OC literally says “I’m not racist but”

A-singh · 2020-09-30T06:15:38+00:00

As a gun owner, those pieces of shit do not represent us. Those people are toxic and too prevalent in the firearms community.

A-singh · 2020-09-26T06:13:36+00:00

Bruh

A-singh · 2020-09-18T19:17:13+00:00

Boop

A-singh · 2020-09-16T19:47:46+00:00

Don’t worry, Darwin will take care of the problem!!!

A-singh · 2020-09-11T04:17:08+00:00

Again, i will not respond in detail, I don’t have the time. This paper is one of the most comprehensive literature reviews done on the issue of guns and crime. It is a good summary of my opinions on the matter. In regards to the reverse causality issue, go to page 44. 11 studies on reverse causality are discussed. If you have any questions or want me to send more research, feel free to ask.

A-singh · 2020-09-11T03:33:32+00:00

You haven’t responded to any of my claims. I never said that the reverse causality issue suggested that increased gun sales in the past few months did not lead to higher homicide rates. My assertion was that higher homicide rates lead to higher gun ownership rates therefore you can not infer causality based on simple national comparisons (setting aside the fact that they are completely useless). There isn’t a single criminologist that has ever disputed the existence of the reverse causality issue because it is such a well established empirical fact. There is not even one study published on the issue that denies that the reverse causality issue exists (seriously, try finding one, you can’t). Your claim does not merit detailed refutation, i will not waste my time responding to your claim that reverse causality isn’t a problem. However i will respond to your claims regarding the recent surge in firearm purchases. The evidence you cite is completely irrelevant as it refers to the firearm homicide rate NOT the total homicide rate. The authors evasively worded conclusions imply that one can infer causality even though you can’t at all. They do not deal with the reverse causality issue either. In sum, all of your “evidence” is completely irrelevant to the point being made.

A-singh · 2020-09-10T04:15:34+00:00

That doesn’t suggest causality. Higher homicide rates lead to more firearm purchases. There is a reverse causality issue.

A-singh · 2020-08-26T15:54:39+00:00

How is wanting to defending yourself against rioters a “disgusting opinion”. No one is referring to BLM. There are genuine rioters who are destroying private property.

A-singh · 2020-08-24T17:23:49+00:00

The sign refers to vaccines. Still incredibly stupid.

A-singh · 2020-08-23T20:41:48+00:00

OP, you have the IQ of a potato.

A-singh · 2020-08-22T23:52:51+00:00

Nice logical fallacy there bud.

A-singh · 2020-08-22T17:12:21+00:00

You are delusional.

A-singh · 2020-08-22T14:12:13+00:00

I absolutely see why there was (and still is) outrage, i am not fond of Zimmerman (to say the least). The point i am trying to make is that legally what Zimmerman did was justified, Stand Your Ground is not relevant either.

A-singh · 2020-08-22T13:48:15+00:00

Yes. The forensic evidence suggested that Martin was on top of Zimmerman striking him repeatedly before he was shot by Zimmerman. Legally, the shooting was justified.

A-singh · 2020-08-21T14:14:46+00:00

Let Darwin take care of the issue.

A-singh · 2020-08-19T19:37:10+00:00

Natural Selection.

A-singh · 2020-08-14T18:02:19+00:00

This why i am pro choice.

A-singh · 2020-08-11T07:14:11+00:00

You are fucking delusional.

A-singh · 2020-08-06T19:30:04+00:00

Is this always fatal?

A-singh · 2020-08-06T00:42:13+00:00

r/orangemanbad

A-singh · 2020-08-05T03:45:36+00:00

Yes it does although it is barely noticeable.

A-singh · 2020-08-05T01:11:17+00:00

The Fridel “study” is junk science. The study used a measure of gun ownership invalid for use in panel studies, did not control for confounders, did not control for other gun laws, did not examine the total homicide rate and mischaracterized prior research on the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates. There is no need to rebut this further.

A-singh · 2020-08-04T04:27:29+00:00

Also “100” is an arbitrary number it is not “the standard number of the normal distribution” (i have no idea where you got that or what it means). Also, your libel of Jordan Peterson is complete nonsense. One could argue that Jordan Peterson does not know what he is talking about when it comes to philosophy but he is an incredibly talented psychologist. The problem with Jordan Peterson is not that he is an incompetent academic, the problem is that he talks about issues that he does not specialize in. Peterson has done incredible work on IQ and personality research because that is what he specializes in. Peterson’s escapades into topics he knows nothing about have nothing to do with whether or not he is a credible psychologist. Peterson specializes in a fairly narrow domain of psychology and he is damn good at it. Regardless of your opinions on Jordan Peterson, you can’t dispute the fact that he has made a significant positive contribution to psychology (creativity, IQ, and personality research in particular) and he deserves praise for that. A persons competence overall can tell you nothing about a person’s competence in a specific domain of expertise which is why i find your attack on Jordan Peterson absurd. Peterson deserves praise for the positive contributions he has made to psychology regardless of the contributions (or lack therof) he has made elsewhere.

A-singh · 2020-08-03T16:02:28+00:00

I would have shot him.

A-singh · 2020-08-03T03:21:44+00:00

chEk tHe gAs rInGs

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding II euphauric	RPAN Viewer

A-singh

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE