Well, duuh,, Neaux Schitt..
So?

 So it applies directly to your assessment of believing in something that is "in opposition to what every statistical metric says."

 Should the lack of carnage be Observed, even if there are criminal events like mass shootings or criminal shootings, or even add in suicide?   If so how do they explain the lack of deaths where 90% of the population carry guns?


 Even without the metrics, lets just say those metrics are claimed to be false/wrong/NRA lies/Government supplied whatever, how can any reasonable human look around and not realize the difference between an area where guns are allowed and an area where they aren't?

And what are YOU doing? Arguing against freedom? Quite the Patriot you are.

 Are you trying to make this an argument?  I've said nothing, absolutely nothing about pro-gun control measures being a positive action or removing freedoms of any kind.  Not one of my words indicate that in any way.

 I'm asking should the lack of carnage be Observed, even if there are criminal events like mass shootings or criminal shootings, or even add in suicide?  

 If so how do they (pro-gun control) explain the lack of deaths where 90% of the population carry guns?

 How do they account for the lack of dead bodies when 90% of the population (in specific regions) have guns?

 My experience is they say the data is inaccurate.  It's not reliable becuase it's provided by official government numbers, NRA, etc.

 But the lack of dead bodies from gun violence seems to be ignored.  

 90% of the population have guns, = less gun deaths.

 Lower % of the population have guns = more gun deaths.

 Sounds like that experiment you were talking about.  Seems that one could use the number of actual dead bodies to predict if a city has high-gun control or low-gun control measures.

 Another question though is how critical should we be of counter-evidence?  We can't deny mass-shootings happen, so should we be critical of evidence like mass-shooting numbers in other countries?  Or shooting death numbers in areas where the numbers are drastically inaccurate.  Like saying hundreds of "mass shootings" happen annually and there's video footage of shootings that happened outside of a year, or "annual" parameter.  Should that be scrutinized or just accepted as part of the gun-control's point of guns=violence?

Eegore wrote on 08/05/24 at 11:37:01:


I apologize. I was being defensive. And, it Is that Experiment I was talking about. The thing is, most people don't See the data and Observed Reality as the data generated from a Laboratory Experiment. Just like college chemistry, and every endeavor I've gone at, observation is The First Rule of Science. If you're a mechanic, you're operating scientifically. Or you're getting your AssKikkt.
Being observant matters. When we had to take a test tube with three elements in it and figure out what they were, I looked at all of the tubes, and looked at the bottom shelf of the roll about. Jars,labeled Jars,, that were used to make up the tubes. I grabbed a tube with three layers,as they all had, but I looked for three dissimilar layers, looked at the jars,wrote the names, went and tested for those. Bingo.
Grades came out. Dr. Taylor asked
Who used the jars??

I was the only one.

You Can pay attention and be deceived.
But the odds of figuring it out, whatever IT is, is pretty slim if you're not paying attention.

What Counter Evidence? When anyone who Wants to carry,openly, can,and many others are carrying concealed, AND people aren't shooting each other at birthday parties, not a buncha drive bys.. But where having a gun is ILLEGAL, right frikking Now ,,or close to it,,
That is where the Three Day Weekend shooting numbers make national news.


 Lets say they show a video where 9 mass shootings are recorded on cellphones or surveillance cameras.  The claim is they were within the past year, but in reality only 2 were.  

 Wouldn't that be considered counter evidence?  The point would be that mass shootings do indeed happen and there are indeed victims, even if those 9 shootings didn't actually happen in the timespan claimed.  The claim that guns are dangerous and should be controlled is still proven right?



Where gun control is most restrictive is where the most trouble is.
The opposite is also true.

How about everyone just admit the obvious..
Howboutthat?


 Agreed.  Like admitting that if just a small percentage of legal gun owners were using guns to commit crimes (thus guns/ownership being the problem) there would be tons of dead humans anywhere there were a large amount of guns.  Like daily shooting reports, in high gun ownership areas with little to no Government restrictions.



Ohh! Wouldn't finding one or two exceptions nullify what is obvious?
No,,
Pretending something is not good enough because it can't be proven Perfect
When it would So Obviously make things so much better
Is something only a lefty could do.


