Somali Pirate Attacks On Decline

Quote from Elmer : I'm glad you agree with me. Those who simplistically thought availability of firearms lead to more crime and murder, were silly indeed.

Good thing we can move beyond the simpletons:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26...d=all&_r=0

Quote from agent00f : Good thing we can move beyond the simpletons: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26...d=all&_r=0

And on to the deflections, misrepresentations, and the immaterial....

Quote from Elmer : And on to the deflections, misrepresentations, and the immaterial....

Can you explain this in any sort of substance or detail? Thanks.

Quote from agent00f : Can you explain this in any sort of substance or detail? Thanks.

You posted a typical NRA hit piece in the New York Times. It quotes biased anti gun individuals, and cites studies that have largely been debunked, such as the ridiculous Kellerman "study" [guncite.com]..

I could post more refutation, which you would ignore or deflect, and then insult.

Knock yourself out.....

Quote from Elmer : You posted a typical NRA hit piece in the New York Times. It quotes biased anti gun individuals, and cites studies that have largely been debunked, such as the ridiculous Kellerman "study" [guncite.com].. I could post more refutation, which you would ignore or deflect, and then insult. Knock yourself out.....

Can you explain how this at all refutes the point of the gun lobby's anti-academic and anti-intellectual leanings reflected in the article?

Quote from agent00f : Can you explain how this at all refutes the point of the gun lobby's anti-academic and anti-intellectual leanings reflected in the article?

Glad to see you were able to read and digest the information contained in the link I posted, in the last 2-3 minutes.....

The premise that the NRA was "blocking" scientific studies, was posed by those with clear agendas of being anti gun, and with axes to grind, including Kellerman. If you had read the article I posted, along with it's cites, I would be amazed if you really would defend his clearly flawed, but often quoted study.

The Center for Disease Control, and select biased MD's, should not be in the business of studying firearms use and misuse. There are more appropriate and competent agencies and institutions for that.

Quote from Elmer : Glad to see you were able to read and digest the information contained in the link I posted, in the last 2-3 minutes.....

I did, and its faults are nothing new. There's a reason why the studies are academically published and this is not.

Quote : The premise that the NRA was "blocking" scientific studies, was posed by those with clear agendas of being anti gun, and with axes to grind, including Kellerman. If you had read the article I posted, along with it's cites, I would be amazed if you really would defend his clearly flawed, but often quoted study.

Can you explain how this is evidence from the link, which seems to compare gun deaths, in question because of the nature of device which can be controlled to a meaningful extent, to the general category of all deaths?

Quote : The Center for Disease Control, and select biased MD's, should not be in the business of studying firearms use and misuse. There are more appropriate and competent agencies and institutions for that.

These studies fundamentally use epidemiological methodology, which is rather fitting for an org with the specific expertise.

I believe I've mentioned this before. I'll charitably guess it didn't stick because what that means wasn't understood, and asking would've been seen as an embarrassment or weakness.

Quote from agent00f : I did, and its faults are nothing new. There's a reason why the studies are academically published and this is not.

The link I posted contained at least one link to an academically published study, which refuted Kellerman.

But I guess you must have missed that in your two minute, in depth review of the information.

Now you go ahead and try for another not so thinly veiled personal insult that can hopefully slip by the mods.

Night, Scooter.....

Quote from Elmer : The link I posted contained at least one link to an academically published study, which refuted Kellerman. But I guess you must have missed that in your two minute, in depth review of the information.

Can you point it out? Thanks. It might be helpful here to note that a law review or Reason mag are not "science", even if they're only in the "further reading" appendix outside of the scope of the article.

Quote : Now you go ahead and try for another not so thinly veiled personal insult that can hopefully slip by the mods. Night, Scooter.....

I'm sorry that you feel the observation of a lack of understanding and refusal to acknowledge as a "thinly veiled personal insult".

Quote from agent00f : Can you point it out? Thanks. It might be helpful here to note that a law review or Reason mag are not "science", even if they're only in the "further reading" appendix outside of the scope of the article.

Move goalposts much?

You referred to an academically published study. The contributors to the article in the law review [guncite.com] included three MD's and a PHD.

They quite scientifically refute Kellerman's "study", but I'm sure you both haven't read it, nor would you give it any credence. That's your schtick......

Quote from agent00f : I'm sorry that you feel the observation of a lack of understanding and refusal to acknowledge as a "thinly veiled personal insult".

Apology accepted.