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

@pj

I think its good to join a gun club, and most gun owners tend to.. but yea requiring membership is a horrible idea imo.

@lmrocha @mike805

@pj well its not just about number of people killed but also frequency. 60 people killed in a mass shooting happens what once every 100 years or more... 60 people dieing is already a relatively small number when you consider the hubdreds of thousands that die in violent acts a day. Compund that with the fact that it has happened once at that magnitude in the history of the USA id labeled it as so small as to be insignificant overall.

@pj

The issue with trying to address a very small and rare subset of the problem is you often make the larger problem which is more common worse in a desire to fix a less common problem... its similar to premature optimization in software

@lmrocha @mike805

@lmrocha

Hahah thats some impressive projection you have going.

See ya

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj

@pj

I think the problem is misrepresented. Mass shootings are not the problem, violence overall is and mass shootings is a very low priority when it comes to addressing that. It is too arbitrary and rare to call it the problem

@lmrocha @mike805

@lmrocha

Ditto, but hey if you want to take away my brownie points for calling you out for putting words in scientists mouths thry never said, go for it.

Frankly i figured you'd be better than intentually misrepresenting and manipulating the science out of a need to support your biases.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj

@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