I am not wasting my time on you. Look at the screenshots here. You agreed on a bet, and now you are backing down. I don't want to be distracted by your tactics. Anyone can understand the screenshots, don't try to distract with bs.
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】 : I am not wasting my time on you. Look at the screenshots here. You agreed : on a bet, and now you are backing down. I don't want to be distracted by : your tactics. Anyone can understand the screenshots, don't try to distract : with bs.
You are wasting my time. You threw a bet, I accepted it. You are backing down and trying to find excuse. Your words are no more significant than farts.
My bet is on post 150, not the ones that you keep “remembering”. Go check. 多谢顶楼咯！
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】 : You are wasting my time. You threw a bet, I accepted it. You are backing : down and trying to find excuse. Your words are no more significant than : farts.
The "official" post where you accept my offer is post 152. 150 is your offer for me, which I did not accept because I did not feel it was fair. To prove it was not fair, I offered it back to you in post 151, and you accepted it in 152. So posts 151 & 152 are the "official" offer and acceptance. This is called negotiation. Before the final deal, each side offers and counteroffers probably many times, and they are not official. Only the one that is accepted is official, in this case is your post 151.
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】 : My bet is on post 150, not the ones that you keep “remembering”. Go check. : 多谢顶楼咯！
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】 : We are talking about guns in civilians hands. It is also true that the : military has killed most lives, overall.
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】 : Yeah, you can insist that your farts have served as deterrent for " potential : " perpetrators. So farts save lives, actually, humanity. :
I didn't use profanity. I used "farts" literally, and it is not profane. How about this? People's farts save 330M American lives since they have deterred perpetrators.
So you think data doesn’t need to be reasonable and fair? Like the one you cited to make false claim?
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】 : The "official" post where you accept my offer is post 152. 150 is your : offer : for me, which I did not accept because I did not feel it was fair. To : prove it was not fair, I offered it back to you in post 151, and you : accepted it in 152. So posts 151 & 152 are the "official" offer and : acceptance. This is called negotiation. Before the final deal, each side : offers and counteroffers probably many times, and they are not official. : Only the one that is accepted is official, in this case is your post 151. : check.
I only care about the terms in the "official" offer and acceptance. Other things might be important, but irrelevant. If your table is worth $100, but you agree to sell it to me at $20, it doesn't matter if it is reasonable and fair. I place an order to buy some shares at $20, then it opens with a gap down to $10 per share, but if my broker still charges me at $20 per share, it does not matter if it is reasonable or fair.
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】 : So you think data doesn’t need to be reasonable and fair? Like the one you : cited to make false claim?
Official my ass. Did I agree to your term? Did I click “order”? Even if I clicked, do you know that it is legit to rescind, if the term is not fair?
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】 : I only care about the terms in the "official" offer and acceptance. Other : things might be important, but irrelevant. If your table is worth $100, but : you agree to sell it to me at $20, it doesn't matter if it is reasonable : and fair. I place an order to buy some shares at $20, then it opens with a : gap down to $10 per share, but if my broker still charges me at $20 per : share, it does not matter if it is reasonable or fair. : you
If your words means as much as you ass. I understand. Actually I BELIEVED you would back down, and that's why I have not moved forward in that thread. You are not disappointing me. You have "given" me the order, you tell me if you have clicked on "order"?
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】 : Official my ass. Did I agree your term? Did I click “order”? : but : a
Oh I believed that you wouldn’t answer my question what is fair and what is not fair. I had “fair” in there earlier. In fact, I mentioned the right way to control the data in one of my first response to your claim. Read it if you can read.
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】 : If your words means as much as you ass. I understand. Actually I BELIEVED : you would back down, and that's why I have not moved forward in that thread. : You are not disappointing me. You have "given" me the order, you tell me : if you have clicked on "order"?
No, because it is irrelevant to our bet. I just want to focus on the bet, nothing else. I want to grind you on this till everyone sees how you keep your words.
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】 : Oh I believed that you wouldn’t answer my question what is fair and what is : not fair. I had “fair” in there earlier. : BELIEVED : thread. : me
Bundy "succeeded" only at the mercy of the Fed. You really believe their guns meant anything in front of tanks and missiles? A Seal or Green Beret team could easily eliminate them.
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】 : No, because it is irrelevant to our bet. I just want to focus on the bet, : nothing else. I want to grind you on this till everyone sees how you keep : your words. : is
That's because the perpetrators already have guns. If they don't, they most likely won't even consider going to your home. Plus, the ones going to your home are not directly BLM. Some perpetrators are pro BLM, but some are not.
Yep, bad guys get them anyway, just like bad guys get the guns anyway. Everyone should carry a backpack bomb that can be easily detonated before death and wipe out everything within a 100 ft radius, that way everyone else knows it and won't shoot others within 100 ft. LV shooting does not happen often. Oh yeah, I am going to open a sniper business.
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】 : Shitty luminb, you are wasting my time. Yeah, disappear like rubio to save : your ID, on which you rely to make your 50 cents.
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15
This is only one of the many reports, and this one gives you the best number for your narratives. Good cherry picking.
【 在 fishingarden (Edward Blum门下老王) 的大作中提到: 】 : 俺懒得看一个能无知下结论“枪越多死亡率越高”的草包给出的所谓研究。你起码摘抄 : 一点给出诚意。 : 俺给你下面这段来自于奥巴马出资的CDC枪支研究。 : Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by : victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with : estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million ( : Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving : firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). : http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15
枪杀的人多还是枪救的人多，不是光看枪下死了多少人就可以下结论的。打个比方，光看每年车祸死多少人是不能得出来每年车能救多少人的。
做科研需要对照组才能下结论知道不知道？那我来问你，社么样的对照组能得出数据告诉大家，枪，或者任何武器，是杀人多还是
救人多。还有一个问题是，如果我的敌人手里有枪，那么我们手里是有枪救人多还是没枪救人多？
你回答不出就别在那儿到处跟人bet了，丢人知道吧
屎九人，回答不出以上问题恕我不再浪费时间，只能谢你顶楼啦
Iq of 49, stop wasting time and answer my questions, which I brought up on
day 1. Don’t say that I never mentioned those before
I am not wasting my time on you. Look at the screenshots here. You agreed on a bet, and now you are backing down. I don't want to be distracted by
your tactics. Anyone can understand the screenshots, don't try to distract with bs.
首先，要纠正一个错误观念，就是白左和你一样是正常可以理喻的人。
其次，要建立一个正确的观念，就是白左其实是一种精神失常。不管是因为智商还是因为社会商还是什么别的商数低下引起的精神失常。
那么如果你不是精神科的医生，很自然就放弃治疗这些人了。
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】
: 枪杀的人多还是枪救的人多，不是光看枪下死了多少人就可以下结论的。打个比方，光
: 看每年车祸死多少人是不能得出来每年车能救多少人的。
: 做科研需要对照组才能下结论知道不知道？那我来问你，社么样的对照组能得出数据告
: 诉大家，枪，或者任何武器，是杀人多还是
: 救人多。还有一个问题是，如果我的敌人手里有枪，那么我们手里是有枪救人多还是没
: 枪救人多？
: 你回答不出就别在那儿到处跟人bet了，丢人知道吧
Good analysis of yourself. But I don't give a sh-t.
Do you understand the four screenshots? Do you think he is keeping his
words?
【 在 SQL (月光下的房黑) 的大作中提到: 】
: 首先，要纠正一个错误观念，就是白左和你一样是正常可以理喻的人。
: 其次，要建立一个正确的观念，就是白左其实是一种精神失常。不管是因为智商还是因
: 为社会商还是什么别的商数低下引起的精神失常。
: 那么如果你不是精神科的医生，很自然就放弃治疗这些人了。
屎九人，回答不出以上问题恕我不再浪费时间，只能谢你顶楼啦
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】
: I am not wasting my time on you. Look at the screenshots here. You
agreed
: on a bet, and now you are backing down. I don't want to be distracted by
: your tactics. Anyone can understand the screenshots, don't try to
distract
: with bs.
You are wasting my time. You threw a bet, I accepted it. You are backing
down and trying to find excuse. Your words are no more significant than
farts.
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】
: 屎九人，回答不出以上问题恕我不再浪费时间，只能谢你顶楼啦
: agreed
: distract
My bet is on post 150, not the ones that you keep “remembering”. Go check. 多谢顶楼咯！
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】
: You are wasting my time. You threw a bet, I accepted it. You are backing
: down and trying to find excuse. Your words are no more significant than
: farts.
枪饭的逻辑就是：枪救下的人是隐藏的，没有记录，无证可查，所以我说多少就是多少。我说枪支救了一万亿人，你也无法反驳。
枪支能救多少人，当然是可以查出来的，只是你们枪饭看到实际数据就开始撒泼打滚否认罢了。因为如果没有救人，就会成为一个命案记录，如果救了人，这个命案记录就不存在，减少的命案必然在数据上体现出来。持枪如果救人比杀人多，那么记录在案的命案必然和持枪率成反比。这种研究早就不知道多少人做过了。可惜不是，持枪率越高，死人（重点：包括非枪杀死人）越多。数据早就有无数。跨国对比，跨州对比，跨市对比，什么对照的全都做过。consistent result.https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
"如果我的敌人手里有枪"，这个“如果”本身就有问题，亚特兰大的枪击案，枪手上午买枪下午杀人。如此方便快捷，比投票还容易，要知道现在的GA都没法上午注册下午去投票！现在的枪支管理宽松度，就是给杀手制造便利。枪支管理严格，这个“如果”发生的机率就变小。
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】
: 枪杀的人多还是枪救的人多，不是光看枪下死了多少人就可以下结论的。打个比方，光
: 看每年车祸死多少人是不能得出来每年车能救多少人的。
: 做科研需要对照组才能下结论知道不知道？那我来问你，社么样的对照组能得出数据告
: 诉大家，枪，或者任何武器，是杀人多还是
: 救人多。还有一个问题是，如果我的敌人手里有枪，那么我们手里是有枪救人多还是没
: 枪救人多？
: 你回答不出就别在那儿到处跟人bet了，丢人知道吧
"持枪率越高，死人（重点：包括非枪杀死人）越多"
这么说军区死人最多啊。
左派的一个特点就是脑容量不足，只适合单变量。
【 在 flubber (跳跳马) 的大作中提到: 】
: 枪饭的逻辑就是：枪救下的人是隐藏的，没有记录，无证可查，所以我说多少就是多少
: 。我说枪支救了一万亿人，你也无法反驳。
: 枪支能救多少人，当然是可以查出来的，只是你们枪饭看到实际数据就开始撒泼打滚否
: 认罢了。因为如果没有救人，就会成为一个命案记录，如果救了人，这个命案记录就不
: 存在，减少的命案必然在数据上体现出来。持枪如果救人比杀人多，那么记录在案的命
: 案必然和持枪率成反比。这种研究早就不知道多少人做过了。可惜不是，持枪率越高，
: 死人（重点：包括非枪杀死人）越多。数据早就有无数。跨国对比，跨州对比，跨市对
: 比，什么对照的全都做过。consistant result.
: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
: "如果我的敌人手里有枪"，这个“如果”本身就有问题，亚特兰大的枪击案，枪手上午
: ...................
We are talking about guns in civilians hands. It is also true that the
military has killed most lives, overall.
