Gun control debate (merged)

[luthervol]

And it shouldn't surprise you that Luther's "conclusion" wasn't the actual conclusion. It was a cherrypicked statement put under the conclusion banner.


View attachment 627660]

lol....What do you think those conclusions are saying?????????

INCONCLUSIVE

 

[kiddiedoc]

How the hell would one conclude that banning something that nobody in favor of the law knows how to define will reduce gun violence, when BY FAR the most gun violence involves firearms not included in said legislation?

 

[VOLS INC.]

Mods. Please do not move to the political meme thread.

This post is meant to give an illustration of how Luther has chosen to debate in this thread.


Please continue.

 

[luthervol]

No it doesn’t.
Bad methodology that doesn’t survive peer review isn’t proof.
It’s propaganda.



The facts aren’t with you on this one.

Sure they are. I can post 20 links.

 

[TheDeeble]

lol....What do you think those conclusions are saying?????????

INCONCLUSIVE

So why did you leave that whole part out of your post? Hope nobody would actually click the link and check?

 

[hog88]

Sure they are. I can post 20 links.

You can post 20 pieces of BS propaganda produced by liars.

 

[luthervol]

You can post 20 pieces of BS propaganda produced by liars.

Sure, but I'm not going to use right-wing sources, I was talking about legitimate (non-right-wing) sources.

 

[luthervol]

So why did you leave that whole part out of your post? Hope nobody would actually click the link and check?

View attachment 627663

Not at all. It was basically to prove the point that "discernable improvement" would always be debatable.

 

[VOLS INC.]

You can post 20 pieces of BS propaganda produced by liars.

Mentioned this before. But this is how reliable most sources truly are in terms of accurate information. Tomorrow, I start the dissertation process. At best, news organizations as sources are only evidence that something was reported. That’s it! It’s essentially the equivalent of an interview.

@hog88 stated X,Y, Z is equal to @(insert news organization here) stated X,Y, Z.

Remember the movie Tommy Boy?
Customer: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?

Tommy : Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of ****. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

The point to my rant. Posting multiple links to multiple liars proves nothing. As you stated. But for some posters, 20 liars agreeing is evidence of an objective truth.

 

[luthervol]

Mentioned this before. But this is how reliable most sources truly are in terms of accurate information. Tomorrow, I start the dissertation process. At best, news organizations as sources are only evidence that something was reported. That’s it! It’s essentially the equivalent of an interview.

@hog88 stated X,Y, Z is equal to @(insert news organization here) stated X,Y, Z.

Remember the movie Tommy Boy?
Customer: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?

Tommy : Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of ****. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

The point to my rant. Posting multiple links to multiple liars proves nothing. As you stated. But for some posters, 20 liars agreeing is evidence of an objective truth.

Your rant totally missed the mark.
One of my links was directly to a report from the US Dept. of Justice
Another was a scientific study by Rand.

 

[hog88]

Sure, but I'm not going to use right-wing sources, I was talking about legitimate (non-right-wing) sources.

There is no left or right, there is data and the articles you posted were chalked full of incorrect data and misrepresentation of the data.

 

[85SugarVol]

Are you saying that there may not be agreement on if there was discernable improvement?

Imagine that.

I say there absolutely was and the data supports that conclusion.

lol....What do you think those conclusions are saying?????????

INCONCLUSIVE

The data supports the conclusion that it’s inconclusive?

 

[luthervol]

There is no left or right, there is data and the articles you posted were chalked full of incorrect data and misrepresentation of the data.

nope. You're simply wrong.

 

[luthervol]

The data supports the conclusion that it’s inconclusive?

100%

 

[85SugarVol]

100%

But this is your statement

I say there absolutely was and the data supports that conclusion.

“Absolutely was” doesn’t sound very inconclusive.

 

[hog88]

nope. You're simply wrong.

Ok Luther.

 

[volfanhill]

Luther is quickly reaching Ras level of nonsense

 

[GordonC]

Luther is quickly reaching Ras level of nonsense

They both been there at that level for a while now.

 

[luthervol]

But this is your statement



“Absolutely was” doesn’t sound very inconclusive.

You're missing the point.
There is data that absolutely supports discernable improvement.
These is data that absolutely rejects discernable improvement.
The entirety of the data is inconclusive.
That will always be the case with this issue.

 

[Orangeslice13]

How the hell would one conclude that banning something that nobody in favor of the law knows how to define will reduce gun violence, when BY FAR the most gun violence involves firearms not included in said legislation?

It’s amazing

 

[Orangeslice13]

Sure they are. I can post 20 links.

You can not post one peer reviewed study to support your claims. Bad methodology repeated 20 times is still not proof. It’s propaganda

 

[Orangeslice13]

Sure, but I'm not going to use right-wing sources, I was talking about legitimate (non-right-wing) sources.

Sources are irrelevant if it can pass methodology.

 

[luthervol]

You can not post one peer reviewed study to support your claims. Bad methodology repeated 20 times is still not proof. It’s propaganda

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

 

[luthervol]

You can not post one peer reviewed study to support your claims. Bad methodology repeated 20 times is still not proof. It’s propaganda

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/mass-shootings.html

 

[luthervol]

You can not post one peer reviewed study to support your claims. Bad methodology repeated 20 times is still not proof. It’s propaganda

Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov