[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Might interest you to know that I'm a volunteer with AmeriCorps, I'm an old fart that doesn't have to work anymore, and that I'm a decorated vet.

Sigh, it is because of this I am going to respond to this post though I feel like I am going in circles. I can not thank you enough for your service.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I asked you where the problems were...sources, methodology, what? You said you didn't have time to look at it and you never refuted anything in the study with anything other than your own personal opinion.

I have many posts about the multiple issues I have on the primary statistic that is cited from that study: the number of mass shootings have been 0 since the gun ban. First problem I have with it is the metric is flawed. As Vel, me and others have pointed out that overall violent crime rates have gone up which this metric does not show/illustrate/or even consider while overall violent crime rates does include mass shootings. This constriction of data shown is generally used to manipulate statistics to further an agenda. Also, since mass shootings seem to happen spuriously, it is not a reliable, ongoing occurrence that can be measured from year to year which makes it a weak metric.

Second problem I have is their definition of mass shooting. The study defines a mass shooting as any incident involving a gun where 5 die by gun shot. It does not consider the amount of people injured and does so for the clear purpose to dismiss other shootings. If you do not consider 20 injured by gun shot and 4 dead a mass shooting, then I don't know what to tell you. The fact that they only consider the number of deaths and used a generally higher number than the rest of the world (UN and US use 4 for example) illustrate further tampering of the statistics to further a clear goal.

Third problem I have is that the sample size is very small and its cut off point is in a very biased position. Cutting off at one of the largest mass shootings in history is biased and will skew the statistics. As discussed before, the occurrence of mass shootings is a spontaneous anomaly in societal statistics, thus using a small sample size, you can accent your point unfairly. For example, consider for the years 1990-2000 cattle were fed X and for the years 2000-2010 they were fed Y. During 1990-1996 cattle had an average weight of 750kg, for the years 1996-2000 they weighed on average 700kg, and for 2000-2010 they averaged 725kg. I could say that feed Y is better since from 1996-2000 the cows weighed 25kg less, but that would be manipulating the sample size and is thus of little integrity. The Australian survey you posted does that since during 1987-1996 Australia had one of the highest frequencies of mass shootings in their history by their metric.

These three problems, which are the glaring problems with that statistic, are not my opinion, but common statistical tricks that many politicians and businesses use. I would also like to say that just because it is from a university does not make a study scientific nor does it make it accurate. A professional analyst's report is actually a more credible source than an academic survey in most cases.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Still doesn't tell us what arms the Constitution says we can have. This is a personal attack...not a refutation of anything.

You are right. They were personal attacks and were never intended to be anything more.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No one has crushed anything, lol. If anything we've come to understand that the Constitutional argument can support your position as well as mine...and is why I stated the courts need to clarify it, because the Constitution doesn't.

I have refuted many claims of yours. Crushed might have been a too strong of term, but when a rebuttal is largely ignored, then it is generally regarded as successful on the internet. Unless the person who is having the debate is "trolling" which is a whole other subject.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It was a real scientific study. You said it was hogwash and sounded funny...I asked you where the problems were. Statistics, methodology...what? That was a real scientific study done by the University of Sydney...not some off-the-cuff news story from the Examiner.

It was not a scientific study. You and I probably have two vastly different definitions of 'scientific,' but the paper was a sociological analysis of statistical trends in Australia with a focus on gun control. For the problems I had with the one major statistic that has been quoted from that survey see above.

Also, while the University of Sydney is a fine school, it is by no means so prestigious to be placed on any sort of pedestal. If it made top 20 in the THE rankings, then maybe, but I believe it is ranked as 4th out of Australia as a whole. I know Melbourne is more prestigious and I am pretty sure ANU is the best ranked Australian University by far.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because you'd rather argue opinion. You don't have time to learn anything...and I'll tell you something. You CAN'T refute that study with anything other than opinion. You're not capable of it. Val should probably take a look at it...we might be able to get some intelligent discourse on the subject then.

The funny thing is that we are both arguing our opinions on the solution to an agreed upon problem. Both are 'solutions' and both have merits. We are actually arguing on which one has the highest probability of being the most effective solution while considering the consequences of enacting our solutions. I also have plenty of time to learn things and do so frequently. My current occupation is learning things and finding things that people have no learned yet(grad school). I can refute that study. I can attack their samplings, their metrics, their deviation of error, its relevance to the USA, etc. It has been done. This study is by no means some giant fact bomb and I really wish you wouldn't treat it as such. Val already looked at it and said what she thought on it. You might have missed it.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Believe what? That the Constitution isn't clear in meaning as applied to our modern society and we constantly have to try to interpret it to fit our changing world?

I have never argued that the Constitution is open for interpretation. I also never argued against changing our interpretation of the Constitution as society progressed. My favorite thing about the Constitution is that it is subject to change as society changes. What my comment was in reference to was:

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When you can show me an argument that includes a legal definition what the Constitution means by the Second Amendment I may listen to your point of view. Otherwise, neither you nor anyone else has the right to carry whatever you want, because the underlying principle of law has always been to balance Constitutional rights with public safety.

The logical is, and I am sorry for being so blunt, narcissistic. You assert that I need to have a clear cut definition with detailed specifics throughout of a term that was purposely left vague. If I am unable to, then your stance is right. This statement misplaces the onus which means you basically said "I am right and I don't need to prove I am right. You have to prove me wrong."

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You seem to have become very angry lately.

or in internetese...

umad.

Nah, not angry nor mad. When I go on ad hominem, I generally come off as more aggressive. It takes a lot more than arguing over the internet to get me angry.

Again, thank you for your service.