The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

@oralloy,

Quote:

Those discredited quacks hardly count as scientists.

Let's see.... Scientists that have papers published in scientific and medical journals are discredited quacks. Never mind that you sound like a duck and can't produce any published work that disputes them let alone discredits them.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Let's see.... Scientists that have papers published in scientific and medical journals are discredited quacks.

Yes. Those quacks are well-discredited.

parados wrote:

Never mind that you sound like a duck

Hardly. I'm the one who provides reliable stats showing that there is minimal correlation between gun availability and homicide rates.

parados wrote:

and can't produce any published work that disputes them let alone discredits them.

Oh?

http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

1 Reply

EDITORIAL: An Apology to the NRA, ‘I was Wrong About Obama’

0 Replies

As gun-ban prospects fade, NRA takes aim elsewhere

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

As gun-ban prospects fade, NRA takes aim elsewhere

We also need to do something about his unconstitutional executive orders. Either challenge them in court, or get Congress to pass laws overruling them or something.

I'd prefer having the courts strike them down, but something has to be done. If they decide to have Congress overrule them, that will work too.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

So your article which wasn't published in a science or medical journal and was printed in 1994 discredits articles from 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2007?

You certainly are doing more quacking there oralloy when you made that claim.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So your article which wasn't published in a science or medical journal and was printed in 1994 discredits articles from 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2007?

Yes. First, it demonstrates that there is a long-term intent to publish quack articles in public health journals.

And second, the quack articles are going to keep on coming non-stop. If someone took the trouble to specifically debunk the current round of quackery, all they would do is publish a fresh batch.

At some point you stop worrying about debunking the latest quackery, and just automatically dismiss every "gun study" published in a public health journal.

parados wrote:

You certainly are doing more quacking there oralloy when you made that claim.

No. All I'm doing is presenting facts. Facts aren't quackery.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

At some point you stop worrying about debunking the latest quackery, and just automatically dismiss every "gun study" published in a public health journal.

Sure... if your goal is to completely ignore facts.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

But let's look at your article oralloy.

Quote:

Our focus is the remarkable difference between the way medical and public health writers treat firearms issues and the way social scientists treat those issues.

So in other words, your authors are doing nothing more than what the Tobacco companies did for years and it finally cost them billions when people stopped buying their BS.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
At some point you stop worrying about debunking the latest quackery, and just automatically dismiss every "gun study" published in a public health journal.

Sure... if your goal is to completely ignore facts.

How many of those leftist hoaxes have been discredited ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

And the tobacco companies discredited all the hoaxes about cigarettes causing cancer.

1 Reply

@parados,

That's if you ignore the studies done on smoking and cancer such as the following.

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/f/Smokers-Lung-Cancer.htm

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Why would the tobacco companies want to ignore studies on cigarettes and cancer?
Why would oralloy want to ignore studies on more gun ownership correlating to more homicides?

hmm....... I wonder.....

2 Replies

@parados,

They don't "ignore" studies on cigarettes and cancer. That's the reason why US cigarettes have the warning "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. (1985–)"

1 Reply

@parados,

1. Government was never granted jurisdiction
over possession of guns any more than possession of Bibles.
2. Government was explicitly DENIED such jd
in the Bill of Rights, as a matter of personal liberty.
3. Under considerations of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS,
everyone has an EQUAL RIGHT to defend his or her life
from the violence of man, or dogs in the streets.

Guns r emergency equipment for ANY citizen.

Government has NO authority to discriminate qua
WHO can legally defend his life.

David

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Why would oralloy want to ignore studies on more gun ownership
correlating to more homicides?

hmm....... I wonder.....

Even ASSUMING that the actual facts (numbers)
supported your anti-liberty position,
that is IRRELEVANT.

The rights of the Individual predominate.

David

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I think you need to get your sarcasm sensor checked.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
At some point you stop worrying about debunking the latest quackery, and just automatically dismiss every "gun study" published in a public health journal.

Sure... if your goal is to completely ignore facts.

My goal is to completely ignore quackery.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Re: parados (Post 5246827)
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
At some point you stop worrying about debunking the latest quackery, and just automatically dismiss every "gun study" published in a public health journal.

Sure... if your goal is to completely ignore facts.

My goal is to completely ignore quackery.

I think that means he does not proofread his posts, Parados.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

But let's look at your article oralloy.

Quote:
Our focus is the remarkable difference between the way medical and public health writers treat firearms issues and the way social scientists treat those issues.

So in other words, your authors are doing nothing more than what the Tobacco companies did for years and it finally cost them billions when people stopped buying their BS.

Since it the gun control people who are publishing bogus articles, they are the ones whose behavior mimics the tobacco companies.

Also, you are forgetting the Second Amendment. Even if it were actually true that guns were a problem, we'd still have the right to have them.

1 Reply

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know