Exploding Knife Violence on the streets of London

Those dastardly educated people refusing to post truth! Unforgivable

 

Correct. There is no presentation of facts to be had by those hiding behind their academic titles and positions to present themselves as being a source of authority, only an ideologically-driven, politically-motivated narrative.

 

A form over content fellow, eh? Sorry, I am not always fully dedicated to form when engaged in real life rather than dedicating my time to this forum; one in a while I edit on a phone while distracted life’s events; so shoot me.
Well, it seemed some people read rather than simply reject material from someone with opposing points of views, but still use the opportunity to sling insults at the poster, sling an insult to a third party and aim a disparaging generalizing comment based in an uneducated stereotyping of an diverse group of some 100 million plus identified by gun rights advocacy. But then, that demonstrates your real motive for posting on this forum using the gun control issue in the US as a vehicle; it isn’t an interest in the gun control issue itself.

 

No need. Just seems weird that you'd put so much effort into a dud post.

You haven't said anything here. Was the phone ringing again?

The problem you have is that I'm not limited by ideology. I've made no secret that I am from a gun owning background. I've also made no secret that my stance is purely the result of acknowledging the evidence.

 

Oh please, a gun owning background ?

You have constantly stated you have no use or knowledge of guns which is fine.

And your so called evidence is not true evidence as it only portrays the misuse of firearms, not the positive side.

You constantly dismiss any firsthand experience as "anecdotal" yet completely embrace Anti-Gun anecdotes as fact;
"A Gun in the home is more likely to kill or injure the owner....etc..."
With less evidence than what is presented in a legitimate defensive Gun use accompanied by a Police Report.

Then there is your Ideological accusations, I base my reasoning on Police work, personal experiences, not bias or politics, You have an Agenda to reduce Gun Ownership something you have admitted, so is that nullification of any Gun background bypu claimed earlier.

You have yet to present any credible evidence besides Gun Control Ideology and standard political rhetoric and baloney.

 

Please don't go back to fibbing about my background. Thanks!

 

A selective acknowledgement of bias confirming studies that you call evidence to support your point of view. If you were truely objective, as you have disengenuously claim, you’d not be exclusively referring to studies that support your bias, but also noting the inconsistencies and flaws of many studies supporting gun control advocacy.
That you might claim to be from a gun owning background (what ever that means) is irrelevant to the biased point of view you have allied your self with; it’s behavior not unlike a reformed sinner finding religion and becoming a fanatic evangelist.
I suspect your real motive not anti-gun advocacy, but is closer to using the issue as a means of trying to demonstrate your intellectual superiority over stupid Americans (slightly higher on the evolutionary scale than the Irish, far behind Brits) with ‘clever’ dialog.
Well, I will be home on holiday in the Falls; come on up and over pints dazzle with your ‘clever’ dialog.

 

You are the one fibbing and attempting to ameliorate your stance on Guns which until now, you have denied.
Your background is your private business until you use it as a tool to promote your Anti Gun Agenda, and even then, all I did was say "Oh Please" I did not comment on your background any further than that.

 

It's really not my fault that the bulk of the evidence disagrees with your stance. Of course I'm always happy to discuss any specific empirical bias in individual study.

False charge. I've repeatedly referred, for example, to Kleck's work. Indeed, given pro gunners are typically ignorant of the available research, I often have to inform them of his existence!

Now it's certainly the case that Kleck has produced some quality work. However, it is a matter of fact that the counter research is more substantive.

I have no reason to love or hate guns. Sorry if that's inconvenient for the whinge!

Not sure if my yank family would like that! I'm not sure what you think you're going to gain by making this type of stuff up.

No need really. I haven't done anything clever. Reading the evidence isn't much. You could do it too!

 

I'm not self-righteous; you are the one with the gift for it.

I've been condemning government overreach and anticonstitutional actions for years; going back to the Clinton administration, and I'm not a fan of Trump's either. Our Republic is in very deep trouble, and until the people are willing to stand up and force the corrupt partisan duopoly to face the consequences of their actions nothing is going to change.

 

Have you written a strong letter of complaint to the NRA for their funded support for Trump?

 

No, because the alternative was Hillary R. Clinton which would have been much worse.
I did NOT need N.R.A. to show me that.
I knew that all by myself.

