Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[Ray_Scheel]

I assigned myself to not use information from one source early in this thread instead of trying to defend that information and I now see how that was a mistake.

Error: Appeal to Pity. Usenet Variant (paragraph three of the definition: “Somebody refuses to answer questions about their claims, on the grounds that the asker is mean and has hurt their feelings.”)

For I allowed certain individuals more or less bully the flow of information allowed into the thread by allowing them to use the type of fallacious arguments,and tatics, among others listed below.

Error 1: Hypothesis contrary to the fact: your opponents here have made a steady effort to not engage in those accused behavior, including self-correction of those on their side in a particular instance of a presentation of an Error of Fact (specifically, the apocryphal Brady quote).
Error #2: Failure to state: you list out a set of fallacies allegedly committed by other, but now where, when, or by who. Instead you jjust threw them out there in a case of:
Error #3: Two wrongs make a right: trying to defend your own habit of “arguing” by strings of logical fallacies by claiming the other side has/would do the same sort of thing, despite not having proof of that.
Error #3 Ad hominem - through the anonymously directed negative generalization

Thier claims of certain information to be false, which was only backed up with sources that themselves are subject to doubt as well as to reliabilty or being truly varifiable except from the third party sources from which they acquired them.

Error 1: Generalization
Error 2: intentional Error of fact, as the critique of the argument you lifted from Brady was based on pointing out the source used by Brady itself made it clear it wasn’t measure what Brady implied it did.
Error #3 Ad hominem - through the blanket negative generalization

They set a standard of authority which they themselves decided which were the rules of discussion and rejecting all dissenting views and authorities as being false.

Error 1: Hypothesis contrary to the fact: The rules of logical discussion are well established, and the science of philosophy is generally recognized as the authority on what constituted an ordered approach to addressing an issue. That there are commonly accepted standards is why you are going to find that the lists of logical fallacies agree. Some go into much more specific detail on particular common fallacies, while others make an effort to list all of them, however minor, as a reference on what constitutes fallacious thinking.
Error 2: Failure to state: you made an attack here, but didn’t cite any particulars the targets to defend (or correct/withdraw, as appropriate). Which leads me to believe the insinuation was intended to be an:
Error #3 Ad hominem - through the blanket negative generalization

For those that that are interested here is an article on how the 2nd Amendment through the courts has been twisted in it’s meaning and how those of us that believe Gun Control is appropriate and that was wriiten into the constituion as opposed to a prohibition of gun control. There are two links here.

This presentation (the intrductory page and the document proper) there are several key presumptions made by Brady that require substantiation before they can be used by as the basis for further conclusions:

1. That the general law-abiding citizenry should not be considered part of an informal militia as they were in the days the Constitution was written. (Hypothesis contrary to the fact)
2. That sidearms (handguns), weapons well known to be issued for use in the military, should not be considered militia weapons for the purposes of interpreting the second amendment. (Hypothesis Contrary to the Fact)
3. That prior instances of the courts ruling supporting legislation relevant to regulation of the militia somehow created a legal barrier to ruling separately on the right to bear arms in and of itself. (False cause)
4. That the phraseology of the Declaration of Independence about the rights of the people should not be considered in determining a personal right to bear arms. (Argument by Selective Observation, Hypothesis Contrary to the Fact).

And I could go on, but, well, there isn’t a point really since everything after that appears to rest on the prior claims being presumed true and applicable, and that can’t be done since so much of the groundwork doesn’t withstand inspection. In short, because of the lack of initial foundation, it becomes an entire document based on a combination of Argument by Poetic Language and Argument by Gibberish (Bafflement).

 

[Bennie_P]

Why? Gun registration does not work.

Not in New Zealand. They repealed their gun registration law in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness.

Not in Australia. “It seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be exercised, and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily identified. This is a fallacy, and has been proven not to be the case.” And this costs the Australian taxpayers over $200 million annually…

THE TRUTH ABOUT AUSTRALIA

If you’re an American, your knowledge of Australia may be limited to kangaroos, koala bears, Crocodile Dundee and the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
But if you’re an American who has seen the infamous NRA infomercial, you may think that Australia also has a surging crime rate.
In 1996, after a terrible massacre in the Australian state of Tasmania, the Australian federal and state governments agreed on new firearms laws that, in effect, banned military and repeating style rifles and shotguns. The new law also introduced a comprehensive registration system for firearms. Handgun ownership was already strictly regulated and had been for decades – the new regulations dealt only with long guns.
About 660,000 firearms were handed in to the government in return for more than 400 million Australian dollars, financed by a one-time add-on to the income tax.
And in 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years.
Of course, the Australians have always had tougher gun laws than the U.S. - despite that country’s own frontier history and its cultural similarities to the United States. But in 1998, 54 Australians lost their lives to gun homicides, while in the States the number exceeded 13,000. The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is about 15 times that of Australia…and this is the nation the NRA wants us to condemn!
The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns…offer him a Fosters and tell him the facts.

