• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 150]

Re: Lone Star College Shooting

Did you notice how you just excluded anything anyone could every post, just before you feigned open-mindedness?

You betray yourself.

I did not notice it because I did not do it

Now, if you can post that proof that doesnt rely on the c=c fallacy, I would appreciate it
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting

I did not notice it because I did not do it
Yes you did, twice, right here:
You said

There is no such proof, and the only "evidence" of this is based on the fallacy that correlation = causation

However, if you have definitive proof that doesn't rely on the c=c fallacy, I'd like to see it

Now, if you can post that proof that doesnt rely on the c=c fallacy, I would appreciate it
Why are you asking for what you claim doesn't exist?
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting

So I see you are unable to post this non-c=c proof you claim exists.

You're asking for what you claim doesn't exist, and that doesn't make any sense.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting

You're asking for what you claim doesn't exist, and that doesn't make any sense.

I'm asking for what you claim does exist.

I am claiming that it doesn't exist, and your inability to post what you claim exists supports my argument that it doesn't exist
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Any particular reason why?

I was thing about you:

The estimates from their best models show right-to-carry laws associated with increases in 7 of 9 crimes studied, with the largest effect (+9 percent) being the crime many researchers would have hypothesized would increase – aggravated assaults

The 'Right to Carry' Fallacy - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com


Some academic studies that have rejected Lott's conclusions include the following. These studies contend that there seems to be little or no effect on crime from the passage of license-to-carry laws. Donohue's 2003 study finds a temporary increase in aggravated assaults.

More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Lott's study suffers from numerous methodological problems, which bias his results.

Lott does not properly control for factors, such as poverty, the illicit drug market, gang activity, which can affect crime. Lott uses methodology that was discredited over two decades ago by the National Academy of Sciences.

2. Lott does not prove that "more guns" cause "less crime", as implied by the title of his book. In fact, he provides no credible mechanism to describe this alleged phenomenon.

Were there more guns? Most surveys show either a decrease or no change in gun ownership. Since there aren't "more guns", Lott's entire argument is invalid. To find that the enactment of concealed-carry laws actually reduce crime, Lott assumes the following series of events:

"Shall-issue" law passes --> Increase number of permits issued --> Increase handgun carrying by citizens --> Increase use of handguns for self-defense against crime --> Criminal alter their behavior --> Change in rate and pattern of crime".

However, Lott investigates only the first and last steps in the process, providing little empirical evidence that any of the necessary intermediate steps occur as described above. Since many of these intermediate steps do not occur, as Lott assumes, Lott's conclusions fall short and can not be valid.

3. Lott avoids many implausible conclusions that can be obtained from his work.

According to Lott's data, middle-aged and elderly black women (as victims or perpetrators) have a greater effect on reducing the murder rate than young black males. Lott would have us believe that if law enforcement focused on the activities of middle-aged or elderly black women, we could dramatically reduce crime. Lott's data show that an increase in unemployment or a decrease in income level reduces crime. The data imply that we could reduce crime by firing people from their jobs.

Gunfree on Lott
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting

I'm asking for what you claim does exist.

I am claiming that it doesn't exist, and your inability to post what you claim exists supports my argument that it doesn't exist
You must think this my first debate or something :lol:

Every time some, on any topic, and on either side of a given topic, this isn't unique to any political group....says that no evidence exists for something, they always...always reject any and everything which is sourced after that statement.

You can go on thinking I have no such evidence, but as I posted a wall of all such evidence just last night on another thread, I know differently.

I'm not going to post it again on this thread because there is always the chance of getting points for spamming if I post my pre-written responces it to often.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

I was thing about you:

The estimates from their best models show right-to-carry laws associated with increases in 7 of 9 crimes studied, with the largest effect (+9 percent) being the crime many researchers would have hypothesized would increase – aggravated assaults

The 'Right to Carry' Fallacy - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com


Some academic studies that have rejected Lott's conclusions include the following. These studies contend that there seems to be little or no effect on crime from the passage of license-to-carry laws. Donohue's 2003 study finds a temporary increase in aggravated assaults.

More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Lott's study suffers from numerous methodological problems, which bias his results.

Lott does not properly control for factors, such as poverty, the illicit drug market, gang activity, which can affect crime. Lott uses methodology that was discredited over two decades ago by the National Academy of Sciences.

2. Lott does not prove that "more guns" cause "less crime", as implied by the title of his book. In fact, he provides no credible mechanism to describe this alleged phenomenon.

Were there more guns? Most surveys show either a decrease or no change in gun ownership. Since there aren't "more guns", Lott's entire argument is invalid. To find that the enactment of concealed-carry laws actually reduce crime, Lott assumes the following series of events:

"Shall-issue" law passes --> Increase number of permits issued --> Increase handgun carrying by citizens --> Increase use of handguns for self-defense against crime --> Criminal alter their behavior --> Change in rate and pattern of crime".

However, Lott investigates only the first and last steps in the process, providing little empirical evidence that any of the necessary intermediate steps occur as described above. Since many of these intermediate steps do not occur, as Lott assumes, Lott's conclusions fall short and can not be valid.

3. Lott avoids many implausible conclusions that can be obtained from his work.

According to Lott's data, middle-aged and elderly black women (as victims or perpetrators) have a greater effect on reducing the murder rate than young black males. Lott would have us believe that if law enforcement focused on the activities of middle-aged or elderly black women, we could dramatically reduce crime. Lott's data show that an increase in unemployment or a decrease in income level reduces crime. The data imply that we could reduce crime by firing people from their jobs.

Gunfree on Lott
Setting aside the topic for a moment.... Wikipedia is not a credible source. Most folks won't even read what you quote from Wiki, they will simply see that its wiki and dismiss it. You could be 100% right about something but fail a debate for sourcing wiki.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Setting aside the topic for a moment.... Wikipedia is not a credible source. Most folks won't even read what you quote from Wiki, they will simply see that its wiki and dismiss it. You could be 100% right about something but fail a debate for sourcing wiki.

As an overview source, Wikipedia is fine.

There are however two sources there as well. And Wiki gives links to others.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Wikipedia Deemed a Reliable Source for Political Information, According to Study

(Snip)


Like all encyclopedias Wikipedia should be used to get a general idea about a subject and then direct users to further sources. Most of all, Brown's study gives confidence that people can start getting more involved in politics by starting with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia deemed a reliable source for political information, according to study
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Gunfree-the stuff you cited is nothing more than a blog without an author's name

and it does not prove that gun control=crime control

fail
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

It's just not the place or it. Brains are not fully developed until the late twenties, so stupid is common. Stupid worries me more than criminal.

If they are old enough to go kill enemy's in the defense of the nation, they should be allowed the responsibility. I am of the opinion we don't give young people enough responsibility for there own lives and circumstance. Which is why people today have no concept of real responsibility. It is always someone else's fault is all we are teaching.

So you are correct in the "stupid" being rampant in the late 20's. So we need to show them we can trust them to be responsible. And face the repercussion's if they are not.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

As an overview source, Wikipedia is fine.
When you source a site, you're saying your claim is true because your source says so.

Nothing is true because Wiki says so, because anyone can modify any wiki page to say anything they want. Wiki is not subject to the scientific method, most notably wiki is not subject to peer review or independent falsification.

You source wiki, someone else sources Harvard, you could actually be correct but you would fail the debate because Harvard has a wealth of credibility while wiki has non.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

And that's another thing: blogs are opinion, not fact, which is why DebatePolitics.com has one Breaking News forum for legitimate news outlet and another Braking News forum for blogs.

When you say your opinion is true because someone else has the same opinion, that doesn't mean either of you are factually accurate, that only means the two of you share the same opinion. You could both be wrong.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

When you source a site, you're saying your claim is true because your source says so.

