i) as "paid commentators" they should be more open to scrutiny, and as a result more sure of their facts before they write them - after all, if one had a pound for every "media bias" thread here one would be a very rich man;
Um, actually when you see someone like John Lott, Ann Coulter, or any other talking head giving their point of view on a news program they are not compensated for giving their views. This comes from having worked at MSNBC among other television news outlets. So your point doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Regardless, getting compensated for espousing one's views does not hold them to a higher standard- I reference both Ms. Coulter and Mr. Moore when saying that. Also, you're much more easy for me to scrutinize because you're here and willing to engage in debate. Moore couldn't care less about what I, or any other lower-class peon has to say. For reference, please look up Michael Wilson and his thus far fruitless attempts to get Moore to sit down for an interview.
ii) Lott did not go "back and re-did it following the same methodology and reproducing his results" - the results were different, and that ignores the sizeable body of evidence as to whether the 98% survey was ever actually done in the first place (all of which Tim Lambert and others have detailed);
Ok, went out and did some web digging, and you seem to be right on this one. However, the bit which Lott failed to produce his data on still accounts for a rather miniscule part of both his results and his methodology.
Still, regardless of what the outcome of Lott's, or anyone else's studies are, the right to keep and bear arms is an intrinsic individual human civil right.
iii) I did find Justins' comments an ad hominem attack - he has accused me of lying without showing any evidence that I have;
Agricola, at no point did I accuse you of lying- merely playing extremely fast and loose with both the facts and the truth, and that your interpretations tend to be, well,
skewed is the best word I can come up with. If I meant to get across that you're a liar, I'd simply say such. Pointing out that you think Monty won WWII singlehandly or that you defend Tony Martin's imprisonment isn't an ad hominem attack. Calling you an ethnocentric true believer in the injustices of the British Police State is
*. See the difference? In the former I simply pointed out facts, in the latter I called you names. One is an ad hominem attack, the other is not.
iv) justin, if she had said that she would have been correct - instead, she said that "police are routinely armed", as well as other comments which are dealt with on the thread that this was originally posted on.
Perhaps she could have chosen a better word, or perhaps it's a deliberate attempt to mislead. I would consider it unlikely that by using the word 'routinely' that she is making a deliberate attempt at misleading. It just seems far too mundane to even debate, and there doesn't seem to be an ocean of information regarding how often/when/where British LEO's are issued firearms anyway.
*Let it be known that this is not meant to be an ad hominem attack on agricola, but an example of what an ad hominem attack looks like. Had this been a real ad hominem attack, I wouldn't have posted it. But you can all rest easy knowing that it is simply there as part of a compare and contrast exercise.
) of the imprisonment of Tony Martin:
