The words are all your peoples words. No straw man at all. But you can pretend so I guess. 
My people??? Not that anybody needed further evidence, but this really illustrates how disconnected from reality you are.
A computer generated scene involving someone who says that people who used their guns in self-defense “Should have just waited for the police” and who suggests that the criminals would have let them send a text message?
Who says “I don’t want to bring the voters into it. Liberal courts can handle it”?
Who says that if a homeowner misses with his initial shots, “The criminal has earned a right to strike back”?
“The Constitution is just an excuse for people to tell me I can’t implement my good ideas”?
“I’m a vegetarian. Or vegan. Whichever is trendier at the moment”?
“American culture should be neutered”?
If you think all of that stuff is not a fantasy representation of your opponent’s position, you’re delusional.
Which is no surprise after all.
I’m… I mean, they literally created an effigy of a liberal to argue against, and Kable says it’s not a straw man. Just… wow.
Maybe he meant that it was a digital representation of a person and not a scarecrow?
I think that, in his anecdote about his own defensive gun use, he left out the part where he took a serious blow to the head first.
It’s hard not to notice that while he was quick to respond to my comment about his virtual empty chair piece, he has remained silent regarding elucidator’s question of him, my observation regarding the trendline for sexual assault in Australia prior to the gun ban, or my question about the UK trend for violent crime.
I guess if we were creating a virtual representation of this exchange, this would be the part where the representation of Kable just stood there silently, unable to even formulate a reply. We could put a really dumb look on his face. I mean, even dumber than usual, of course.
Those are just a few jokes they put in to make it funny. I understand that some people don’t get satire.
Or just a collector.
I’m not a collector and I have over a dozen firearms, including 4 shotguns, 7 rifles, 3 revolvers and 3 pistols. I probably fire 3 of them more often than the rest of them put together but they all serve their purpose.
:eek:
WTF is going on in Australia?
One of the things we gun strokers tell each other is that there are more and more of us every year and that the recent retarded attempt to ban assault weapons have created a spike in gun ownership. I don’t know if this is true but the rate of gun purchases has spiked since the AWB was proposed as evidenced by the number of background checks conducted (but maybe fewer people are just buying more guns), the number of applications for CCW has surged in most places (of course this is probably current gun owners finally getting their CCW), the NRA has been flooded with new members (it now takes them twice as long to process a new application as it did before Newton, but like CCW, this might be current gun owners finally getting around to joining the NRA).
There has been such a buying frency that gun prices are only just now returning to normal after a frenzy of gun buying (my local gun shop owner recently joked that Feinstein may hate guns but she must LOVE gun shop owners, he’s been virtually sold out for the last two months).
Its so hard to get a hold of ammunition that I have started buying reloaded ammunition from a friend of a friend of a friend (he is only loading 5.56, he apparently got the brass and lead from military surplus). Walmart actually rations ammunition to 3 boxes per day and I still can’t find any ammunition except at the range.
On the plus side, I am starting to fire some of the more expensive ammunition like the 454 casull and 460 magnum because the price on these rounds have not really gone up so they seem like relative bargains to fire, I also don’t fire nearly as many rounds in a given session when firing .460 as i would if I were firing .223 or 9mm, because your hand starts to hurt after a while. On the down side, I have gotten desperate enough to start firing my defensive rounds at the range.
Not this unfortunately:
I don’t remember saying that the CDC was justifiably stripped of its funding. I said that i understaood why the NRA (I wish I could capitalise NRA for empahsis, oh wait…) NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION objected to the study. In the letter section of the NEJM site the authors points out that the correlation of gun homocide with gun ownership should undercut the notion that having guns in the home makes you safer.
Am i splitting hairs? Is there a difference between pointing at correlation between gun ownership and saying “owning guns make you more likely to be shot to death” and saying “owning guns does not reduce your risk of being shot to death”
I don’t think the people at the CDC are stupid. I think theya re public minded doctors who are sacrificing about 70-90-% of their earning power so they can do something even more important than healing people at the individual level. They are trying to prevent premature death and disease at a national level. Its the sort of thing you can dedicate your life to and feel like your life meant something but if it were up to these guys, (and I’m just guessing here) tobacco products would be illegal and I don’t think they really see firearms are any better for society than cigarettes.
I thoughtn it was funny, obviously a parody but funny nonetheless. There was a link to cat people vs dog people that was pretty funny too. I should really make more use of youtube, there is some funny stuff on there.
So you admit that it is not in fact “our people’s words” as you originally claimed. Are all your other claims as reliable?
Maybe you guys can help me out, Kable appears to be kinda busy. I’ve been searching on the net for any information about the turmoil in Australia, what with the huge popular uprising against the gun grabbers. And I can’t find much of anything! Found a story about a spider than bit off a kangaroo’s head and dragged the body down into a hole, but that’s not really relevant. It was a relatively small kangaroo, anyway.
So I’m stuck, I may have to admit that the liberal gun-grubber media has covered it up! Just like they covered up the kidnapping and murder of Therlow Throckmorton! Didn’t hear a word about that, did you? Well, there you have it! See?
Maybe a dingo ate your turmoil.
I’m afraid you miss my point. For questions of public health, the statistical models are most likely to be closest to epidemiology, that being the scientific field that most closely resembles the issues and questions. Now, if there is a good reason to doubt them, to be suspicious of their results, then that issue should be raised and addressed.
I suppose we could be reassured if it should turn out that they are only prejudiced and incompetent on this one issue, but that would raise more questions than it would answer. Are gun-grabbers selectively recruited for the CDC? Even those who work in questions of bacteria or vaccination?
If the NRA has evidence that any of this is true, they should bring it forth, it is their civic duty to do so, above and beyond their advocacy on this one concern. Nothing less than a full Congrssional investigation will satisfy.
Unless, of course, the people saying this stuff are full of beans. In which case, we need only remember to keep a skeptical ear to them at all times.
The problem with an epidemiology model is that it treats firearms as if they’re the vector of a contagious disease. It’s far from certain that that’s a fair model to use. If you applied the same method to alcohol, you would end up concluding that alcohol is something like a 20x higher risk factor for illness or death than firearms.
It undoubtedly is. So? Booze kills, this is news? And if its the word “epidemiology” that’s troubling you, we can call it “Fred”. Statistical approaches are still quite similar, and epidemiologists are skilled in their application.
-
Epidemiology is not limited to the study of contagious diseases.
-
The CDC is not limited to epidemiology as a means of conducting research.
No it’s your peoples words, and your peoples arguments just with a couple jokes added. Like I said, not everyone gets satire.
Booze kills a lot more people than guns in this country, but unlike guns I don’t think it helps at all in crime prevention at all. But then we have to ask why you want a prohibition of many guns, but not one of even the highest proof drinks. Your heart seems to bleed both selectively and hypocritically.
This homeowner was smart to have more than one gun in his home.
This is right about the place where you start saying “Winning!”. It’s tradition.
What? You are really flailing elucidator. Seems you do that every time I call you a hypocrite. I guess that proves the truth hurts. 