Re: Some pro-gunners STILL confused by CDC report

Phil Smythe wrote:
Magus wrote:
Phil Smythe wrote:
Magus wrote:
<snip>
You surely didn't identify any quotes as being old with your lead in
statements:
***
No, I didn't, because I saw no need. They were there to support my
claim and because they were verbatim quotes attributed to identifiable
individuals anybody who wished to look them up could do so easily. I
was not presenting a doctoral thesis complete with footnotes and a
bibliography.

To support which claim?

The SAME claim I've made all along, that some pro-gunners are still
confused by the CDC report. Don't tell you've forgotten what this
whole thread is all about?

The sentence doesn't mean what you've asserted it does--add one word and it would: "Some pro-gunners STILL [being] confused by CDC report".

This thread was about your attempt to disparage the group of people you call "pro-gunners" and your misrepresention of evidence and choice of words in order to do so.


#1. Some pro-gunners STILL confused by CDC report

That statement says that the ones who were confused are currently
confused. The adjective "some" is a limiter--when used with plural nouns
it means "certain". You're saying that the pro-gunners who were
confused are still confused. It in no way means the *report* is still
*causing* confusion to _pro-gunners_.

WRONG, it does mean exactly that (with the modification of "some"
which you insist on omitting constantly for reasons best known to you)
and Scout's words were proof of that.


"Some pro-gunners STILL confused by CDC report" means certain [though unspecified] pro gunners were confused and are still confused.

"Some pro-gunners still *being" confused by CDC report" would mean that the CDC report has and is confusing a portion of pro-gunners.

There is a massive difference in the meaning of those two sentences.

a. Old quotes from specific people with no recent quotes from those
people to support _still confused_?

WRONG. 3 quotes from the past and one recent quote. Your numeracy is
shocking!


Those three old quotes *maybe* demonstrate _were confused_ . To show _still confused_ you'd need more recent quotes where the exact same sentiment was expressed.

You had a recent conversation where _one_ person supposedly showed confusion and you use that to claim the report "appears to be still confusing a number of pro-gun posters in TPG as evidenced by recent conversation."

b. The quote--"That (CDC) study found no evidence pro-or-con that gun
control laws had any effect on violent crime, what-so-ever"--says the
report found "no evidence pro-or-con". It doesn't say the report found
"no evidence...what-so-ever" as you asserted it does in another post.

It certainly does, that's why I included the dots to indicate a break.
The addition or exclusion of "pro-or-con" makes no difference as they
are two sides of the one argument. I thought you favoured "brevity"
and "clarity". Oh, that's right, only when you indulge in it.


It certainly does not. You distorted the meaning of the sentence.

"what-so-ever" is a modifier for the phrase "any effect". "what-so-ever" is not a modifier for "evidence".

Change the word "no" to "insufficient" and use the ellipses as you did. The resulting "insufficient evidence...what-so-ever" would make no sense at all.

Delete the "pro-or-con" and the result is still "no evidence of any effect what-so-ever."


Read what the CDC actually said: "Insufficient evidence to determine
effectiveness SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS EVIDENCE [emphases mine] of
ineffectiveness."

Read it?? It's what I've been telling everyone in this thread from
post 1!


Then don't interpret insufficient evidence as evidence of either outcome. There's no evidence pro-or-con.

The reciprocal would also be true--Insufficient
evidence to determine ineffectiveness SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS
EVIDENCE of effectiveness. The CDC, in that report, found no evidence
gun control laws had a pro-or-con effect on *violent crime*--they could
not determine any pro-or-con effect on *violent crime* what-so-ever. The
CDC had "inconsistent findings" in every category they looked at.

Tell me something I don't already know!


Then don't interpret insufficient evidence as evidence of either outcome. There's no evidence pro-or-con.

c. The quote--"So why again do we want gun control laws when you can't
even tell me that it has ANY effect and evidence (CDC) seems to strongly
suggest it has none or virtually no effect?" Does not specifically refer
to the CDC study. It does not state "gun control doesn't have any effect
on violent crime" as you asserted just before using it as an example.

WRONG. That statement WAS referring to the CDC report. Sorry, but
that's how it is. Scout claimed the report suggested an effect could
be measured but the report cautioned against making claims on
effectiveness.


You don't know that. The CDC has done more than one study dealing with firearms and violent crime. A CDC report [older?] about laws dealing juveniles and foster homes suggests some beneficial effect.

#2. "A report put out a couple of years back by the Center for Disease
Research (CDC) appears to be still confusing a number of pro-gun posters
in TPG as evidenced by recent conversation"

a. Four quotes to support _a number of_?
b. Old quotes with no recent quotes from those people to support _still
confusing_?
c. One quote from any _recent conversation_ to support _a number of...as
evidenced by recent conversation_?

A: Plenty, I can't give you an exact number I'm afraid, I hope you
weren't expecting an exact number
B: WRONG, a selection of old and new quotes
C: One direct quote plus a message backing up Scout

#3. You assert "a raft of pro-gunners have twisted the CDC's findings
into claims that the CDC report states gun control doesn't have any
effect on violent crime."

a. OK, untwist their claims... support what you're saying--support your
implied assertion that the CDC's findings state gun control laws have an
effect on *violent crime*.

That's EXACTLY what I have been arguing against, claims that the CDC
report determined a measurable effect. You appear to lurching around
like punch drunk boxer.


The insufficient evidence which is not to be interpreted as evidence of a result is "no evidence pro-or-con".

b. Tell us which direction that effect points.

See above, whereby the CDC's report cannot point in any direction. I
hope this isn't news to you because it would mean you haven't learnt a
single thing throughout this whole episode.


So I said when I stated "no evidence pro-or-con".


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some pro-gunners STILL confused by CDC report
    ... Which of the four quotes you used in support of your thesis were from ... three of the four examples that you used to support your assertion ... pro-gunners have twisted the CDC's findings into claims that the CDC ... He said that evidence from the CDC suggests little ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Some pro-gunners STILL confused by CDC report
    ... Which of the four quotes you used in support of your thesis were from ... three of the four examples that you used to support your assertion ... As for the quote of mine you used, I stated they found "no evidence ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Some pro-gunners STILL confused by CDC report
    ... Old quotes from specific people with no recent quotes from those people to support _still confused_? ... The quote--"That (CDC) study found no evidence pro-or-con that gun control laws had any effect on violent crime, what-so-ever"--says the report found "no evidence pro-or-con". ... "A report put out a couple of years back by the Center for Disease Research appears to be still confusing a number of pro-gun posters in TPG as evidenced by recent conversation" ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Female Intuition and Female Choice
    ... quotes a study showing that women are *not* better at reading faces ... Because, um, because you don't care about the evidence you post? ... actually support what you say. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some pro-gunners STILL confused by CDC report
    ... Phil Smythe wrote: ... Did you use any quotes from the referenced thread to support your declaration that the CDC report is "still confusing a number of pro-gun ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
Loading