Guns and Dr. Paul Krugman.

[Torus34]

A curious combination, to be sure. Dr. Paul Krugman's field is economics. He's the recipient of a Nobel Prize in that field. To my knowledge, and it's far from complete, he has said little about guns.

What he has said, though, is that there are some theories [Ed.: The word 'theories' is used broadly,] that have been refuted by data and yet, zombie-like, keep coming back, refusing to go away. He calls them zombie theories.

So it is in matters of gunshot deaths, injuries and laws in these United States of America. There are a number of talking points or comments which have been refuted again and again, but still show up on sites such as this one. I plead guilty to taking the time to refute some of them myself, but to no avail. They continue to stumble and shamble along, day after day.

I've come to the conclusion that a simple statement will, for me at least, suffice in the future. It's this: 'This has been refuted.' It passes the test of necessary and sufficient.

Regards, stay safe 'n well ... 'n un-shot.

 

[bluesmoke]

Just a note. There is also 'This has been debunked.' The diff being that debunk is to discredit, or expose to ridicule the falsehood or the exaggerated claims of something while refute is to prove something to be false or incorrect. Then there is 'The claim is unfounded', being a claim neither debunked or disproven, but for which no evidence of fact has been given in support. An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence and need not be debated further.

​

 

[Torus34]

Just a note. There is also 'This has been debunked.' The diff being that debunk is to discredit, or expose to ridicule the falsehood or the exaggerated claims of something while refute is to prove something to be false or incorrect. Then there is 'The claim is unfounded', being a claim neither debunked or disproven, but for which no evidence of fact has been given in support. An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence and need not be debated further.

​

Hi, bluesmoke!

My search for a minimal statement may suffer from too much compression! I will certainly take your comment under consideration and, perhaps, make it a bit less abrupt.

Regards, stay safe 'n well ... 'n un-shot.

 

[swing_voter]

A curious combination, to be sure. Dr. Paul Krugman's field is economics. He's the recipient of a Nobel Prize in that field. To my knowledge, and it's far from complete, he has said little about guns.

What he has said, though, is that there are some theories [Ed.: The word 'theories' is used broadly,] that have been refuted by data and yet, zombie-like, keep coming back, refusing to go away. He calls them zombie theories.

So it is in matters of gunshot deaths, injuries and laws in these United States of America. There are a number of talking points or comments which have been refuted again and again, but still show up on sites such as this one. I plead guilty to taking the time to refute some of them myself, but to no avail. They continue to stumble and shamble along, day after day.

I've come to the conclusion that a simple statement will, for me at least, suffice in the future. It's this: 'This has been refuted.' It passes the test of necessary and sufficient.

Regards, stay safe 'n well ... 'n un-shot.

He's an expert in economics? So what?


.

 

[Torus34]

He's an expert in economics? So what?


.

Hi, Swing Voter!

Have a good day. Stay safe 'n well ... 'n un-un-shot.

 

[Noodlegawd]

A curious combination, to be sure. Dr. Paul Krugman's field is economics. He's the recipient of a Nobel Prize in that field. To my knowledge, and it's far from complete, he has said little about guns.

What he has said, though, is that there are some theories [Ed.: The word 'theories' is used broadly,] that have been refuted by data and yet, zombie-like, keep coming back, refusing to go away. He calls them zombie theories.

So it is in matters of gunshot deaths, injuries and laws in these United States of America. There are a number of talking points or comments which have been refuted again and again, but still show up on sites such as this one. I plead guilty to taking the time to refute some of them myself, but to no avail. They continue to stumble and shamble along, day after day.

I've come to the conclusion that a simple statement will, for me at least, suffice in the future. It's this: 'This has been refuted.' It passes the test of necessary and sufficient.

Regards, stay safe 'n well ... 'n un-shot.

Would you care to share a few of these theories? I'll share one: the theory that the passage of extremely strict gun laws in Australia in the mid-90s resulted in a reduction in their homicide rate.

Ok, your turn.

 

[VanceMack]

There IS only one honest anti-gun argument. "I hate the 2nd Amendment and think it should be abolished".

Everything else is a lie used to shoehorn in their truth.

 

[swing_voter]

There IS only one honest anti-gun argument. "I hate the 2nd Amendment and think it should be abolished".

