more PC idiocy from EUSA?
bogus address
> As a black belt in Shotokan Karate (though no longer practising
> due to persistent back trouble)
Which is typical of all forms of "self-defence" training: the chances
are that the technique is more likely to cause damage than protect
against it. This is fair enough with a sport, where the chance of
physical injury is part of the bargain, but if you're doing it for
a nett benefit in your life chances, you might as well take up rock
climbing in case Arthur's Seat goes for you in a drunken rage.
A rather more sensible reason for EUSA to drop support for these courses
is that they're a con and a waste of women's time that would be better
spent on academic work, general fitness and networking to gain influence.
The last may be a beneficial side-effect of these courses, but then it
would also result from EUSA organizing a ladies' macrame club.
I don't know anybody serious about martial arts who hasn't done them-
selves an injury comparable to a typical street beating. People break
bones regularly even in fencing, which is about as safe as these things
get.
========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
Ken Johnson
last ten years? Should EUSA not be worrying more about student poverty? Or
is it more important for them to ingratiate themselves with New Labour?
Ken Johnson
--
http://simsey.cjb.net
Ken Johnson Ltd. You deserve better.
This company thinks the same as I do.
Kate Joester
> Just out of interest, how many students have been raped in Edinburgh in the
> last ten years? Should EUSA not be worrying more about student poverty? Or
> is it more important for them to ingratiate themselves with New Labour?
years ago, when a student had been raped and another attacked on the
Meadows, the Students' Association as a matter of policy refused to put up
notices warning that the attacker had not been caught. they wouldn't even
appeal for information because allowing information to get out would
'frighten students'. who should, in the context of a repeat attacker not
having been found, have been given the right to choose what they wanted to
do.
yes, EUSA should be concerned with student poverty. that doesn't mean they
shouldn't also be concerned with student safety. EUSA need not worry their
pretty heads about self-defence classes, if it hadn't been for this random
misogynistic comment by Tom Hopkins, it would be taking up absolutely none
of their time, and very little of their enourmous budget. two million (or
whatever it was) for the failed Potterrow extension could have bankrolled
the odd capaign on student poverty as well. why assume that the time and
money has to come from other genuinely student-interst-focused projects?
Kate
Hilary Gay
> > due to persistent back trouble)
>
> Which is typical of all forms of "self-defence" training: the chances
> are that the technique is more likely to cause damage than protect
> against it. This is fair enough with a sport, where the chance of
> physical injury is part of the bargain, but if you're doing it for
> a nett benefit in your life chances, you might as well take up rock
> climbing in case Arthur's Seat goes for you in a drunken rage.
Arthur's Seat is hardly likely to jump out at you, try to hold you down or
mug/rape/murder you.
Yes, people seriously practising sports expect to have injuries. You
*don't* expect to get injured from a 6 week self-defence class. You
expecxt to have some knowledge of what to do, and when. As in, *everyone*
should be taught that it is better to run if you have the chance. And
that there *are* things you can do (like poking someone's eyes) that will
give you this chance. If the would-be-rapist has eye injuries, or is
killed, I hardly think this is a reason to NOT teach people self-defence.
> A rather more sensible reason for EUSA to drop support for these courses
> is that they're a con and a waste of women's time that would be better
> spent on academic work, general fitness and networking to gain influence.
Or educating muggers on how to get a job?
> I don't know anybody serious about martial arts who hasn't done them-
> selves an injury comparable to a typical street beating. People break
> bones regularly even in fencing, which is about as safe as these things
> get.
But not, as I said before, from a 6 week introductory course. These
people are either taking the sport seriously, or are very clumsy :-)
Hilary
http://www.scottishmagic.co.uk
James Hammerton
> > As a black belt in Shotokan Karate (though no longer practising
> > due to persistent back trouble)
>
> Which is typical of all forms of "self-defence" training: the chances
> are that the technique is more likely to cause damage than protect
> against it.
