Notices by 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org), page 18

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha @pj

Stacking the deck in Luis's favor, especially given the cherry-picked and irrelevant nature of all the studies, is clearly Luis's intent here.

@lmrocha

You have not provided a single study that addresses whatI am arguing.. you can scream about "all data" all you want, but as long as you keep posting completely irrelevant studies that are not addressing what I asserted then you dont have a leg to stand on.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj

@lmrocha

Except we dont know that, all the data suggests the opposite, banning guns means people die en massem, including kids... But since you have no peer-reviewed data to show that (and neither do I) thats another matter.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj

> I posted papers in response to you saying there is no evidence that more guns increase mortality. The papers I posted are 100% relevant to the discussion. In both individual households and society at large, greater availability of guns leads to higher mortality (after controlling for all sorts of demographic factors) , not just in suicide but also in homicide rates.

See, thats not what I said at all.. I said **nothing** about overall mortality rate. I talked about murder and violent acts in society as a whole, that is vastly different than mortality rate, which I did not claim and in fact explicitly argued against more than once in the thread by making very clear that suicide by gun is completely unrelated to what is discussed, but would be included in figures of mortality rate.

Thank you for demonstrating for me exactly why you are posting non-sense articles that do not address remotely the assertions I am actually making.

@thatguyoverthere

Those issues, while valid, arent really the main issue here...

When there is a study that says something like "more access to guns means more suicide by guns"... the paper IS correct, peer review was successful and the paper does address that question.

The issue is it isnt even remotely addressing the question that is actually relevant of "does access to guns increase/reduce overall violence rates". Papers are designed to answer individual poitns of facts and the peer review process is designed to make sure the math and steps taken are correct... peer review does **not** mean "scientists agree guns are bad", to draw that conclusion you have to use your own brain and be capable enough and understand the topic enough to be able to make the inference from the body of studies to an actual conclusion.

@mike805 @lmrocha

@lmrocha

As I explained to you, there are no peer-reviewed papers that do good analysis and explained in detail why.. there are papers on both sides, some that would appear to support my claim and yours, but in all cases they do not argue a good case.

So our options are 1) I cherry pick data that supports my claim, is technically peer-review but is bad-faith and intellectually dishonest or 2) we have to accept neither of us can find a peer reviewed paper that meets the criteria I set forth early on, and instead rely on direct analysis.

I've offered both of these options multiple times but you sound like a broken record claiming I havent offered up the data.

@mike805

@lmrocha

As Ive said multiple times.. sending a large list of copy-pasta peer-reviewed papers that do not remotely address the question being debated is not how you do science either.. .you dont win the debate by pasting the largest number of irrelevant peer reviewed papers, thats not how this works.

@mike805

@lmrocha

tthe papers you sent are well performed at answering questions that do **not** apply to our debate and we have covered why.

For example some of your papers argued about access to guns increasing **gun violence** which as we already covered is laughably absurd and irrelevant to what we are discussing which is the effect of guns on "all tyes of violence".

So yea a barrage of copy pasta that very clearly is ruled out as not answering the question at hand does you no good.

@mike805

@lmrocha

Ahh personal attacks... I mean lets face it anti-gun people "easily dismiss" anything that doesnt agree with their world view.

The good news is kids who actually have ever been involved in a school shooting are so extraordinarily rare I'd never have to have that conversation in a lifetime...

Its amazing that not saying something that is undeniably false by any measure is being an "apologist" lol.. yes lets not be apologists and make up fact statements and then defend them even when we know they are lies, thats the way to solve problems.

The fact is you've said multiple things that are either lies, or ridiculously uneducated on the subject.. whichever of the two it is it does discredit you in having a valid point of view in the discussion, particularly when you double down on defending it rather than acknowledging and learning from your error.

@mike805

@lmrocha

you don’t understand, the “professional distinction” you care about is irrelevant for the fact that 1) guns are the leading cause of children death in there USA, and 2) a lot of people make money from that.