 

I've sent more than one letter to the NRA complaining about their supporting the "more electable candidate" instead of the strongest Constitutionalist. Their tendency to take the politically expedient path is one reason why my donations go to the GOA and not to them.

 

Super! Good on you.

I do hope you're also doing your best to break the blind allegiance towards the NRA observed from your fellow pro gunners.

 

Not everyone who dismisses the presented so-called "research" is doing so out of a matter of allegiance to any particular group, be it the NRA or any other organization. They do not even need to be citizens of the united states. The so-called "research" is simply wrong and the fact of such was recognized long ago. It is this acknowledgement of fact that is the reason the presented data is dismissed and argued against. The position of the NRA is immaterial compared to what is ultimately the truth.

It is not a matter of agreement with those who oppose firearm-related restrictions that draws the support of myself. Rather it is simply a matter of their open acknowledgement of certain undeniable facts that were realized on the part of myself during extensive research of the countless, numerous proposals and policies of various nations around the world pertaining to the matter of firearm-related restrictions, and the complete absence of logic, and critical thinking skills, in how they were drafted and enacted.

 

Your post truthing is straight out of the Trump hymn book.

 

An irrelevant and off-topic attempt at changing the subject of the discussion. The refusal of yourself to acknowledge actual facts that undermine the presented narrative is nothing more than a symptom of the institutionalized stupidity that was referenced earlier. The world of academia is blind to reality and cannot recognize it even when it is metaphorically staring them directly in the face.

 

I refer to the research. You don't. All of your comments are demands for post truthing. Quite frankly, its pathetic.

 

The only so-called "post-truthing" to be demonstrated in this back and forth discussion is that on the part of yourself, in discounting facts that undermine and invalidate what is being referred to as so-called "research" but in truth is not. It is not even close to being research.

 

I refer to the research. You don't. I adopt literature review methods, acknowledging empirical bias and the need to compare and contrast. You blubber that the research, using well respected empirical methods and data freely available to anyone, isn't research.

Your post truthing continues to be pathetic.

 

More accurately, what is done on the part of yourself is hiding behind what is referred to as so-called "research" but is devoid of what would qualify it as being research.

What is done on the part of myself is acknowledging the intellectual shortcomings of the presented works, and calling out the deliberate efforts to gloss over the human factor of the equation and deny that it plays any effect in what is observed compared to what is predicted.

It is a matter that could almost be described as being one of irony, the interaction between our individual selves.

 

That you think using research is 'hiding' merely illustrates your post truthing.

 

No, biased research that does not reflect the Truth about legitimate Gun use, Defensive Gun use, hunting and target shooting etc.........

All the quoted research you post concentrates only on Criminal use of Guns, which in any case, Crime has always been a problem before Guns and I am sure that according to statistics of that day, if such were available, would differ little from today.

At one point in time, Highwaymen would stop Carriages and Rob people, then the Hand Gun was invented, a great means of defense, short barrel large bore, and a traveler had a means of defense that did not require much skill or strength as would a sword or other weapons, this was the first defensive Gun use, of course Criminals also used Guns, however the tables were balanced.

Your Agenda against Guns is well established, so to claim a so called "Gun Background" is preposterous when balanced against your Political Agenda.

 

Its a shame that the research disagrees with your bias. Show some love for education, for a change!

 

My endeavours in Medical alone is proof of my love of Education, I have always loved Education, however, it is quite vexing how you are pre-judging me and you know nothing about me at all or even care about my fundamental core beliefs.

When I was 13, I started to learn some basic martial arts, I felt the need to be able to defend myself.
Bullying was common in my neighborhood especially when you were thin and frail as I was.

The bullies were quite stout.
One day, arriving home, a tall lad, perhaps 17, accosted me at the front door of the flats, and started to chat, and I had to go for supper, it was getting late, and he pulls a knife with a 4 inch blade and slices at my throat, I had just learned a neat move, and I waited till the knife was almost cutting me,
Stepped back and let his arm pass with the knife and grabbed his wrist.

Next move was to be a palm strike on the back of his elbow breaking it.
But, being the soft hearted pansy I have always been, I felt sorry for him and merely pushed his elbow to make him drop the knife, he yelled in pain and I kicked him into the thorn bushes.
He might have murdered me then, yet I felt sorry for him.

This is what I know about Defensive Gun use, and when I was older, I decided on Firearms as a means of personal defense, so excuse me if you quote studies till your blue in the face, I see a need for personal defense with a Gun.