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

@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

@lmrocha

Every scientist decides what is proper analysis on their own, there is no way to decide that without someone reading and engaging their own reasoning on the quality of the literature... peer review helps us know that there arent likely to be technical errors in a particular paper, but it does nothing (and is not intended to anything) to tell you which societal questions a paper successfully answers or doesnt.

@mike805

@lmrocha

No I am saying there is plenty of literature and it shows various things, none of which shows more guns causes the problem. They show other facts, those facts are not relevant to what we are debating though.

@mike805

@lmrocha

Ahh personal attacks... I mean lets face it anti-gun people "easily dismiss" anything that doesnt agree with their world view.

The good news is kids who actually have ever been involved in a school shooting are so extraordinarily rare I'd never have to have that conversation in a lifetime...

Its amazing that not saying something that is undeniably false by any measure is being an "apologist" lol.. yes lets not be apologists and make up fact statements and then defend them even when we know they are lies, thats the way to solve problems.

The fact is you've said multiple things that are either lies, or ridiculously uneducated on the subject.. whichever of the two it is it does discredit you in having a valid point of view in the discussion, particularly when you double down on defending it rather than acknowledging and learning from your error.

@mike805

@mike805

You can literally mix 2 chemicals froma super market and kill a train load of people... probably takes more brain power to learn to drive to be honest.

@lmrocha @thatguyoverthere

Happy easter everyone... as you know zombie jesus is the final evolution of the jesus pokemon, and the most sacred of pokemon among christians... So have a wonderful easter everyone!

@mike805

I'd argue poisons are the easist way to do mass killings... its been done, a bag of poison someone makes, takes it on a train, opens the bag, everyone dies... easy to make, kills en masse at a level comparable or exceeding guns.. no reasonable way to protect against it directly so only real option is to convince people to stop wanting to murder.

@lmrocha @thatguyoverthere

@lmrocha

If you call a non-automatic gun an "automatic" you are 1) showing unprofessional bias by using an explicitly incorrect word to refer to something for dramatic effect.. 2) Appear uneducated on the subject and are easily dismissed.

@mike805

@mike805

Yes obviously true, but you know what I meant.

@lmrocha @thatguyoverthere

@lmrocha

A lack of good quality peer-reviewed studies also doesnt demonstrate much... Sadly peer-review is **not** how scientists determine if a paper makes a good argument. It only validates that the analysis is free from error, not that it is appropriate analysis to draw a particular conclusion...

If you have any peer-reviewed studies that do proper analysis (we laid out what that meant already) Im all ears... I dont know of any so all we have left is our own work... feel free to share if you know of any, I have seen none from you either.

@mike805

@lmrocha

great then lets do that:

Since guns dont require licenses, we shouldnt require licenses to drive cars either... Through the use of comparison you made a strong argument to abolish car licenses :)

Yea I dunno that sounds like a bad way to argue.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805

@lmrocha

Conducting and designing experiments for statistical analysis is my job. Not saying this for any reason than it is important to note that the kind of study useful for one sort of analysis isnt useful for another.

Yes controlled randomized studies are great for medication, horrible for judging nations. So while, yes it is the best study approach for vaccines, or medication, or biomarkers, it has no place in a gun debate. This should be obvious why, in a drug trial you can and do control all (hopefully) relevant variables, when talking about nations and gun control you cant.

There are a few peer-reviewed papers on granger causality and gun control, but sadly none that I like (even the ones that support my stance I dont feel were conducted well). I can of course do the analysis directly with you, or talk about the literature and its faults (I did this in an earlier thread briefly)... but rather than providing copy pasta of a bunch of flawed studies I'd rather just admit the fact that the body of research on this is of poor quality and encourage better research. Until that happens (because there is certainly a need for proper studies) we will have to rely on directly studying this ourselves.

Want to go over some of the public datasets, which wouldnt fall under peer-review, of this data and do a casual analysis let me know, I'd be happy to post the charts and do a deep dive with you.

@icedquinn @mike805

@pj

The idiocy of the argument is when we look at what the AR-15 is, there is nothing special that makes it good at mass shootings, it is just common.

In fact it is pretty much the most low-powered rifle you can buy, it is a small-game rifle and not considered effective at medium (hogs) to larger game like deer.

So, as with most of the anti-gun rhetorix it is one of those "feel good, does nothing and makes the situation worse" sort of trade offs.