What did this girl have that she needed?

[Seth]

The University of Chicago's annual Social Survey shows very clearly that the number of gun owners has been dropping over the past 30 years.

All their survey shows is that fewer people are willing to tell Chicago researchers whether they own guns or not. There is absolutely no way for the Social Survey to verify or confirm whether a respondent is telling the truth or is dissembling. As I've pointed out before, gun owners aren't idiots and they know full well that revealing if or how many guns they own places them in danger of both theft and government confiscation. So, we gun owners don't answer questions like that truthfully.

Ergo, the survey result you claim is bogus. But, even if it weren't, the fact remains that there are more guns in our society, and less crime. You can try to obfuscate and pettifog your way around that fact all you like but the fact remains: More guns, less crime.

Since one gun crime is caused by one gun owner, regardless of how many guns he/she owns, then the number of gun owners is the important statistic, not how many guns he/she owns.

And yet there are at least 11 million more people carrying guns in public than there were 30 years ago and crime is still going down. And as it happens, licensed persons have a much, much lower overall crime rate than even the general public, which amply demonstrates that they can and do carry guns in public without using them improperly, much less criminally, which also blows your theory out of the water.

Fewer gun owners = less gun crime. FACT!!

Demonstrably not true.

[pErvinalia]

Gaah... there's no penetrating your thickness. As I said, I can't make it any clearer than I already have. You apparently can't even understand simple logic, let alone complex logic.

Simple logic is simple: More guns, less crime. Fact.

More guns, more crime. Falsehood.

MOAR TOOTHPASTE, LESS CRIME. FACT!!1!

[Seth]

Gaah... there's no penetrating your thickness. As I said, I can't make it any clearer than I already have. You apparently can't even understand simple logic, let alone complex logic.

Simple logic is simple: More guns, less crime. Fact.

More guns, more crime. Falsehood.

MOAR TOOTHPASTE, LESS CRIME. FACT!!1!

Great! Then there is no need to restrict or ban the sale and use of toothpaste either.

[pErvinalia]

Toothpaste caused the reduction in crime, not guns. FACT!!

[Seth]

Toothpaste caused the reduction in crime, not guns. FACT!!

Glad to hear it. What's important however is that guns did not cause an increase in crime, therefore there is no need to further regulate or restrict them because doing so will have zero effect on decreasing crime, according to your argument.

[pErvinalia]

Toothpaste caused the reduction in crime, not guns. FACT!!

Glad to hear it. What's important however is that guns did not cause an increase in crime,

Yawn. For the nth time, you don't know that. All you know is that net crime went down while total guns and toothpaste went up.

therefore there is no need to further regulate or restrict them because doing so will have zero effect on decreasing crime, according to your argument.

I think you need to go back to school and relearn logic if you hope to understand my argument.

[Seth]

Toothpaste caused the reduction in crime, not guns. FACT!!

Glad to hear it. What's important however is that guns did not cause an increase in crime,

Yawn. For the nth time, you don't know that. All you know is that net crime went down while total guns and toothpaste went up.

That's all that's important to know. If total guns went up and net crime did not go up, there is no reason to further regulate guns.

[pErvinalia]

Toothpaste caused the reduction in crime, not guns. FACT!!

Glad to hear it. What's important however is that guns did not cause an increase in crime,

Yawn. For the nth time, you don't know that. All you know is that net crime went down while total guns and toothpaste went up.

That's all that's important to know. If total guns went up and net crime did not go up, there is no reason to further regulate guns.

Except for the reason I have already stated. And no, I'm not going to tell you again. I'm sick of banging my head against your brick wall.

[Blind groper]

The problem is that Seth carefully selects which research he believes. He accepts everything John Lott does, in spite of the fact that Lott's peers have described his research as flawed, and rejects everything from Harvard, Boston University, and the University of Chicago. The work published by the Social Sciences Network, he selects part of and rejects the other part.

The key, of course, is that Seth believes any research that agrees with his preformed opinions and rejects all research that does not match his own views. His reaction is exactly what religious people do. The Church of the Gun.

[JimC]

Blind groper wrote:

...The Church of the Gun....

Yea though we walk in the valley of fear our .44 magnum doth comfort us...

[klr]

Blind groper wrote:

...The Church of the Gun....

Yea though we walk in the valley of fear our .44 magnum doth comfort us...

As long as we rememberth the number of shots we hath fired, as we go about our blessed duty.

[Seth]

Toothpaste caused the reduction in crime, not guns. FACT!!

Glad to hear it. What's important however is that guns did not cause an increase in crime,

Yawn. For the nth time, you don't know that. All you know is that net crime went down while total guns and toothpaste went up.

That's all that's important to know. If total guns went up and net crime did not go up, there is no reason to further regulate guns.

Except for the reason I have already stated. And no, I'm not going to tell you again. I'm sick of banging my head against your brick wall.

Doesn't matter what you think, more guns, less crime, not that it matters at all, this issue not being a statistical matter.

[Seth]

The problem is that Seth carefully selects which research he believes. He accepts everything John Lott does, in spite of the fact that Lott's peers have described his research as flawed,

Which criticisms he and many others have authoritatively refuted and rebutted long ago.

and rejects everything from Harvard, Boston University, and the University of Chicago. The work published by the Social Sciences Network, he selects part of and rejects the other part.

I merely point out that the conclusions you draw are faulty because the research does not account for a critical variable: whether or not the respondents were telling the truth about owning a gun.

The key, of course, is that Seth believes any research that agrees with his preformed opinions and rejects all research that does not match his own views. His reaction is exactly what religious people do. The Church of the Gun.

Fine by me, because that just adds the protection of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion to that of the Second Amendment, so fuck off.

[Seth]

Blind groper wrote:

...The Church of the Gun....

Yea though we walk in the valley of fear our .44 magnum doth comfort us...

Damned right, although in my case it's .45 ACP.

[Seth]

Blind groper wrote:

...The Church of the Gun....

Yea though we walk in the valley of fear our .44 magnum doth comfort us...

As long as we rememberth the number of shots we hath fired, as we go about our blessed duty.

Oh yeah, situational awareness and the tactical situation dictate whether an administrative or tactical reload is called for.