--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Coffey wrote:
> > --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Jan Coffey wrote:
> >>
> >>>statistics gatheing techniqes vary and therefore are not comparable.
> >>
> >>Bullsh*t. Or at least bullsh*t until you provide evidence that the
> >>above is true, or your own statistics that use the same "gathering
> >>techniques" or that make the necessary corrections.
> >>
> >>And even if gathering techniques vary, I doubt they would wipe out a
> >>18% difference.
> >
> >
> > No, it is not my duty to do that study. It is the duty of those making
> the
> > claim to do the study in such a way that there is no other resonable
> > explination for the results.
>
> But you made the claim that an armed society is a polite society.
> You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies.
>
> Until you do provide data, you're claims are bogus.
>
Sorry I never made that claim. I did not and do not believe that an armed
society would be any more or less "polite". Those are your words. You are
taking the words I say, relating them to a position you know and reaplying
the buzz from that position to what I have said, generalizing to a fault. It
disapoints me to see someone who I respect making this error.
Further more logic is all that is required for a situation such as this. Data
is only necisary when logic fails, or when one wishes to attempt to debunk a
logical argument.
If one requests data as a precondition to accept a logical argument then they
are practicing sudo-science. This kind of situation is a beakon for the
scetic.
One can claim that 2 plus 2 is not allways 4 for every type of item and then
request those who logicaly argue to the contrary to show data prooving that
whenever you have 2 items of a type and 2 more items of the same type that
you will infact have 4 items of that type. But the act of gathering that data
is a fools errand.
Likewise for statistical analisis on systems with infinate variables. No
answer is ever the truth is such cases.
The simple truth is that without conceled carry, the only ones with guns are
the criminals. The power of leathal force is in the hands alone of the very
people we would prefer did not have that power. With conceled carry there is
a balance of this power. In fact i would argue that there is a greater power
in the hands of the law abiding citizen specificaly becouse the criminal
would never know who was carying and who was not. Everyone might be a hard
target. This is a logical argument for which there are no statistics. If you
disagree it is your responsability to show that this argument is wrong, or
show how it is not logical.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