Everything else is a lie used to shoehorn in their truth.

What about:


"There's an intersection in my neighborhood where there are a lot of car crashes."

"I say we put up stop signs."

Nothing wrong with that, right? Idiots don't pay attention, slow down, they just charge right through the intersection and they cause wrecks.


Same can be said of guns.


"There was a mass shooting at my place of work. A lunatic bought a gun and killed 8 people."

"I say we make it harder for lunatics to buy guns, if not impossible."






.

 

[VanceMack]

What about:


"There's an intersection in my neighborhood where there are a lot of car crashes."

"I say we put up stop signs."

Nothing wrong with that, right? Idiots don't pay attention, slow down, they just charge right through the intersection and they cause wrecks.


Same can be said of guns.


"There was a mass shooting at my place of work. A lunatic bought a gun and killed 8 people."

"I say we make it harder for lunatics to buy guns, if not impossible."






.

Sorry...no. Your analogy falls on its face and you are the worst violator of it on this site.

In your analogy, you would put up signs and try to deal with a dnagerous intersection. Where gun control is concerned, you ignore the dnagerous intersection and shriek "We should be putting up signs on this country road that no one drives on!"

 

[swing_voter]

Sorry...no. Your analogy falls on its face and you are the worst violator of it on this site.

In your analogy, you would put up signs and try to deal with a dnagerous intersection. Where gun control is concerned, you ignore the dnagerous intersection and shriek "We should be putting up signs on this country road that no one drives on!"

Wut?


The problem is lunatics buying guns and killing people.

I want to deal with the problem.

How would you fix the problem?


.

 

[Rich2018]

A curious combination, to be sure. Dr. Paul Krugman's field is economics. He's the recipient of a Nobel Prize in that field. To my knowledge, and it's far from complete, he has said little about guns.

What he has said, though, is that there are some theories [Ed.: The word 'theories' is used broadly,] that have been refuted by data and yet, zombie-like, keep coming back, refusing to go away. He calls them zombie theories.

So it is in matters of gunshot deaths, injuries and laws in these United States of America. There are a number of talking points or comments which have been refuted again and again, but still show up on sites such as this one. I plead guilty to taking the time to refute some of them myself, but to no avail. They continue to stumble and shamble along, day after day.

I've come to the conclusion that a simple statement will, for me at least, suffice in the future. It's this: 'This has been refuted.' It passes the test of necessary and sufficient.

Regards, stay safe 'n well ... 'n un-shot.

What has been "refuted" ?

 

[Chillfolks]

What about:


"There's an intersection in my neighborhood where there are a lot of car crashes."

"I say we put up stop signs."

Nothing wrong with that, right? Idiots don't pay attention, slow down, they just charge right through the intersection and they cause wrecks.


Same can be said of guns.


"There was a mass shooting at my place of work. A lunatic bought a gun and killed 8 people."

"I say we make it harder for lunatics to buy guns, if not impossible."






.

In order for your little example to be consistent the employers response would be to put up a gun free zone sign.

For me I agree we should keep lunatics from having guns. The rub comes in as more and more rights are ignored to achieve that result.

 

[Rich2018]

In order for your little example to be consistent the employers response would be to put up a gun free zone sign.

For me I agree we should keep lunatics from having guns. The rub comes in as more and more rights are ignored to achieve that result.

And how do you stop psychopaths and sociopaths from getting guns, while permitting everyone else to get them ?

 

[Chillfolks]

And how do you stop psychopaths and sociopaths from getting guns, while permitting everyone else to get them ?

If I had the perfect answer I would be president.

 

[Rich2018]

If I had the perfect answer I would be president.

Because presidents have the answer ?

 

[Chillfolks]

Because presidents have the answer ?

Because if I had that figured out I would be in politics, solving that issue would write your ticket to the white house

 

[VanceMack]

Wut?


The problem is lunatics buying guns and killing people.

I want to deal with the problem.

How would you fix the problem?


.

There are 10,000 people killed by violent criminals every year.

Your response is to ignore them and shit yourself over the 39 that died during a mass shooting in 2021, and the 9 that died from mass shootings in 2020. YOu take 5 instances from 2021 and 2 from 2020 and us that as your motivation to attack the Constitutionally protected gun rights of 140 MILLION law abiding citizen gun owners.

