4 ms·

Ah, the inevitable personal attack. Anticipating your no-data repoinse is why I linked to the crimeresearch.org study, if you cant check the data then the stud

Ah, the inevitable personal attack. Anticipating your no-data repoinse is why I linked to the crimeresearch.org study, if you cant check the data then the study is meaningless, and you are not doing science. Odd that you deflect to creationism since you admit relying on a Rand faith-based argument while I am asking for the data and willing to discuss it in depth. You keep referring to the biblography: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/references.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/references... as if it has the data on what studies were included and (critically) excluded to generate row 4 column 8 at https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html obviously it does not, which is why you are unable to even name the (possibly single) unread study you are basing your faith on.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> Odd that you deflect to creationism since you admit relying on a Rand faith-based argument Science is fundamentally not faith-based. You can verify it yourself, as I have repeatedly invited you to do. You are making the argument that the current scientific consensus is wrong. If so, publish. Saying that your argument is not scientific is not a personal attack. It is simply a statement of fact. Which papers to look up in the bibliography is in the Rand study. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/unintentional-injuries.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-...
- jakeogh 7y ago
  The Rand meta-analysis disagrees with your conclusion. Specifically, row 4 column 8 at https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html is "LIMITED". Rand was specific in their labels, and Rand does not assert "MODERATE" or let alone "SUPPORTIVE". So while you pretend to have a "consensus", the meta-analysis you hold in high regard does not say that. In fact it's 2 levels below "SUPPORTIVE". I.e. not "SUPPORTIVE". Since you linked to the unintended injuries section, I'll point out the same thing, Rand's own conclusions dont rise to the level of "SUPPORTIVE", again, it's 2 levels below that at "LIMITED". ----------------------------------- For anyone else catching this thread: Updated stats for the graphic I originally posted with hyperlinks to sources at the bottom: https://americangunfacts.com https://americangunfacts.com Justice Scalia gave a fascinating overview of the history of American gun law in Heller vs. DC (2008): https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... Yep that's a multitool: https://i.imgur.com/1JIRitz.png https://i.imgur.com/1JIRitz.png
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    Limited refers to how many studies have been done at the time of the survey, not to whether there is a consensus. We have already gone over this. If you include types of gun control other than disallowing concealed carry, there are many more studies that apply, and every single one shows negative effects. Again, this is something that we've already gone over. You continue to report "stats" like they're something that a journal would publish. We've already gone over that as well. You have a long way to go before you understand the scientific process.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      Wrong. It refers to how many studies Rand included that support the hypothesis. Note they dont list studies they excluded. You are _literally_ making stuff when you pretend it's a consensus. "Every single one" than Rand included. Odd how "consensus" and "every analysis" about "concealed carry" (your words) actually means "a single study" (or is it 2?). The meta-analysis you hold in high regard disagrees with your conclusion. Your first comment is would be more accurate if you had said: "They simply noted that relaxing gun laws like allowing concealed carry leads to an increase in violent crime under a single analysis that Rand picked." (it could be 2, but I'm still holding out hope that you will list them:) Anyone can look up violent crime stats in "gun free" zones like the UK or Mexico (UK link: https://americangunfacts.com https://americangunfacts.com) It makes sense though, since you admit relying on a faith in Rand. You could buy the book and hold it high.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

> Odd that you deflect to creationism since you admit relying on a Rand faith-based argument Science is fundamentally not faith-based. You can verify it yourself, as I have repeatedly invited you to do. You are making the argument that the current scientific consensus is wrong. If so, publish. Saying that your argument is not scientific is not a personal attack. It is simply a statement of fact. Which papers to look up in the bibliography is in the Rand study. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/unintentional-injuries.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-...

jakeogh 7y ago
The Rand meta-analysis disagrees with your conclusion. Specifically, row 4 column 8 at https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html is "LIMITED". Rand was specific in their labels, and Rand does not assert "MODERATE" or let alone "SUPPORTIVE". So while you pretend to have a "consensus", the meta-analysis you hold in high regard does not say that. In fact it's 2 levels below "SUPPORTIVE". I.e. not "SUPPORTIVE". Since you linked to the unintended injuries section, I'll point out the same thing, Rand's own conclusions dont rise to the level of "SUPPORTIVE", again, it's 2 levels below that at "LIMITED". ----------------------------------- For anyone else catching this thread: Updated stats for the graphic I originally posted with hyperlinks to sources at the bottom: https://americangunfacts.com https://americangunfacts.com Justice Scalia gave a fascinating overview of the history of American gun law in Heller vs. DC (2008): https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... Yep that's a multitool: https://i.imgur.com/1JIRitz.png https://i.imgur.com/1JIRitz.png
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  Limited refers to how many studies have been done at the time of the survey, not to whether there is a consensus. We have already gone over this. If you include types of gun control other than disallowing concealed carry, there are many more studies that apply, and every single one shows negative effects. Again, this is something that we've already gone over. You continue to report "stats" like they're something that a journal would publish. We've already gone over that as well. You have a long way to go before you understand the scientific process.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    Wrong. It refers to how many studies Rand included that support the hypothesis. Note they dont list studies they excluded. You are _literally_ making stuff when you pretend it's a consensus. "Every single one" than Rand included. Odd how "consensus" and "every analysis" about "concealed carry" (your words) actually means "a single study" (or is it 2?). The meta-analysis you hold in high regard disagrees with your conclusion. Your first comment is would be more accurate if you had said: "They simply noted that relaxing gun laws like allowing concealed carry leads to an increase in violent crime under a single analysis that Rand picked." (it could be 2, but I'm still holding out hope that you will list them:) Anyone can look up violent crime stats in "gun free" zones like the UK or Mexico (UK link: https://americangunfacts.com https://americangunfacts.com) It makes sense though, since you admit relying on a faith in Rand. You could buy the book and hold it high.