Re: Myths about Myths About Gun Control

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:48:32 -0800, Jammer Six <jammersix@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <fjgns1t2ah6vjpcm7cretkpebsndn3deb2@4ax.com>,
> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The cite doesn't take him down and at this point you wont even cite it.
>
>If obvious error doesn't take him down, then there is no case under
>which you will admit that his "research" is crap.
>

Of course there is. If Michael Jordan takes a free throw shot and
misses, I'm not going to say he is a horrible basket ball player. It
is only when you evaluate his whole game that you can say something
like that. I can cite you an example from his book where he
specifically says that crime rates cannot be negative. Do you
honestly think that Lott really truly believes that crime rates might
be negative? Is that what it is?

Why don't you make your cite and defend your assertion if you think it
is so unequivocal? Even if I was unwilling to hear it, that would
still be the right approach in this thread -- to make the argument.
Otherwise, everyone else reading the thread just thinks you don't
really have the cite or that it isn't really what you are advertising
it as. Are you afraid that I will rip it to shreds? (You should be.)

>If there is no case under which you will admit that, then you have
>assumed the conclusion regardless of what the data shows, and that would
>simply make you a moron.
>

You are the only one that has done that here. You think that some
blurb somewhere is sufficient to evaluate the man's entire body of
work. Obviously, I have done far more investigation of Lott and his
work than you have.

>At least Feesh can afford cruises...
>
>This is rec.scuba. We have real idealogues here.
>
>You're not even close.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:48:32 -0800, Jammer Six <jammersix@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <fjgns1t2ah6vjpcm7cretkpebsndn3deb2@4ax.com>,
> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The cite doesn't take him down and at this point you wont even cite it.
>
>If obvious error doesn't take him down, then there is no case under
>which you will admit that his "research" is crap.
>

Of course there is. If Michael Jordan takes a free throw shot and
misses, I'm not going to say he is a horrible basket ball player. It
is only when you evaluate his whole game that you can say something
like that. I can cite you an example from his book where he
specifically says that crime rates cannot be negative. Do you
honestly think that Lott really truly believes that crime rates might
be negative? Is that what it is?

Why don't you make your cite and defend your assertion if you think it
is so unequivocal? Even if I was unwilling to hear it, that would
still be the right approach in this thread -- to make the argument.
Otherwise, everyone else reading the thread just thinks you don't
really have the cite or that it isn't really what you are advertising
it as. Are you afraid that I will rip it to shreds? (You should be.)

>If there is no case under which you will admit that, then you have
>assumed the conclusion regardless of what the data shows, and that would
>simply make you a moron.
>

You are the only one that has done that here. You think that some
blurb somewhere is sufficient to evaluate the man's entire body of
work. Obviously, I have done far more investigation of Lott and his
work than you have.

>At least Feesh can afford cruises...
>
>This is rec.scuba. We have real idealogues here.
>
>You're not even close.

In article <ujv1t19l0u82qisj5v78o8fuhglttg4kgv@4ax.com>,
Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Obviously, I have done far more investigation of Lott and his
> work than you have.

[snicker]

That was pretty funny...

--
"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg.
Some of us didn't come back.
If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman

In article <ujv1t19l0u82qisj5v78o8fuhglttg4kgv@4ax.com>,
Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Obviously, I have done far more investigation of Lott and his
> work than you have.

[snicker]

That was pretty funny...

--
"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg.
Some of us didn't come back.
If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman

Jammer Six wrote:
> In article <ujv1t19l0u82qisj5v78o8fuhglttg4kgv@4ax.com>,
> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, I have done far more investigation of Lott and his
> > work than you have.
>
> [snicker]
>
> That was pretty funny...
>

You haven't even read his book or his critics' papers or the various
responses. Instead you are going by one statement you claim he made
and after being repeatedly called on it, you still refuse to make your
cite. NOW MAKE YOUR FUCKING CITE!

Jammer Six wrote:
> In article <ujv1t19l0u82qisj5v78o8fuhglttg4kgv@4ax.com>,
> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, I have done far more investigation of Lott and his
> > work than you have.
>
> [snicker]
>
> That was pretty funny...
>

You haven't even read his book or his critics' papers or the various
responses. Instead you are going by one statement you claim he made
and after being repeatedly called on it, you still refuse to make your
cite. NOW MAKE YOUR FUCKING CITE!

"Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:so15t1ljvl3frm6cu4464f8nq0tcjrdkde@4ax.com...
> Jammer Six wrote:
> > In article <ujv1t19l0u82qisj5v78o8fuhglttg4kgv@4ax.com>,
> > Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Obviously, I have done far more investigation of Lott and his
> > > work than you have.
> >
> > [snicker]
> >
> > That was pretty funny...
> >
>
> You haven't even read his book or his critics' papers or the various
> responses. Instead you are going by one statement you claim he made
> and after being repeatedly called on it, you still refuse to make your
> cite. NOW MAKE YOUR FUCKING CITE!

He is your Lord and Master.

"Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:so15t1ljvl3frm6cu4464f8nq0tcjrdkde@4ax.com...
> Jammer Six wrote:
> > In article <ujv1t19l0u82qisj5v78o8fuhglttg4kgv@4ax.com>,
> > Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Obviously, I have done far more investigation of Lott and his
> > > work than you have.
> >
> > [snicker]
> >
> > That was pretty funny...
> >
>
> You haven't even read his book or his critics' papers or the various
> responses. Instead you are going by one statement you claim he made
> and after being repeatedly called on it, you still refuse to make your
> cite. NOW MAKE YOUR FUCKING CITE!

He is your Lord and Master.

In article <1137081788.919911.7620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.c om>,
adriansdurham@hotmail.com wrote:

> They draw the conclusions they draw because it is uncomfortable for
> them to draw other conclusions.

Gee, that's exactly what you've been doing.

"Lott is right, and if he's wrong, it doesn't affect his other
conclusions."

"Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth..."

--
"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg.
Some of us didn't come back.
If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:14:30 -0800, Jammer Six <jammersix@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <1137081788.919911.7620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.c om>,
> adriansdurham@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> They draw the conclusions they draw because it is uncomfortable for
>> them to draw other conclusions.
>
>Gee, that's exactly what you've been doing.
>
>"Lott is right, and if he's wrong, it doesn't affect his other
>conclusions."
>
>"Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth..."

Oh really? Apparently you don't even know that Lott is an economist
using econometric modeling to study this issue since you think that
three Nobel laureate ECONOMISTS have no qualifications to evaluate his
work.