People do get injuries from practising martial arts that is undeniable
though the injury rate never seemed particularly high to me. Also if
you want to learn how to fight, then you must accept the risk that you
may take a few knocks from time to time as you learn. As for whether
the techniques you're taught are more likely to cause you damage than
protect you, I've not see much reason to believe this. Also it is not
at all clear that the onset of my back trouble had anything to do with
the karate -- it might just as well have been due to a tendency to sit
in front of computers all day or possibly even a hereditary problem
(both my father and sister suffer from back trouble, but neither of
them did martial arts). However back trouble seems poorly understood
to me -- I've had treatment from physiotherapists, GPs an orthopaedic
consultant and osteopaths, and whilst it all helped it didn't stop the
recurrences despite my taking their advice in terms of doing various
exercise, sorting out my seating arrangements etc. ISTM that the
causes of back trouble are not well understood.
> This is fair enough with a sport, where the chance of
> physical injury is part of the bargain, but if you're doing it for
> a nett benefit in your life chances, you might as well take up rock
> climbing in case Arthur's Seat goes for you in a drunken rage.
You are extremely unlikely to be killed practising a martial art,
perhaps those that include full contact fighting in their practice
have a risk similar to boxing but otherwise I see no reason to believe
the risk is any worse than other sports. Serious injury is also very
rare in my experience, so I don't know how you can say this.
> A rather more sensible reason for EUSA to drop support for these courses
> is that they're a con and a waste of women's time that would be better
^^^^^
In what way?
James
--
James Hammerton, Department of Computer Science, University College Dublin
WWW Pages: http://www.cs.ucd.ie/staff/jhammerton/
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james
Steven Webster
bogus address wrote:
>
> > As a black belt in Shotokan Karate (though no longer practising
> > due to persistent back trouble)
>
> Which is typical of all forms of "self-defence" training: the chances
> are that the technique is more likely to cause damage than protect
> against it.
Damage to the other person, perhaps. To the self ? Nonsense.
> This is fair enough with a sport, where the chance of
> physical injury is part of the bargain,
If you are competing in a martial art for sporting prowess, then there
is an accepted risk of injury. No more so than with football, rugby,
boxing, etc. However, if you're practicing a martial art,
particularly with a club or a style that places emphasis on skills of
self-defence, physical injury is in no-way "part of the bargain".
> A rather more sensible reason for EUSA to drop support for these courses
> is that they're a con and a waste of women's time
I wonder if any victims of violent crime would agree with you there.
I'll perhaps survey some of the females that I have taught in the
past, who have successfully extricated themselves from potentially
injurious or disfiguring situations, where a little knowledge and
a lot of preparation afforded them the presence of mind and
forewarning to deal with the situation they had unwillingly found
themselves in, with minimum harm to themselves, or their attackers.
I wonder if they consider such courses of study a waste of time,
and if there are perhaps other reasons why they continue to train,
and encourage their peers to train also.
I will agree that many self-defence classes are indeed a waste of
time, taught by martial arts instructors with no understanding
of how the "art" should be applied "for real". Most often, heart is
in the right place, but it has to be accepted that martial arts can
and are taught with a variety of aims and objectives, and
self-defence, though almost invariably quoted as an aim, is rarely
practiced in context.
But that's an entirely different issue from the basis on which the
EUSA decision was worryingly made, and is down to the objectivity
of the individual seeking training, to decide for themselves whether
what they see being taught, and what they are being taught
themselves, they are satisfied as being practical self-defence, and
self-defence they could learn to perform easily under duress.
> that would be better
> spent on academic work, general fitness and networking to gain influence.
None of which will address concerns of self-defence. If someone
feels sufficiently powerless or threatened, or at high-risk of
physical assault, be it because of their environment (rough area),
because of their demographic (the often increase in 'student
bashings'), because of their job (working late shifts where they
may unavoidably have short walks home, working in mental health
institutions where violent assault is a possible incident on the
job), because of trends (like the recent syringe assaults on
students in the meadoes) then they are absolutely within their
right to take steps to empower themselves to deal with this.
The law protects this right, the police endorse this right,
and many many individuals invest time and energy in ensuring
they present syllabus and information to educate those eager to
learn.
It is a worrying predicate that an individual or an institution
feel they can remove the opportunity for someone sufficiently
concerned for their safety, to do something proactive about it.
> I don't know anybody serious about martial arts who hasn't done them-
> selves an injury comparable to a typical street beating.
