BottleBob wrote:
Carl Nisarel wrote:
.......

If you think dishonesty is fine, that's your choice.

Carl:

No, I DON'T think dishonesty is fine.

You're excusing it.


Lewis incorrectly labeled the statistics and still hasn't admitted
that he did it.

Do you think he did it deliberately?

Do you think his computer typed the word "armed" without him?

Should a mistake in labeling be
equated to being a liar?

You're excusing dishonesty.


....

Now since we have 1,410,121 victims, don't you think that tends to
validate Richard's original claim that "a loved one is assaulted by an
unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm"
hundreds of thousands of times a year?

No, it doesn't. Lewis' definition is a moronic appeal to emotion
fallacy.

......

Lewis created the idiotic definition and is moving the goalpost trying
to get anything crammed into it.

ARE 100's of thousands of people the victims of violent crime per
year?

Huff and puff all you wish. A 'victim of a violent crime' and "a loved
one assaulted by an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and
doing bodily harm" are not equivalent.

.....
As far as your statement that you are "...much more familiar with the
research and the data than anyone else who's appeared in the thread."
Well that's an opinion, perhaps true, perhaps not. There seems to be a
battle of the statistics going on between you and Gunner which may, or
may not, jeopardize your claim to being more familiar with the data than
anyone else.

I'm shredding Gunner. He's spouting the standard propaganda from
gunner websites, I'm noting relevant and recent research with which he
is unfamiliar.

If you think he's more aware of the research and data, you really have
poor evaluation skills.

.....

1) It demonstrates the idiocy of Lewis' emotionally driven fallacious
definition.

Are 410,121 victims 100's of thousands?

They aren't "100's of thousands" that fit his definition.


2) People tend to be rather hesitant about a self-defense shooting
people they know.

I would be inclined to see that as a relatively true statement.