So you are more concerned about the vastly larger number of deaths from handguns than rifles? Or you're fear of rifles overrides your concern of handguns? So which studies cited here used linear regression? Still a red herring until you name them. But way to proclaim victory. That's always a sign of a good argument [/sarc]. And the sun was in your eyes, and you pulled a hammy, huh?
None of that applies. But keep typing - probability theory says you'll hit something relevant sooner or later. It never was a red herring. And if you want to refer to your own citations, pages later, that you haven't kept track of, it's your problem, not mine. I didn't. ALOS, the age-old wingnut conundrum. And the only thing that restored my focus was another one of those twitmeeps claiming I hadn't posted any links or sources - I get one of those fairly regularly, usually about the time the last one has been buried a page or so back, so I would have to scroll and remember where I left it. You guys are leaving quite a stench in these threads - my bothsides speculation is rooting like a bur oak. But restoring the quote - for OP relevance if nothing else:
The waffle house shooter was said to be naked except for a "green jacket". (which he discarded as he ran away) Nowhere that I looked was the jacket described. Anyone know what kind of jacket he wore? (has to do with where he might have had a second clip)
The initial reports I saw all mentioned that he discarded ammunition with the jacket, giving the police as source for that info, and at least two separate eyewitnesses said to police that he was interrupted while trying to reload: https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/04/22/four-dead-waffle-house-shooting-tennessee/ The first guess is that he was wearing the jacket in order to carry ammunition.
That was my guess too. It would then follow that the jacket was not well suited to that purpose which would account for the delay in reloading?
Saying "no, no, no" means very little when you refuse to clarify anything to the contrary. So either heartless or trolling. Doesn't much matter which. Do your own homework. The burden for your own argument is yours. "ALOS?" Keep congratulating yourself.
You posted irrelevancy, shit with no visible relationship to my posting, and directed it at me for invisible reasons. I have no explanation for your behavior, I am unable to clarify your posting for you, and there is nothing "contrary" to noise. Are they Lying Or Stupid. The eternal question that forms in the air around wingnut posting. Already done for my arguments - multiple directly relevant links, arguments from specific observations, repetition of main theses, all that good stuff. Now - your turn. What's your argument, for starters? You've been hinting at having one - - - Keep in mind that avoidance - refusal to make an argument when claiming one, say, or acknowledge responses, etc - is one of the symptoms of cowardice. Look at all the examples here - continual personal insults with no other content, continual changes of subject in confrontations, continual twisting and turning around simple matters of fact: there's a cowardice embedded, endemic, constantly present in America, and the various governing issues around firearms illuminate it harshly.
When you want to talk about rate of fire and ignore comparable weapons that cause many more deaths, it seems your argument is dishonest. And since you haven't been able to clarify otherwise, after many posts, it's pretty clear that that is the case. Ah, projection (see above). You're lying again. You haven't shown that any of the studies you've argued against are flawed. Lot of distracting noise, not much substance. Again, demonstrable ignorance isn't an insult. I would hope it is an invitation to learn.
When I post sentences that contain a defined subject and address a given issue, instead of some other issue, my arguments are dishonest? Odd. Meanwhile: - - - - - I have: every study I've "argued against", for sure - that would be the argument part. I haven't argued against many particular studies - most of my arguments have been against the invalid conclusions and claims by posters here. That one cannot draw very many conclusions from a statistical argument based in gun violence data aggregated by State, for example, is a long familiar observation. That linear regression is often - even normally - an invalid means of obtaining correlations from gun data collected in the US as another, although the recent advance in sophistication via Richards et al is new in the last couple of relevant threads. In this thread, of course, the focus is on courage and cowardice. So the studies are generally simply taken for granted for what they do show - and the role of cowardice, in particular, seems to me to play significantly on "bothsides" of the gun governance jamb in the US.
When your defined subject, "rounds per minute", ignores comparable weapons, yes, it's dishonest. Or just a poorly defined subject. No, you haven't shown those statistical problems to exist in any specific study. Again, you're lying to claim otherwise.
It doesn't. That's not true. I have been responding to posts derived from specific flawed studies routinely, often by pointing out that their study does not support their derivations. Meanwhile: the role of cowardice - takers?
Then you're for banned handguns? No, you just keep lying. Or prove us wrong and link said refutes of the flawed statistics of specific studies.
Do try to make sense, eh? Follow the argument? Post 5 study here is specifically dismissed with prejudice by me in post 28, without the detail your trolling requires because that was posted at least three times in various threads I simply am not going to bother searching for. That particular argument - over the linear statistical comparison of bad people killed in self defense vs "innocent" people killed not in self defense - needs no more repetition. It's done. Bullshit should be extra work for the bullshitter, not honest people - it's your turn from now on. Or you could address the OP: cowardice clearly plays a large role in US gun policy, and on bothsides.