And how many people do you know, serious about martial arts,
as opposed to serious about sport fighting ? As many as I know
that are serious about macarame I would think.
In a club of over 150 students, I have never observed one of
them incur ANYTHING comparable to "a typical street beating".
Steven
--
3rd Dan Ao Denkou Jitsu
2nd Dan Hontai Yoshin Ryu Ju Jitsu
2nd Dan Shukokai Karate
bogus address
>> > As a black belt in Shotokan Karate (though no longer practising
>> > due to persistent back trouble)
>> Which is typical of all forms of "self-defence" training: the chances
>> are that the technique is more likely to cause damage than protect
>> against it.
> Damage to the other person, perhaps. To the self ? Nonsense.
My neighbour spent about half of the last year off work with back injury
from martial arts and will never be able to lift anything heavy again,
probably not even touch his toes. He's 20 years younger than me, is now
about as physically capable as an OAP and likely to stay that way for the
rest of his life.
I don't know anyone seriously involved in karate who's not broken a bone
or torn a ligament. My girlfriend's son has had, I think, three fractures
from fencing.
> If you are competing in a martial art for sporting prowess, then there
> is an accepted risk of injury. No more so than with football, rugby,
> boxing, etc.
Probably not as bad as rugby (serious risk of spinal cord injury) and
you aren't as likely to cause brain damage as in boxing. Football, on
average, reduces your fitness because of the likelihood of leg injuries.
This isn't much of a recommendation, is it?
> However, if you're practicing a martial art, particularly with a club
> or a style that places emphasis on skills of self-defence, physical
> injury is in no-way "part of the bargain".
The only one of the common martial arts I haven't personally come across
someone badly hurt by is Aikido. Which I think is *not* generally taught
as a practical skill of self-defence, it just isn't violent enough to be
useful.
>> A rather more sensible reason for EUSA to drop support for these courses
>> is that they're a con and a waste of women's time
> I wonder if any victims of violent crime would agree with you there.
I've been on the receiving end of a random street attack, many years
ago. The only way I could possibly have defended myself against it
would have been by adopting a paranoic attitude that would have kept
me several feet away from from any other human being at all times and
had me never answering any question posed by a stranger. No thanks.
I am well aware that many people in the "self-defence" industry do
wish to inculcate that sort of attitude; they can stick it, it's far
more destructive to society than anything a drunken thug could do.
>I will agree that many self-defence classes are indeed a waste of
> time, taught by martial arts instructors with no understanding
> of how the "art" should be applied "for real". [...]
> But that's an entirely different issue from the basis on which the
> EUSA decision was worryingly made, and is down to the objectivity
> of the individual seeking training, to decide for themselves whether
> what they see being taught, and what they are being taught
> themselves, they are satisfied as being practical self-defence [...]
I agree with that.
>> that would be better
>> spent on academic work, general fitness and networking to gain influence.
> None of which will address concerns of self-defence.
No, my point was that not getting an adequately paid job is a damn sight
more damaging for more women than anything rapists do. They can count
on being fucked by capitalism whatever they do, and that's what they
need to take practical measures about. And money is the most effective
self-defence there is: with enough of it, you can choose who you mix
with, where you live, when and how you travel.
> If someone feels sufficiently powerless or threatened, or at high-risk
> of physical assault, be it because of their environment (rough area),
> because of their demographic (the often increase in 'student
> bashings'), because of their job (working late shifts where they
> may unavoidably have short walks home, working in mental health
> institutions where violent assault is a possible incident on the
> job),
Anybody working in mental health who even *thinks* about using rape-
defence techniques on their clients is a psycho who ought to be locked
up. (Unfortunately such people do exist). There are ways of physically
handling violently disturbed mentally ill people while maximizing the
chance of a positive outcome, but poking them in the eyeballs with your
biro isn't one of them.
> because of trends (like the recent syringe assaults on
> students in the meadoes) then they are absolutely within their
> right to take steps to empower themselves to deal with this.
Big deal. Serious injury from any such cause is a remote contingency,
whereas (usually but not always less serious) injury from trying to be
prepared for it is very common indeed, and the long-term consequences
of such injuries are pretty much unknown, except that we do know that
any joint injury ups your chances of getting osteo-arthritis in later
life. (I don't believe any martial arts club anywhere would be willing
to make a long-term study of such effects). In effect you're saying,
I can give you a 30% reduction in your chance of being raped if you'll
just let me belt you on the wrist with a hammer and put you in a zimmer
five years ahead of schedule. How many people would buy that one?
