The correlation between guns and mass murders

No; one that doesn't involve the deity commanding his followers to conquer nations that don't kowtow to him.
Then I have good news for you indeed! Because he doesn't require that.
Maybe the Romans could have refrained from conquering everything they set eyes on... if only there were a god to tell them not to.
Yeah, when Donald Trump suggest that we not do that as a nation his detractors seem to find fault with it. Why do you suppose that is? You remember that policy "America first?"
 
I mean...what source DO you trust on this information then? Your own intuition? What link do you have that shows the opposite of the info I gave you?
The better question is why DO you "trust" any news source nowadays? I don't.

They tried to build my trust and then they went ahead and instituted "fact checkers" drawn from among themselves. It can't get any clearer than that, university man.

It's ok if YOU trust them though, what is it to me?
 
Then you're an idiot.

Idiots think stuff like objectivity, trustworthiness, bias and credibility are binary. ie. you've either got it, or you don't.

The reality is that all four things lie on a sliding scale. A person can be somewhat trustworthy or somewhat biased (for example).

I’m an idiot for thinking it’s important to know what a source’s political bias is?

Go jump in a lake you clown. That’s EXACTLY what people should be doing when consuming “news”. If you don’t do that then YOU’RE the idiot.
 
The better question is why DO you "trust" any news source nowadays? I don't.

They tried to build my trust and then they went ahead and instituted "fact checkers" drawn from among themselves. It can't get any clearer than that, university man.

It's ok if YOU trust them though, what is it to me?

This is why I compare stories from different political angles to see what’s lining up and making sense. I’m skeptical by nature.
 
If I know what bias they have, why does it matter if I know the name?

It means you have NO IDEA where you’re even getting your information from. But hey, as long as it agrees with your political bias, it’s all good, right?

I just want you to consider, if you will, how this would sound to you if a liberal was giving you all the same reasoning that you are right now - that they don’t even check their sources, they don’t even know what their sources are, but they just keep getting a steady stream of left wing articles in their news feed (thank you social media algorithms) and never even bother to check any of it but think it’s all good simply because it agrees with their political views.

You’d likely think that’s just incomprehensible that someone would do that.

Well….. same thing here.
 
I use some local commentators that you probably do not know. Plus beyond the initial reporting i pay scant attention to any analysis or commentary.

So the stuff in your news feed is just initial reporting stuff?

That’s…. Highly unlikely.

And local news doesn’t really cover national stuff unless it’s super big.
 
This is why I compare stories from different political angles to see what’s lining up and making sense. I’m skeptical by nature.
Well sure, see the story from all sides, look at the facts alone (if they leak them), make up your own mind.

That about sums it up*, perhaps the best you'll get in today's world.

*Blindly following the BBC is always an option.
 
I’m an idiot for thinking it’s important to know what a source’s political bias is?

Go jump in a lake you clown. That’s EXACTLY what people should be doing when consuming “news”. If you don’t do that then YOU’RE the idiot.

@mikeT - I see now that you’re struggling with Covid and you may not have been quite yourself when posting this. So you get a mulligan here.

And….I hope you feel better soon. For real. Nobody needs to feel lousy like this. :-(
 
Last edited:
There is no basis in fact from which to make the assertion it prevents transmission.
Yes, there is. We have almost two years of field data. But I noticed you changed the words into "prevents transmission". The claim is that the vaccine reduces transmission (not prevents), and data show that it does.


So you want us to believe the science, until the science didn't even consider a question,
No, the clinical trials did not consider the question of community transmission. That does not mean science doesn't consider the question.

and then we're supposed to believe whatever it is that you say, instead of the science.
I am reporting what the science says. So don't bother to say "instead".


Thanks for that spectacular example of Crystal clear thinking.
You're welcome.

That is among the more stupid things that we will ever hear asserted on this thread I'm sure for the next 12 months. Scientists do in fact design tests for precisely this kind of thing.
Yes, they design tests of community spread - after the vaccine is available in the community. The clinical trials before any kind of release have a much narrower focus. This narrower focus is natural to observe in times of crisis when a lengthy trial for unnecessary factors (like community spread) would cost many lives because of the delay.


If you think that the scientific method includes rolling and untested vaccine out into the community and seeing "what happens" you're out of your stark raving mind.
The vaccine was not "untested". It was very thoroughly tested for safety - the most important factor. It also was tested for effectiveness at reducing symptomatic infection, which it also passed.


