• 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!

Mass Shooters and Mental Health

He/she is not a doctor.

I have no idea why ultmd claims to be. BTW I am a doctor :mrgreen:

in laws

which is far more relevant to crime control issues than economists (most of the anti gun propagandists tend to be economics professors than actual medical doctors even though they often come from the Harvard school of public health etc)
 
Yawn.. to funny.. and I already answered the question about p value and alpha...

Oh, no you haven't. Just stop lying, please. At every turn, you have dodged the question, just as you are now. Instead of telling me your p-value and your alpha, you just googled some definitions and posted them. But as I noted earlier, the beauty of statistics is that simply knowing (or, in your case, "googling") formulas and definitions does NOT help you solve problems. So again I ask you Jaeger (what is this, about the 15th time now???)......given the data points you have available to you (i.e. 13 mass shootings over 10 years, followed by zero mass shootings in the 20 years since gun-control was passed in Australia), what is your p-value? What is your alpha? You should be able to tell me, with certainty, whether or not the change is statistically significant. Now stop ducking the questions and ANSWER THEM. What are you so afraid of, "doctor"?



My credibility on this forum has been well established. Yours? BWWWAAHHHHHHH... :lamo

:lamo "On this forum", huh? You mean this anonymous political message board? You're joking, right? Well....Umm....no sir. You have zero credibility, and anyone who tells you otherwise (and I seriously doubt many would) is either a fool, or a fellow wingnut (like you). Perhaps you have some credibility "on this forum" as a well-known right wing ideologue. That's about the extent of your "credibility". But as for science and research?? No sir. You are the same fake, wannabe, anonymous internet message board "doctor" that you were when this thread began, many weeks ago. Unfortunately for you, you got caught in your lies by someone who actually knows what he's talking about. The truth is that you were obviously PRETENDING to be a "expert" because you were hoping to give more authority to your point of view, which is ideology- and emotion-based. You're an NRA-nut, so your position on gun-control is totally immune to the facts. That the way most ideologues are.

In this one thread alone, you have LIED about being a doctor. You have LIED about being a published researcher. You have LIED about being an experience "peer-reviewer". You have LIED about having "read all of the research on gun control". You have LIED about your grasp of such BASIC scientific terminology as "statistical significance", "prevalence" and "validity". Hell, your very first attempt to reference the term "statistical significance" began with you coining the term "statistical effect" (which means NOTHING). And after I corrected you about that, you had the gall to pretend that you "really" understood it while I (the actual doctor in this discussion with a lengthy public health bibliography on his resume) was ignorant about it.

I will give you right wingers credit for one thing, though. It takes a special kind of shamlessness to be caught/exposed in lie, after lie, after lie...........and STILL pretend that you're winning the argument. It's how you guys have deluded yourselves about almost everything from Obamacare, to abortion, to immigration, to crime and gun control over the last generation or so. Most people would have been shamed, long ago. But not you guys. You don't seem to have any.
 
Personality disorders--Treatment for the 'untreatable'

I feel most of these people have personality disorders. And given what we know? I think it is a treatable, albeit difficult, treatment option. Give a read to this article and then let me know what you think we as a nation could do to provide treatment to people suffering from personality disorders?

Mental health? Let's just ignore it and go after teh gunz!
 
Oh, no you haven't. Just stop lying, please. At every turn, you have dodged the question, just as you are now. Instead of telling me your p-value and your alpha, you just googled some definitions and posted them. .

Yeah no. See.. this is why you have no credibility here. I don't "have a p value or alpha".. YOU sir are the one that took RAW data.. and stated it was statistically significant and proved that the Australian gun ban had an effect. And when I point out the fact that the N (number of data points) is so small that it would be hard to perform ANY valid test... you then start asking ME a questions. It pretty much proves that you are not a doctor nor a researcher. If you were.. you would understand what I just pointed out.

Tell you what.. how about you perform a test on the data, detail exactly why you are using that statisitical test.. describe your alpha and what P value you set and why, and your results. then we discuss. YOU are the one that made the claim that the RAW DATA.. proves you correct.

But we all know that you won't.. just like you didn't produce a lick of research that supports your premise. just like you failed multiple times to answer a basic hypothetical regarding statistical significance. You sir have been found out.

There is someone doing a lot of lying.. but its not me...
 
Yeah no. See.. this is why you have no credibility here.
:roll:Rewind...press play. Liars and anonymous fake "experts" don't get to question the credibility of others. You seem to be struggling with that reality. So sorry for you.

I don't "have a p value or alpha"..
:lamo Keep ducking, dodging and running, Jaeger. I love making you dance. ONCE AGAIN, when presented with the opportunity to show your grasp of BASIC statistics, you choose instead to deflect. That's a nice two-step you're doing. Truth is...you don't "have an p-value or alpha" because you don't have the first freaking clue about what they are. As I noted previously, the only thing you know about them is what you were able to cut-n-paste after googling those two terms. What a fraud you are. LOL.

YOU sir are the one that took RAW data.. and stated it was statistically significant and proved that the Australian gun ban had an effect. And when I point out the fact that the N (number of data points) is so small that it would be hard to perform ANY valid test... you then start asking ME a questions
Stop lying, Jaeger. Your words are right there in this thread for all to read. Do you deny saying this:
In 10 years there were ONLY 13 mass shootings. that number is so small.. that statistically any decrease after the law.. could simply be DUE TO CHANCE and have nothing to do with that law.
Did someone ghostwrite that for you, perhaps? :roll: Those were your words, to which I responded by pointing out that anyone with a basic understanding of statistics would not have to wonder whether, or not, the difference "could simply be due to chance". They would solve that problem and thus answer the question for themselves. But you can't do that, because you are CLUELESS about how to do so. And the sad truth is that the answer is so simple that your inability to provide it is CLEAR demonstration of ignorance, my fake "doctor" friend.

It pretty much proves that you are not a doctor nor a researcher. If you were.. you would understand what I just pointed out.
Your opinions don't count. You are the guy who lied about his "credentials" in this thread. I'm just the guy who exposed you for the fraud that you are. This is actually what is bothering you. But it's your problem, not mine. I'm the guy who blew your cover in this thread. And you'll never again be able to LIE about being a "doctor", because everyone now can see that you are just a garden-variety annonymous, wannabe, fake internet message board "expert".

