snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com (Richard Lewis) wrote
No, dimwit, I pointed out that you dishonestly move the goalpost and changed the labels of those stats.
It figures that you don't have the balls to admit that you changed the labels.
You do it below when you claim that I am anti-gun.
What Gunner would say is irrelevant to the accuracy of my statement.
If you're seeing that, you're seeing your own feelings, not mine.
Produce a quote from me where I state that I am 'anti-gun'.
BTW, all researchers have biases and those who think they are impartial are fooling only themselves.
snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com (Richard Lewis) wrote
You did 'make up facts' when you labeled the category 'robbery' as 'armed robbery'
You 'made up facts' when you frantically moved the goalpost in your attempt to support your emotional claim.
Where was Kleck when I was at FSU. Took a crim course in that dept back in '72 and did and "editorial term paper" on gun control. The prof flunked it, saying it was "well thought out & well written but he disagreed with the content". It was basically a case against more restrictive gun laws. He told me that editorial term papers that agree with his views always got good grades, regardless of quality. At least he was honest (I think :). Oh well, it was an elective & I passed the course (barely). Greg Sefton
...
"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."
Keep on waffling, BB.
Carl:
Where?
Actually, I was only pointing out the apparent falseness of your accusation that Richard Lewis was making his data up out of thin air, when he said hundreds of thousands of people are victims of violence every year.
Even if that were true (which hasn't been shown), when I subtracted 70% from the 1,410,000 victims of violence number, to simulate "most". We still are left with 410,000 victims who would in all probability fit YOUR criteria for "loved ones". Do you consider rape victims violent criminals as well?
You mean they don't have mothers, wives/girl friends, kids?
He might say the same about you.
How would *I* be wrong? I have made no assertions as to you "spouting" any alleged propaganda. I'm just making an observation that you both may be making comments driven by an emotional bias.
You misspelled Wiebe.
How could you make an assumption like that, the only thing I've "evaluated" so far in our little chats here is the data for victims of violent crime. Which you claimed Richard made up out of thin air, but was given at the FBI site I went to.
Now that's interesting. I never knew that, and I've been posting since '97. I imagine it can't be TOO much of a standard if I've never seen it in all that time. Is this primarily a UK thing?
Carl:
Care to point out the assertion in that paragraph where I stated Gunner was more "well-informed" than you? I said he may or may not be more familiar with the data. I didn't make a definitive statement that he was.
I'd be careful about criticizing other's evaluation skills if you make these sorts of interpretational errors from simple comments. In the future I would suggest you read what I actually say, not what you imagine I say.
Carl:
OK, that's valid. I retract any comments I may have made claiming or inferring that you are anti-gun.
Calling people idiots, moronic, stupid, and what not, would seem to be a display of emotional touchiness not directly germane to the issues at hand.
I withdrew that comment.
ARE you anti-gun?
ALL researchers have biases? You mean there is no researcher anywhere without a biased desire to have the issue they are researching come out in a particular way?
Hey, you forgot to insert your five dots indicating you cut my following question out.
BTW, just curious, are you a regular on any of the three groups this thread is crossposted to, or did you do a global search for gun arguments?
To me a gun is a tool like any other potentially dangerous objects. To me, it makes no difference that there are resulting accidents or crimes. The fact is that guns do the jobs they are intended to do. They may be used for killing animals for food or protection or for shooting targets. Like telephones, planes, bombs, ships, satellites, autos, trucks, refrigerators, and clothing, guns are also used for malice.
Is the gun more at fault than it's user? No? Then why the constant criticism of an object? Why not argue the merits of methods of reasoning or the lack of ethics? Lets emphasize education and training instead.
Guns will not disappear because of political or personal reasons. Guns are a form of power. The fewer the people that have this extensible power, the greater will be oppression and tyranny. This is because ruling powers cannot long resist the temptation of massacre or pogram. This is self-evident.
The cat is out of the bag. A balance of power is the only rational response to the existance of guns. Make them a familiar tool. Train people in their use. Most importantly, socialize the young to deal with conflict in ways other than lethal force.
In the final analysis, those who seek to remove guns from the citizenry, will fail just as they succeed.
Might as well give it up, Bob.
The question over whether or not the info was true was settled long ago....what's his name didn't think so and got proven to be wrong which he hates. Once the info was proven true, he switched to arguing semantics (notice that he still can't address the fact that "hundreds of thousands of victims a year....etc").
If you prove him wrong on semantics, he'll probably latch onto some other useless drivel like spelling or something.
ral
Sorry, idiot. I still don't see your point.
Are you claiming that the crimes in question *don't* happen hundreds of thousands of times a year?
Provide cites to prove it, trashboy.
ral
BottleBob wrote ....
How do I quote correctly in Usenet?
2.7 How do I mark text I left out?Text you left out when quoting should always be marked with "[...]" or "(...)", while the first is much more common. Another possibility that has become more and more common is to use "".
It's you doing the waffling, idiot.
Bob pointed out that your claims don't tend to stack up to everyone else's....and everyone else has provided cites to back their argument except for *you*.
ral
Not in the least. Semantics if anything.
You still claim the crimes in question don't happen hundreds of thousands of times a year, idiot?
Prove it.
ral
more sheer idiocy that he is known for....
No cites to disprove it yet, idiot?
I thought you said you were better than that.
ral
BottleBob wrote
Since it looks like you would be an expert source on the subject, do you think that someone could make nearly all of an AK-47 using only a handsaw and files?
Carl:
That's good to know. I bookmarked the site.
I've seen and used .
But you don't seem to be using your dots correctly. The examples given show an opening and closing parenthesis separated by three dots.
Carl:
I don't know about expert source, but it would seem to me to be quite difficult to drill the barrel with only a handsaw and files.
BTW, which group are you posting from? If a.m.cnc or m.s. Perhaps we could eliminate crossposting to r.c.m. since they no longer seems interested in this thread.
Did too.
Did not.
Did too.
Did not.
This is what happens when gunner crossposts....
:(
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
BottleBob wrote ....
...
They do!
That's different. Researchers have biases but not all researchers allow those biases to significantly skew their research.
Having a bias and have a biased desire to skew research are different things.
...
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.