At the bottom of every one of these stupid fact checks is a restatement of the question which completely changes the question. Here's how they do it in this fact check:

"posts claiming that a Pfizer executive “admitted” the company did not test its COVID vaccine’s ability to prevent virus transmission before receiving marketing approval imply that the company had been required to do so or claimed to have done so,"​
The requirement to test transmissibility was no part of the argument and absolutely no part of the implication.
Yet "transmissibility" is the very factor that you are complaining was not tested. So yes, in your argument it very much is the implied criticism.
 
Yes, there is. We have almost two years of field data. But I noticed you changed the words into "prevents transmission". The claim is that the vaccine reduces transmission (not prevents), and data show that it does.



No, the clinical trials did not consider the question of community transmission. That does not mean science doesn't consider the question.


I am reporting what the science says. So don't bother to say "instead".



You're welcome.


Yes, they design tests of community spread - after the vaccine is available in the community. The clinical trials before any kind of release have a much narrower focus. This narrower focus is natural to observe in times of crisis when a lengthy trial for unnecessary factors (like community spread) would cost many lives because of the delay.



The vaccine was not "untested". It was very thoroughly tested for safety - the most important factor. It also was tested for effectiveness at reducing symptomatic infection, which it also passed.



Yet "transmissibility" is the very factor that you are complaining was not tested. So yes, in your argument it very much is the implied criticism.
So there is never any disagreement in science. All the scientists think alike
 
What part are you addressing as it relates to slavery in the Constitution? What part of the constitution codifies slavery? Your quote was below and you used slavery as an analogy to gun rights.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The term "3/5 of all other persons" is notable not because the 3/5 fraction is less than 1, but because it acknowledges that such people (meaning slaves) have a legally recognized status. If the founding fathers truly understood the immorality of slavery the way we do today they would not have made any distinction between slaves and "free Persons."

As for the "analogy" with gun rights, I was not making an analogy. I was using the example of slavery to illustrate the fallibility of the founding fathers. If they could be fallible in this matter they could be fallible in other matters they decided.

This should not be construed as a general criticism of the founding fathers. I believe the for their time they created an extremely robust and admirable system of government that serves as a shining example to the rest of the world even today. The founding fathers made very few mistakes and put in place excellent mechanisms to deal with any mistakes they might have made. One of those mechanisms is the one by which Constitution may be amended. It is difficult - as it should be. The Constitution should not be amended by a passing whim. But it has been amended several times over the years, and I believe that as long as courts continue to interpret the 2nd amendment they way they are (as in the Heller decision) the time will come when it will be amended. Perhaps the 2nd amendment need not be fully repealed. Perhaps it will be narrowed so as to allow reasonable ownership of a gun along with reasonable regulations. We will see. But as far as the question of this thread is concerned, yes, there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence, including mass murders. Perhaps as a society we just have to accept the fact that having mass murders is just the price we need to pay for this very valuable right to walk around town imagining we are Walker Texas Ranger or Paladin or Rambo.


And slavery was not a fact of life at the time of the Constitution?
Yes, and I don't fault the founding fathers for being a product of their time. And I don't fault them for adding the 2nd amendment in their time. But now is not their time. Modern society is very different, and requires different rules.

How so? What is saturation level and who are you to say how many guns a citizen may legally own?
Me, I am no one. If a decision is made on owning guns it will not be made by me. It will be made by the people - with all of them having a say. As for the saturation level, you only have to compare the number of guns per person in the US and every other developed nation to see what a saturation level looks like.
 
Why should I trust your judgment of accuracy?
Ah, you don't trust anyone to see where you get your news from! You are not very confident in the reliability of your sources, are you? It is much easier to criticize the mainstream media as long as you don't have to hold up any other source for comparison!
 
Ah, you don't trust anyone to see where you get your news from! You are not very confident in the reliability of your sources, are you? It is much easier to criticize the mainstream media as long as you don't have to hold up any other source for comparison!
I have told you that I do not follow any particular source, I take the amalgamation of sources. I know that does not fit your preconceived narrative that you want to believe, but I do not care
 
Ah, you don't trust anyone to see where you get your news from! You are not very confident in the reliability of your sources, are you? It is much easier to criticize the mainstream media as long as you don't have to hold up any other source for comparison!
And I take note of what bias they have.
 
Back
Top