for starters, only the title of the thread actually makes any statement about cowardice for two: the issue presented in the OP is about the OP's personal beliefs as noted by the final quote here: the OP is nothing more than a rant made by xelor for whatever personal reason. it is likely the OP is a rant against US law because of limited knowledge - - or perhaps simply to troll any gun owner given that the OP is more to present an ad hominem attack based on personal belief supported by cherry picked data, it can be presented that it is for the purpose of eliciting anger or other emotions and should have been deleted. - lastly, there is no "cowardice" in "US gun policy" - you can say there is fanaticism, and there is ignorance. mostly there is ignorance on the known underreported data points that people want to make arguments on which have absolutely no rational part in the conversation as it's entirely supposition, usually presented as fact
There's something about wingnut ideology that prevents its victims from using the terms "ad hominem" and "cherry picked" correctly. That, along with irony blindness, is a feature of some interest for an appropriate thread. For this thread: US gun policy does not have a personality. The nature of certain specific arguments surrounding it, and the attack on the character or integrity of those supposedly employing those arguments, is the subject of the OP. My own take on that is the subject of my posts (briefly: visible cowardice on bothsides extremes is significant in creating the jamb that prevents sane gun control in the US: it's a bothsides issue, something I think is almost unique in American politics). I regard fanaticism and ignorance as less central, because they both appear to be willful: they require explanation themselves. Part of that explanation imho involves the visible cowardice. (Other factors in the explanation include racism, corporate greed, and historical circumstance).
) there is something about wingnut ideology that prevents it's members from comprehending basic english or reading while they choose to ignore relevant evidence to confirm their bias... lets break this down for you. this also references Since you can't actually see how it applies... this selective choice of data (cherry picked because it confirms his bias) leads to the following conclusion data that is ignored: any armed civilian helping police, etc (easily done because it's not "popular" for the media to promote) see also: The Pearl High School shooting The Parker Middle School dance shooting The Appalachian School of Law shooting The New Life Church shooting The Trolley Square shooting The Golden Market shooting The New York Mills AT&T store shooting The Clackamas Town Center shooting The San Antonio Theater shooting All easily found by just searching "armed civilian stops shooting" - and I took only the first couple references (About 1,150,000 results (0.42 seconds) ) so, this is an example of his "cherry picking" (or selective attention/confirmation bias) to present a case for a personal belief - supported furthere by his comment this, more than anything, presents a case for him "pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position" this leads to his belief, which is: now, for the "ad hominem" this is present in the above quotes (especially that last one - his last two lines), but also in the title of the thread likely the user believes the point strongly enough to make a claim that the facts are evident ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Criticism_as_a_fallacy ) however, this can be directly refuted by a simple search or reading crime reports from police departments (see also ViCAP and National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime data) perhaps the blindness you profess is actually your refusal to see data, personal bias issues as well as your dislike for certain posters? Sorry, but I will disagree slightly: the cowardice is usually due to the fanaticism and ignorance - they are choices, but so is cowardice. IT is more central than you believe, IMHO When one actively refuses to accept any dissent from their beliefs to ideology then this is a choice to use their ideology to do nothing or disrupt the opposing ideology (or any centrist arguments labelled as opposition, thus immediately classified as the opposing ideology, regardless of content). This is the primary reason that fanatics (on both sides) won't address security issues that will help schools protect their children. They believe, fanatically (and usually due to ignorance), that only their ideological beliefs will help protect children (like banning high capacity magazines and "assault rifles" which are used in 1% of crimes, etc)
No, it isn't. It's genuine (however screwed up) discussion of the topic at hand. It's just that the topic at hand involves cowardice, which is a character flaw. You're comparing anecdotes, not data. Anecdotes are not cherrypicking ( they have their own problems, of course ). You changed the subject, to terms I have not even mentioned (confirmation bias, suppressed evidence). Then you claim, on no evidence from me, that I cannot see how they apply. Why did you do that? It's not refusal to see data - I pay very careful attention to data, much more than you pay. Data is not the plural of anecdote. The cowardice is not willful. Cherry picking is not confirmation bias. It's not anecdotal evidence. These different terms refer to different things. No, "they" don't. Necessarily. The inability to acknowledge the actual content of other people's arguments, the habit of instead building strawmen - attributing beliefs and "ideology" born of ignorance to them, for example - is characteristic of both sides of the bothsides jamb. It's a flinch, by the looks of it. And the cowardice underlying much of this flinching is visible.
the topic, per the title, not the same as the topic presented in the post, therefore it's not genuine, relevant or factual in any way it is an attack on the character of people due to the ignorance of facts with a presentation of cherry picked data to support their agenda, ideology or bias then show where that cowardice is in the data not the cherry picked data presented, but the data as a whole the OP is a rant targeting gun owners and attacking their integrity while presenting it as cowardice per the title - the title should be presented as a question if it's a determination of facts and or a presented argument based on genuine discourse to open dialogue for starters, it is part of the discussion as presented in reply directly to you, starting here for two: it is not a subject change, its demonstrative of the problem for three: I presented requisite links the OP anecdotes are refuted by presenting a counter to the established belief directly showing a refusal to accept information that doesn't conform to a belief all information is readily (and easily) available, therefore it's a choice to refuse to accept counter evidence to an established belief the cherry picked information of the OP is demonstrative of cherry picking, confirmation bias and establishes a pattern of behaviour which leads to the ad hominem see links above Again, I disagree: cowardice is the refusal to act on a situation due to a choice of subjugation of fear. If Courage is a choice or willingness to act then cowardice is the choice to refuse to act. It is a choice that is often supported by the cowards own reasons not to act. (You choose to act, flee, or not to act) however, cowardice is more a description of societal values or cultural training. It is also a subjective term (always a pejorative) re-read the link and points this is where we differ in opinion.