Tell you what.. how about you perform a test on the data, detail exactly why you are using that statisitical test.. describe your alpha and what P value you set and why, and your results. then we discuss. YOU are the one that made the claim that the RAW DATA.. proves you correct.
:lamo No sir. I can't even give you credit for a 'nice try", here. The average 6th grader could have more cleverly attempted to flip the script than this, Jaeger. And "raw data"?? Why do pseudo-intellectual wingnuts always use these kinds of "nothing" words and phrases? I think you probably thought that "raw data" sounded "smart", when in reality it's a meaningless term. :roll: What "raw data"? I told you that you ABSOLUTELY can test for statistical significance based on the information available. It's an EASY calculation, Jaeger. Literally less than 60 seconds of your time. But I absolutely will NOT help you. You big fraudulent fibber, you. LOL.


But we all know that you won't.. just like you didn't produce a lick of research that supports your premise. just like you failed multiple times to answer a basic hypothetical regarding statistical significance. You sir have been found out.
The irony of this is obvious. Throughout this thread, you have responded to every direct question by asking me to answer the questions I have just asked of you. It's like I'm dealing with a recalcitrant teen, or something. No, I will not answer for you the very questions I am asking of you. Your challenge is to solve this SIMPLE problem of statistical significance, Jaeger; and I will not allow you to deflect from that. Sorry, but I will not allow your ignorance to also be your salvation.

There is someone doing a lot of lying.. but its not me...

No, it's you. You know it. I know it. And everyone who might read this thread will know it. You don't like it, and I understand that. But again, that's not my problem. Never, never, never..........NEVER EVER.......... LIE about yourself (especially when it comes to personal knowledge, experience and credentials) on a message board (or in life). You never know when a real expert might show up and blow your irrational, right wing, know-nothing, ideology-based lies out of the water. LOL.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea why ultmd claims to be. BTW I am a doctor :mrgreen:

in laws

which is far more relevant to crime control issues than economists (most of the anti gun propagandists tend to be economics professors than actual medical doctors even though they often come from the Harvard school of public health etc)

This is just dumb. The idea that attorneys are more qualified to discuss public policy related to "crime control" or gun-control, etc..........is absurd.

Sentencing and criminal justice reform, etc? Sure. That's where you and your fellow juris doctorate friends belong.

But public policy relate to the issue of gun-control???..........please. A lawyer is no more, nor less, qualified to determine public health policy than a plumber, an accountant......or my gardener, for that matter.

Hate to be the guy to inform you about this, but.........when it comes to public health policy, any legislation crafted will be based upon the academic research of public health professionals. The MORE our public officials base public health policy on that..........and the LESS they base it upon personal ideology........... the better those policies will be.
 
:roll:Rewind...press play. Liars and anonymous fake "experts" don't get to question the credibility of others. You seem to be struggling with that reality. So sorry for you.

.

Well then..you better stop questioning my credibility.. :mrgreen:

Did someone ghostwrite that for you, perhaps? Those were your words, to which I responded by pointing out that anyone with a basic understanding of statistics would not have to wonder whether, or not, the difference "could simply be due to chance". They would solve that problem and thus answer the question for themselves. But you can't do that, because you are CLUELESS about how to do so. And the sad truth is that the answer is so simple that your inability to provide it is CLEAR demonstration of ignorance, my fake "doctor" friend.

That's funny. Look man.. its fun to watch you twist. Anyhoo. IF you actually understood statistics.. you would realize that the N.. the amount of data is so small.. that there is not a valid test to perform on the data... Any effect seen could simply be due to chance.

That's a fact.. YOU sir can't answer that problem yourself. You made a huge assumption using raw data.. and you were called on it.. and you can't even back it up. That's why you refuse to choose a valid statistical test to use, and provide the results and your rationale for using that test.

No sir. I can't even give you credit for a 'nice try", here. The average 6th grader could have more cleverly attempted to flip the script than this, Jaeger. And "raw data"?? Why do pseudo-intellectual wingnuts always use these kinds of "nothing" words and phrases? I think you probably thought that "raw data" sounded "smart", when in reality it's a meaningless term. What "raw data"

Bingo. and another example of why you are not a "doctor" or a researcher. Raw data is a term that's used to describe data that has not been processed for use. (for example been turned into a mean).

The irony of this is obvious
.

Yes... you stated that you had all this research and castigated me for not asking for you to present it. I then asked you to present it.. and then you failed to produce ONE VALID RESEARCH PAPER.

You demanded research from me.. and I presented three research articles that showing that gun control does not work.

You however, produced nothing to that but insults. Heck.. the "evidence" that you presented concerning Klecks research? IT WASN"T EVEN ON THE RESEARCH PAPER I PRESENTED. Your critique was on ANOTHER PAPER ENTIRELY.

Then you castigate me for using "statistically significant" incorrectly... and THEN YOU PROCEEDED TO USE IT INCORRECTLY TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

Heck.. I tried to get you to demonstrate your knowledge of statistical significance with an easy example... and you ran like a frightened rabbit.

No, it's you

Nope.. the only one lying here is you. and you just keep proving it. I have to admit its fascinating for me to watch you go through your blustering. Even when you are completely caught in a lie.. you keep doubling down and making it worse. I find that fascinating.. the more you post.. the more interesting I become in your psychological profile. What's really interesting is that you keep ranting about "right wing" whatever.. but you keep emulating our current president's behavior.
 
Well then..you better stop questioning my credibility.. :mrgreen:

Sorry, but liars don't get to whine about their "credibility". Stop lying, and your credibility will not be an issue. Your problem in this thread has been that you can't defend your POLITICAL biases substantively, so you tried (and failed) to present yourself as an authority. You lied about yourself and your resume' because you knew you couldn't allow your POLITICAL views to stand on their own merits.

That's funny. Look man.. its fun to watch you twist.

Actually what is "funny" is watching you repeatedly attempt to repeat the things about you, back at me. Obviously, I've touched a few nerves.

Anyhoo. IF you actually understood statistics.. you would realize that the N.. the amount of data is so small.. that there is not a valid test to perform on the data... Any effect seen could simply be due to chance.

:lamo "N"? You can't tell me your alpha. You can't tell me your p-. But you argue that the sample size "could" be too small? Jaeger, you have EVERYTHING you need to test for the statistical significance of the change in mass shootings after the passage of their gun-control law. You can't do it, because you are a wannabe message board "expert" who got caught lying in this thread. LOL. Sample size is NOT a factor in this case. But even if it were, you could STILL test for statistical significance. THAT'S WHY YOU TEST FOR IT (i.e. statistical significance) in the first place, man! Seriously, the only thing funnier than seeing you embarrass yourself with your remarks....is the fact that you don't realize it.

That's a fact.. YOU sir can't answer that problem yourself. You made a huge assumption using raw data.. and you were called on it.. and you can't even back it up. That's why you refuse to choose a valid statistical test to use, and provide the results and your rationale for using that test.

LOL, Stop asking me to help you. You're the fake doctor who lied about his resume. I'm just the guy who called you out about it. And "Raw data" has NOTHING to do with this? When professionals hear people like you talking about "raw data" and "statistical effect" in the ways that you have, we just laugh. The FACT here is that the question CAN be answered, just NOT by someone like you. And I'll repeat again, the solution involves LESS than 5 minutes of your time-IF you knew what the hell you are talking about.

Bingo. and another example of why you are not a "doctor" or a researcher. Raw data is a term that's used to describe data that has not been processed for use. (for example been turned into a mean).

:lamoBingo? More like Bozo! But let's explore. Jaeger, you said I posted "raw data". Please provide the "raw data" that I posted and tell us how you know the sample size is to small. And remember, no part of your answer can involve any assumptions or guesses. Sufficient (or insufficient) sample size is NOT something you just make up in your own mind. It's something you TEST for, my fake "doctor" expert friend. So now, address the challenge above, and understand that you CANNOT assume, presume or guess. You must SOLVE for the answer. If you have even an undergraduate level understanding of stats, you'll know immediately what I'm talking about, and how to solve this problem. Perhaps you were a pre-med major who couldn't get into medical school? There's no shame in that, Jaeger. This is an EASY problem for anyone who took a stats 101 course in college. So, please do it. Just stop arguing that N "could be" too small. It makes you look like an idiot.

you ...castigated me
Then you castigate me for using "statistically significant" incorrectly...

:bs I "castigate" you because you are a simple, garden-variety NRA/2A wingnut who LIED about his background and "credentials" because he couldn't defend his wingnut ideology with the truth. You lied about being a doctor, and about being a published researcher, and about being an experienced peer-reviewer for a publication, and about having read "all of the research on gun control", etc. So you deserve to be castigated. I hope that helps you with your bruised ego.
 
:lamo "N"? You can't tell me your alpha. You can't tell me your p-. But you argue that the sample size "could" be too small? Jaeger, you have EVERYTHING you need to test for the statistical significance of the change in mass shootings after the passage of their gun-control law. You can't do it, because you are a wannabe message board "expert" who got caught lying in this thread. LOL. Sample size is NOT a factor in this case. But even if it were, you could STILL test for statistical significance. THAT'S WHY YOU TEST FOR IT (i.e. statistical significance) in the first place, man! Seriously, the only thing funnier than seeing you embarrass yourself with your remarks....is the fact that you don't realize it.
.

great. I challenge you to do so. YOU have made the claim that the raw data.. and that's what it is... proves your point and is statistically significant. And you have now claimed that everything is there for you to test for a causal relationship. Great.. then do so.. I challenge you to do so..

but we know what you will do.. and that is nothing. Because the reality is that you don't understand research and even statistics.

but go ahead... prove me wrong.. prove to us all that you have a statistical background.
 
great. I challenge you to do so.

LOL, of course you do. What else can you do, right? You sure as heck can't do it for yourself. That much is proven. So here's what I'm willing to offer you, Jaeger. If you will come clean and acknowledge that you are a fake, wannabe internet message board "expert" who was LYING about being a "doctor".........and that you were LYING about being a "published researcher" with a lengthy bibliography.........and that you were LYING about being an experience "peer-reviewer"...........and that you have background in basic statistics.............I am willing to help you solve the problem. Deal? Come clean, and I'll help you out on this.

YOU have made the claim that the raw data.. and that's what it is... proves your point and is statistically significant.

:roll: Is this your admission, Jaeger? If so, it's not good enough. You need to just fall on your sword and admit you are in over your skis in this discussion. Oh, and again I ask you.... what "raw data"? Show me what you're talking about. Since you are the only attempting to use that term....please explain yourself. I keep asking, and you keep dodging the question.

And you have now claimed that everything is there for you to test for a causal relationship. Great.. then do so.. I challenge you to do so..

I have to give you credit for one thing: If I knew I was as clueless about something as you are about this, I would be ashamed to ask for help from the same person I've been insulting for the last few weeks. But not you. However, the fact remains that this challenge is yours, not mine. That said, I am willing to let this smuggish nonsense slide, as long as you take the deal I'm considering. Without a show of humility from you, my uneducated, fake "doctor" friend, I will not help you. So 'fess up and allow me educate you, as the challenge here is for you, not me. You remind me of some of my cocky young medical residents and doctoral candidates all the time.......It's ok to be a little bit arrogant, as long as your work production backs you up. And it's ok to be a little bit ignorant, as long as you have enough humility to learn and be taught. But you can't be BOTH arrogant and ignorant and excel in our world (of science and medicine). There is no substitute for knowledge and skill in my world. BS always comes back to haunt you. Arrogance and Ignorance is a combination best featured in world of sales and marketing.

but we know what you will do.. and that is nothing. Because the reality is that you don't understand research and even statistics.

Again.......I'll give you another pass for this, as long as you take the deal and admit to being the lying, fake message board "doctor" that you are.

but go ahead... prove me wrong.. prove to us all that you have a statistical background.

See above. And you know what's really funny about it? Even when/if I show you, you STILL won't understand it. You'll just repeat what you got caught doing in the beginning of this thread....i.e. fake it, right "doctor"?

But anyway.........it is now your move. Do yourself a favor, take a deep-breath and choose wisely this time, "Dr. Doogie" It's the last olive branch I will be offering to you. :lamo
 
Last edited:
LOL, of course you do. What else can you do, right? You sure as heck can't do it for yourself. That much is proven. So here's what I'm willing to offer you, Jaeger. If you will come clean and acknowledge that you are a fake, wannabe internet message board "expert" who was LYING about being a "doctor".........and that you were LYING about being a "published researcher" with a lengthy bibliography.........and that you were LYING about being an experience "peer-reviewer"...........and that you have background in basic statistics.............I am willing to help you solve the problem. Deal? Come clean, and I'll help you out on this.



:roll: Is this your admission, Jaeger? If so, it's not good enough. You need to just fall on your sword and admit you are in over your skis in this discussion. Oh, and again I ask you.... what "raw data"? Show me what you're talking about. Since you are the only attempting to use that term....please explain yourself. I keep asking, and you keep dodging the question.



I have to give you credit for one thing: If I knew I was as clueless about something as you are about this, I would be ashamed to ask for help from the same person I've been insulting for the last few weeks. But not you. However, the fact remains that this challenge is yours, not mine. That said, I am willing to let this smuggish nonsense slide, as long as you take the deal I'm considering. Without a show of humility from you, my uneducated, fake "doctor" friend, I will not help you. So 'fess up and allow me educate you, as the challenge here is for you, not me. You remind me of some of my cocky young medical residents and doctoral candidates all the time.......It's ok to be a little bit arrogant, as long as your work production backs you up. And it's ok to be a little bit ignorant, as long as you have enough humility to learn and be taught. But you can't be BOTH arrogant and ignorant and excel in our world (of science and medicine). There is no substitute for knowledge and skill in my world. BS always comes back to haunt you. Arrogance and Ignorance is a combination best featured in world of sales and marketing.



Again.......I'll give you another pass for this, as long as you take the deal and admit to being the lying, fake message board "doctor" that you are.



See above. And you know what's really funny about it? Even when/if I show you, you STILL won't understand it. You'll just repeat what you got caught doing in the beginning of this thread....i.e. fake it, right "doctor"?

But anyway.........it is now your move. Do yourself a favor, take a deep-breath and choose wisely this time, "Dr. Doogie" It's the last olive branch I will be offering to you. :lamo

Blah blah blah.. your failure is again noted.

1. You claimed that you had tons of research to present.. and even castigated me for "not asking to see it". when I challenged you to them present said evidence... so far, you have produced not one ounce of research
2. You demanded I present some research evidence. I presented three peer reviewed and published research papers that showed that gun control efforts did not work
3. You were not only completely unable to offer any valid critic of those research papers. In fact.. the one critic you posted was NOT EVEN ON THE RESEARCH I PRESENTED.. but on another research paper entirely
4. You claimed I did not understand what statistically significance was... BUT you demonstrated over and over that you don't understand what it means. Heck.. I gave you and opportunity to explain it. and you failed. I gave you an opportunity with a hypothetical research in what you CLAIM is your field..and you failed.
5. You repeatedly claim that research that found no statistically significant effect.. PROVES that gun control works. Research that didn't even find a statistical significant positive correlation.. and yet you go all the way to claiming that the evidence shows causation! No researcher would do that
6. You have used RAW DATA. (and didn;t even understand what that term means).. and jumped to saying that the raw data is evidence of causation.!!!..
7. You don't even understand what N is and how a small N affects validity.

the fact is.. you've been found out. You are not a doctor, have no research experience, and offer nothing intelligent to the debate.

Its been fun watching you kill your credibility. Thanks for the chuckles. Have a Merry Christmas..
 
Blah blah blah.. your failure is again noted.

:roll:...and the fake, wannabe, message-board "doctor" once again doubles-down on his lies, hoping to somehow salvage his ego from the @$$ kicking he's been taking.

The power of the id in some people is truly amazing. When someone like you (who LIES about his background and resume' on an anonymous message board like this one...simply to lend undeserved "expert" credibility to his political views....then clings to those lies while lashing out at REAL experts who reveal him for the fraud and the liar that his is) is unable to accept the olive branch I just offered, there are some SERIOUS "id issues" involved.

It's typical of certain types of people.

Have a Merry Christmas..

I wish you the same. I think we've established a few facts in this thread:

1. First, and foremost, there is NO body of research that "proves gun control does not work". That was your first, and most import, lie; because it's the lie that forced you down the whole fake-expert, wannabe-doctor rabbit hole (which is what lead to all of the subsequent LYING, Deflecting and Dissembling from you in this thread).

2. The vast preponderance of the published research in public health and social science media strongly supports the efficacy of gun-control that is comprehensive in nature. About that, there is virtually no doubt within academic public health circles.

3. Where the well-documented facts about gun control remain in dispute is ENTIRELY outside of the academic community, primarily right-wing sycophants and NRA-toadies who (not coincidentally) also comprise a dominate faction of the anti-science, anti-intellectual cancer that infects much of modern society.

4. You, Jaeger, have been CLEARLY "butt-hurt" (in a major way) in this thread because I came along while you were attempting to present yourself as an "expert" on the state of research about gun-control. And when I (at first nicely) pointed out that you were spewing right-wing, NRA garbage and attempting to validate it on the basis of your self-proclaimed "expert" status, you got embarrassed. When, upon further questioning, it became clear to me that EVERYTHING you said about your credentials was a LIE, I stated it publicly in this thread. And THAT is where your id began to overtake your ego, I think. And, as anyone can see in this thread, it's never pretty when that happens to someone

5. Bottom line, which has been obscured by the endless rabbit holes you've used to avoid answering questions, is that gun-control works, when enacted at the federal level. And almost every major democratic society in the entire western world has proven it. That's why NRA-nuts and right wing ideologues like you try so hard to deflect and dissemble about this issue.

6. Lastly, to point #5 above, let it be noted, yet again, that every challenge presented to Jaeger has been followed by failure and/or complete avoidance. Of course, that's what one would expect when asking a anonymous pretend "doctor" to present credible research. Asking someone like you, who is about as experience a "researcher" as my gardener, to read, post and defend seminal research about a given issue is a recipe for failure (and, in your case, a series of ego-driven outrageous lies and self-promotion). But it's been fun toying with you. I'm sure that, in the future, you will be more careful to avoid LYING about yourself, your credentials, your expertise and your background on this board. Certainly, you won't make this mistake of pretending to be a "doctor" again...at least not on this board. But if you do, I'll try to check in often enough to crush you for it again.
 
Last edited:
:roll:...and the fake, wannabe, message-board "doctor" once again doubles-down on his lies, hoping to somehow salvage his ego from the @$$ kicking he's been taking.

The power of the id in some people is truly amazing. When someone like you (who LIES about his background and resume' on an anonymous message board like this one...simply to lend undeserved "expert" credibility to his political views....then clings to those lies while lashing out at REAL experts who reveal him for the fraud and the liar that his is) is unable to accept the olive branch I just offered, there are some SERIOUS "id issues" involved.

It's typical of certain types of people.

.

Yeah.. you might want to look up what "offering an olive branch ".. means. :lamo

First, and foremost, there is NO body of research that "proves gun control does not work". That was your first, and most import, lie; because it's the lie that forced you down the whole fake-expert, wannabe-doctor rabbit hole (which is what lead to all of the subsequent LYING, Deflecting and Dissembling from you in this thread).

Hmm.. well.. actually I didn't lie. there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that gun control does not work.
The vast preponderance of the published research in public health and social science media strongly supports the efficacy of gun-control that is comprehensive in nature. About that, there is virtually no doubt within academic public health circles.

that's actually the lie. That actual statistics DO NOT support the efficacy of gun control. However, you keep claiming it.. but interestingly.. you haven't managed to produce any. Which is why we all know that not only are you not a doctor, a researcher nor do you have any knowledge of the gun control research. Because there ARE some studies out there. but they have serious validity problems. But of course we can't talk about them.. because you can't even produce one.

Where the well-documented facts about gun control remain in dispute is ENTIRELY outside of the academic community

Actually another lie of yours. Where the well documented facts about gun control.. which is that there is little evidence to support it.. remain in dispute is OUTSIDE the academic community. A great example is Kopers work.. in which he found no statistically significant effect of the assault weapons ban.

You, Jaeger, have been CLEARLY "butt-hurt" (in a major way) in this thread because I came along while you were attempting to present yourself as an "expert" on the state of research about gun-control. And when I (at first nicely) pointed out that you were spewing right-wing, NRA garbage and attempting to validate it on the basis of your self-proclaimed "expert" status, you got embarrassed.
That's so funny since I am not right wing. And I managed to present three research articles and you produced exactly zero.

You do an amazing job of projecting your inadequacies onto me.

Lastly, to point #5 above, let it be noted, yet again, that every challenge presented to Jaeger has been followed by failure and/or complete avoidance
.

Yeah and again you do an amazing job of projecting your inadequacies onto me.
 
So.....now you are punting on the whole statistics issue, too, huh? Anything to avoid being held accountable.

Your attempts to deflect are so transparent as to be almost awkward, Jaeger. :lamo

Yeah.. you might want to look up what "offering an olive branch ".. means. :lamo

If it wasn't nice enough for you, perhaps you should reconsider your tone and tenor throughout this thread. When I see someone like you who is obviously trolling as an "expert", a "doctor", an "experience peer-reviewer with a long list of published research.........who then tells me that he doesn't need to see any links from me because he has "already read all of the research on gun control".........I think that guy has effectively given up any right to civility, or the right to ask me for help later. So the olive branch was about as nice as you deserved. And you should have accepted it. Beggars can't be choosers.

Be honest, you're the one who lied about himself. I'm just the guy who called you out for it. All you had to do was drop the "expert" angle, and we could have debated (without agreement, I'm sure) the issue from our respective personal points of view. I'm a gun owner who supports comprehensive gun control. You're an NRA ideologue who has been brainwashed by all of the NRA propaganda. When you buy into the NRA nonsense about "the research", you discredit yourself to real "experts" who know that the research overwhelmingly argues against the NRA position. If you don't have the background to even identify, much less comprehend the academic stuff, do yourself a favor and do NOT attempt to argue from that perspective. This last point was made painfully clear when you posted one link, to Koper's report (which is NOT a peer-reviewed studied) that you had not read and that argues AGAINST your point of view.......followed by a link to a man (Kleck) who works for the NRA and is paid by the NSSF, and whose entire professional bibliography has been discredited by his peers.........followed by a Canadian study that states, CLEARLY, that unregulated guns in Canada are the direct by-product of the lack of gun regulation in the US. And you had not read ANY of the links you posted (heck, if I recall correctly, the Canadian paper was just a front page, with full text behind a subscription wall). You just googled and posted the first things you found, without reading any of them, or knowing anything about the authors. And when I pointed about that Koper's reports state that the AWB did work....and that Kleck's works are all fake......and that the Canadian paper actually blames the US, rather than Canadian gun laws...........you couldn't handle it. And, judging by your latest response, you still can't.

When your ideological views are challenged, you can't handle it, Jaeger.

From the beginning, you've tried to obscure the issues by deflecting and dissembling, but I won't let you do it. I still remember what made you dive into this rabbit hole of lies and dissembling, Jaeger. Your challenge, as put to you by me, was to back up your claims that "gun control has had very little effect in other countries", remember? That statement was just flat wrong....just pure ignorance. The FACT is...Gun-control has worked VERY WELL in most other countries that have enacted it at the federal level. And THAT was when I challenged you to post links to CREDIBLE research which supported your point, at which point I would post links to research proving mine. I was actually expecting you to post some of the REAL research that is out there in support of your point of view. There is some, but not very much. What I got, instead, was a surprise.

Your response was to DEFLECT. You posted links to Koper and Kleck (which had nothing to do with "other countries and which BOTH-for different reasons-discredited your argument), followed by a link to the aforementioned abstract of a study from Canada. Koper and Kleck didn't work out well for you, in no small part because Koper's argues that the AWB in the US DID work, while Kleck's studies were found to be fraudulent and were retracted by publishers. And NEITHER of them addressed your argument which you didn't know (and still don't know) because you NEVER READ THEM YOURSELF. You've posted nothing about gun-control in Europe, for example, obviously because you quickly learned (by googling) that gun-control has been WILDLY successful in almost every other western democratic country on the globe.
 
Bottom line:

Over and over again in this thread, when presented with the FACTS, you've chosen to double down on your original sins.

--No, Koper does not argue against gun-control. He states, CLEARLY (as I even quoted to you) that the AWB was working. But, in response, you cling to your original lies.

--And NO, Kleck's old studies are NOT credible research, and EVERYONE in the field agrees about this. He papers have been debunked and retracted, and he makes his money these days by giving paid lectures to right wing, NRA-nuts like you. He still works for the NRA, just as he did when he was publishing his fact research while hiding his employment and funding sources.

--And NO, the Canadian study does NOT confirm that gun-control doesn't work. It concludes that Canada's gun laws are all but useless as long as people can walk/drive across the border and buy assault weapons legally from American merchants. That's what your 3 links said.

If you can ever manage to post a relevant study to prove your point about the efficacy of gun-control, I'll be happy to share some of the prevailing literature that proves you wrong. If you want to debate the FACTS, start posting some and STOP the lying and deflecting.
 
Bottom line:

Over and over again in this thread, when presented with the FACTS, you've chosen to double down on your original sins.

--No, Koper does not argue against gun-control. He states, CLEARLY (as I even quoted to you) that the AWB was working. But, in response, you cling to your original lies.

--.

Except HIS OWN RESEARCH clearly shows that the assault weapons ban was NOT WORKING. His research showed that after 10 years of the AWB, he found NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT.

Yet again.. I ask you.. if you studied the effect of a blood pressure medicine given to patients for ten years.. and you found NO STATISTICALLY SIGINIFICANT relationship between the blood pressure medication and lower blood pressure... would you conclude that "well absolutely the blood pressure medicine worked"..

the answer that ANY credible researcher or doctor would give would be.. "well no.. I would NOT conclude that".

Which is why you have proved to us all that you are neither a doctor nor a researcher. Because you continually try to state that Kopers research.. his actual research found something that HE DID NOT.

that's the facts.

And NO, Kleck's old studies are NOT credible research, and EVERYONE in the field agrees about this. He papers have been debunked and retracted, and he makes his money these days by giving paid lectures to right wing, NRA-nuts like you. He still works for the NRA, just as he did when he was publishing his fact research while hiding his employment and funding sources.

Actually yes.. they are credible and were peer reviewed.. particularly the research that I linked to.

Now as to whether he was funded by the NRA? So what? Multiple studies have been funded by gun control advocates as well. So? either the research stands up or it does not. Interestingly.. koper.. who again.. DID NOT FIND A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT.. by the gun control ban.. is anti gun. which is why he has twisted himself in Knots to try and explain away the findings of his research.

And NO, the Canadian study does NOT confirm that gun-control doesn't work. It concludes that Canada's gun laws are all but useless as long as people can walk/drive across the border and buy assault weapons legally from American merchants. That's what your 3 links said.

Actually YES IT DOES. That's actually what the research found. Let me say that again.. THATS WHAT THE RESEARCH FOUND.

now.. a hypothesis of why they found no statistically significant effect would include things like you mentioned.. that perhaps and that's a perhaps.. because guns can be smuggled illegally in.

But again.. the research FOUND that the gun control law did not make a difference.

See.. once again.. you prove that you are not a doctor nor a researcher. Any credible doctor or researcher would agree with what I just said above.

Face facts dude.. you have been weighed.. you have been measured and you have been found wanting.

Have a merry Christmas and crack a statistics 101 book.. so you can do better in the discussion next time.
 
Except HIS OWN RESEARCH clearly shows that the assault weapons ban was NOT WORKING.

WRONG. Since you never actually READ his research, I've been posting the DIRECT QUOTES for you throughout this thread. On at least 5 other occasions, I've posted this DIRECT QUOTE from Koper's conclusion:
Bottom line on Koper:
KOPER wrote: "Although the ban was successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs....However, the grandfathering provisions within the AW-LCM ban guaranteed that the effects of this law would occur only grandually over time. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the US in large numbers"
Every previous occasion in which I have posted that DIRECT QUOTE, you have tried to ignore it and change the subject in your next response. You're just not a very honorable person whenever your political ideology get challenged and discredited.


Yet again.. I ask you.. if you studied the effect of a blood pressure medicine given to patients for ten years.. and you found NO STATISTICALLY SIGINIFICANT relationship between the blood pressure medication and lower blood pressure... would you conclude that "well absolutely the blood pressure medicine worked"..

:roll:Not even the LEAST competent physician I have ever been around was dumb enough to NOT see the difference between assessing the half-life of a medication on the human body, versus the long-term effects of a public policy on an entire population of people. But then again, you're not a physician. You're just an NRA wingnut who got caught LYING about himself on this message board. So that explains most of the stupidity you've demonstrated throughout this thread.

Which is why you have proved to us all that you are neither a doctor nor a researcher..

:lamo What "us"? There is no "us", Jaeger. There is only you. But I get it. You'd like to pretend that you have supporters. You need the help. And again, you're they guy who LIED about his credentials in this thread. You LIED about being a doctor. You LIED about being a published researcher. You LIED about being an "experienced peer reviewer". You LIED about have read "all of the research on gun control". You even LIED about having read the Koper Reports. And you did it all because you wanted others to believe that you were some kind of an "expert" on gun-control as a public health issue, when in fact you are just a NRA-nut who needed a FAKE cover to defend an ideological point of view that is REFUTED by the facts. But you got caught. So now, you're just a liar who got caught and has been trying to save face, ever since.


Actually yes.. they are credible and were peer reviewed.. particularly the research that I linked to.

Stop lying. Show me the peer-review assessment for the Koper Reports, please. They were never even submitted for review, because they were NOT original research. They were NOT research at all. They were government commissioned reports that were NEVER publish by any academic journal. You are just a very bad, and increasingly careless liar, Jaeger. :roll:

Now as to whether he was funded by the NRA? So what? Multiple studies have been funded by gun control advocates as well. So? either the research stands up or it does not.

This is the clearest-to-date discrediting remark from you, my wannabe-doctor friend. Academic physicians like me (i.e. people who actually ARE what they claim to be) can only read remarks like the above mouths agape. But to someone like you (who pretends to be a "doctor" with a "lengthy" bibliography and "years of experience" as a "peer-reviewer") it probably seemed like a reasonable argument to make. But even a 1st year medical student understands the rules of disclosure that govern academic research. Failure to disclose, especially when conflicts of interest exist, is an absolute ethical "no-no" from which there is no coming back. Every time you attempt to further elaborate, you make it worse for yourself. That's typically the case when dealing with con-artists and charlatans. Koper's Reports concluded that the AWB was working; while Kleck's research failed the peer-review process, and was retracted. He's now a disgraced EX-researcher who publishes mostly op/eds aimed at low-information NRA ideologues like you.

Facts don't lie.

But liars, charlatans and ideologues do.
 
Last edited:
WRONG. Since you never actually READ his research, I've been posting the DIRECT QUOTES for you throughout this thread. On at least 5 other occasions, I've posted this DIRECT QUOTE from Koper's conclusion:

.

