Carl Nisarel wrote:
"Dave Bugg" sputtered:

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,

Yes.

No.

you said that that it was an "unsubstantiated gunhugger
myth" that Lott and Kleck were anti-gun before their research.

The fact that there are no prior quotes

That you know of. And when your not looking, it's easy to claim they don't
exist.

from Lott or Kleck where
they state their support of gun control demonstrates that there is
no valid evidence that they were "anti-gun" prior to the
publication of the gun-control related research.

And the lack of of prior quotes from Lott or Kleck stating a pro-gun stance
demonstrates that it is valid to assume that they may have been anti-gun.

So, prove it.

BTDT

But I bought the t-shirt.

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'.

Dude, the lack of prior evidence

BTDT

for their positions is evidence
that it is a myth.

It's evidence of nothing.

You're too ****in' stupid to comprehend that
fact.

There is no fact, dood, only your irrationale grasp of logic.

You're probabably stupid enough to believe in the creation myths
in the bible as well.

Ah, a red-herring to over your rhetorical incompetence.

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.

You're not a very sharp person.

Sharp enough to corner you, dood.

We're waiting.

like an dead stump.

I'm not talkin' about yer head, dood, I'm talking about evidence to back up
your claim.

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.

What they stated afterwards and what they failed to state before
is a matter of fact.

No, it is a matter of your opinion. Your inability to come up with a
evidence that they were anything besides anti-gun is a fact.

You're too stupid to comprehend it.

I'm not the one lacking comprehension.

Yanik did and you're stupidly trying to support it.

Nope, I'm asking you to prove your 'fact'.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com