 

[Bennie_P]

.

Fact: The national five-day waiting period under the Brady Bill had no impact on murder or robbery. In fact there was a slightly increased rate of rape and aggravated assault, indicating no effective suppression of certain violent crimes. Thus, for two crime categories, a possible effect was to delay law-abiding citizens from getting a gun for protection. The risks were greatest for crimes against women - Source: Dr. John Lott Jr., University of Chicago School of Law…

I wonder

CONCEALED HANDGUN FRAUD: EXPOSING JOHN LOTT

The NRA has long used John Lott’s work, “More Guns, Less Crime” to push for enactment of concealed handgun laws (CCW) that force police to let almost anyone carry a concealed handgun in public. But as more scholarly researchers examine Lott’s work, serious questions about Lott’s findings, and even his personal credibility, are emerging. Exhaustive New Study Directly Refutes Lott’s "Research"
Professor John Donohue of Stanford has recently completed an exhaustive new study that examined crime data across the country - updating the research that John Lott claimed showed concealed handgun laws reduce crime. Professor Donohue’s study, published by the Brookings Institute, directly refutes Lott’s findings and demonstrates that the concealed handgun laws (CCW) pushed by Lott and the NRA most likely caused more crime rather than the reduction in crime claimed by Lott. While John Lott’s study covered only a short period of time, during which urban crime was already rising, Professor Donohue studied the longer impact of CCW laws. Professor Donohue joins a long list of respected scholars who have debunked Lott’s study as flawed and misleading.

• www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/press/books/chapter_1/evaluatinggunpolicy.pdf
  Lott Co-Author Admits to Gaping Flaws in Study
  Professor David Mustard, the co-author of Lott’s study, has conceded that there were serious flaws in their study - flaws that seriously undermine the conclusions. Mustard was deposed under oath in the Ohio concealed handgun case Klein v. Leis. Mustard admitted that: 1) the study “omitted variables” which could explain that changes in the crime rate are due to reasons other than changes in CCW laws, and 2) the study did not account for many of the major factors that Mustard believes affect crime including crack cocaine, wealth, drugs and alcohol use, and police practices such as community policing. These serious flaws completely undermine Lott’s findings.
  Lott Claims Computer Ate His Controversial CCW Survey
  In his published research analysis, John Lott has claimed that a 1997 survey he conducted found that concealed handguns deterred crime without being fired an astoundingly high 98% of the time. That claim allowed Lott to explain away the fact that extremely few self-defense uses of handguns are ever reported.

 

[Bennie_P]

I’m not the one that effectively claimed the entire field of statistics must be wrong in how measurable effect is determined in order to try to hang onto a prejudice. I have seen and pointed out that attitude of yours in your approach over and over again, only for you to drop that particular try without further comment while trying to rephrase your argument using the same flawed premises. That you can’t grasp that simply repeating flawed premises and unsupported conclusions doesn’t make them “facts” doesn’t make me the simpleton…

Of course the gun lobby’s sources and their statisical method’s are not bias? and purely scientifically correct and unflawed?
From JOHN J. DONOHUE
The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws
*

The Use of County Data

Lott relies most heavily on county crime data rather than state crime data (although the presents some state data results), noting that the far greater number of counties than states can add precision to the estimates and that county fixed effects will explain a great deal of the fixed cross-sectional variation in crime
across the country. The use of these county fixed effects diminishes the inevitable problem of omitting some appropriate, but possibly unavailable, time-invariant explanatory variables. The county data have some disadvantages, though: Mark Duggan notes the concern that using county data to assess the impact of a (generally) statewide intervention may artificially elevate statistical significance byexaggerating the amount of independent data available to the researcher.8 Furthermore,county data on the arrest rate (the ratio of arrests to crime in a county) are often unavailable because they are missing or because the county experienced no crime in a particular category in a particular year (leaving the rate undefined owing to the zero denominator). Since Lott uses the arrest rate as an explanatory variable, many counties are thrown out of the Lott analysis by virtue of the realization of the dependent variable (if it is zero in a given year, that county is dropped from the analysis), which can potentially bias the results of the regression estimation. Finally, Michael Maltz and Joseph Targonski raise some serious questions about the quality of UCR county-level data (at least for data before1994).

**THE IMPACT OF CONCEALED-CARRY LAWS **
6. The “fixed effect” is a dummy variable that is included for each county or state that is designed to reflect any unvarying trait that influences crime in that county or state yet is not captured
by any of the other explanatory variables. Lott and Mustard (1997).
7. As noted, the initial paper on this topic was by Lott and Mustard and the subsequent book
(Lott [2000]) (now in its second edition) is by Lott. For ease of reference I henceforth refer to Lott
as a shorthand for both Lott’s work and that of Lott and Mustard.
8. One exception is Pennsylvania, which initially excluded Philadelphia from its 1989 shallissue
law. In 1995 the law was extended to include Philadelphia. Duggan (2001, p. 1109, note 20).
9. Maltz and Targonski (2001).
*

 

[melensdad]

Of course the gun lobby’s sources and their statisical method’s are not bias? and purely scientifically correct and unflawed?
From JOHN J. DONOHUE
The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws

And John Lott refuted those findings here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328

But while John Lott and John Donohue can snipe at each other all along, realize that Lott is not the only source used, he is one of many college professors who have done studies based on crime data, economic models, etc. and have come to somewhat similar conclusions. Certainly there are also professors who will come to opposite conclusions.

But you are again focusing on concealed carry laws. We keep deviating into concealed carry laws as specific areas of argument and avoiding the more basic questions that I asked.

Certainly we can debate if concealed carry is ideal, is necessary, etc.

But the main questions are still why are the bishops so seemingly anti-gun when the CCC is pro-self defense? And how do the two reconcile with each other?

 

[Bennie_P]

Bennie: Quoting stuff prepared by the Brady campaign about firearms use is the logical equivalent of using stuff prepared by Jack Chick about Catholicism. Beyond their selective reporting, Brady has been caught flat-out lying too many times, to the point that you’ve lowered your credibility by presenting their prepared materials as relevant.

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension): attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent’s position.

For examples : “Senator Lott says that we should have Handgun Registration. I disagree entirely. I can’t understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that.”
On the Internet, it is common to exaggerate the opponent’s position so that a comparison can be made between the opponent and Hitler or Jack Chick.

 

[Bennie_P]

But the main questions are still why are the bishops so seemingly anti-gun when the CCC is pro-self defense? And how do the two reconcile with each other?

I agree that is the question and I believe the answer is we must accept what God gives us in any given situation.
Where or why you see it as a contradiction, may be the fact you put too much weight on self-relience and equate that to self-defence. Otherwise you want to have full control over your life. By taking the gun away from you or putting restrictions on your access to a gun, that in itself is a threat to the control you feel you must have in order to fulfill your duty of self-defense and defending your family, that can be scarry, as grown men we want to be in control and don’t want to admit to fear.

I think the Bishops are just trying to balance the idea of defense of the innocents vs the duty of self-defense.

One question you may asked yourself and ponder on. This is not a question I want an answer to, but for you to think about. What if God calls you to be somwhere else in the world, where you would not have access to any guns? Would it matter?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension): attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent’s position.

Not quite, as for the Brady citations you have made, none have been dismissed in this thread solely because they came from Brady. Each time you presented one, we have also taken the time in each instance to point out the logical flaws used in those particular resources of theirs. To this point examination of every citation you have made to Brady materials has revealed that those materials are uniformly based on a particular application of a set of logical fallacies that is a virtual trademark of HCI/Brady’s method of approach. It is not that they are invalid simply because they came form Brady, but that knowing Brady was the source makes it a simple matter to look for and point out their trademark errors of fact and logic.

In a similar vein, the resources used by Chick Publications have their own trademark pattern of fallacies. The reason I made the comparison the first time you hauled out some of the Brady/HCI references was in a hope that you would not continue to cite them without first reviewing those resources for intellectual honesty and due diligence with a critical eye yourself, knowing that they had a document habit of producing material full of critical flaws. You have instead chosen the opposite route, which was to continue to repeat their arguments even after the flawed premises and logical issues had previously been pointed out.