Nothing is true because Wiki says so, because anyone can modify any wiki page to say anything they want. Wiki is not subject to the scientific method, most notably wiki is not subject to peer review or independent falsification.

You source wiki, someone else sources Harvard, you could actually be correct but you would fail the debate because Harvard has a wealth of credibility while wiki has non.

No, you should investigate use of sources more. Wiki and encyclopedias are used as an overview. They give an overview of all he aspects of the debate, citing other sources.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

And that's another thing: blogs are opinion, not fact, which is why DebatePolitics.com has one Breaking News forum for legitimate news outlet and another Braking News forum for blogs.

When you say your opinion is true because someone else has the same opinion, that doesn't mean either of you are factually accurate, that only means the two of you share the same opinion. You could both be wrong.

Again, it lays out the argument concisely, and cites where the more extensive work is. Linked above.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Here you're just throwing up a link without quoting the portion relevant to your point. In fact, you aren't even stating a point in that post at all.

Apart and aside from debate and guns and what anyone's opinion is, that's just poor communication skills in general.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

And that's another thing: blogs are opinion, not fact, which is why DebatePolitics.com has one Breaking News forum for legitimate news outlet and another Braking News forum for blogs.

When you say your opinion is true because someone else has the same opinion, that doesn't mean either of you are factually accurate, that only means the two of you share the same opinion. You could both be wrong.


Its funny but the gun haters cannot find any study that accurately demonstrates that gun restrictions make us safer. The ARC tried after the AWB and Brady bill was passed-a noted anti gun research organization could only find that the brady waiting period MAY Have decreased suicides in one age cohort (a five year span)
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Again, it lays out the argument concisely, and cites where the more extensive work is. Linked above.
And it does you no good here.

Here is where you are supposed to lay out the argument concisely, not link to somewhere off DebatePolitics.com where the argument can be found. The point of this site is to have the argument here.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

If they are old enough to go kill enemy's in the defense of the nation, they should be allowed the responsibility. I am of the opinion we don't give young people enough responsibility for there own lives and circumstance. Which is why people today have no concept of real responsibility. It is always someone else's fault is all we are teaching.

So you are correct in the "stupid" being rampant in the late 20's. So we need to show them we can trust them to be responsible. And face the repercussion's if they are not.

There's a reason why prisons are a growth industry in this country. But, I prefer others not pay for their lack of responsibility.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Here you're just throwing up a link without quoting the portion relevant to your point. In fact, you aren't even stating a point in that post at all.

Apart and aside from debate and guns and what anyone's opinion is, that's just poor communication skills in general.

It's covered in an earlier link. I assumed you wanted the enter work instead of then overview.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

And it does you no good here.

Here is where you are supposed to lay out the argument concisely, not link to somewhere off DebatePolitics.com where the argument can be found. The point of this site is to have the argument here.

I have laid it out concisely. There is much supporting it as well, which s what I was trying to show, the an overview.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Here you're just throwing up a link without quoting the portion relevant to your point. In fact, you aren't even stating a point in that post at all.

Apart and aside from debate and guns and what anyone's opinion is, that's just poor communication skills in general.

But if you want a quite:

Errors aside, the fundamental problem with Lott’s research can be summarized by the old social science adage “correlation is not causation.” Many variables may be related to one another yet not cause one another. For example, there is a significant association between a child’s shoe size and the child’s writing ability. But this correlation, of course, does not prove that large shoes improve writing ability.7



Exactly what I laid out for you earlier
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Its funny but the gun haters cannot find any study that accurately demonstrates that gun restrictions make us safer. The ARC tried after the AWB and Brady bill was passed-a noted anti gun research organization could only find that the brady waiting period MAY Have decreased suicides in one age cohort (a five year span)
Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers.
Luke, 6:44


I'm putting out Harvard, FBI, CDC, quoting state laws and SCOTUS decisions...and all the anti-gunners are using is wiki and a couple kook blogs.

#lowinformationvoters
 
Back
Top Bottom