Re: Bank hold up

There was no referendum on the new gun laws.

There you go again One Nation doesn't.

Steve were you ever involved in law enforcement, military security services etc.? Just wondering.

You got that right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a gang war going on in Victoria (australia) Many people are getting killed and to the best of my knowledge not one of the murders involve a licensed or legal gun. And I have heard from some friends that live in London that they are plagued with the same problem.

The smoke blowing is best left to the gun control advocate side of the entire debate since it's all they have. Lott does a far better job of discrediting Ayers & Donohue's work than I could with 50 readings of it. See the link posted earlier in this thread.

The initial premise of this thread that the gun owner i.e. the crime VICTIM is somehow responsible for the crime and its potential consequences with hardly a mention of the real culprits i.e. the burglars who go about breaking into peoples homes is also an excellent example of half ass backwards thinking. Sorry Steve you sound like a good guy all around but in this case you have it all wrong. Lock up the crooks and solve the problem. Dont blame the victims.

Oh yeah thats what I'm going to do for this guy. LOL. An in depth rehash into yet another biased BS antigun study which Lott has already picked apart.

PS If the liberals (read socialists) had there way there would be no failing grade. So what if little suzie can't read? It's her self esteem that's important.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

Ok, you didn't read it and you're blowing smoke.

Lott's 'rebuttal' does not discredit A&D's work and Lott engages in his usual dishonest tactics.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

Lott only demonstrated his dishonesty again.

It's not surprising that the editor of Science referred to Lott's tactics as a "fraud".

OK. You have trouble comprehending what you have read and a tendencey to babble.

LOL

Translation: I disagree and have no logical reason why so I will use the word dishonest to discredit and hope it works.

Typical of the entire gun control movement.

Simply referring to something as fraud or dis-honesty doesn't make it so.

A. Your problem is simply with Lott and you are anti-gun control or strictly neutral on the issue.

B. You are pro Gun control and somehow fail to see that by admitting the credibility of Klecks studies in an attempt to undermine Lott you can only manage to win the battle at the cost of losing the war.

So, which is it? I'm genuinely curious.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

You're projecting, Bud.

In Lott's 'rebuttal' he claims that none of A&Ds gun control work is published in reviewed journals. That is false.

In Lott's 'rebuttal' he points to an article by Plassman and Whitley and claims that is shows that "other researchers" contradict A&D. Lott fails to note that he was the first author of that article until he withdrew his name in a snit. Lott also fails to note that he is associated with all of the 'other researchers' and that the other articles he cites are not in reviewed journals.

It's good that you can laugh at Lott's dishonesty.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

I'll take Donald Kennedy's opinion over yours.

Your problem is that you can't produce anything beyond moronic "IS NOT!" retorts.

I'm betting that you still haven't even found the Ayers & Donohue articles, much less read them.

You simply are incapable of supporting your position.

That's likely the root of your difficulty: That you take peoples opinions at all instead of using logic and reasoning..........enough said here I know I am wasting my time talking to you about logic.

So far you have not produced anything at all. When you post a link it has to actually link to something of substance to have any value.

Here, you will like this one. It is more credible than anything you have posted thus far:

It's fortunate you don't gamble for a living. Besides if you really thought that you would simply have thrown the methodology in question back in my face along with your assertions. What you really mean is that you HOPE that I didn't look into anything you posted since it is without substance, or even much illusion of it.

The fact that you fail to comprehend, which is not especially surprising, is not evidence of a deficiency of that which you fail to understand.

Of course, it is your privelege to choose which other person's opinion to cherish.

Donald Kennedy (in an Editorial - cite: Science Kennedy 300 (5618):

So Kennedy's opinion is that he doesn't like Lott's tactics (and labels them as "fraud") - which differs quite a lot from saying that Lott's conclusions are wrong.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

You just described what you are doing, David.

I use logic and reasoning and, unlike you, I actually read the research I discuss.

You, OTOH, don't. You haven't read Ayers & Donohue yet you keep trying to trash their work by using Lott's opinions. You are mindlessly following Lott's opinion and are not using either reason or logic.

I provided half a dozen links to research that thoroughly decimate Lott's MGLC assertion.

You, OTOH, keep shouting "IS NOT!" and nothing more.

So when are you going to demonstrate that you have read it? So far all you've done is rely on Lott's opinion and have not provided one of your own.

Ayers & Donohue use the same data as Lott *and* they use additional years. They also use the same methods as Lott

If you think Ayers & Donohue's work is wrong, you have a big problem, David, since they use the same data and methods as Lott.

Heh. I won the bet, you clearly haven't read their work. I bet you can't even understand it.

You are just a mindless sheep following Lott's bleating.

remains. You are incapable of supporting your position, David.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

Lott's conclusions are dead wrong, David.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

Not at all, David.

Why don't you explain to everyone the problem of asserting causality when only associational data is used as proof?

Let's see if you know even the basics about research methodology.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

Your ability to produce coherent support also appears to be dead as well.