 

[Bennie_P]

Not quite, as for the Brady citations you have made, none have been dismissed in this thread solely because they came from Brady. Each time you presented one, we have also taken the time in each instance to point out the logical flaws used in those particular resources of theirs. To this point examination of every citation you have made to Brady materials has revealed that those materials are uniformly based on a particular application of a set of logical fallacies that is a virtual trademark of HCI/Brady’s method of approach. It is not that they are invalid simply because they came form Brady, but that knowing Brady was the source makes it a simple matter to look for and point out their trademark errors of fact and logic.

In a similar vein, the resources used by Chick Publications have their own trademark pattern of fallacies. The reason I made the comparison the first time you hauled out some of the Brady/HCI references was in a hope that you would not continue to cite them without first reviewing those resources for intellectual honesty and due diligence with a critical eye yourself, knowing that they had a document habit of producing material full of critical flaws. You have instead chosen the opposite route, which was to continue to repeat their arguments even after the flawed premises and logical issues had previously been pointed out.

Straw Man forums.somd.com/images/customavatars/avatar10014_2.gifpentaclerecords.net/darien3/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg%between%

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Straw Man

How, exactly, does pointing out the actual logical fallacies being used in particular resources constitute a straw man?

 

[Bennie_P]

How, exactly, does pointing out the actual logical fallacies being used in particular resources constitute a straw man?

In this case is becuase your line of reasoning is "your sources is full of fallacy becuase it is just like Jack Chick tract, becuase my sources say so? Fallacy of Poisoning The Wells by use of straw man fallacy against the sources’ used.Poisoning The Wells: discrediting the sources used by your opponent.

pentaclerecords.net/darien3/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg

 

[melensdad]

In this case is becuase your line of reasoning is "your sources is full of fallacy becuase it is just like Jack Chick tract, becuase my sources say so? Fallacy of Poisoning The Wells by use of straw man fallacy against the sources’ used.Poisoning The Wells: discrediting the sources used by your opponent.

Seems to me that you have used the tactic of discrediting the NRA/Gun Lobby by totally dismissing their arguments, and further showing counter-studies to other pro-gun arguments.

Seems to me that the pro-gun side has done the same with your anti-gun sources.

So at some point we are going to have to simply walk away in disagreement on what is a valid source and what is an invalid source because both sides have sources that discredit the other side.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

In this case is becuase your line of reasoning is "your sources is full of fallacy becuase it is just like Jack Chick tract, becuase my sources say so?

No, that was very clearly not my line of reasoning. As I sad in my last post, the particular Brady/HCI resources that have been presented is that they were invalid based on the logical fallacies they contained, and in each case the foundational errors were identified.

Is intentionally misrepresenting what is being said by your opponents really the best response you can come up with when your reasoning and the veracity of your sources is challenged?

Fallacy of Poisoning The Wells by use of straw man fallacy against the sources’ used.

Again, identifying the particular logical errors actually used within a resource in no way constitutes a “Straw Man” as that term is commonly defined among the various logical errors. The criticisms were not directed at a caricatured or exaggerated version of what Brady/HCI said, but what was actually contained within the source you presented. Simply repeating the accusation that treatment constitutes a “Straw man” does not change the definition. Again, how does identifying the particular logical errors within a resource constitute a “Straw man” as that term is generally defined.

It is not my fault that you have chosen to repeatedly quote and cite materials full of glaringly obvious logical errors, especially after you have been repeatedly exhorted to engage in more thorough due diligence as you have posted one critically flawed resource after another. Further, you were the one who chose to not dispute the logical fallacies as they have been pointed out; every time the veracity of your sources has been challenged, you have immediately abandoned defending that source while persisting on insisting their conclusions were valid.

What you seem to be trying here is the argument form ignorance - that since you don’t understand the

 

[Bennie_P]

I

Wow. You better get on the stick telling all the statisticians that everything they’ve worked out about standard deviations and measurable effect is unreliable when dealing with measuring the impact of gun regulations on crime rates. That is, presuming you have some sort of proof beyond what you feel has to be the case as to why the foundational premises of the field of statistics needs to be re-written…

We already have statistically relevant examples of what happens with the implementations of certain gun regulations and restrictions when implemented across an national front to know what to expect regarding before and after changes in crime rates (e.g. Australia and Britian, added: Canada) as well as states large enough where the more central cities had an effective geographical buffer to serve to isolate them. Since we have those relevant examples, there is no logically legitimate reason to ignore those cases when trying to determine what would happen if certain restrictions were implemented where easy transport from region to region was not a factor, so why are you continuing to insist on putting personal conjecture above what has been repeatedly demonstrated in practice?