Great.. show me his actual statistical findings that show a statistically significant positive correlation between the gun ban and lower crime. Oh wait.. YOU CAN"T BECAUSE HIS ACTUAL RESEARCH EVIDENCE DID NOT SHOW A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION.

that's the facts..

Every previous occasion in which I have posted that DIRECT QUOTE, you have tried to ignore it and change the subject in your next response. You're just not a very honorable person whenever your political ideology get challenged and discredited.

Because his direct quote... IS NOT SUPPORTED BY HIS RESEARCH FINDINGS. You sir are simply not being intellectually honest when it comes to this subject. Your ideology has already been discredited.

Not even the LEAST competent physician I have ever been around was dumb enough to NOT see the difference between assessing the half-life of a medication on the human body, versus the long-term effects of a public policy on an entire population of people. But then again, you're not a physician. You're just an NRA wingnut who got caught LYING about himself on this message board. So that explains most of the stupidity you've demonstrated throughout this thread.

Wow.. okay.. you just proved you are not a physician, nor a researcher. The example I gave has NOTHING to do with " the half life on medication". NOTHING. So sir.. you just tipped your hand that you are not a physician.

What "us"? There is no "us", Jaeger. There is only you. But I get it. You'd like to pretend that you have supporters. You need the help. And again, you're they guy who LIED about his credentials in this thread. You LIED about being a doctor. You LIED about being a published researcher. You LIED about being an "experienced peer reviewer". You LIED about have read "all of the research on gun control". You even LIED about having read the Koper Reports. And you did it all because you wanted others to believe that you were some kind of an "expert" on gun-control as a public health issue, when in fact you are just a NRA-nut who needed a FAKE cover to defend an ideological point of view that is REFUTED by the facts. But you got caught. So now, you're just a liar who got caught and has been trying to save face, ever since.

Nope.. no lies.. and my credibility is well established here.

Stop lying. Show me the peer-review assessment for the Koper Reports, please. They were never even submitted for review, because they were NOT original research. They were NOT research at all. They were government commissioned reports that were NEVER publish by any academic journal. You are just a very bad, and increasingly careless liar, Jaeger.

You seem to forget that I produced THREE research studies.. and two of those studies were published in peer reviewed journals.

Meanwhile..you have made multiple claims about research and have provided not one bit of evidence.

Failure to disclose, especially when conflicts of interest exist, is an absolute ethical "no-no" from which there is no coming back

Wrong. And besides.. the research that I presented was not the research that you are complaining was "unethical"... in fact.. your argument hinges on a research study that is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the research study that I presented. You aren;t smart enough to realize that the research that I presented.. is not the research that you claim has credibility problems.

But liars, charlatans and ideologues do

Yep.. something you keep proving time and time again.
 
Yes, "great"...you lied, got caught, and now acknowledge it. We're making progress.

show me his actual statistical findings that show a statistically significant positive correlation between the gun ban and lower crime.
:lamo The fake, wannabe "doctor" shows, again, that he's never actually read the Koper report that HE posted in this thread. Well I'll help you out. For starters, try just reading ALL of the Koper Report you posted, Jaeger. I'll give you a hint, though. Koper includes very detailed data from from cities like Baltimore, St. Louis, Boston, Milwaukee, Anchorage, Miami, etc....including some very simple, easy to understand charts and graphs, if you care to view some of his summarized findings, since you obviously don't like to read. But to quote Koper directly from one chapter:
Koper: "Consistent with predictions derived from the analysis of market indicators...analyses of national ATF gun tracing data and local databases on guns recovered by police in several localities have been largely consistent in showing that criminal use of AWs, while accounting for no more than 6% of gun crimes even before the ban, declined after 1994, independently of trends in gun crime. In various places and times from the late 1990s through 2003, AWs typically fell by one-third or more as a share of guns used in crime. Some of the most recent, post-2000 data suggest reductions as high as 70%. This trend has been driven primarily by a decline in the use of APs, which account for a majority of AWs used in crime. AR trends have been more varied and comby the substitution of post-ban guns that are very similar to some banned ARs. More generally, however, the substitution of post-ban AW-type models fewer military features has only partially offset the decline in banned AWs."

And to quote Koper again, from another chapter, he notes that (Quote):
Koper: "In mass shooting incidents (defined as those in which at least 6 persons were killed or at least 12 were wounded) that occurred during the decade preceding the ban, offenders using AWs and other semiautomatics with LCMs...claimed an average of 29 victims in comparison to an average of 13 victims for other cases (without LCMs).... The AW-LCM cases averaged 93 shots per incident, a figure two and a half times greater than the 36.5 shot average for the other cases. "
====================

Oh wait.. YOU CAN"T BECAUSE HIS ACTUAL RESEARCH EVIDENCE DID NOT SHOW A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION.
:lamo No, the problem here is that, like a lot of conservative ideologues, you don't like to read and were too intellectually LAZY to bother reading the very source you posted as "proof" that gun control doesn't work. For you to say that Koper didn't include his own data in his own report to the DOJ, is just pathetic.

that's the facts..
Clearly, you do NOT seek "facts". You seek affirmation of your anti-intellectual political biases.

Because his direct quote... IS NOT SUPPORTED BY HIS RESEARCH FINDINGS.
:lamo:lamo:lamo So now Koper is part of a conspiracy against his own research, huh? And HOW would you know? You haven't read ANY of it! But now you've really put yourself in a tough spot, my wannabe "doctor" friend. Since you've said that Koper is LYING about his own research in that DOJ report........and since you say that his words "ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY HIS RESEARCH"...........why don't you show me EXACTLY which "statistical findings" you are talking about.


Wow.. okay.. you just proved you are not a physician, nor a researcher. The example I gave has NOTHING to do with " the half life on medication". NOTHING. So sir.. you just tipped your hand that you are not a physician.

LOL, nope. WRONG AGAIN, Doogie Howser! Drug half-life is INTRICATELY related to ANY study of efficacy. Of course, know-nothing widget salesmen pretending to be "doctors" on anonymous message boards wouldn't understand that. So I forgive you for your ignorance. But I do NOT forgive you for your recalcitrance or your truculence.

Nope.. no lies.. and my credibility is well established here.

Not only LIES. Also ignorance. And you have no credibility "here". You're an anonymous know-nothing on an anonymous message board, pretending to be more educated that you really are because you don't have the mental chops to defend your wingnut ideology on its merits.
 
