Carl Nisarel wrote:

Dude - Yanik made the first claim. It's up to him to support it
with actual evidence.

You're stupidly asking for proof of a negative.

No, you said that that it was an "unsubstantiated gunhugger myth" that Lott
and Kleck were anti-gun before their research. So, prove it.

Yanik (and you) can easily prove that my statement is incorrect
by posting a statement, from a date prior to their gun
research, from Lott and/or Kleck where they say they were
'anti-gun'.

Straw man. It doesn't matter when the authors made their
statement.

It doesn't matter to a small-minded gunhugger like you.

And of course your irrational gunphobic small mind cannot substantiate
*your* claim of a 'myth'.

The fact that they only made their statements *after* they
produced their research is only evidence of post-hoc
rationalization.

It is not evidence of what they actually thought before they did
the research.

Then you'll find it easy to substantiate your 'myth' claim. We're waiting.

All claims that I have read from Lott or Kleck's where they say
that they were 'anti-gun' prior to their research were made
*after* they did the research.

So what? If you don't believe them, that's your opinion, not a
matter of fact.

It is a matter of fact.

Only in your mind, which makes it only your opinion. You have yet to produce
a fact which substantiates your claim.

But you're not intelligent enough to comprehend it.

You need to quit parroting what your teachers told you during your 'special
time'.

IOW, they (and you) have no substantive evidence that shows
that they actually were anti-gun prior to their research.

I haven't looked, 'cause

you're a lazy gunhugger who can't support a claim with real
evidence.

I didn't make the claim your 'myth' allegation, you did. Try to keep up.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com