Really?

I think the reason you try to make it sound like the “Brady Bunch” as you call them are not credible is the fact that the do have credible information and it is easier to debunk thier information if you first “bloody” thier name, then use an unrealetd counter attack with information not based on thier own statements but from a third source, that is using a third source, claiming superiour knowledge, for it is better for people not to read thier reports(Brady), for they(Brady) just might be right? Otherwise you tell us, "don’t believe that, let my emotions think for you." Myself, I think people should read from both sources, that is what I do.

For those that can read for themselves;
CONCEALED TRUTH
Concealed Weapons Laws and Trends in Violent Crime in the United States

Perhaps most compelling is the fact that robbery has declined twice as quickly in states with strict licensing or that do not allow concealed carrying at all than in states with lax CCW systems. If carrying concealed weapons reduces crime, it would be expected that the greatest effects would be seen on crimes that most often occur between strangers in public places, such as robbery. However, Lott and Mustard found virtually no beneficial effects from liberalizing the carrying of concealed weapons on robbery. As indicated above, robbery in restrictive CCW states fell twice as fast as in lax CCW states. Furthermore, reanalysis of Lott and Mustard’s data by two different teams of researchers revealed that crime overall was just as likely to increase as decrease after states eased their carry laws — a finding which appears to be borne out by the FBI’s crime data.
Between 1992 and 1998, over a quarter (27%, 3/11) of the states that were “shall issue” during this entire time period experienced an increase in the violent crime rate, as well as in the robbery rate. This compares to increases in violent crime over the same 6 year time period in just 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws. Only 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws experienced an increase in robberies. **If allowing more people to carry concealed handguns is supposed to be such an effective crime fighting strategy, why did the crime rate go up in so many “shall issue” states **— particularly when compared to states that employed other strategies to fight crime?

 

[Bennie_P]

No, that was very clearly not my line of reasoning. As I sad in my last post, the particular Brady/HCI resources that have been presented is that they were invalid based on the logical fallacies they contained, and in each case the foundational errors were identified.

Is intentionally misrepresenting what is being said by your opponents really the best response you can come up with when your reasoning and the veracity of your sources is challenged?

Again, identifying the particular logical errors actually used within a resource in no way constitutes a “Straw Man” as that term is commonly defined among the various logical errors. The criticisms were not directed at a caricatured or exaggerated version of what Brady/HCI said, but what was actually contained within the source you presented. Simply repeating the accusation that treatment constitutes a “Straw man” does not change the definition. Again, how does identifying the particular logical errors within a resource constitute a “Straw man” as that term is generally defined.

It is not my fault that you have chosen to repeatedly quote and cite materials full of glaringly obvious logical errors, especially after you have been repeatedly exhorted to engage in more thorough due diligence as you have posted one critically flawed resource after another. Further, you were the one who chose to not dispute the logical fallacies as they have been pointed out; every time the veracity of your sources has been challenged, you have immediately abandoned defending that source while persisting on insisting their conclusions were valid.

What you seem to be trying here is the argument form ignorance - that since you don’t understand the

I appoligize, I never study debate, nor was I member of the debate team at college, the fallacy here is you think you are in control by making and presenting your own rules of engagemnent, presenting yourself as some sort of authorty/expert on logic and statistics, but I refuse to play, that is the American thing to do.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I think the reason you try to make it sound like the “Brady Bunch” as you call them

I have not been calling them the “Brady Bunch”. My usual reference is “Brady”, “Brady et all”, “Brady/HCI”, or “HCI/Brady” as is clearly obvious in my usage in my past several posts, still visible on the same page of the thread in which you made this reply. Why are you making yet another clearly false claim about what I have stated?

are not credible is the fact that the do have credible information and it is easier to debunk thier information if you first “bloody” thier name,

When a person or group repeatedly engages in an unrepentant campaign of misinformation, the bloodying of their name as that misinformation is pointed out is entirely self-inflicted. They may not look as damaged as they are before the truth comes to light, but the damage caused by their intellectual dishonesty was already present, just waiting to be revealed.

then use an unrealetd counter attack with information not based on thier own statements

