🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@thatguyoverthere

Appeal to authority is a fallacy because being an authority doesnt mean you are trustworthy or unbiased, and to determine either of those things you need to be an authority yourself.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@thatguyoverthere

That can sometimes be an issue, but no I dont find that is generally the issue here, and peer-review will often catch that... the statistics are fine, and they arent usually biased (sometimes)... its purely an issue with "Here is Statistic X which claims Y"... X is correct, the statement it claims Y is not.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@lmrocha

No one said they were rookies, no one even said they were wrong... I am claiming **you** are a rookie for drawing conclusions from their valid study that is in no way related to what we are discussing... The scientists are fine, you are the only one who seems woefully uneducated on statistics, guns, or any aspect of this conversation.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj

@thatguyoverthere

The data is correct, the statistics are correct... the interpretation of the statistics is wildly invalid most of the time.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@lmrocha

> I don't have to provide data for what *you* are arguing. That's your job.

No you dont. My stance is that there is no good peer reviewed data that addresses my assertation either way. I am willing to provide non-peer reviewed data I did myself which is perfectly reasonable when there is an absence of peer reviewed data to address a question, though it is fair to take it as preliminary until better studies are availible.

Now if **you** are arguing that there is peer-reviewed data and it proves my relatively weaker evidence wrong, then that is on **you** to provide, which you have not done.

> I gave you published evidence in strong support of my claim: more guns --> increased mortality.

You keep saying that, saying it doesnt make it true. No you havent, you have not linked to even a **single** peer reviewed study that addresses what I asserted. You posted soem random studies that address other issues that are different from what I asserted, and playing some rediulous game of "I have more links than you"/

As I said if you want to play that game I dont mind posting non-sense peer reviewed articles that dont argue my case but vaguely sound like they do... but I wont stoop to your level, I'd rather keep my integrity as a scientist.

> If you have evidence against the current scientific evidence, which can sustain peer-review, by all means publish it.

there is no current scientific evidence... and you have yet to link to a single paper that addresses the assertion I made, again repeating soemthing that has already been clearly shot down, without actually making a valid argument, wont get you anywhere

> Restating your beliefs without proof (beyond your own mind) is not enough and it is dishonest to claim your belief invalidates current peer-reviewed and replicated studies without demonstration.

Thats not what I said, are you even listening? There is no "current peer-review" for me to invalidate, you have yet to post even a single link to that effect.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj

@thatguyoverthere

I disagree, the statistics are correct and valuable... the issue isnt the statistics, the issues is that they are being either intentionally abused by cherry picking and not analyzing the data in a way even the most beginer of data scientists would agree is proper.

Dont blame the data for some person trying to manipulate it, especially when its trivial to point out that manipulation and shoot it down, as I have done.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha @pj

Stacking the deck in Luis's favor, especially given the cherry-picked and irrelevant nature of all the studies, is clearly Luis's intent here.

@lmrocha

You have not provided a single study that addresses whatI am arguing.. you can scream about "all data" all you want, but as long as you keep posting completely irrelevant studies that are not addressing what I asserted then you dont have a leg to stand on.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj

> I posted papers in response to you saying there is no evidence that more guns increase mortality. The papers I posted are 100% relevant to the discussion. In both individual households and society at large, greater availability of guns leads to higher mortality (after controlling for all sorts of demographic factors) , not just in suicide but also in homicide rates.

See, thats not what I said at all.. I said **nothing** about overall mortality rate. I talked about murder and violent acts in society as a whole, that is vastly different than mortality rate, which I did not claim and in fact explicitly argued against more than once in the thread by making very clear that suicide by gun is completely unrelated to what is discussed, but would be included in figures of mortality rate.

Thank you for demonstrating for me exactly why you are posting non-sense articles that do not address remotely the assertions I am actually making.

@lmrocha

Except we dont know that, all the data suggests the opposite, banning guns means people die en massem, including kids... But since you have no peer-reviewed data to show that (and neither do I) thats another matter.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj

@thatguyoverthere

Those issues, while valid, arent really the main issue here...

When there is a study that says something like "more access to guns means more suicide by guns"... the paper IS correct, peer review was successful and the paper does address that question.

The issue is it isnt even remotely addressing the question that is actually relevant of "does access to guns increase/reduce overall violence rates". Papers are designed to answer individual poitns of facts and the peer review process is designed to make sure the math and steps taken are correct... peer review does **not** mean "scientists agree guns are bad", to draw that conclusion you have to use your own brain and be capable enough and understand the topic enough to be able to make the inference from the body of studies to an actual conclusion.

@mike805 @lmrocha

@lmrocha

tthe papers you sent are well performed at answering questions that do **not** apply to our debate and we have covered why.

For example some of your papers argued about access to guns increasing **gun violence** which as we already covered is laughably absurd and irrelevant to what we are discussing which is the effect of guns on "all tyes of violence".

So yea a barrage of copy pasta that very clearly is ruled out as not answering the question at hand does you no good.

@mike805

@lmrocha @mike805

The diffference between us is you dont ctually care if a peer reviewed paper is relevant or answers the question.. you are playing a copy-pasta... you paste a bunch of irrelevant papers that do not argue the point being discussed (and explaine din detail many times why) and try to claim you win because you have a longer list... doesnt work that way.

As I said sure I could do that too, post a bunch of unrelated peer reviewed articles that make it look like I win.. but I have no interest in playing that game.. Id rather admit that the body of papers on this subject simply doesnt address the question being debated well.

@lmrocha

As Ive said multiple times.. sending a large list of copy-pasta peer-reviewed papers that do not remotely address the question being debated is not how you do science either.. .you dont win the debate by pasting the largest number of irrelevant peer reviewed papers, thats not how this works.

@mike805

@lmrocha

Wrong it comes from

1) The numbers show its better for everyone
2) Because we have a right to self-defense
3) Because we shouldnt be making a chunk of metal illegal because it is in a particular shape
4) No one has ever made a coherent reason not to, and as such, the default is to have a right to something until someone makes a very good argument to the contrary.

@mike805

@lmrocha

As I explained to you, there are no peer-reviewed papers that do good analysis and explained in detail why.. there are papers on both sides, some that would appear to support my claim and yours, but in all cases they do not argue a good case.

So our options are 1) I cherry pick data that supports my claim, is technically peer-review but is bad-faith and intellectually dishonest or 2) we have to accept neither of us can find a peer reviewed paper that meets the criteria I set forth early on, and instead rely on direct analysis.

I've offered both of these options multiple times but you sound like a broken record claiming I havent offered up the data.

@mike805

@lmrocha

Clearly not the case, but as we covered since you dont even know what an "automatic" gun is I can understand why you cant understand the literature or draw accurate conclusions from it I guess.

I have no doubt you will continue to believe that.

@mike805

@lmrocha

> you don't understand, the "professional distinction" you care about is irrelevant for the fact that 1) guns are the leading cause of children death in there USA, and 2) a lot of people make money from that.

Oh it is very relevant.. it is the equivalent of an anti-vaxxer calling a virus a bacteria... it is relevant because it shows they dont understand such fundamental information that they are clearly unable to talk about or analyze anything more complex about the problem... when you **demonstrate** and then **defend** incorrect information, particularly when you do so in order to defend your incorrect conclusions, it discredits you and rules you out from being taken seriously, and rightfully so... yes its very relevant to the debate at hand.

> Thought experiment: you guys are such believers in the 2A. Surely you think it is of such great importance that we should at least consider that the role of government is to provide guns at cost (no profit) to the population. Do you think that if we removed cost from the equation the NRA would exist and there would be so many guns in the population?

The NRA is a non-profit and as such compared with a for-profit company there are a great many restrictions on the ability for its owners to profit. That said they do get a pretty generous salary but if their main goal was to profit they probably wouldnt have organized as a non-profit... yes the NRA and many of the non-profit gun advocacy groups would probably still exist.

> Your are siding with the gun profiteers who value profit over life, not some grand constitutional principle.

You really do sound like an anti-vaxxer with these sorts of tropes.. its all big pharma this, and profit that.. stick to the topic and not some communist/socialist nonsense of evil profits. I mean if you have a specific issue where money messed stuff up and want to address it fine.. but that doesnt change the numbers, and the numbers show a pretty clear pattern, when you ban guns people die and get rapped in huge numbers as a consequence that could have been saved... everything else is noise.

@mike805