Trayvon in Tulsa?

[beevul]

13. No, i'm really not.

"Like all other pro-gunners, it's no surprise that you share the same denialist avoidance of peer-reviewed scientific research. I've debated the merits of the scientific case here many times, and suffice it to say that the idea that the extensive body of research on gun violence has been "debunked" by a few scientifically illiterate gun nuts blogging at gunz.com is laughable."

Peer reviewed. Lol. Hemenway is UNIVERSALLY known to be discredited, EXCEPT to the anti-gun crowd.

Let me say it again, in terms you'll understand:

Nobody gives any weight to hemenways studies where guns are concerned, except the tiny and shrinking minority that is anti-gunners.


"But that's not the issue here. The question I'm asking is, what evidence is there on your side? Because even if we were to accept your denialism and dismiss all of the scientific studies, that still doesn't show that a gun actually provides a safety benefit."

So, with the above statement, and the so called "studies" you linked, which center on "gun possession (regardless of in the home or not) and "guns in the home"...you've set the goalposts in place. Yes indeed, make no mistake, you have.

What evidence is there on MY side? Start with the DOJ and their numbers on DGUs anually.

"So I'll repeat, for the third time now: do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?"

Oh look, the goalposts have been moved.

You quote studies about gun possession, and guns in the home, one highly questionable, and the other nearly universally discredited and refuted, then you ask for OUR evidence to refute...something which those studies don't even conclude?

Did you really think nobody would notice that?


I'm sure you really dont care to, but if you'd bother to google the name "hemenway", its been discussed ad nauseum.

Contrary to wht you appear to believe, you aren't coming up with anything new, interesting, groundbreaking...or valid.



Good grief.