?!? - My discussions of the flaws of Brady material have primarily focused on the material Brady itself presented. Are you saying that revealing the footnoted studies in the Brady materials do not claim to measure what Brady suggests is unrelated to Brady’s use of that material?

but from a third source, that is using a third source,

Again, where have I done this in relation to my dissections of the flaws in the Brady materials? It appears you are making yet another false claim about what I have done to try to justify your own intellectual dishonesty.

claiming superiour knowledge,

I am probably much less versed on the particulars of gun legislation in the US and the UK than Sixtus, Melensdad, and Sir Knight. I am skilled at identifying logical fallacies, but that knowledge is readily available; even I work with a reference sheet to get the taxonomy correct when specifying a particular fallacy for those individuals who do not respond to more generic exhortations to not put one’s conclusions before the evidence.

for it is better for people not to read thier reports(Brady), for they(Brady) just might be right?Otherwise you tell us, "don’t believe that, let my emotions think for you."

I’ve said nothing of the sort, and further, there is no way to explain me citing the particular flawed premises of some of the Brady materials you have presented (and repeatedly abandoned) if I hadn’t read them well enough to identify those same errors as the rules of logical debate and factual competence applied to them…

Myself, I think people should read from both sources, that is what I do.

Perhaps, but based on the limited responses you have made to the critiques of the documents you are citing in waves, it appears you are not even reading what your own sources are saying to realize the criticisms being presented are taken directly from the sources you are citing.

For those that can read for themselves;

You have used this particular form of ad hominem repeatedly, starting very early in the thread. Why to you keep doing so knowing what it is?

CONCEALED TRUTH
Concealed Weapons Laws and Trends in Violent Crime in the United States

It appears you are trying to flood the thread with citations you have no interest in defending the contents of, or even examining for logical consistency before posting them. Tactics like this which make it clear someone is arguing in bad faith is not a logical fallacy in its own right, as the person using those tactics has abandoned any pretense of trying to abide by the rules of logical debate. The rules for dealing with bad faith tactics in argumentation are simple, straightforward, and widely accepted. For the symptoms you are presenting, those being subjected to bad faith tactics are not obliged to continue responding until the ad hominems are apologized for, the false accusations are retracted, and an clear effort is made to start defending previously challenges and abandoned citations to establish that the bad faith tactics are being abandoned.

 

[Bennie_P]

?!? - My discussions of the flaws of Brady material have primarily focused on the material Brady itself presented. Are you saying that revealing the footnoted studies in the Brady materials do not claim to measure what Brady suggests is unrelated to Brady’s use of that material?
Again, where have I done this in relation to my dissections of the flaws in the Brady materials? It appears you are making yet another false claim about what I have done to try to justify your own intellectual dishonesty.
I’ve said nothing of the sort, and further, there is no way to explain me citing the particular flawed premises of some of the Brady materials you have presented (and repeatedly abandoned) if I hadn’t read them well enough to identify those same errors as the rules of logical debate and factual competence applied to them…

Below is the very first post you made about the Brady organization, which trigger an uproar to the use of Brady information. Funny I don’t see any intellectual and reasonable dissectations of the information, but a straw man attack of the organzation - you can go ahead and talk about intellectual dishonesty and keep repeating accustions of falsehood and try to present yourself as morally superior and intellectually honest.

Bennie: Quoting stuff prepared by the Brady campaign about firearms use is the logical equivalent of using stuff prepared by Jack Chick about Catholicism. Beyond their selective reporting, Brady has been caught flat-out lying too many times, to the point that you’ve lowered your credibility by presenting their prepared materials as relevant.

You are in my prayers.

Oh, I appoligize it was one of the other posters that used the term “Brady Bunch”

 

[Bennie_P]

These are really false anolgies, these are my answers to defute them.

Because there is no way to do that. As I have mentioned before, I’ve made a firearm from scratch, using metal I bought at a junk yard and tools I bought at a local hardware store.
How would any firearms regulations prevent a criminal from doing the same.

If a crimianl has that much initiative, we will have to show him how to use in for a more positive vocation before we let him out of prison.

The only really effective deterent is for the attacker to know that their intended victim has a good chance of being armed, or that the people nearby are armed.

Think about it Bennie, is a thief going to risk their life on a mugging if they think they have a good chance of being shot in the process?.

Sure, but he is more likey to walk up behind and shoot you in the head then take what is yours, or just shoot you without warning and still take what is yours. Esculation of aggression.