>> I don't know anybody serious about martial arts who hasn't done them-
>> selves an injury comparable to a typical street beating.
> And how many people do you know, serious about martial arts,
> as opposed to serious about sport fighting?
What's the difference? I mean people who do this stuff at club level
and have recognized grades for it which they persist in trying to
improve over a period of years. Despite having to take the occasional
month-long break because the strapping or stookie gets in the way.
They enjoy it, and have every right to do it, but let's not kid on
there's any nett benefit to their health or the social fabric from it.
M Holmes
: My neighbour spent about half of the last year off work with back injury
: from martial arts and will never be able to lift anything heavy again,
: probably not even touch his toes. He's 20 years younger than me, is now
: about as physically capable as an OAP and likely to stay that way for the
: rest of his life.
: I don't know anyone seriously involved in karate who's not broken a bone
: or torn a ligament. My girlfriend's son has had, I think, three fractures
: from fencing.
Let's throw in skiing too shall we? You can put me down as having hurt
my knee.
Maybe we should all stay home and read Socialist Worker, unless it hurts
when you laugh.
: I've been on the receiving end of a random street attack, many years
: ago. The only way I could possibly have defended myself against it
: would have been by adopting a paranoic attitude that would have kept
: me several feet away from from any other human being at all times and
: had me never answering any question posed by a stranger. No thanks.
: I am well aware that many people in the "self-defence" industry do
: wish to inculcate that sort of attitude; they can stick it, it's far
: more destructive to society than anything a drunken thug could do.
Just because there are some incidents where no preparedness would have
helped doesn't mean that all incidents fall into that category.
: No, my point was that not getting an adequately paid job is a damn sight
: more damaging for more women than anything rapists do. They can count
: on being fucked by capitalism whatever they do, and that's what they
: need to take practical measures about. And money is the most effective
: self-defence there is: with enough of it, you can choose who you mix
: with, where you live, when and how you travel.
It's nice to hear socialists advocate money as the solution to all ills,
but earning that amount of money during evening work would seem to be
precluded to students who aren't gifted with an innate ability to
predict the following day's winners at Aintree.
:> If someone feels sufficiently powerless or threatened, or at high-risk
:> of physical assault, be it because of their environment (rough area),
:> because of their demographic (the often increase in 'student
:> bashings'), because of their job (working late shifts where they
:> may unavoidably have short walks home, working in mental health
:> institutions where violent assault is a possible incident on the
:> job),
: Anybody working in mental health who even *thinks* about using rape-
: defence techniques on their clients is a psycho who ought to be locked
: up. (Unfortunately such people do exist). There are ways of physically
: handling violently disturbed mentally ill people while maximizing the
: chance of a positive outcome, but poking them in the eyeballs with your
: biro isn't one of them.
Sounds like *you* should be running the classes.
:> because of trends (like the recent syringe assaults on
:> students in the meadoes) then they are absolutely within their
:> right to take steps to empower themselves to deal with this.
: Big deal. Serious injury from any such cause is a remote contingency,
: whereas (usually but not always less serious) injury from trying to be
: prepared for it is very common indeed, and the long-term consequences
: of such injuries are pretty much unknown, except that we do know that
: any joint injury ups your chances of getting osteo-arthritis in later
: life. (I don't believe any martial arts club anywhere would be willing
: to make a long-term study of such effects). In effect you're saying,
: I can give you a 30% reduction in your chance of being raped if you'll
: just let me belt you on the wrist with a hammer and put you in a zimmer
: five years ahead of schedule. How many people would buy that one?
I think you need to see an advertising agency. Maybe with a nice poster?
: What's the difference? I mean people who do this stuff at club level
: and have recognized grades for it which they persist in trying to
: improve over a period of years. Despite having to take the occasional
: month-long break because the strapping or stookie gets in the way.
: They enjoy it, and have every right to do it, but let's not kid on
: there's any nett benefit to their health or the social fabric from it.
