"JTMcC" wrote
No, I'm not. It's the classic example of the complex question fallacy. It seems you aren't bright enough or educated enough to recognize it.
But thanks for demonstrating that you're just another gunner who's mindset is still back in the 1950s.
Cites?
Gunner
No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith
Nice cut and paste out of context.
However, Kleck reviewed the record associated with each reported DGU and flagged every report for which: (1)it was not clear if the respondent had actually confronted the perpetrator; (2)the respondent was a police officer, soldier, or security guard; (3)the interviewer had not properly recorded exactly what the respondent had done with the gun, so it was not certain that the respondent had actually used the gun; or, (4)the record did not state a specific crime the respondent thought was being committed.
When all such cases were eliminated, the results were 1.125 percent of adults had used guns defensively an average of 1.472 times each, for a total of 2.16 million DGUs per year. This, then is the K-G conservative estimate of annual DGUs. So, rather than saying that K-G found that there are 2.5 million DGUs per year, we should say that there are up to 2.5 million, or be more conservative and say something like over 2 million."
So Churl..if you dont like Lott's study...we can simply go with Klecks. Ok with you?
Laugh laugh laugh
Gunner
No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith
These are different in substance exactly how?
Laugh laugh laugh...
See Churl run, See Churl quibble
Gunner
No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith
Once again, Churl demonstrates that denial is not a river in Egypt and whom will say anything to try to advance his agenda. A lacky for HCI..shrug, what more can be said?
Gunner
No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith
No. It comes from the Cave of My Metalworking Shop. It's a metalworking ng, so the odd man out is you, bringing up off topic stuff. That's fine, clearly there's a big interest. But it is off topic, and you are the one who keeps churning it. Apathetic about metalworking, no.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
On 8 Dec 2003 09:44:46 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@postmaster.co.uk (Carl Nisarel) wrote:
And easily refuted
But, perhaps most telling was the study by Professor Gary Kleck, head of the criminology department at Florida State University, which was summarized in his paper Guns and Violence: A Summary of the field prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, which was held at the Washington Hilton, August
29 through September 1, 1991.Unlike Kellerman, Kleck's award-winning study has been peer-reviewed."
A typical comment from a criminalogist about Kellerman:
" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:16 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: ACICR: Firearms "Facts" Sirs: I am not a medical doctor; my degree is in criminology. With that in mind, having read your "Firearms Facts", I have grave concerns about the validity of the data you are putting out. I am not familiar with all the research you quote in your "Firearms Facts". I am however, as a criminologist, particularly well informed regarding Kellerman et al who you cite at the bottom of your "firearms facts" as one of your sources. Kellerman's studies have been thoroughly refuted by practically every prominent criminologist working in the violence/firearms field - in criminology circles they have a well deserved reputation for being founded on personal bias. In fact, the only place I am aware they can claim "peer review" is in NEJM - hardly a criminology periodical. Furthermore, if memory serves me correctly, the NEJM was involved in funding and supporting this "research" and was not exactly at what one would call arm's length relating to this study. I believe I also recall that the very same editor of NEJM from that time was recently fired for publishing poorly done and prejudiced research in other areas. Whatever the fate of the editor of NEJM was, I find it appalling that an organization connected with a university would use refuted and discredited research as a reference for published claims. I suspect that any graduate students at your university who tried to defend their thesis using discredited research would be given short shrift indeed. Why then, would you feel it perfectly acceptable to use refuted research in your firearms "facts"? Were you incapable of finding the work of Kleck... Wright, Rossi&Daly... Suter??? All of whom, I suspect, are prominent and available in your university's criminology library? If Kellerman is indicative of the quality of research used by your organization as the basis for information disseminated to the public, then the public is poorly served. Those using such research to back up their allegations should be sent back to redo some basic first year university courses until they gain the necessary understanding of the importance of using peer reviewed research - not claptrap psuedo science written to serve the author's personal prejudice. You do the university which hosts you little credit. I wonder whose "research" you will cite next... Keegstra's? "
Just cant handle the refutation of your whole mindset can you? Laugh laugh laugh
Of course it is. Haveing a swimming pool is a risk factor for an accidental drowning as well. Driving a motor vehicle is a risk factor for being involved in a fatal traffic accident.
Your point is exactly what? That Kellerman was wrong and disproved many times? Thank you for your admission.
