On Feb 8, 3:07*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:





"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
...
That's pretty funny, really, coming from the only participant in this
thread
who has consistently refused to recognize any facts that conflict with his
own
a priori biases against guns (i.e. yourself).

* *I freely admit I have an anti-gun bias. *I am fully aware of it.. *I
don't think I have ever written anything that would indicate otherwise.

I repeat the question: What *would* convince you?

* *Good question. *I will not limit the possibilities, but what I would
look for would be some really valid and good statistical data properly
analyzed. * As I have explained many times, so far I have not been able to
locate that good statistical data. *I doubt if it has been collected.

That's nonsense. It *has* been collected, and you *have* already been told
where to find it. You just refuse to accept it.

So the real answer to the question "What *would* convince you?" is -- nothing.



* *I am sorry you find it so difficult to show respect to ideas that
conflict with yours. *That often can lead one down the wrong track. *I has
happened more than once to me.

And it's happening again. You've already made up your mind, and refuse to
see
any evidence that conflicts with the conclusions you've already reached..
Anything contradicting your already-established beliefs you label as
"flawed"
or "unconvincing".

* *What good data have I refused to see? *

Lott's book, for starters.
Kleck's papers.

I have seen a fair amount of
evidence that conflicts with my opinions (I have not come to a conclusion on
the subject yet), and I have see a fair amount of evidence that supports my
opinions, but none either way that is convincing. *I would hardly call that
having my mind made up and refusing to see evidence.

Like I said... there is none so blind as he who will not see.

* *I can't disagree with that.

* *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.

The data has already been presented to you in this thread, months ago. You
refuse to acknowledge it.

However I believe we have reached the end of useful discussion of the issue
until new better data is made available.

We have reached the end of useful discussion of the issue until you decide to
examine the existing data with an open mind.

* *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.

The confusion is entirely on your part -- you refuse to accept into your
sphere of "what you know" anything that conflicts with something that's
already in the sphere of "what you believe".

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

Yep.

--
Regards,
* * * * Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Example of AGU that I was involved with. Not really a direct threat
to us but it ended a problem.

We farmed on a ridge above Ahsaka, Idaho (directly above Dworshak
reservoir). We, and the neighbors had problems with jacklighters, a
couple of cows lost to them. One night we see a car coming down the
ridge shining a spotlight over the fields. Waited until they past our
entrance then Dad, me and my big brother took a stance across the
road. Road ended 1/2 mile down. On their way back they didn't
appreciated being stopped but with the three of us, all with deer
rifles, displayed they didn't have much choice. A polite warning that
we didn't want to see them back -ever- ended the jacklighting on our
ridge at least.

Harry K