【 在 fishingarden (Edward Blum门下老王) 的大作中提到: 】
: "持枪率越高，死人（重点：包括非枪杀死人）越多"
: 这么说军区死人最多啊。
: 左派的一个特点就是脑容量不足，只适合单变量。
The "official" post where you accept my offer is post 152. 150 is your
offer
for me, which I did not accept because I did not feel it was fair. To
prove it was not fair, I offered it back to you in post 151, and you
accepted it in 152. So posts 151 & 152 are the "official" offer and
acceptance. This is called negotiation. Before the final deal, each side
offers and counteroffers probably many times, and they are not official.
Only the one that is accepted is official, in this case is your post 151.
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】
: My bet is on post 150, not the ones that you keep “remembering”. Go
check.
: 多谢顶楼咯！
大跃进饿死三千万，中共军队建国以来杀死了多少人？
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】
: We are talking about guns in civilians hands. It is also true that the
: military has killed most lives, overall.
Not relevant. Not falling into your stupid pitfall.
【 在 fishingarden (Edward Blum门下老王) 的大作中提到: 】
: 大跃进饿死三千万，中共军队建国以来杀死了多少人？
怎么不相关。。。
人民持枪权就避免了暴政的存在。
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】
: Not relevant. Not falling into your stupid pitfall.
Yeah, you can insist that your farts have served as deterrent for "potential" perpetrators. So farts save lives, actually, humanity.
【 在 fishingarden (Edward Blum门下老王) 的大作中提到: 】
: 怎么不相关。。。
: 人民持枪权就避免了暴政的存在。
脏字脏话不增加你的说服力，反而证明了俺的事实无可辩驳。
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】
: Yeah, you can insist that your farts have served as deterrent for "
potential
: " perpetrators. So farts save lives, actually, humanity.
:
I didn't use profanity. I used "farts" literally, and it is not profane.
How about this?
People's farts save 330M American lives since they have deterred
perpetrators.
【 在 fishingarden (Edward Blum门下老王) 的大作中提到: 】
: 脏字脏话不增加你的说服力，反而证明了俺的事实无可辩驳。
: potential
So you think data doesn’t need to be reasonable and fair? Like the one you cited to make false claim?
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】
: The "official" post where you accept my offer is post 152. 150 is your
: offer
: for me, which I did not accept because I did not feel it was fair. To
: prove it was not fair, I offered it back to you in post 151, and you
: accepted it in 152. So posts 151 & 152 are the "official" offer and
: acceptance. This is called negotiation. Before the final deal, each side
: offers and counteroffers probably many times, and they are not official. : Only the one that is accepted is official, in this case is your post 151.
: check.
I only care about the terms in the "official" offer and acceptance. Other
things might be important, but irrelevant. If your table is worth $100, but you agree to sell it to me at $20, it doesn't matter if it is reasonable
and fair. I place an order to buy some shares at $20, then it opens with a gap down to $10 per share, but if my broker still charges me at $20 per
share, it does not matter if it is reasonable or fair.
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】
: So you think data doesn’t need to be reasonable and fair? Like the one
you
: cited to make false claim?
逻辑狗屁不通。sure，枪越多死的人越多，但是你分了合法枪和非法枪了？你分了流氓互殴和好人冤死了吗？
废话，你就是能禁了枪手买枪，也不能禁了流氓已经有枪。我不能，可能也不想防范疯子，但是我一定得防流氓。疯子一年有几个？流氓随时随地都可能敲上门
【 在 flubber (跳跳马) 的大作中提到: 】
: 枪饭的逻辑就是：枪救下的人是隐藏的，没有记录，无证可查，所以我说多少就是多少
: 。我说枪支救了一万亿人，你也无法反驳。
: 枪支能救多少人，当然是可以查出来的，只是你们枪饭看到实际数据就开始撒泼打滚否
: 认罢了。因为如果没有救人，就会成为一个命案记录，如果救了人，这个命案记录就不
: 存在，减少的命案必然在数据上体现出来。持枪如果救人比杀人多，那么记录在案的命
: 案必然和持枪率成反比。这种研究早就不知道多少人做过了。可惜不是，持枪率越高，
: 死人（重点：包括非枪杀死人）越多。数据早就有无数。跨国对比，跨州对比，跨市对
: 比，什么对照的全都做过。consistant result.