 So drudging up an internet article of a guy buying 500 bullet-proof backpacks for kids (the kind where the plate goes into the spine of the bag) is proof that gun ownership is the problem isn't exactly proof that owning guns with little Government restriction is a problem?

I'm waiting for the gun control supporting lefties to admit the obvious.

 Well it should be obvious why they don't.  It is the same reasons you won't admit there are not anymore Observable dead kids from vaccinations.

 Dead bodies mean nothing.  "every statistical metric" means nothing, because they decided beforehand that guns = bad.  No amount of reduced crime will change their minds just as no amount of healthy kids will change yours.

 The numbers I used for the gun ownership statistics and crime results are actually Covid vaccination statistics.  Over 90% of kids in your region are vaccinated, yet every statistical matrix shows a 0% increase in child fatalities.  

 Even if those metrics are wrong, no reasonable human can ignore that there are no additional obituaries, funerals, shortages in schools etc.  Not one.  Not one Observable source shows more dead kids.  Just as not one Observable source shows more crime where there is less gun-control.

 But there are still those humans that claim kids are collapsing to the ground dead.  The evidence is a series of videos of kids where 7 out of 9 happened before Covid.  Yet it's garbage evidence for gun-control to use 7 out of 9 incorrect references for mass-shootings.  


 If you wouldn't accept evidence that a guy buying bullet-proof backpacks is "proof" of a need for gun-control, then why would someone accept evidence that a guy buying child caskets is proof vaccinations are killing kids?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-casket-maker-says-demand-for-child...

 There's no additional dead kids INSIDE those caskets.  Just as there are not additional victims of gun-crime INSIDE high-gun ownership regions.  

 Lefties will admit low-gun control regions have less crime on the same day you admit high-vaccination regions don't have more dead kids.  The strategies to combat the statistical metrics is almost identical.

 You want to know why gun-control idiots won't accept that in low-gun-control regions there are not more Observable dead bodies.  The same reason you won't Observe there aren't more dead kids in high-vaccine areas, like where you live.  


Evidence that PROVES what I am saying exists.

 Yeah some videos of kids dying before 2019.  Where are the dead kids in 2020 or after?  If just .03% of kids died from the vaccine we'd have had thousands of them.  Thousands.  Where are they?

 I make the same argument about gun-control, if just 1% of gun owners in low/no-gun control regions killed someone - we'd have hundreds per-day dying.  Where are they?  


It requires some willingness to believe the jabs have been a very bad idea, because the Authorities whose numbers You so joyfully cited are Bullschitt.

 Except I worked to change the counting methods in my State because the data was incorrect, a fact you refuse to Observe.  You refuse to Observe this so you can continue to falsely claim I cited official numbers as being accurate.  I said your numbers were inaccurate, NOT that "official numbers" were.



The difference is DECADES of data. The number of shot and killt'em Daid in The Most Restrictive places is obvious.

 Decades of data shows that the number one killer of young athletes dropping on the field was heart problems.  It's obvious, it's been an issue for decades, an entire medical field has been dedicated to this.

 Did you know the data-set you provided of all the young-dead athletes actually has 5 names of Olympians currently competing?  That proof is what you want people to use?

 This is no different than gun-control ignoring that mass-shooting "victims" numbers exceed actual dead humans, because those victims are actually alive.  Would you accept that as evidence?



The Evidence that the jabs were a mistake exists. It Requires Wanting to piece it together.

 Evidence does exist but it exists primarily in adult males in their 40's.  Not in kids with heart inflammation.  You refuse to Observe there are no additional dead kids in your area.  Just as gun-control refuses to Observe low-gun control regions do not have additional deaths.

 That's the same thing.  Refusing to Observe the lack of actual real dead bodies.


Why are YOU arguing For what is clearly a failure?
Explain THAT.

 I'm not.  Nothing I have said is pro-gun control.  Nothing.  You just won't accept that I think gun-control is wrong AND vaccine related deaths in kids is also wrong.  

  I am not pro-gun-control, I just think the logic used to deny the lack of real dead bodies is the same.

Ohh,Lookie, Pictures!

So?
What does it say To You that supports your continued support for gun control. Use words.