about your experiment.

First gun threads in Meta, now Meta threads in the gungeon. This thread needed a lounge post.

and had no intention of learning something new. Here is what I learned from my experiment:

gun control activists have limited critical thinking skills and have no consistently logical arguments. When presented with peer reviewed science by criminologists or FBI and ATF statistics, they whine about "NRA talking points."

gun control activists are mostly wealthy urbanites. Some right leaning some left leaning.

gun control activists don't seem to be concerned with larger issues involving violence and violent crime in general. The exclusive emphasis on "gun violence" makes me wonder if they actually are concerned.

Gun nuts don't give a shit how many people DIE from their toys, as long as they get to fellate the barrel every night.

And it tastes awful!

Nt

maybe you should pay someone to psycho analyze YOU, since you're the one mixing oral sex and firearms together.

Just...ew.

You have a very vivid imagination.

But let's not make it a regular thing okay?

Whatever, you've already got your mind make up a long time ago.
You don't know crap about legal gun owners, there are always going to be careless owners/carriers, is that a reason to punish the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
of us that are responsible owners/carriers?
BTW, I live in the Sparks area and this is an exception rather than the norm.

I don't live in the city, I live just east of Sparks off I-80.
No. 2- I really don't care what you think is "responsible". The law says I can so, I do.

as you oppose victim rights laws. There are more victims in the cities than in the rural areas.

Silly TaliBanner.

By being armed as I go about my daily life I have the ability to fight of violent crime if I should be so unlucky as to be targeted by some criminal. Your method leaves me as a defenselss victim. So my total risk is decreased.

Or did you fail the experiment? Hard to tell really.

if he was testing for confirmation bias.

That's a good one. I'll put it in my box of snark, with author's permission of course.

I'm an open source wise ass.

Pencil owners don't care that an increase in the number of pencils in daily life increases the chances of being a victim of pencil violence.

A pencil in a group setting that in prior times was a setting where pencils were not permitted increases the chances that an innocent person could be a victim of pencil violence either accidentally or purposely.

That is not the same as the chance of being hit by a car. Bringing pencil where previously there were no pencils increases the risk where no risk existed. It adds additional risk.

But pencil owners don't care.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Congratulations, you made a post that is ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS and DEVOID of content AND meaning...

And is really REALLY silly when one looks at it logically...

And people wonder why the Anti-gun side gets NO traction.

... to take all pencils out of the hands of law-abiding Americans.

But, how many pencils does anyone really need? Is more than two really necessary? What about coloured pencils? Don't they end up causing more problems than they solve? And don't even get me started on over-sized novelty pencils -- no one should ever be allowed to own one of those.

I think, if can be reasonable, we can agree that law-abiding members of society can be allowed one -- maybe even two -- Number Two pencils and that should fulfill all their pencil needs.

Mechanical Pencils!!! They seldom get dull, and when they do, you "reload" them.....

1) Just a gateway to more dangerous writing instruments like Sharpies and Marks-a-lot.

2) Racist.

And don't get me started on the pencil fellating!

his methodology is to read 3 threads in the RKBA group and take note of the fact that the pro-control side of the debate can't seem to win a single point.

Your premise "...an increase in the number of guns in daily life increases the chances of being a victim of gun violence...." is simply not true.

What was your methodology, and how did you control.


I'll wait....

Here is the kind of stuff you have to wade thru from the non-gun owners.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=195189

Well, actually I didn't, because I already knew the outcome, so why bother with all that "science" crap.

upaloopa, what method did you use to arrive at your conclusions? I hope it was better than my method.

what is the hypothesis and what is the conclusion.

I will agree that in a closed environment comparison, the one that has a gun does have a greater risk than the one without of gun violence. I am not sure how much greater the risk is and no data is provided.
I cannot address the risk of being hit with a car as no parameters are stated for the presence, or lack of, for cars.

gathering is it that you refer? What is the purpose of this gathering? How many people are gathered? What are the genders and how many of each are gathered? What time of day do these gatherings take place? What are the locations of these new group gatherings? What is the economic status of those gathering in this new group?

You have left out all kinds of information you need to provide before an accurate assessment of the dangers of your new group gathering can be ascertained. I will await your reply.