And of course..if you dont like Lott, and disregard Kleck (laugh laugh laugh) we can always change to the Wright and Rossi's study funded by the US Department of Justice...
Some comments on that study...
Two highly respected, pro-gun-control professors from Massachusetts, James D. Wright and Peter Rossi, were hired to conduct the study. Wright and Rossi spent four years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce the most comprehensive, critical study of gun control ever undertaken. In 1981, they published the results of their research: an exhaustive, three-volume work entitled "Under the Gun." Their findings, and I quote co-author Wright: "Gun control laws do not reduce crime."
Keep up the good work Churl...and as long as you keep spewing your lies..Ill keep up posting the rebuttals. Think of me has having found a new hobby. You.
At this point..you may well want to fold up your tent and move on to more receptive pastures. Perhaps one of the MTV2 newsgroups, or even alt.sarahbrady.rocks? Im sure you can fine enough mush brained liberals to believe you that your ego will get stroked just fine, and maybe even a young man whom will be thrilled enough with your "wisdom" to keep you occupied on these cold winter nights, under a nice thick quilt.
Laugh laugh laugh
Gunner Asch No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith
They Were students. And if one is not currently employed..he is not a policeman. Correct?
If I had been one of the participants, would that have made any difference? Ive been a policeman, I carry handcuffs in the truck and occasionally have body armor about.
In the grand scheme of things, this means exactly what? That two armed citizens stopped the criminal? Yes indeed they did. As happens 2.5 million times a year.
Sloppy or just didn't present facts that really were not germane to the story? Were either student there for the express purpose of responding to the criminals action? No. Were either of them on duty and in uniform at the time? No. Would it have made any difference if either of them had been gay interior decorators? No.
Shrug.
Gunner
No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith
Oh, for Christ's sake, Gunner. A "student," with a bulletproof vest and handcuffs in his car?
Lott's editorial was about the role of "armed citizens" in stopping a crime. He neglected to mention that the "armed citizens" were a currently employed cop equipped with vest and 'cuffs, and another cop who was studying law.
Do you really want to go through that again? Lott gave up on it himself.
Then the story is that we need more off-duty and former cops. He said nothing about cops. That's because, if he had, anyone with a lick of sense would have realized that the story wasn't what he said it was.
If that doesn't sink into your head, then you don't understand why Lott saw fit to write an editorial about it in the first place...and why he neglected to say anything about bulletproof vests, handcuffs, or cops.
I thae this to mean you have run out of arguments and are taking your ball and going home? Your participation in this thread has been ongoing..and noted.
Gunner
No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith
The Brain - is wider than the Sky - For - put them side by side - The one the other will contain With ease - and You - beside. -- Emily Dickinson
Ed Huntress
Carl:
No, I DON'T think dishonesty is fine.
Do you think he did it deliberately? Should a mistake in labeling be equated to being a liar?
Rapes 95,136 Robberies 420,637 Assaults 894,348 -------- Total 1,410,121
Do you mean to imply that no significant quantity of those 1,410,121 victims were the "loved ones" of another? Now since we have 1,410,121 victims, don't you think that tends to validate Richard's original claim that "a loved one is assaulted by an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" hundreds of thousands of times a year? Now even *IF* we were to subtract an amount to simulate your alleged "MOST assaults and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim", let's say an even 1,000,000 (about 70% of the cases), we still would have 410,121 cases. Which seems to leave 100's of thousands of cases to me.
ARE 100's of thousands of people the victims of violent crime per year? DID Richard make up those statistics out of thin air?
The data as I see it, seems to show that 100's of thousands of people are the victims of violent crime per year. Wasn't THAT one of your points of contention with Richard?
You "claim" to have credible information but how can we judge *IF* it's credible without seeing it, or it's source? Not saying it ISN'T credible, and not saying it IS. As far as your statement that you are "...much more familiar with the research and the data than anyone else who's appeared in the thread." Well that's an opinion, perhaps true, perhaps not. There seems to be a battle of the statistics going on between you and Gunner which may, or may not, jeopardize your claim to being more familiar with the data than anyone else.
Are 410,121 victims 100's of thousands?
I would be inclined to see that as a relatively true statement.
Gunner wrote
Kates' assertion cannot be 'refuted' since it is false.
That fact whizzed right over your head.
....
Kellerman's studies were peer-reviewed.
Rick Lowe is in law enforcement and only has undergraduate degrees. He is neither qualified nor trained to evaluate research.
.....
I'm fine, you're an idiot.
You just mindlessly parrot what other people have written and don't even realize that what they wrote is false.
....
.....
There's nothing in there that refutes Wiebe's research.
The 'receptive pastures' are right here. You're an easy target and it's entertaining to make you look like a fool.
Gunner wrote
Lousy try at spinning it.
It's not out of context.
Kleck's DGU research does not 'back up' Lott's MGLC research. It's tangential.
But you're too stupid to realize it.
No shit Sherlock. If they were taking classes, they were students, No? Or were they ice cream sellers, or hummmm barnacle grinders?
You seem to be missing the other 2.5 million individuals in your distain for Lott. Thats hardly like you.
Why would we need more off duty and former cops? An armed citizenry does a fair job as it is now.
They were not cops. They were students. When they went on duty, they were cops. I have oodles more training than 95% of most cops..and Im not a cop. Im just a citizen.
Your harping on this is a bit interesting. The issues you must be carrying around with you are fascinating.
Gunner
No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith
And they reached roughly the same conclusions. Thank you very much for playing.
You really ARE this stupid. Sarah B is not getting her moneys worth from you.
Gunner
No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith
And found incorrect.
LOL...and you?
Spoken like a true useful idiot.
So far..Im batting 300..and you? Strike Out!
Cites?
You entertain easily. You into S&M I take it? So far the beating has all been on you. Hire a Dominatrix..she will hurt you just the way you want it.
Sarah really isnt getting her moneys worth
Gunner
No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith
Well, then, let's get more cops, and more Gunner-like former cops, out there with guns. If you've been a cop and if you'd had 95% more training than most cops, I doubt if many would object to the idea of you being armed and handy when a cop or a cop stand-in is needed.
On the other hand, if you argue that armed, ordinary college students, who HAVEN'T had your training, are what we need more of, you're going to get a hell of a lot of objection. Which is why Lott's editorial was worth publishing -- it made this very provocative argument, that armed college students saved the day. Of all the people I heard from while that discussion was going on, and for months afterward, you're the only one I can recall who just doesn't get it.
Let me spell it out slowly, one last time. If you (or John Lott/Mary Rosh) had said that the situation at that law school shows that it's good to have some armed cops around, or former cops -- anyone who was trained as a cop, who passed muster to become a cop, and who has both the knowledge that cops have about handling armed criminals and guns and the experience of having thought like a cop, served as a cop, and qualified as a cop -- hardly a peep of objection would have been heard. Whether they were on duty or off, serving actively or on leave to study law, retired, resigned, or whatever, they had the background that makes the difference to much of the public. You don't hear many people saying that they don't want armed cops around, and those that *do* say it tend to be the people we want the cops to protect us from.
You seem not to recognize this point. Lott probably *does* recognize it, which is why he said nothing about it. If he had written an editorial about the value of having armed cops/former cops/whatever cops in a situation like that, it would have been so unremarkable, and so uncontroversial, that the NY Post would have had no reason in this world to publish the editorial. Lott knew it, the Post knew it, and almost every sentient being in the country who read the story knew it. Except you, of course.
If you want to argue that having armed college students running around campus is a good thing, go ahead and argue it. That isn't the point here, and I won't get involved with it because it's purely speculative, unless you want to count the carefully selected anecdotes you probably could dredge up from the NRA or whatever -- and I don't count anecdotes, because they're often misleading, especially when they're selected by fervent advocates on one side of an issue.
The issue was never whether ordinary college students should be armed. The point was that Lott selected bits from the larger story and glossed over some very telling ones when he told it. That's one form of propaganda: selecting bits of truth and weaving them into an argument that draws a misleading conclusion. From the actual evidence, there's nothing that can be said about what would have happened if those armed "students" had just been ordinary college kids with guns, and not college students who happened to be trained as cops, and who happened to have served as cops.
If you don't recognize this, ask yourself why, if the point isn't "germane," as you said in your last post, you would get excited about the fact that it came up in this discussion. If it isn't germane, you have no reason to remark about it. I never said ANYTHING about it being bad, or wrong, for college students to be armed (although I would if you had asked -- I remember college students and their qualities of judgment and maturity very well, because I was one ). What you're getting excited about is the fact that I researched it and found out that they were cops, and then pointed it out. If it's not germane, then what's your beef?
Ed Huntress
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.