Oh it is very relevant.. it is the equivalent of an anti-vaxxer calling a virus a bacteria… it is relevant because it shows they dont understand such fundamental information that they are clearly unable to talk about or analyze anything more complex about the problem… when you demonstrate and then defend incorrect information, particularly when you do so in order to defend your incorrect conclusions, it discredits you and rules you out from being taken seriously, and rightfully so… yes its very relevant to the debate at hand.

Thought experiment: you guys are such believers in the 2A. Surely you think it is of such great importance that we should at least consider that the role of government is to provide guns at cost (no profit) to the population. Do you think that if we removed cost from the equation the NRA would exist and there would be so many guns in the population?

The NRA is a non-profit and as such compared with a for-profit company there are a great many restrictions on the ability for its owners to profit. That said they do get a pretty generous salary but if their main goal was to profit they probably wouldnt have organized as a non-profit… yes the NRA and many of the non-profit gun advocacy groups would probably still exist.

Your are siding with the gun profiteers who value profit over life, not some grand constitutional principle.

You really do sound like an anti-vaxxer with these sorts of tropes.. its all big pharma this, and profit that.. stick to the topic and not some communist/socialist nonsense of evil profits. I mean if you have a specific issue where money messed stuff up and want to address it fine.. but that doesnt change the numbers, and the numbers show a pretty clear pattern, when you ban guns people die and get rapped in huge numbers as a consequence that could have been saved… everything else is noise.

@mike805

@lmrocha @mike805

The diffference between us is you dont ctually care if a peer reviewed paper is relevant or answers the question.. you are playing a copy-pasta... you paste a bunch of irrelevant papers that do not argue the point being discussed (and explaine din detail many times why) and try to claim you win because you have a longer list... doesnt work that way.

As I said sure I could do that too, post a bunch of unrelated peer reviewed articles that make it look like I win.. but I have no interest in playing that game.. Id rather admit that the body of papers on this subject simply doesnt address the question being debated well.

@lmrocha

What they are "engineered" to do, whatever that means, is irrelevant to the point that your using the anti-vaxxer's failed logic. I'm sure an anti-vaxxer will try to tell you vaccines are engineered to kill too, which would be just as weak a counter.

@mike805

@lmrocha

Wrong it comes from

1) The numbers show its better for everyone
2) Because we have a right to self-defense
3) Because we shouldnt be making a chunk of metal illegal because it is in a particular shape
4) No one has ever made a coherent reason not to, and as such, the default is to have a right to something until someone makes a very good argument to the contrary.

@mike805

@mike805 @lmrocha I mean there was a problem 100 years ago just as there is now.... violence, if that is via a gun or countless other means is very much secondary to the violence problem.

@lmrocha

If you call a non-automatic gun an "automatic" you are 1) showing unprofessional bias by using an explicitly incorrect word to refer to something for dramatic effect.. 2) Appear uneducated on the subject and are easily dismissed.

@mike805

@lmrocha @mike805

Great then you should, at least in theory, be able to understand why sooften the data presented is intellectually dishonest. I myself am an expert/professional data scientist, so we shouldnt have any trouble having this conversation.

Doesnt change the fact, that as I said, most people fall for the intellectually dishonest analysis, and by the sounds of it, you might too. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

@lmrocha

Again, this is the antivaxxer argument "If you make vaccines illegal there wont be any vaccine deaths"... True but grossly intellectually-dishonest to anyone who actually can look at the problem objectively, in which case you must talk about the effects on overall violent acts, and not on "mass shootings", and thats before we even get into how ridiculously rare they are when compared to other rare events like lightening.

@mike805

@lmrocha

It also isnt a mstter of fact. You have some guns explicitly engineered for sport and in competitions and is not designed to kill as a primary purpose.

@mike805

@mike805

I'd argue poisons are the easist way to do mass killings... its been done, a bag of poison someone makes, takes it on a train, opens the bag, everyone dies... easy to make, kills en masse at a level comparable or exceeding guns.. no reasonable way to protect against it directly so only real option is to convince people to stop wanting to murder.

@lmrocha @thatguyoverthere

@lmrocha

great then lets do that:

Since guns dont require licenses, we shouldnt require licenses to drive cars either... Through the use of comparison you made a strong argument to abolish car licenses :)

Yea I dunno that sounds like a bad way to argue.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805