Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Rukentuts]

I already stated that I used Pre 9-11's source. I thought that even your limited reading comprehension would be able to grasp that. I guess not.


I wonder how many different versions of this post I'll see if I continue to refresh the page? I've seen you add at least two ad hominems here on separate edits.

And you call my remarks snide, hah! Did you read the definition of hypocrite I just posted?

Anyone else think that it's funny that Tiny thought better of a snide comment, so edited it out of his post, while Rukentuts religiously edits in snide comments to further debase his credibility? (Wait, can you get lower than non-existent?)

Is there supposed to be a link disputing 9/11's sources in there, or just more lazy fallacies that you're hypocritically complaining about?

It's not really surprising at this point you're unable to click a link that explains why you insisting something is "nebulous" without a source is an appeal to ignorance. Reading has been repeatedly demonstrated to be beyond your capabilities. Which is surprising for someone that works with filing forms.

Edit: You have to have an argument before there's an ad hominem, you didn't even know that

[Tinykong]

Therefore, a "scientific projections" is "an estimate or trend based on present estimates, obtained by using the methods and principles of science."

Riiiiight, because you're totally not just making up this term to add weight to what everyone else who isn't a pedant or engaging in confirmation bias calls a guess.

It's a scientific projection.

Which is just a pedantic form of "educated guess."

What's the point in even discussing this topic with someone you believe to be a pedant? Yet you continue to do that.

Either answer the question, or admit that you can't.

I actually did answer the question, before you even asked it. I called it an educated guess. For someone who loves to stroke their ability to cite the dictionary, you certainly have failed to do so here.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone else think that it's funny that Tiny thought better of a snide comment, so edited it out of his post, while Rukentuts religiously edits in snide comments to further debase his credibility? (Wait, can you get lower than non-existent?)

Careful, PRE911 doesn't understand the difference between editing a post and deleting it. You might confuse him.

[PhaelixWW]

Is there supposed to be a link disputing 9/11's sources in there, or just more lazy fallacies that you're hypocritically complaining about?

It's cute that, even after I state it multiple times, you can't grasp the concept that my source is Pre 9-11's source. I'm not disputing it, I'm explaining it to Pre 9-11, who doesn't seem to understand the difference between direct governmental costs and future work loss costs (even though he claims to understand it "quite well".)

You haven't even contributed anything here, so talking about "lazy fallacies" is just more of the hypoc-ruk-cy we've come to expect from you.

[Rukentuts]

It's cute that, even after I state it multiple times, you can't grasp the concept that my source is Pre 9-11's source.

You mean your lay clerical nitpicking of it? So give us a citation.

[PhaelixWW]

Careful, PRE911 doesn't understand the difference between editing a post and deleting it. You might confuse him.

I've been trying to explain certain truths to Pre 9-11 for over a year now. I'm afraid the "you might confuse him" ship has sailed at this point, since he's evidently still trying to debate this.

[Rukentuts]

I've been trying to explain certain truths to Pre 9-11 for over a year now. I'm afraid the "you might confuse him" ship has sailed at this point, since he's evidently still trying to debate this.

"Truths", like citing Lott? The only "study" you found the capability to link?

[PhaelixWW]

You mean your lay clerical nitpicking of it? So give us a citation.

It's right there in Pre 9-11's source. Did you not even bother to click the link? Or do you just have problems reading? Or is logic and comprehension your weakness?

Honestly, I could see it being any of those... or even all three.

[Rukentuts]

It's right there in Pre 9-11's source

So are you that lazy or don't know what a citation is?

Cite me your "Argument". Quote me the appropriate passages.

[PhaelixWW]

So the lazy secretary doesn't know what a citation is?

Cite me your "Argument". Quote me the appropriate passages.

Oh, it's far more amusing to see you completely fail to understand what you read (or maybe didn't bother reading?).

The idea that you challenged my critical thinking skills is laughable.

Use Pre 9-11's source to prove me wrong. If I'm fabricating my data, surely you should be able to prove it, right?

Call this a critical thinking test.

[Rukentuts]

Oh, it's far more amusing to see you completely fail to understand what you read (or maybe didn't bother reading?).

The idea that you challenged my critical thinking skills is laughable.

Use Pre 9-11's source to prove me wrong. If I'm fabricating my data, surely you should be able to prove it, right?

Call this a critical thinking test.

So now the whiner of fallacies is trying to shift burden of proof for his argument. Shocker.

Because apparently citing for his own argument requires more work than filing a form or something.

[PhaelixWW]

So now the whiner of fallacies is trying to shift burden of proof for his argument. Shocker.

Except I'm piggybacking on Pre 9-11's source. So any invalidation of my data is an invalidation of his. There's no burden to shift, because I'm not contradicting his information, merely explaining it.

[Rukentuts]

Except I'm piggybacking on Pre 9-11's source.

Then quote me the passages in question. It's really not that hard for people that actually used a source.

- - - Updated - - -

because I'm not contradicting his information, merely explaining it.

More like secretarial nitpicking, because you have a posting history of only using a single source of your own. The rest of the time it's either wrong due to ad hominem (hack) or raw data or some other handwaving reason. It reeks of ignorance desperation from an unqualified mind.

[TZucchini]

Gee, I dunno. Maybe the fact that 99.5% of that "societal" cost is really just lifetime work loss, which is nebulous, at best, and doesn't really translate to actual loss of government funds. Feel free to try and make the argument that lost taxes on that work loss would offset spending on medical support for a suicidal person.

Direct medical costs were under $4000 per suicide.

In fact, and not to get too morbid about it, the costs per firearm suicide were actually less than other types of suicides. Other suicides cost about 15-20% more than firearm suicides.

Counter that with 21 million NICS checks per year. How much do 21 million mental checks cost?

The fact that you take it for granted that "oh, societal costs would offset government costs" is fairly ridiculous.

PIRE, whose formula the CDC uses, puts Governmental Costs from suicide at $3.7 billion.

And again. The government would only have to fund checks for individuals that cannot afford them. Probably a very small percentage of the 21 million NICS checks.

[PhaelixWW]

Then quote me the passages in question. It's really not that hard for people that actually used a source.

This is far more hilarious, especially considering your attempt to poke fun at what you see to be my failure to understand citation.

More like secretarial nitpicking, because you have a posting history of only using a single source of your own. The rest of the time it's either wrong due to ad hominem (hack) or raw data or some other handwaving reason. It reeks of ignorance desperation from an unqualified mind.

Your antics are terribly amusing, mostly because they're embarrassing for you. I'd wager real money that even the other anti-gunners are embarrassed by your hypocritical shenanigans.

[Rukentuts]

This is far more hilarious, especially considering your attempt to poke fun at what you see to be my failure to understand citation.



Your antics are terribly amusing, mostly because they're embarrassing for you. I'd wager real money that even the other anti-gunners are embarrassed by your hypocritical shenanigans.

So I'll take it as you're unable to actually source/quote anything. It's getting rather pathetic.

[TZucchini]

Riiiiight, because you're totally not just making up this term to add weight to what everyone else who isn't a pedant or engaging in confirmation bias calls a guess.

No one is making up terms. It's an adjective followed by a noun. Do you understand how that works?

I actually did answer the question, before you even asked it. I called it an educated guess. For someone who loves to stroke their ability to cite the dictionary, you certainly have failed to do so here.

This was the question: Does the CDC use numbers that are highly conjectural, and not well supported by available evidence?

You haven't answered that question.

And I can guarantee you won't.

[Rukentuts]

No one is making up terms. It's an adjective followed by a noun. Do you understand how that works?



This was the question: Does the CDC use numbers that are highly conjectural, and not well supported by available evidence?

You haven't answered that question.

And I can guarantee you won't.

Disagree with the CDC? Straw man the shit out of it. Seems to be the handwavers antics of choice.

[PhaelixWW]

PIRE, whose formula the CDC uses, puts Governmental Costs from suicide at $3.7 billion.

Completely different source, using a different formula, but whatever.

And that cost is lifetime lost taxes, not direct government expenditures. Like I said, feel free to argue lost taxes vs. government spending on medical help for a suicidal person.

[Rukentuts]

And that cost is lifetime lost taxes, not direct government expenditures.

Really? And where does it say that?

[PhaelixWW]

Really? And where does it say that?

ROFL, holy post deletion, Rukentuts!