Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[lockedout]

And you linked nothing. Because you have nothing. You can't even defend your position.

From your article "To produce more reliable estimates, Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey."

Data for this study are from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey.

Keep linking those 20 year old studies without even knowing it because you don't even read your own links, you just google and link.

You can keep ignorng it and saying I am not linking anything but everyone in this thread for the last few pages has seen you avoid any discussion.
I am more than willing to have a rational discussion with you but I can't when you just lie. I clearly linked this over 5 times and each time you claim I am linking nothing. Next time read the study after googling.

Now onto those firearms you own but now claim not to.
Do you still own them unregistered firearms or did you sell them privately with no background check?

- - - Updated - - -

More like the entirety of the South leads the nation. By quite a bit I might add.

It also leads the nation in black males 18-24 who happen to represent the largest amount of gun related crimes and or deaths.

[Rukentuts]

That's the trend lockout. Feel free to disprove it, but we all know you don't have the capability to at this point. Because you've now ignored not one, not two, but three links. Too difficult I guess.

- - - Updated - - -

A little too much bait there.

Bait is all he has. He, like others, hasn't been able to put together an argument.

[lockedout]

That's the trend lockout. Feel free to disprove it, but we all know you don't have the capability to at this point. Because you've now ignored not one, not two, but three links. Too difficult I guess.

Were not talking about a trend and I am not trying to disprove anything. I am calling you out for not knowing you were linking a study that was over 20 years old. The when confronted with this information you had no idea and thought it was the wrong link, only when you finally went back to actually read what you were linking and realized your error. Even then you tried to grasp at straws saying a study from 20 years ago was still accurate. That is not to mention the skewed study you actually linked "From your article "To produce more reliable estimates, Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey."

Data for this study are from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey."

You keep mentioning 3 links but were stll discussing the first one which was worthless. Feel free to link the other 2 and we can discuss those.

What's up with those unregistered firearms you own? Did you sell them privately without a background check or do you still own them?

[Rukentuts]

Were not talking about a trend and I am not trying to disprove anything.

Of course you're not, because you can't. It's why you still ignore two other sources, because you really couldn't if you tried.

[lockedout]

Of course you're not, because you can't. It's why you still ignore two other sources, because you really couldn't if you tried.

Ahh were down to two now. I guess you just don't want to talk about the first one anymore.
Again link the other two.
Now will you answer the question about the firearms you claimed to own?

[Rukentuts]

Ahh were down tto two now. I guess you just don't want to talk about the first one anymore.

There's three. You just can't wrap your head around it.

Again link the other two.

How about you click 'back' and read it yourself.

Now will you answer the question about the firearms you claimed to own?

Explain the relevancy to the rational rebuttal we all know you can't create.

I guess I can see why gun ownership decreases with education.

[lockedout]

There's three. You just can't wrap your head around it.
How about you click 'back' and read it yourself.
Explain the relevancy to the rational rebuttal we all know you can't create.

Just answer the question, do you still own them?
I looked for the links and didn't see them, if you want a rational discussion which to this point you are unable to have, link the other 2 and we can discuss them.

[Rukentuts]

Just answer the question, do you still own them?

Explain the relevancy to the rational rebuttal you can't create.

I looked for the links and didn't see them

No you didn't.

if you want a rational discussion which to this point you are unable to have, link the other 2 and we can discuss them.

Coming from someone that can't even come up with a logical rebuttal to three sources, heh. Because going back pages is hard.

How much do we want to bet that instead of forming a rebuttal (you can't), that you'll nitpick a source itself? Because your position is that tenuous, that false, and that full of it. You literally cannot process it I suppose.

[Zoranon]

A little too much bait there.

Well I am really looking forward to the countless cries of evil conservative justices, complemented by threats of the coming bloodbath the decision is going to cause and of course, the staple when it comes to SCOTUS - the calls to remove either Thomas or Scalia from the court.

[Rukentuts]

Well I am really looking forward to the countless cries of evil conservative justices, complemented by threats of the coming bloodbath the decision is going to cause and of course, the staple when it comes to SCOTUS - the calls to remove either Thomas or Scalia from the court.

We shouldn't be surprised you can only bait after tucking tail and running from a debate.

[lockedout]

How much do we want to bet that instead of forming a rebuttal (you can't), that you'll nitpick a source itself? Because your position is that tenuous, that false, and that full of it. You literally cannot process it I suppose.

Well I mean the person who wrote that article in the gaurdian seems like a smart guy, Dr David Robert Grimes is a physicist and cancer researcher.

[Rukentuts]

Well I mean the person who wrote that article in the gaurdian seems like a smart guy, Dr David Robert Grimes is a physicist and cancer researcher.