: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
: "如果我的敌人手里有枪"，这个“如果”本身就有问题，亚特兰大的枪击案，枪手上午
: ...................
Official my ass. Did I agree to your term? Did I click “order”? Even if I clicked, do you know that it is legit to rescind, if the term is not fair?
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】
: I only care about the terms in the "official" offer and acceptance. Other
: things might be important, but irrelevant. If your table is worth $100,
but
: you agree to sell it to me at $20, it doesn't matter if it is reasonable : and fair. I place an order to buy some shares at $20, then it opens with a
: gap down to $10 per share, but if my broker still charges me at $20 per
: share, it does not matter if it is reasonable or fair.
: you
When it is easy to get it legally, it is also easy to get it illegally. Don't believe? Look at most other countries.
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】
: 逻辑狗屁不通。sure，枪越多死的人越多，但是你分了合法枪和非法枪了？你分了流氓
: 互殴和好人冤死了吗？
If your words means as much as you ass. I understand. Actually I BELIEVED you would back down, and that's why I have not moved forward in that thread. You are not disappointing me. You have "given" me the order, you tell me if you have clicked on "order"?
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】
: Official my ass. Did I agree your term? Did I click “order”?
: but
: a
Oh I believed that you wouldn’t answer my question what is fair and what is not fair. I had “fair” in there earlier. In fact, I mentioned the right
way to control the data in one of my first response to your claim. Read it
if you can read.
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】
: If your words means as much as you ass. I understand. Actually I
BELIEVED
: you would back down, and that's why I have not moved forward in that
thread.
: You are not disappointing me. You have "given" me the order, you tell
me
: if you have clicked on "order"?
No, because it is irrelevant to our bet. I just want to focus on the bet,
nothing else. I want to grind you on this till everyone sees how you keep
your words.
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】
: Oh I believed that you wouldn’t answer my question what is fair and what is
: not fair. I had “fair” in there earlier.
: BELIEVED
: thread.
: me
只有SB才相信持枪反抗暴政
你看看1月份冲击国会大厦的
哪个没有枪？
警察开枪杀人的时候哪个反抗了？
还不是胆小的一逼
人民持枪反暴政就是川粉的YY
否则现在台上的总统就不是拜登了
【 在 fishingarden (Edward Blum门下老王) 的大作中提到: 】
: 怎么不相关。。。
: 人民持枪权就避免了暴政的存在。
不说远的，就说最近的邦迪农场，就是持枪对抗暴政还成功了的案例。
你要多看看新闻，了解世界不能靠脑补。
【 在 BoeingCEO (Bimmer) 的大作中提到: 】
: 只有SB才相信持枪反抗暴政
: 你看看1月份冲击国会大厦的
: 哪个没有枪？
: 警察开枪杀人的时候哪个反抗了？
: 还不是胆小的一逼
: 人民持枪反暴政就是川粉的YY
: 否则现在台上的总统就不是拜登了
Bundy "succeeded" only at the mercy of the Fed. You really believe their
guns meant anything in front of tanks and missiles? A Seal or Green Beret team could easily eliminate them.
【 在 fishingarden (Edward Blum门下老王) 的大作中提到: 】
: 不说远的，就说最近的邦迪农场，就是持枪对抗暴政还成功了的案例。
: 你要多看看新闻，了解世界不能靠脑补。
屎九人，回答不出以上问题恕我不再浪费时间，只能谢你顶楼啦
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】
: No, because it is irrelevant to our bet. I just want to focus on the bet,
: nothing else. I want to grind you on this till everyone sees how you keep
: your words.
: is
对头。枪越多越安全，上班持枪，上课持枪，可以最大限度地把坏人就地正法。坏人有自动武器，手雷，RPG，好人也要拥有。坏人有防弹衣，好人也应该尽量穿，古驰布拉
达防弹衣好看又防弹，居家必备。校服以后必须要有防弹功能。书包必带钢板。人人持枪，投共和党，这就是我们川粉的理想生活。
BLM猜我家可能有枪，所以不敢轻易来家里抢劫，让我家免于生命危险。这难道不是实
实在在的事实吗？
【 在 flubber (跳跳马) 的大作中提到: 】
: 枪饭的逻辑就是：枪救下的人是隐藏的，没有记录，无证可查，所以我说多少就是多少
: 。我说枪支救了一万亿人，你也无法反驳。
: 枪支能救多少人，当然是可以查出来的，只是你们枪饭看到实际数据就开始撒泼打滚否
: 认罢了。因为如果没有救人，就会成为一个命案记录，如果救了人，这个命案记录就不
: 存在，减少的命案必然在数据上体现出来。持枪如果救人比杀人多，那么记录在案的命
: 案必然和持枪率成反比。这种研究早就不知道多少人做过了。可惜不是，持枪率越高，
: 死人（重点：包括非枪杀死人）越多。数据早就有无数。跨国对比，跨州对比，跨市对
: 比，什么对照的全都做过。consistant result.
: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
: "如果我的敌人手里有枪"，这个“如果”本身就有问题，亚特兰大的枪击案，枪手上午
: ...................
Shitty luminb, you are wasting my time. Yeah, disappear like rubio to save your ID, on which you rely to make your 50 cents.
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】
: 屎九人，回答不出以上问题恕我不再浪费时间，只能谢你顶楼啦
That's because the perpetrators already have guns. If they don't, they most likely won't even consider going to your home. Plus, the ones going to
your home are not directly BLM. Some perpetrators are pro BLM, but some are not.
【 在 iminosugar (伪糖) 的大作中提到: 】
: BLM猜我家可能有枪，所以不敢轻易来家里抢劫，让我家免于生命危险。这难道不是实
: 实在在的事实吗？
Yep, bad guys get them anyway, just like bad guys get the guns anyway.
Everyone should carry a backpack bomb that can be easily detonated before
death and wipe out everything within a 100 ft radius, that way everyone else knows it and won't shoot others within 100 ft. LV shooting does not happen often. Oh yeah, I am going to open a sniper business.
【 在 hulooo (hulu) 的大作中提到: 】
: 对头。枪越多越安全，上班持枪，上课持枪，可以最大限度地把坏人就地正法。坏人有
: 自动武器，手雷，RPG，好人也要拥有。坏人有防弹衣，好人也应该尽量穿，古驰布拉
: 达防弹衣好看又防弹，居家必备。校服以后必须要有防弹功能。书包必带钢板。人人持
: 枪，投共和党，这就是我们川粉的理想生活。
俺刚说了左派是单细胞只能处理单变量。谢谢你帮我证明。
【 在 hulooo (hulu) 的大作中提到: 】
: 对头。枪越多越安全，上班持枪，上课持枪，可以最大限度地把坏人就地正法。坏人有
: 自动武器，手雷，RPG，好人也要拥有。坏人有防弹衣，好人也应该尽量穿，古驰布拉
: 达防弹衣好看又防弹，居家必备。校服以后必须要有防弹功能。书包必带钢板。人人持
: 枪，投共和党，这就是我们川粉的理想生活。
造谣死全家喔。九人，敢swear么？不敢就不要瞎逼逼了
【 在 phoenixLight (Niner'sMJ) 的大作中提到: 】
: Shitty luminb, you are wasting my time. Yeah, disappear like rubio to
save
: your ID, on which you rely to make your 50 cents.
什么叫做控制变量对比？
平民有军队的练习量、职业化程度、枪支管理的严格程度？
链接你去看了吗？还是因为害怕reality而根本点都不敢点开？
楼主说做对照组莫非就是按你这种做法？
就这种回贴还好意思出来说自己思维严谨？真是笑死个人。
【 在 fishingarden (Edward Blum门下老王) 的大作中提到: 】
: "持枪率越高，死人（重点：包括非枪杀死人）越多"
: 这么说军区死人最多啊。
: 左派的一个特点就是脑容量不足，只适合单变量。
哈哈哈哈，最好笑的就是这种提非法枪支的。这种陷阱就等着你来钻。
持枪率低的地方死人少。
以前就有人跳出来说“那只是合法枪支。非法枪支你没算”。
原来死人少，竟然是更多的非法枪支在起着维护治安的作用哦？
说这话的人到底经过大脑了吗？
【 在 luminb (Gooder) 的大作中提到: 】
: 逻辑狗屁不通。sure，枪越多死的人越多，但是你分了合法枪和非法枪了？你分了流氓
: 互殴和好人冤死了吗？
: 废话，你就是能禁了枪手买枪，也不能禁了流氓已经有枪。我不能，可能也不想防范疯
: 子，但是我一定得防流氓。疯子一年有几个？流氓随时随地都可能敲上门
你既然知道要控制变量，那为啥还能厚着脸皮说出持枪率越高死亡率越高这么简单无知的结论呢？
【 在 flubber (跳跳马) 的大作中提到: 】
: 什么叫做控制变量对比？
: 平民有军队的练习量、职业化程度、枪支管理的严格程度？
: 链接你去看了吗？还是因为害怕reality而根本点都不敢点开？
: 楼主说做对照组莫非就是按你这种做法？
: 就这种回贴还好意思出来说自己思维严谨？真是笑死个人。
链接里面的paper都做到了控制变量。
你举个例子举出一个没有控制变量的对比。这才是笑死个人。
你不厚脸皮，你来举一个数据。别虚无缥缈空中楼阁。
【 在 fishingarden (Edward Blum门下老王) 的大作中提到: 】
: 你既然知道要控制变量，那为啥还能厚着脸皮说出持枪率越高死亡率越高这么简单无知
: 的结论呢？
俺懒得看一个能无知下结论“枪越多死亡率越高”的草包给出的所谓研究。你起码摘抄一点给出诚意。
俺给你下面这段来自于奥巴马出资的CDC枪支研究。
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by
victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with
estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving
firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15
【 在 flubber (跳跳马) 的大作中提到: 】
: 链接里面的paper都做到了控制变量。
: 你举个例子举出一个没有控制变量的对比。这才是笑死个人。
: 你不厚脸皮，你来举一个数据。别虚无缥缈空中楼阁。
我在说枪多的地方你去扯枪少的地方。你哪个眼睛看出来我说枪少的地方非法枪多了？你莫非跟智商49一样喜欢臆想？
【 在 flubber (跳跳马) 的大作中提到: 】
: 哈哈哈哈，最好笑的就是这种提非法枪支的。这种陷阱就等着你来钻。
: 持枪率低的地方死人少。
: 以前就有人跳出来说“那只是合法枪支。非法枪支你没算”。
: 原来死人少，竟然是更多的非法枪支在起着维护治安的作用哦？
: 说这话的人到底经过大脑了吗？
This is only one of the many reports, and this one gives you the best number for your narratives. Good cherry picking.
【 在 fishingarden (Edward Blum门下老王) 的大作中提到: 】
: 俺懒得看一个能无知下结论“枪越多死亡率越高”的草包给出的所谓研究。你起码摘抄
: 一点给出诚意。
: 俺给你下面这段来自于奥巴马出资的CDC枪支研究。
: Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by
: victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with
: estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (
: Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving
: firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
: http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15