Or how about the violent ex-boyfriend, how likely is he to try and hurt his ex, knowing that she keeps a .45 in a pocket and a shotgun by the bed?.

He shoots her from a distance with rifle. Or catches her a sleep and kill her with her own weapons.

No more so than a Marine relishes the idea of going into battle. They recognize it’s a necessary evil that they might have to do. But the very fact that the US HAS Armed Forces prevents conflicts./…

Have you heard of Iraq? Having an Army didn’t prevent that one. How about Vietnam? Having an Army only means we are ready to use one.

Do you really think the Russians stayed out of Europe out of benevolence? Or was it the fact that NATO had weapons.The same is true for personal defence. We carry them because it’s the best way to deter agrression and hope to God we never have to use them.

What happen between the US and the USSR is we literilly financially bankrupt them with an arms race. They built more weapons, we built more weapons,we did this until they couldn’t afford it anymore. I don’t think we can use the same strategy with street criminals. But also, the Russians they almost bled us to death by proxy, it was called Vietnam. We deterered bloodshed in Europe, but we lost over 50,000 Americans during the war and it cost who knows how many millions of Vietnamese north, south, soldiers and civilians.

The military anology is just another way to show an attitude that leads to esculation of violence, not deterence. the relationship between the two really doesn’t work, besides if we had the choose we would disarm our enemies if we could.

I hope I’m a little clearer this time around.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Below is the very first post you made about the Brady organization, which trigger an uproar to the use of Brady information. Funny I don’t see any intellectual and reasonable dissectations of the information, but a straw man attack of the organzation - you can go ahead and talk about intellectual dishonesty and keep repeating accustions of falsehood and try to present yourself as morally superior and intellectually honest.

Your posting of that Brady resource in post #244 was actually one of the first examples of you circling back to presenting an arguemnt you’d previously abandoned without having addressed the criticisms made previously. You’d originally posted that same document as part of you post #186, but totally ignored problems with it that were addressed in post #188. Further, in the post immediately prior to mine, #245, Melensdad had already challenged yet more of the logic used in that particular citation following you posting it a second time in your post #244. There was no obligation for me to repeat the same criticism he provided as I was essentially following up with what I intended to be a gentle pointer that most Brady materials I’d encountered had problems of that nature. I saw the challenges that had been made, and a follow-up based on those challenges presumes their inclusion in the additional point I wanted to stress before things got out of hand. Melensdad then pointed out yet another misrepresentation n his post #247, but instead of answering the criticisms either Vern or Melensdad had presented, your sole response was to focus on denying behaviors of Brady that were already evident in the criticisms that had already been made. However, It doesn’t matter as to which one of us you ignored when presenting criticisms of Brady/HCI’s talking point,s, because your obligation to address or retract was already in effect.
%between%In post #258 Melensdad dissected several of four false claims Brady/HCI has made repeatedly. In post #259 you made a claim (really a mild ad hominem) that gun owners had an “opposition to all and any type of guncontrol”, but you never made any further mention of the challenges made to the Brady material you had endorsed.

At that point I believe most of us were working under the hope that you were agreeable to a pursuit of truth and a self-imposed effort at accuracy and acting in good faith, an attitude that you and I both voiced specific agreement to in posts 270, 272 and 273. Also in post #273, in a hope to cement the idea that Brady materials needed to be considered carefully (presuming your lack of addressing the previous criticisms were was a retraction by silence rather than simply avoiding the challenges in hopes to try again, I pointed out similar issues with two other fact sheets of theirs, dealing with Australia and Risks of Guns in the Home.

Shortly thereafter you put forth a theory attempting to tie profiting from weapons proliferation in post 280 that appeared to be a total fabrication that was quite obviously based on no research at all, but then made no reference at all (not even an acknowledgment) to the posts pointing out the errors of fact in your conjecture, and in fact didn’t post at all until post 320.

As the thread went on, your constant repetitions of the same types of flawed logic, with you abandoning one claim after another as the flaws in that thinking were questioned, has forced the other participants to adopt a steadily more formal approach in an attempt to keep the debate civil despite your increasingly obvious personal attacks, source flooding, and intentional errors of fact, something that has become very difficult to do as you have more recently dramatically increased your use of patently false statements about them or what they had said even a post or two before.

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

Due to the increasing acrimony and virtual exhaustion of the subject (after some several hundred posts), I’m afraid this thread has reached its end. Thank you to all who participated, this thread is now closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary