Jump to content
...ken there are plenty of more recent articles addressing the misinformation about the post office if you choose to go there and risk your outlook on the world. Here is a link (horses mouth) and there are many more that show why Fox Entertainment News offers very little when it comes to actual facts. As I said previously if you can come up with a single credible link to support your truthiness about the post office please do so, otherwise you are offering nothing more than an opinion of which you are surely entitled to (just like Fox) just don't expect it to be taken as fact by most people who are capable of thinking for themselves.
Ken there is no debating when the other side makes up their own facts and if you are offended by my referring to your news source as Entertainment News then you need to acquire some thicker skin. Even Fox admits to being more Entertainment then news. Look it up but be prepared to offend your own sensibilities.
Misinformed as usual, your truthiness about all things government whether it's your paranoid delusion of the gov't wanting to take everyone's guns or the post office being a drain on taxpayers... it all seems to fit rather nicely with your Fox Entertainment News outlook on the world. Unfortunately facts are very stubborn things. This is just one of many factual links revealing what is actually happening with the U.S.,Postal Service. Please come up with something that discredits these facts other than a Fox Entertainment News sound bite.
"We'll be Steamboat rather than somewhere we're not." That could well be a Yogi-ism ie "déjà vu all over again" and many more. Too many trips on the Gondoobie? Sorry Rob, I realize that quote was probably taken out of context but it was just too good to pass up. Hopefully you are laughing all the way to the bank. Congratulations and good luck!
Name the last mass shooting stopped by a civilian with a gun. Even though there are nearly as many guns as every man, woman and child in this country not a single one of the recent mass killings were lessened by your so called good guy with a gun. And yet your answer is still more guns, maybe we should have them in place or side by side with AED's for heart attack victims although neither is of any use with real trauma. Now there is a great marketing campaign for the NRA, a gun (available for life support) in every public and government building. Heck they are already legal just about everywhere except the halls of congress and why is that. Curious indeed!
Now you are back to the Truthiness argument using common sense and your higher intellect. You are indeed quite handy with that shovel, keep digging. Enough said, time to wind down from this over caffeinated, spiraling, clown dunking contest. Best wishes Ken!
What else you got Ken?
Regression to the Mean, Murder Rates, and Shall-Issue Laws
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/000313008X362446#.VBi20fldXVY (Briefly mentioned in footnote 91)
The Effect of Nondiscretionary Concealed Carry Laws on Homicide
Hepburn, Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15128143 (Not Included)
Myths of Murder and Multiple Regression
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm (Not included)
Flawed gun policy research could endanger public safety
Webster, Vernick, Ludwig, and Lester
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.918 (Not included)
Two Guns, Four Guns, Six Guns, More Guns: Does Arming the Public Reduce Crime?
Concealed Handguns: The Counterfeit Deterrent
Zimring and Hawkins
The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=431220 (Included and mentioned on the list, but not given a number)
An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates
Rosengart, Cummings, Nathens, Heagerty, Maier, Rivara
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730198/pdf/v011p00077.pdf (Not included)
One of these two studies (they both occur in the same year in the same journal, so it isn’t possible to determine which one Lott is excluding, as he only lists one):
Yet Another Refutation of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis — With Some Help From Moody and Marvell
Ayres and Donohue
http://econjwatch.org/articles/yet-another-refutation-of-the-more-guns-less-crime-hypothesis-with-some-help-from-moody-and-marvell (Not included)
Like I said Dr. lott is nothing more than a shill for the gun lobby and has been identified as such by all but the gun lobby itself. Case closed!
"David Hemenway from the Harvard School of Public Health, writes a similarly devastating review of “More Guns, Less Crime” in his book, Private Guns, Public Health. He argues that there are five main ways to determine the appropriateness of a statistical model: “(1) Does it pass the statistical tests designed to determine its accuracy? (2) Are the results robust (or do small changes in the modeling lead to very different results)? (3) Do the disaggregate results make sense? (4) Do results for the control variables make sense? and (5) Does the model make accurate predictions about the future?” John Lott’s model appears to fail every one of these tests."
Case in point Ken, your cherry picking of supposed facts can be revealed for what it is in less time than it takes to reload a glock.
"His daunting resume fails to tell the entire story. While his initial research was groundbreaking, further examination revealed numerous flaws. Today the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis has been thoroughly repudiated. On closer inspection his impressive credentials reveal an academic nomad, never able to secure a place in academia. His ethical transgressions range from accusations of fabricating an entire survey, to presenting faulty regressions, to creating elaborate online personas to defend his work and bash critics, to trying to revise his online history to deflect arguments. And this doesn’t even begin to cover the whole host of false claims and statistics he has peddled repeatedly in articles and TV appearances."
As always Emotions come into play on all sides of any issue but facts are facts. You throw your expert out there supporting your beliefs and I do the same and unfortunately people don't do their own research to see who is subsidizing these supposedly unbiased facts/opinions. After all we are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts and unfortunately that doesn't seem to resonate with many whether it's the science on global climate change, hard facts on gun laws and deaths, growing economic inequality, deficit spending in a recession or trickle down economics. I think Stephen Colbert summed it up pretty well with his word "TRUTHINESS" which unfortunately applies to many arguments similar to your own. Best wishes.
Last login: today
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |