...there are also a number of analyses from the US that have proven that good gun control saves lives.
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
thats an awful large qualifying statement and when plotting violent crime rates vs gun control there is no correlation.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720 @GidMK
even australia is a single data point in a sea of other countries that tried it. not all have been successful
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720 @GidMK
whether it is tied to specific requirements will determine what and if we should enact any form of gun control.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720 @GidMK
it's not carte blanche effective crying for implementation on a federal level with no understanding of what worked is wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720 @GidMK
gun control falls entirely within the power of individual states to enact, there is no reason to test what works before scale up
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720
As I've presented there is ample evidence that some simple federal controls could reduce the number of deaths significantly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ratman720
The evidence is there. It is merely whether you value a lack of regulation more than people's lives. You may. I don't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ratman720
You also might be interested in reading this regarding why a simple correlation can be misleading https://theconversation.com/ufos-climate-change-and-missing-airliners-how-to-separate-fact-from-fiction-59587 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Im well aware of such techniques Ill look at it when I get time. As for climate change that's a steaming pile of poo too.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If by steaming pile of poo you mean scientific fact, then sure why not.
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
no by steaming pile of poo I mean huge multivariate with inapropriate and arbitrary sampling technique that ignore natural variation
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720
The science behind anthropogenic climate change was settled in the 80s. The only question is now how much it will change.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.