I dunno. I was most cheered when I read of the slight American student
who managed to break getting on for 50 bones in her would-be rapist's
body before calling the campus cops.. She felt better, a lot of us who
read about it felt better, and it's a cert that the rapist wouldn't be
doing very much except groaning for quite some time. It's kinda hard
not to see that as a net benefit to society, but perhaps I missed
something?
FoFP
James Hammerton
> >> > As a black belt in Shotokan Karate (though no longer practising
> >> > due to persistent back trouble)
> >> Which is typical of all forms of "self-defence" training: the chances
> >> are that the technique is more likely to cause damage than protect
> >> against it.
> > Damage to the other person, perhaps. To the self ? Nonsense.
>
> My neighbour spent about half of the last year off work with back injury
> from martial arts and will never be able to lift anything heavy again,
> probably not even touch his toes. He's 20 years younger than me, is now
> about as physically capable as an OAP and likely to stay that way for the
> rest of his life.
Such a serious injury is rare in any sport. How did it occur?
Anyway, I did a little digging around on a medline database and came
across these two studies that both suggest that martial arts compare
favourably to other contact sports on injury rates.
TI- Martial arts injuries. The results of a five
year national survey.
AU- Birrer RB; Halbrook SP
AD- Department of Family Practice, Geisenger
Medical Center, Danville, PA 17822.
SR- Am J Sports Med, 16(4):408-10 1988 Jul-Aug
AB- A 5 year national survey of martial arts was done using
the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
(NEISS). Seventy-four percent of the injuries involved the
extremities and 95% were mild to moderate in nature. Even
though most of the injury types were contusions/abrasions
(36%). lacerations (14%), and sprains/strains (28%), 15% were
dislocations and fractures. Five percent of all injuries were
severe, and there were 18 hospitalizations. There were no
deaths. Weapon-related injuries were rare and never
serious. Overall, the risk of serious injury in the sport was
found to be low, especially when compared to other contact
sports.
TI- Martial arts.
AU- Buschbacher RM; Shay T
AD- Department of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, Indiana University
Medical Center, Indianapolis, USA.
SR- Phys
Med Rehabil Clin N Am, 10(1):35-47, vi 1999
Feb
AB- The martial arts have a reputation for being a high-risk
activity, but are generally practiced in a safe
environment. This article presents the results of a survey
which is used to calculate risk of injury per 1000 hours of
practice. The injury rate compares favorably with other
mainstream activities; in fact, the martial arts are
generally considered safer than most. The most common
injuries occur to the wrist, hand, finger, foot, knee, head,
and thigh. Special issues of importance for prevention and
treatment of these injuries are discussed.
[snip]
> I've been on the receiving end of a random street attack, many years
> ago. The only way I could possibly have defended myself against it
> would have been by adopting a paranoic attitude that would have kept
> me several feet away from from any other human being at all times and
> had me never answering any question posed by a stranger. No thanks.
> I am well aware that many people in the "self-defence" industry do
> wish to inculcate that sort of attitude; they can stick it, it's far
> more destructive to society than anything a drunken thug could do.
I have *never* seen anyone suggest an attitude like the one you
describe despite having trained in 3 different karate clubs, a
ju-jitsu club and a t'ai chi club in my time. Also, the attitude you
describe seems to be your way of thinking about whether you could have
avoided being attacked not about whether you could have defended
yourself.
Hilary Gay
> or torn a ligament. My girlfriend's son has had, I think, three fractures
> from fencing.
"Seriously" is the key word. A self-defence course is a lot less
traumatic than competing, for instance.
> No, my point was that not getting an adequately paid job is a damn sight
> more damaging for more women than anything rapists do. They can count
> on being fucked by capitalism whatever they do, and that's what they
> need to take practical measures about. And money is the most effective
> self-defence there is: with enough of it, you can choose who you mix
> with, where you live, when and how you travel.
Somehow, I think I could live with being underpaid - it *is* something you
can change.
Hilary
http://www.scottishmagic.co.uk
Feorag NicBhride
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Maybe we should all stay home and read Socialist Worker, unless it hurts
>when you laugh.
It does. I've just witnessed it a couple of minutes ago when a friend of
mine discovered one of Claudio's inventions in the back study and
proceeded to read the included manual.
