Cool your jets and
READ
THE LINK, SON!
Be sure to read the material linked within that link. All the answers you seek are there. Why would I waste my time explaining things to you in detail when truly unbiased experts with credentials you can easily check have published their detailed analyses of this fraudster's works and made them freely available for all to read and contrast and see for themselves what an incredibly despicable charlatan he truly is. Also, having done you this favor, I want something from you in return. I want you to provide me evidence of anyone trying to take your guns or stop you shooting raccoons that are killing your chickens. If you can supply any, I'll be right by your side giving them the what for!
Ok this link is one big ad hominem...show me the numbers. It’s splitting quite the ridiculous hairs on issues like what is considered a gun free zone (to which we have very substantial evidence that mass shootings, especially the more notorious ones take place in gun free zones). And then it does the same exact thing it accuses this guy of “bending the numbers”, when it says “when you don’t include terrorism, the gap gets even bigger.” How the **** can you not include terrorism shootings in that stat? Terrorism happens a lot more in Europe than it has in America since 9/11. And sure Europe has gang violence, no where near the level we do. Anyone with a carry permit knows, DO NOT TAKE YOUR GUN INTO A BAR. If you ever have to pull it after you’ve had a few drinks, you are better off dead, because you will get charged. You hope it’s just a non-lethal bar fight, and take your chances. Goddammit I can’t even keep up with how many problems there are in the article.
“As a
BuzzFeed investigation later revealed, Lott, who is neither a young female nor a stalking victim, was the one who penned the piece. Indeed, Woolrich’s article is almost a copy and paste rendition of a
previous articlepublished by Lott on the Daily Caller.”
This whole piece is utter dog shit, this poor girl got ******* harassed and her life ruined worse than from her stalker for that piece. No wonder she changed her tune and changed her number...Jesus Christ, how the hell do you blow over the fact that she had to change her number, and not ask why?
Bear with me, I’m trying to read this article and post points as I go so I don’t forget them (which I have left out a ton, that I will get back to later on).
The fake student part is fucked up, but still show me the numbers. I don’t give a shit about this guy, I care about the numbers. This article does nothing to throw a wrench into the FACT THAT GUN CRIMES DOUBLED IN THE UK WITHIN A DECADE. Because it can’t, because I’m looking at the UK own damn numbers.
Now I’m going back up through the article to patch up what I didn’t mention.
So the they’re disputing the gun free zones stats because of two cases in which Lott considers them to essientially gun free zones (which they essentially are). Those two cases are Oregon and the restaurant in Florida. Clap. Clap. What the **** about the rest of the cases you assholes? You can’t just gloss over those. The friggen pulse nightclub shooter was staking out Disney for months, that was the definite plan, only problem is, there are armed guards at Disney. The whole “he was a closet gay,” thing was proven to be 100% BULLSHIT. I don’t here thinkprogressive coming out with a correction on that. And they use those two cases as part of the ad hominem, saying see he’s a liar, its all bullshit. No...give me the ******* numbers. The numbers could be coming from a tard, I don’t care, I’m not going to say he’s a tard, therefore it’s false. Moving on.
“As Ian Ayres and Donohue described in a
brutal takedown of Lott and his allies’ research, there were at least two previous cases where Lott used this tactic. The first time, Lott presented a series of graphs to the National Academy of Sciences, which David Mustard, one of Lott’s allies, then decided to include in a comment for a 2003 Brookings Institute book. When Donohue demonstrated the results were the product of fatal coding errors, Lott’s ally was forced to withdraw those graphs from the book. Also in 2003, Lott supported (and initially co-authored) a paper appearing in the Stanford Law Review by Plassman and Whitley that also appeared to support the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Again, Donohue proved that their results were based on coding errors, undermining the authors’ central claim.”
First off notice the language. “Brutal”, “fatal”. Spare me the indulgent adjectives. What were the errors? Did it not seem odd to you that this article so eager to point out everything wrong with Lott, but didn’t seem to specify what those errors were? Indulgent adjectives should set off red flags for everyone, they are still just a data point. However in this case, they didn’t back up the indulgent adjectives, so now I’m wondering “so what, was it off by .0001, you didn’t give me anything and with the adjectives it seems like you’re overcompensating.” Show me the numbers. Moving on.
“As Table 3
on page 7 (pictured below) clearly demonstrates, the increase in aggravated assault for county level data is statistically significant, yet is not bolded by the authors like all the other statistically significant findings. In statistics, a result is usually considered
significant if there is a less than 5 percent chance that the result is due to random chance, meaning it has a “t-statistic” greater than 1.96. A significant result in turn means that the authors of a study can put a higher degree of confidence in their finding. As the table below shows, the “stat” for the “post-law trend” for “Assault” (highlighted with a red box) has t-statistics of 2.8 and 2.25 for the general and specific model respectively. Further, the result itself is a positive number, indicating an increase in assault.”
Let me break down what this is saying. It’s saying you didn’t account for random chance (margin of error), so it rose, but within the margin of error. Whoa whoa whoa, gun control
Is supposed to work, so the fact that you could maybe make an argument in the parameters (parameters by who exactly) of the margin of error that gun crimes maybe didn’t increase, therefore gun control works....NO that’s a total BS argument. And I assume is the same BS to an even more BS extant is what the whole indulgent adjectives were about in the last paragraph. If the glove fits. Moving on.
Ok now I’m back, at least close to where I started on this one big ad hominem of an article. And I know I left out plenty of objections, but I don’t want to get carpel tunnel over the pile of dog shit. Why is it a pile of dog shit? It does nothing to disapprove the fact that gun crimes doubled after implementation of gun control in the UK. All this article was, was that this guy Lott, who makes similar (not at all identical points as me, since I never have or will attest that the us is per capita is just as safe as Europe). Actually that’s the complete opposite of the point I’ve been making. This article just says he and his crony’s didn’t account for margin of error, he wrote a story for a girl who later backed out, and he faked a female student. Therefore anything you hear positive about guns is BS. There’s your ad hominem. I will say it 20 times now because you do not have an answer for it (would’ve heard it by now), SWITZERLAND, SWITZERLAND, SWITZERLAND, SWITZERLAND,SWITZERLAND SWITZERLAND SWITZERLAND. If guns are the problem Switzerland should be patient zero, no holds barred. They aren’t even close. They are actually the complete opposite. What is the deal with that? I’ve wrote enough I’m done.