Ad hominem, priceless. Keeping in mind that Guardian article listed loads of external links, all you can't physically process for whatever reason. Logic overload? I guess you still need to resort to attacking the qualifications because you don't possess the ability to defend yourself. This is the pro-gunners mantra as of late, apparently. Do you love undermining your own position so?

[lockedout]

Ad hominem, priceless. Attacking the qualifications because you don't possess the ability to defend yourself. This is the pro-gunners mantra as of late, apparently. Do you love undermining your own position so?

I didn't attack anyone, I actually complemented him.
After that comment you make me think you doubt his qualifications.

[Rukentuts]

I didn't attack anyone, I actually complemented him.
After that comment you make me think you doubt his qualifications.

If you actually read the article (shocker, you didn't) you'd see he didn't conduct the studies, merely wrote an article about them. And I say them, as there are numerous external sources for you to deliberately ignore.

[lockedout]

If you actually read the article (shocker, you didn't) you'd see he didn't conduct the studies, merely wrote an article about them. And I say them, as there are numerous external sources for you to deliberately ignore.

I did read it and I never said he conducted any studies. You seem to be very upset because you keep saying I said these things when I never did.

Onto that link.

"Our control population was more unemployed than the target population of Philadelphians that it was to intended to represent. Having a preponderance of unemployment among our control participants may mildly erode our study's generalizability."
You're the one always saying poverty bad education etc leads to people shooting eachother and that's why gun crime is so high in the south.

"We also did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault. "
"Finally, our results could have been affected by misclassification of gun possession status"

While it is a decent study from 2003-2006, it only used people from Philadelphia Pennsylvania who were mostly unemployed.
Are you trying to tell me that Philadelphia Pennsylvania is representative of the entire unites states?

[Rukentuts]

Great job cherrypicking one link lockedout. The best part is how you expend effort to nitpick but can't disprove anything. Typical of the progunners recently.

Here's 10 Gunner Myths, utterly destroyed.

[lockedout]

Great job cherrypicking one link lockedout. The best part is how you expend effort to nitpick but can't disprove anything. Typical of the progunners recently.

I didn't cherry pick one link I read the study and these are my problems with it
You linked it so we could have a discussion remember?
I then showed you the link you posted was a study done of mostly unemployed people from Philadelphia Pennsylvania.
I also mentioned how you claim poverty somehow causes gun crimes.
I then asked you if unemployed people from Philadelphia Pennsylvania represented the entire united states of america, which you have not answered.
Care to answer that question?

[Rukentuts]

Care to answer that question?

As much as I enjoy to boost to my post count, I'm just going to ignore subsequent responses on this until you grasp the basic ability to come up with a source to disprove my multiple (now 4) sources. But seeing as you'll just further the stereotype, you won't. Because you literally can't. It's apparently too hard. The scary thing is that people like this are allowed to possess lethal weapons.

[lockedout]

As much as I enjoy to boost to my post count, I'm just going to ignore subsequent responses on this until you grasp the basic ability to come up with a source to disprove my multiple (now 4) sources. But seeing as you'll just further the stereotype, you won't. Because you literally can't. It's apparently too hard. The scary thing is that people like this are allowed to possess lethal weapons.

Well I guess you can't answer the question when you don't like what you'll have to say otherwise you would have answered it.
I am using your sources. The first link was highly skewed and over 21 years old. The second link was very centralized and made up of mostly the unemployed.
By the way the sources I am using are from the links you are linking.

Oh it's 4 sources now?
Please link the other 2.

- - - Updated - - -

The scary thing is that people like this are allowed to possess lethal weapons.

Hey bud you own 2 firearms I own 0, yet somehow you call me a "progunner", isn't that kind of ironic since you own them and not
me? Wouldn't that make YOU a progunner?

- - - Updated - - -

Great job cherrypicking one link lockedout. The best part is how you expend effort to nitpick but can't disprove anything. Typical of the progunners recently.

Here's 10 Gunner Myths, utterly destroyed.

Oh were linking motherjones now?
Mind if I link some alex jones they are about the same.

[Eroginous]

That's why they get treatment for that until it's in a mentally stable condition.

You don't know much about mental illness, do you?

If someone is mentally ill, they don't just 'get better.' Even with treatment they don't all of a sudden stop being mentally ill. The vast majority of mental illness is a life long management process that never stops as long as the person is alive. If you're getting treatment and in a mentally stable condition, chances are you will only stay in a mentally stable condition with ongoing treatment.

So again, this isn't a gun control issue. It's a mental health issue. No law maker should ever have the power to determine whether or not someone should be allowed to have a gun based on their mental health.