Last edited:
Yes, "great"...you lied, got caught, and now acknowledge it. We're making progress.
:.

Umm no... you again have not and cannot produce Kopers research findings that show a statistically significant correlation.

The fake, wannabe "doctor" shows, again, that he's never actually read the Koper report that HE posted in this thread. Well I'll help you out. For starters, try just reading ALL of the Koper Report you posted, Jaeger. I'll give you a hint, though. Koper includes very detailed data from from cities like Baltimore, St. Louis, Boston, Milwaukee, Anchorage, Miami, etc....including some very simple, easy to understand charts and graphs, if you care to view some of his summarized findings, since you obviously don't like to read. But to quote Koper directly from one chapter:

Yep.. but his actually RESEARCH FINDINGS.. do not show that.

No, the problem here is that, like a lot of conservative ideologues, you don't like to read and were too intellectually LAZY to bother reading the very source you posted as "proof" that gun control doesn't work. For you to say that Koper didn't include his own data in his own report to the DOJ, is just pathetic.

Oh no.. I read it. I also saw his RESEARCH RESULTS.. which were that after 10 years of data.. there was no statistically significant correlation between the AWB and a decrease in crime. none. that's what HIS RESEARCH FOUND.

Now.. if you disagree.. great.. show me his statistical analysis which shows that he found a statistically significant correlation.

So now Koper is part of a conspiracy against his own research, huh? And HOW would you know? You haven't read ANY of it! But now you've really put yourself in a tough spot, my wannabe "doctor" friend. Since you've said that Koper is LYING about his own research in that DOJ report........and since you say that his words "ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY HIS RESEARCH"...........why don't you show me EXACTLY which "statistical findings" you are talking about.

Okay.

We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence,” said the unreleased NIJ report, written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

LOL, nope. WRONG AGAIN, Doogie Howser! Drug half-life is INTRICATELY related to ANY study of efficacy. Of course, know-nothing widget salesmen pretending to be "doctors" on anonymous message boards wouldn't understand that. So I forgive you for your ignorance. But I do NOT forgive you for your recalcitrance or your truculence.

Nope.. wrong again. You don't even understand that my example was not a study on the drug half-life nor was half life even valid.

Sorry but you obviously are not a doctor... nor a researcher.

Not only LIES. Also ignorance. And you have no credibility "here". You're an anonymous know-nothing on an anonymous message board, pretending to be more educated that you really are because you don't have the mental chops to defend your wingnut ideology on its merits

Nope just facts and evidence that support me.. oh and yes my credibility has been well established on this debate forum.
 
Last edited:
Umm no... you again have not and cannot produce Kopers research findings that show a statistically significant correlation.
:liar Wow. You're desperate. So I'll help............again. Read Chapter Six of the Koper Report that YOU posted. Start there, and then maybe you'll be ready to discuss this with me further. Only a certified extremist wingnut piles conspiracy theory....on top of conspiracy theory.....on top of conspiracy theory......simply to cling to a lie that he cannot defend with FACTS.

Yep.. but his actually RESEARCH FINDINGS.. do not show that.

Really? Then you should be able to show me what they "really" find, right? Go back to Koper's Report and show me which table...which chart.......which set of data proves your point, please. I'm being as nice to someone like you as a possibly can, Jaeger. Much nicer than you deserve, certainly.

Oh no.. I read it. I also saw his RESEARCH RESULTS.. which were that after 10 years of data.. there was no statistically significant correlation between the AWB and a decrease in crime. none. that's what HIS RESEARCH FOUND.

Really? What chapter and page was that again? Please, be specific. Hint: Start with Chapter 6, and we can go from there.

Hmmm....."...said the unreleased NIJ report, written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania." That's not in the Koper Report.

Classic. So you just quoted a Washington Times opinion piece that cherry-picked that one, single line from a long paragraph in Koper's report....rather than refer directly to the report itself (which YOU posted on this board). Why? Because that's what any FAKE, WANNABE "doctor" (who doesn't understand the science, can't comprehend the language of research and doesn't like to read, in general) would do under pressure. But if you EVER bother to READ the Koper Report (which YOU posted here).....you'll see that sentences DIRECTLY above that cherry-picked line (that you got from the Washington Times article), as well as the entire next paragraph state in great detail that the ban was successful in significantly reducing crimes with the AW's and LCM's covered under the AWB, but that grandfather clauses that allowed many OTHER types of assault weapons and LCM's to remain on the street were circumventing the spirit of the law. Bottom line: Weapons and LCM's covered by the AWB saw a drastic decrease in use to commit crimes in this country AFTER the passage of the law (in '94), and those statistics are CLEARLY detailed (in multiple ways, graphs, charts, etc.) throughout the report. On the other hand, weapons and LCM's NOT covered by the AWB (i.e. the "grandfathered" weapons) affected the overall statistics. As the statistics and the summary clearly demonstrate, the AWB "absolutely" did work to reduce crimes...including mass shootings....during the 10 years in was on the books. You know this, if for know other likely reason than because I have educated you about it several times now. But because you are an ideologue, and ideologues lack intellectual integrity, you cannot admit it. That's what ideologues do.
Nope.. wrong again. You don't even understand that my example was not a study on the drug half-life nor was half life even valid.

No, you're just a widget salesman pretending to understand things that are clearly over your head. Word of advice: stick to selling your widgets, and I'll keep saving lives and making the world better.

Sorry but you obviously are not a doctor... nor a researcher.
:lamo Again, liars who play "doctor" on anonymous message boards don't get to question real doctors about what they do.

oh and yes my credibility has been well established on this debate forum.
:screwy Like so many other things when it comes to dealing with ideologues and anti-intellectual types....only in your own mind. And, honestly, I find it more than a little amusing when people like you attach ANY kind of value to their "credibility" on an anonymous message board like this one. First...you have no credibility here. Secondly....anyone who might vouch for the "credibility" of an anonymous troll on a message board is him/herself someone in need of a real life. Lastly....I must say that I marvel at the level of delusion or narcissism it takes for someone like you to get caught in SOOOO many lies in one thread ("doctor", "researcher", "peer-reviewer", "I've read all of the gun control research", "statistical effect", etc. etc. etc. etc.)......and then brag about "my credibility". I see why you like Trump. It seems as though you are kindred spirits.
 
Back
Top Bottom