And also remember, fellas, everything we say and do carries reactions and consequences. So choose wisely.
"let's just say that you have a hard time decoding tone and leave it at that. the DOJ statistics do not in any way say what the breitbart article says they do, which is obvious for anyone with half a brain"
Let's just say if you are going to attempt to make a statement about the DOJ report, you need to know what you are talking about.
"but let's talk about kellerman."
Yeah. Let's talk about your hilarious leap in logic that after every previous anti-gun study Kellermann has done prior to this alleged 1998 study (and I say "alleged" because you cannot read the actual study without a subscription, so you don't know when he did his research) has been debunked and yet somehow, miraculously, after making the same BS argument three time previous he suddenly gets it right.
"you are absolutely not qualified in any way, professional or amateur, to be able to determine that on your own and your posting history here is proof enough"
And you are? Eric, the only thing you are qualified to do is bungle every single gun debate you have had with me. Every. Single. One. You have proven yourself an absolute professional on that account. But you have shown time and time again the presentation of facts means absolutely nothing to you.
"haha i thought you weren't scared, matt?"
I'm not. =) Bank on it.
@Mark No, you are not a scientist. But if you are strangely okay with the way Kellerman conducted his research, you are a moron.
@Eric I love how you try to slam the DOJ's statistics without actually going after them. Is there anything the report says that isn't true? Of course not. So you attack the messenger.
The Scientific American article you linked is little more than a political opinion. The study it refers to is the Kellerman study, which has already been debunked as being completely false. Here's why:
Kellerman went over 444 cases, going to the homes of people where a homicide occurred. There, relatives were asked if a gun was kept in the home. If the relative said yes, then it was assumed this was the gun used in the homicide. However, in only eight cases did investigating officers specifically say the gun used was kept in the home.
Kellerman then visited homes within a mile of these cases and, after offering $10, asked these people 1) if they had a gun in their home and 2) if a homicide had occurred there. An affirmative to both questions were taken to mean guns create homicides. No other questions were asked.
In short: This was junk science.
And the reason why you do Facebook searches on people is because you are so scared of opposing points of view you cannot dispute you feel you have to go after people personally, trying to somehow scare them into silence.
What's the matter, Eric? Do you not wish to be challenged to actually think for yourself?
@Mark That's one guy, and it seems he is not paying attention to a whole lot of things that are currently happening in the United States of America. Perhaps if he turned his attention from the lamestream media and toward Fox and the Blaze he would be a lot more informed and less inclined to act out of ignorance.
@Stacey We already have background checks in place, by your own admission, so I fail to see your point regarding my personal ability to purchase a firearm.
2) James Holmes purchased at least one of the weapons used through a private online dealer who (guess what?) performed a background check. Since Holmes had no criminal history, he was able to obtain a firearm.
3) Again, as Feinstein admitted, the bill as written would not have stopped Holmes from getting the firearms used. It didn't stop Lanza either.
@J to the G Would you mind pointing out the untrue statement?
All Comments »
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation