let alone kill one or two of their students by mistake. Oh, and teachers themselves never ever lose it. FACT!

[Seth]

To Seth

Ok, I was in error, in that I said 900 mass shootings, where I should have said 900 people killed in mass shootings. I apologise for the error, which was inadvertent.

However, it does not obviate my point which was that the number of mass shootings in the USA, even in 7 years, is much, much more that the less than 100 you claimed for 50 years.

I cited my source. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the source.

And I have told you so many times, with evidence, that the drop in murder rates from the 1990's happened over 24 western nations, not just the USA. Therefore, it had nothing to do with any purely local change in gun ownership just inside the USA.

And as I have told you repeatedly, ad infinitum your argument is entirely irrelevant. The facts are quite simple: More guns, less crime. Not "more guns, more crime", which is what you are claiming. Causation is irrelevant to destroying your argument. The only thing that matters in debunking your lies is the simple fact that there are more guns in the US and there is less crime. You are confirming as much with your statement above.

There is absolutely zero credible evidence. Zip. None. Zero. Nada. Of any 'more guns less crime' factor. However, many very reputable researchers within the USA have clearly shown a 'more guns, more murders' relationship.

Another lie. The facts are simple, and you simply ignore those facts time and time again. The murder and overall crime rates in the US continue to decline as more and more guns are added to the society. It doesn't matter whether or not the guns are the proximate or even a tertiary cause, that simple fact destroys your argument completely, because, as any idiot knows (but you do not) if what you claim were true, crime rates would be going upwards in the US as guns are added to the society. But that's not what's happening, so you're wrong. Plain and simple.

[Seth]

Problem is, Seth, you are not "an other researcher", whose qualifications may allow us to accept their denunciation of a data set. You have no qualifications in assessing statistical evidence, therefore your denunciation has no weight whatsoever.

Then again, neither does yours, or BG's or anybody else's on this forum.

BG (or other members) were't denouncing the data set or the researcher from his own authority. His words: "...he has been denounced by other researchers..."

Given that being the case, my point stands...

Not really, given the fact that the denouncements of the denouncements have shown that the denouncements were fallacious and wrong and the original claims are correct.

[Blind groper]

For a start, Seth, I have not claimed more guns more crime. My claim is that more guns lead to more gun crimes, and specifically more murders. The number of, for example, cases where a husband beats his wife, is not going to change due to more or fewer guns.

You appear to be totally blind to the fact that the change in murder rate since 1990 over 24 nations is not due to more guns. It cannot, since 23 out of 24 of those nations have strong gun control. I do not know how long I can bang my head against a brick wall trying to pound a little logic into your thick skull.

[hackenslash]

Never try to argue with a fuckwit. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

[Seth]

Never try to argue with a fuckwit. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Actually, I argue with fuckwits all the time, present company included, and I find it endlessly amusing.

[Seth]

For a start, Seth, I have not claimed more guns more crime. My claim is that more guns lead to more gun crimes, and specifically more murders. The number of, for example, cases where a husband beats his wife, is not going to change due to more or fewer guns.

Yes, yes, we all know your cherry-picking mendacious ways. But the fact is that you are still wrong. More guns, less crime, including gun crime, in the US. Guns up, crime down.

You appear to be totally blind to the fact that the change in murder rate since 1990 over 24 nations is not due to more guns. It cannot, since 23 out of 24 of those nations have strong gun control. I do not know how long I can bang my head against a brick wall trying to pound a little logic into your thick skull.

Evidently you have banged your head once too often and the grey matter is splashed all over the bricks because you seem incapable of understanding the simple fact that there are more guns in the US, and less crime...of all types.

Therefore, your standard argument is completely and utterly wrong, and your mendacious strawman argument is once again burnt to the ground.

By the way, just because a nation has "strong gun control" doesn't mean gun crime cannot go up, as the article from Australia I posted earlier proves.

Go get a spoon and a rag and try to stuff some of that grey matter back into your cracked skull.

[pErvinalia]

Correlation doesn't equal causation, Professor Seth. Crime could have reduced in the US for other reasons.

[Hermit]

You are a bit slow on the uptake, rEv. There is one clear simple and incontrovertible criterion for distinguishing between causality and correlation, namely this: If a relation supports Seth's claim it is the former. If it does not, it's the latter.