 |
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 10208 Posts
|
Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:08:52 PM
KNOCKOUT!!! DING DING DING!!
Guy in the clips a brit too and deserved the ground pound  |
|
 HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1135 Posts
|
Saturday, February 02, 2013 10:49:58 AM
there's not even any fun in taunting you any more
Is that what you were doing? Dang, I missed it. I read back quite a bit and still don't see it. Maybe if you try again it'll be better this time? I could give you some pointers if you'd like - I'm here to help Francois. Is it OK if I call you Francois?
Congratulations. Go 'Murica.
Thank you! In the past, many Europeans have simply stormed off in a fit of rage. However, I see that you are much more experienced. You're so familiar with America winning that you've come to not only accept it, but you even congratulate us! Surely this proves the Theory of Evolution!
Francois, I feel like this is truely the beginning of a great friendship. I look forward to your next outburst. |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1135 Posts
|
Saturday, February 02, 2013 10:43:52 AM
Well done, you have indeed managed to find *one* paper which supports your viewpoint
Five > one... Not sure what you missed.
I'm not counting the UK one because it's *40* years old ffs
Well shucks, I hadn't realized that neither statistics nor guns were around 40 years ago. How silly of me.
But... you still haven't even attempted to rebut any of my sources.
I've presented 5, well 6 if you count Lott, articles that back my stance and contradict yours. See: How to Form a Rebuttal.
actually making me feel a bit sorry for you
Aww =). You Euros sure are a mindful bunch.
but you have totally failed to put forward a case for well, anything.
See above.
but you have successfully won this argument
Winner, winner! I accept you admission of defeat. Let me guess, French? |
|
 technophebe
Male, 30-39, Europe
25 Posts
|
Saturday, February 02, 2013 10:08:28 AM
Well done, you have indeed managed to find *one* paper which supports your viewpoint (I'm not counting the UK one because it's *40* years old ffs). But... you still haven't even attempted to rebut any of my sources.
The fact that you think you're putting forward a convincing argument has gone past being funny into actually making me feel a bit sorry for you. It's nice that you're passionate about your beliefs, but you have totally failed to put forward a case for well, anything.
I'm sorry that the bad man makes you feel sad when he talks about taking away your guns, but you have successfully won this argument by merit of making yourself seem so thick that there's not even any fun in taunting you any more.
Congratulations. Go 'Murica. |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1135 Posts
|
Saturday, February 02, 2013 8:44:30 AM
The missing quote from the last link:
"The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent crime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration."
I believe that gives me five sources that agree with me: socioeconomic and cultural factors are responsible for violent crime independently of firearm availability. |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1135 Posts
|
Saturday, February 02, 2013 8:42:41 AM
Firearms and Crime (UK)
"THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATION IS THAT THE WEAPON CHOSEN IS NO MORE THAN A MIRROR OF PATTERNS OF CULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE PARTICULAR SOCIETY."
Independent Institute of Oakland
"Further, increasing gun control is more likely to keep law-abiding citizens from having guns than to reduce significantly their possession by criminals."
Harvard School of Public Heath
"The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and f |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1135 Posts
|
Saturday, February 02, 2013 8:37:15 AM
@technophebe
Ohhh... so it's quantity you were looking for? You should have just said that at the beginning and we could have saved ourselves some time.
Journal of the American Medical Association
"...implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."
Florida International University
"A supplemental analysis also indicates no evidence of simultaneity between gun availability and violent crime."
Bear with me; unlike you, I actually provide a quick, quoted summary of the article so I have less space. |
|
technophebe
Male, 30-39, Europe
25 Posts
|
Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:07:46 AM
Yes, that's very clever 5cats. Let's recap what's happened in this thread:
- I cited 4 sources, from places such as Harvard and Forbes. *No-one has even attempted to rebut any of those sources*
- HumanAction has cited 2. The first he then climbed down and admitted he hadn't even bothered to check after it was pointed out that it's non-peer reviewed and fraudulently attempts to associate itself with Harvard. The second is a pop-sociology book (not a real academic study) whose figures and methods in which are *widely* disputed and which HAVE NOT BEEN REPRODUCED by any of his peers. This is a man who makes up fake personas to support himself online, whose *academic* papers on firearms are barely cited, whose professorship is financed in association with one of the largest gun companies in America, who basically is a man with *zero* credibility.
So please, once again, refer to my previous post on pidgeons and chess. Losers. |
|
 5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16919 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 6:36:24 PM
The Score:
@HumanAction = 5
@technophebe = 0
The "5 smackdown mercy rule" is now in effect!!! |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1135 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 2:20:32 PM
@technophebe
Ooh, it's the long words treatment now is it?
Unfortunately, I was expecting you to catch on much sooner than you did. I have since learned not to overestimate you.
I've "erred logically" have I?
Yes... See below.
Do you think that using pompous language covers up the fact that all your citations are rubbish and that you just grab at names you've seen on the telly and assume they're right?
So you consider my language to be "irritatingly grand?" Well, I am flattered. By this point, I expect most of the IAB regulars are familiar with my use of the English language. As I;ve alluded to above, the citiations are only "rubbish" in your mind. In the real world, however, there have been no definitive refutations.
