"Dave Bugg" wrote in news:Yi2rj.13$eU3.5@trndny04:

Joseph Meehan wrote:

It is foolish to continue to argue without data. If you have good
data you would like to present, I would be happy to review it and
comment. However I believe we have reached the end of useful
discussion of the issue until new better data is made available.

You don't seem to get it, Joseph; we don't hold you to be the arbiter
of what constitutes 'good' data. You can argue til you're blue in the
face that the data doesn't exist, or isn't sufficient for whatever
reason you wish to rationalize, but we don't care. Feel free to
continue to be anti-gun; feel free to attend the next Brady Gun
Control meeting or attend the Million Mom PMS march because no one
cares. You reject the data for spurious and self-serving reasons, and
I don't care.

Please carefully note the differences between when I explain what
I
believe and what I know. They are very different statements. You
seem to have confused the two.

BWAAA---HAAAA!!!! That is a big, freekin' laugh, Joseph. You don't
think you have left a written trail in this thread which demonstrates
how you have bobbed and weaved and have appeared contradictory and
confused? Take the time and call up this whole thread from its
beginning and re-read it.

If you believe that is being blind, then go ahead and believe it.

OK.




Meehan claims to have greater knowledge about statistics and methodology
than the many criminologists who have peer-reviewed Kleck,Lott,Mustard,and
others.

LMAO.

He's simply in denial;he can't accept data that conflicts with his pre-
conceived worldview.

It's sad to watch him try to pose as openminded.

(and I suspect he readily accepts what "studies" anti-gun "researchers"
have published.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net