Ohio: Buckeyes for Concealed Carry President Uses Handgun to Defend Family

[DanTex]

123. LOL. You have zero evidence of cherry picking.

If you had, you would have presented it. I think what happened is you learned the buzzword "cherry-pick" and you figured that it would be a fun card to play in the absence of a cogent argument. I noticed that you have retreated away from specific criticisms, because like most gun loons, the more specific you get the more foolish you look. For example, at one point you were claiming that NCVS didn't cover crimes committed inside the home, which immediately identified you as clueless to anyone with the slightest clue about the scientific research on the topic.

Like the other gun fanatics that have attempted to deny the scientific evidence, you have presented zero evidence of your own, and you haven't made a single cogent criticism of any of the studies I have posted. You feel that you have debunked the Hemenway study based on one misleading criticism of a single paragraph of his paper, which only discussed one of the one hundred studies he covered in his survey. And then you claim that there are a bunch of studies that Hemenway is ignoring, but predictably you don't actually list any of these studies that he is supposedly ignoring. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because you are just making this up as you go? LOL.

The thing is, I have yet to meet a single pro-gunner who has the first clue about the very basics of the kind of statistical methods involved in these studies: for example, case-control studies and multivariate regressions. A total of zero. They always run and hide, behind generalities and smilies, like you have, in the face of a substantive argument. Granted, not all of them are quite as clueless as you are, but even the smarter ones hide behind buzzwords and transparent talking points when confronted with empirical evidence. That above all is a strong indication that there really isn't an intellectually defensible position on the pro-gun side of the debate.