Additionally, I know of John Lott because the book was recommended to me. I don't know of him being on T.V. |
|
technophebe
Male, 30-39, Europe
25 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 2:14:15 PM
Ooh, it's the long words treatment now is it? I've "erred logically" have I? ^^
Do you think that using pompous language covers up the fact that all your citations are rubbish and that you just grab at names you've seen on the telly and assume they're right?
No, no it doesn't. Sorry man.
|
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1135 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 2:10:35 PM
@technophebe
Oh this is actually f*cking awesome, I am wetting myself with laughter here
I can't take you seriously if you can't even control your bladder. Someone should rub your nose in it.
Read down to the controversy section and see some of the shenanigans this guy has been up to, brilliant
There is nothing, to date, that has been proven that affects the legitimacy of the research. Most criticisms revolve around the man, not the research.
HumanAction you are an absolute tool.
That's very kind of you to say.
You are everything that makes pro-gun fanatics so amusing to argue with.
I also enjoy showing you the error of your ways. I am rather happy that we have reached this amicable consensus; for a moment, I was concerned you were becoming upset.
|
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1135 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 2:05:06 PM
@McGovern
So what you're saying is research can be biased.... All except what you cite ROFL!!
Not quite; he is suggested that all other research is simply inadmissable! Lol... Europeans - what can I say? |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1135 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 2:03:58 PM
@technophebe
I understand your desire to dismiss my evidence rather than refute it; however, there are just as many proponents of John Lotts works as there are opponents. It's lovely to throw out the old "Fox News" line and all, but it does not discredit the book nor its findings.
Your best bet would be to read some of John Donahue's criticisms and to reiterate them here - since, apparently, you are incapable of forming your own thoughts.
If you still cannot understand where you've erred logically, consider that you are attempting to discredit the author rather than the article. |
|
technophebe
Male, 30-39, Europe
25 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 2:02:36 PM
Oh this is actually f*cking awesome, I am wetting myself with laughter here:
John Lott Wikipedia Page
Read down to the controversy section and see some of the shenanigans this guy has been up to, brilliant.
HumanAction you are an absolute tool. Even the guys who site the papers you link are fail. You are everything that makes pro-gun fanatics so amusing to argue with. ^^ |
|
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10208 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 1:58:16 PM
@technophebe
So what you're saying is research can be biased.... All except what you cite ROFL!! |
|
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10208 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 1:55:27 PM
"Those who abjure violence can only do so because others commit violence on their behalf." - George Orwell |
|
technophebe
Male, 30-39, Europe
25 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 1:55:08 PM
Ah yes, I can see that John Lott has written several pop-sociology books on gun control. However if we have a look at his *peer reviewed* work, we see his two most cited papers (with a massive 55 and 27 citations, not bad) are:
"How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?"
"The Reputational Penalties for Environmental Violations: Empirical Evidence"
And a couple of other interesting titbits:
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."
Oh, and he was a weekly columnist for Fox News.
Yes, clearly Mr Lott is an academic of unimpeachable standing. |
|
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10208 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 1:48:08 PM
@technophebe
How many of those "experts" own guns? I own five want to take a bet who knows more about guns?
|
|
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10208 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 1:47:33 PM
@HumanAction
Do you know anything about this subject at all?
No, he just thinks he knows all like the "experts" in his studies. |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1135 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 1:45:15 PM
@patch
No worries; I jumped all over that article without any sort of research; Call it a "duh" moment - hehe. |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1135 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 1:42:58 PM
@technophebe
It appears you do not know much about the long-standing gun-control debate. That article was written by John Lott in what I assume was a response to criticisms from John Donahue over Lott's original release of "More Guns, Less Crime." Lott's study and research tends to be an oft-cited authority on the subject, and Donahue tends to be his biggest and most vocal critic.
If simple date of pulishing or number of citations is what you seek, then here: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition.
This edition was released in 2010 and likely has been cited many thousands of times. Do you know anything about this subject at all? |
|
 patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5252 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 1:38:59 PM
I just re-read my last comment and that last part may have come across as snide, which wasn't my intention. I was only attempting to be funny, if only attempting. |
|
technophebe
Male, 30-39, Europe
25 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 1:36:15 PM
Lol HumanAction did you even bother to read this page before you posted that link?
a) This paper is over a decade old.
b) The author hasn't even bothered to write a proper abstract for it. In place of an abstract are a series of statements starting with "I believe".
c) In the 13 years since its publishing it's been cited a massive two times. Both papers were written by one author.
Seriously man, *spectacular* fail. Going looking for titles that seem close enough to your point of view doesn't quite comprise thorough research :)
And yes McGovern, of course *you* know better than Harvard, that makes perfect sense. See my previous post about pidgeons and chess. |
|
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5252 Posts
|
Friday, February 01, 2013 1:34:47 PM
@HA: Oh, I hadn't seen the retraction. I was, well, working (my current employer does not recognize commenting on I-A-B as legitimate employment  ) |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
|
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}