Harry K wrote in
:

On Feb 8, 3:07*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" sl
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 --
noth
ing.



* *I am sorry you find it so difficult to show respect to ideas
th
at
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 g
ood 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 iss
ue
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


the Standard term is DGU;Defensive Gun Use.

IMO,you should have shot the poachers. In some places,it's legal.
Now,they just prey on someone else's herds.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net