You want to address the problem, pass mandatory minimum prison sentenicng laws for violent criminals that use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Lock them away fora minimum of 40 years plus their sentence. Hit theose that illegally provide them with firearms with the same sentence using RICO and accessory laws. Then get in and actually address the poverty that is breeding the violence.

But you dont want to do ANY of that...because you dont really give a **** about any of it.

 

[TurtleDude]

There IS only one honest anti-gun argument. "I hate the 2nd Amendment and think it should be abolished".

Everything else is a lie used to shoehorn in their truth.

most gun haters present =as a facade-public safety=as their motivation for laws that harass honest gun owners. That facade is easily destroyed.

 

[Logician Man]

most gun haters present =as a facade-public safety=as their motivation for laws that harass honest gun owners. That facade is easily destroyed.

That's not true, TD. I'm certainly no gun banner, but when I see someone boasting about pulling a firearm 3 separate times on 'unarmed' citizens in less than 9 years, starting at the age of 17, that gives good cause for others to question as to whether or not that gun owner is "honest and responsible." Anyone would have good reason to argue as to whether or not "public safety" is at risk with such irresponsible behavior where firearms and "public safety" are involved.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's not true, TD. I'm certainly no gun banner, but when I see someone boasting about pulling a firearm 3 separate times on 'unarmed' citizens in less than 9 years, starting at the age of 17, that gives good cause for others to question as to whether or not that gun owner is "honest and responsible." Anyone would have good reason to argue as to whether or not "public safety" is at risk with such irresponsible behavior where firearms and "public safety" are involved.

why do you continue to obsess over something that you dishonestly claim about me and bring it up on threads where it has no relevance to the topic.?

 

[Logician Man]

why do you continue to obsess over something that you dishonestly claim about me and bring it up on threads where it has no relevance to the topic.?

There is no dishonesty, TD. 'Your' post is readily available in your posting history to be seen in it's entirety. It has 'relevance' because you mentioned 'honest' gun owners and "public safety" in your post above, which is what I addressed, and now you are denying what you, yourself have posted here at DP, which by definition is "dishonest."

 

[Lursa]

A curious combination, to be sure. Dr. Paul Krugman's field is economics. He's the recipient of a Nobel Prize in that field. To my knowledge, and it's far from complete, he has said little about guns.

What he has said, though, is that there are some theories [Ed.: The word 'theories' is used broadly,] that have been refuted by data and yet, zombie-like, keep coming back, refusing to go away. He calls them zombie theories.

So it is in matters of gunshot deaths, injuries and laws in these United States of America. There are a number of talking points or comments which have been refuted again and again, but still show up on sites such as this one. I plead guilty to taking the time to refute some of them myself, but to no avail. They continue to stumble and shamble along, day after day.

I've come to the conclusion that a simple statement will, for me at least, suffice in the future. It's this: 'This has been refuted.' It passes the test of necessary and sufficient.

Regards, stay safe 'n well ... 'n un-shot.

Sounds like the 2020 election 'deniers.'

Almost exactly.

 

[Roadvirus]

Hard to take ANYTHING Constantly Wrong Krugman has to say. Read up on him on newsbusters.org.

Constantly Wrong on encouraging infrastructure building: "We have to get a bunch of scientists to tell us that we're facing a threatened alien invasion"

 

[Rich2018]

most gun haters present =as a facade-public safety=as their motivation for laws that harass honest gun owners. That facade is easily destroyed.

Only in your mind

You're in denial about the motivation behind gun control because you're just so wedded to your guns
You desperately seek for an alternative motivation rather than face the truth
You dismiss any and all needs for gun control and all evidence of the benefits of it

Even going so far as to dismiss the number of victims of the bloody US history of mass shootings as "insignificant".

 

[calamity]

most gun haters present =as a facade-public safety=as their motivation for laws that harass honest gun owners. That facade is easily destroyed.

That is simply not true. Besides, as post 19 clearly states, you are in no position to judge the motivation of others on this issue nor claim the high-horsed mantle of "honest gun owners," not with a history of exhibiting the exact behavior most gun control advocates find disconcerting.