What did the Founders mean...

[jimmy the one]

70. broken lamp, broken man

johnston: said I doubt your source's scholarship. I never questioned yours.

Need to keep your insults consistent, you took cheap shots then the scholarship sh**:

johnston previous post: I usually don't read your posts because they are usually incoherent and irrelevant, not to mention chock full of logical fallacies. cite all of your sources because I doubt their scholarship.

johnston: The fact check article points out that most of them are suicides, and rural areas everywhere have higher suicide rates. Higher gun suicide rates do not always equate higher suicide rates. Nice card stacking

What ridiculous reasoning. What an absurd remark to contend I am 'card stacking' by citing FACT CHECK, a reputable fact checker.
You are blind to what is going on here, and simply resort to utterly SPECIOUS absurdity to counter what is so obvious, that higher gun ownership rates correlate to higher gun crime rates, and are the main cause for them compared with areas with low gun ownership rates, under equable conditions. You live in denial to put up the pathetic arguments you do.

johnston: The Trace is Bloomberg's Pravda. It is the same as me citing the NRA. The study in the Trace was not peer reviewed, or did the Harvard School of Public Health admit their bias, that they are funded by the Joyce Foundation, the same plastic farmers who bankroll VPC and what is now Brady Campaign. Also, it admits that correlation is not causation, basically negating the premise of the "study". IOW, it is complete bullshit.

The garbage you posted above is what is complete B...S...; and you evidently think, in your, um, mind, that you have successfully refuted what I posted and have therefore 'won' the battle of the evening.
You cite the broken lamp defense, this & that & that & this is so, so it must be faulty; I didn't break the lamp, somebody else broke the lamp. The lamp was already broke. I couldn't've broken the lamp I wasn't there. It could've fallen off the shelf. I don't like lamps. It was a cheap lamp so who cares?
You say 'nor' did the 'harvard school of public health admit their bias'. This is supposed to be a rational argument from you? As if the nra is supposed to begin every critique with 'we are biased pro gun'? What a sophomoric remark from johnston.
You say that the trace study 'admits that correlation is not causation, basically negating the premise of the "study"'. How utterly absurd. They did not negate the premise of the study whatsoever, because correlation can indeed indicate causation. You show a complete lack of understanding what the correlation/causation tenet means. It only means that causation cannot be definitely attributed to correlation without further analysis, but it does NOT RULE OUT THAT A CAUSATIVE EFFECT CAN INDEED RESULT FROM A CORRELATION.
And of course most readers won't remember johnston's gaffe about correlation/causation, a few years back thinking it was correlation does not mean coordination (or something along those lines). It took little ole me to set him straight, and even then he tried to wiggle out of his faux pas.