I'm not sure what muscle he pulled, but it was painful.
You know, while we're on this logic, I don't know anyone who hasn't hurt
themselves at work at some time. Maybe we should ban work.
bb
Feorag
--
feorag at nospam.antipope.org "Bung some barley-sugar in hot water, spice
it up with a close relative of cannabis, and
*** allow it to go mouldy. Drink the result."
Steven Webster
>
> My neighbour spent about half of the last year off work with back injury
> from martial arts and will never be able to lift anything heavy again,
> probably not even touch his toes. He's 20 years younger than me, is now
> about as physically capable as an OAP and likely to stay that way for the
> rest of his life.
That truly is a sad story. But such incidences are far from common
place, and must have been either the result of negligence on someone's
part, or sheer unaccountable for accident. But an acceptable risk of
practicing martial arts under a competent and qualified instructor ?
Not in the slightest.
> > However, if you're practicing a martial art, particularly with a club
> > or a style that places emphasis on skills of self-defence, physical
> > injury is in no-way "part of the bargain".
>
> The only one of the common martial arts I haven't personally come across
> someone badly hurt by is Aikido.
"you haven't personally".
> Which I think is *not* generally taught
> as a practical skill of self-defence, it just isn't violent enough to be
> useful.
You demonstrate a competent lack of understanding of Aikido also.
A devastating art based around Daito Ryu Aiki Ju Jitsu, which is
one of the most accomplished arts in causing joint destruction in
an opponent. Devastatingly effective, just extremely difficult to
gain significant mastery of, hence it's study as an 'art'. True,
many styles of aikido promote a "soft" approach to the study of
the art, as latterly advocated by it's founder, Ueshiba Morihei.
With your broad and sweeping understanding of martial arts, I'm
sure I don't need to remind you of Saito's journal, in which
O'Sensei (Ueshiba Morihei) is quoted as saying "Aikido is 90%
Atemi Waza" (Atemi Waza, as I'm sure you are aware, describing
striking techniques).
And it should be worth pointing out that "violent enough to be
useful" demonstrates a lack of understanding of what is necessary
for self defence.
"The art of war is trickery and deception" (Sun Tzu)
> I've been on the receiving end of a random street attack, many years
> ago. The only way I could possibly have defended myself against it
> would have been by adopting a paranoic attitude that would have kept
> me several feet away from from any other human being at all times and
> had me never answering any question posed by a stranger. No thanks.
You make my exact point, that being subject to violent attack is
random, and often unavoidable by the individual. Thank you for
underlining my point.
You suggest that once attacked, there is nothing you could have done
to limit the personal injury caused to yourself, or even to have
afforded yourself the possibility of escape ? Did your self-defence
training, which I underlined in my previous post as being of little
or no use unless it forms a regular and reinforced practice, prove
of little use to you ? Why do you think this is the case ? Is it
perhaps that despite having been taught the physical responses, you
were uneducated in understanding the physiological changes that the
sudden stress would cause you ? Did you mistake the shaky legs
for fear, as opposed to adrenal dump ? Did you mistake the tunnel
vision for paralysis, as opposed to the ability to focus supremely
on the task in hand ? Did you mistake the drop in temperature of
your extremities, the loss of fine motor control, as signs of
weakness, rather than appreciating that your body was undergoing
primeval responses that were actually readying you for fight or
flight ?
Should I perhaps summarise, that isn't it _possibly_ the case, that
you have just underlined my exact point, that self-defence training
is NOT the same as martial arts training, but must be taught in
context ? It's not a 4 week course IMHO, though this will hopefully
be a start, and in many cases an encouragement, for those concerned,
to seek regular and appropriate instruction.
> I am well aware that many people in the "self-defence" industry do
> wish to inculcate that sort of attitude; they can stick it, it's far
> more destructive to society than anything a drunken thug could do.
We entered into a contract with the police, to protect us. When
the police are not there, when they are unable to fulfil their
contract, is it wrong for us to try and protect ourselves ? They
provide us with law (the criminal justice act) which honours us with
the right to defend ourselves with reasonable force. You
don't find it destructive to society, your suggestion that the
innocent should lay down while the bully prospers ?
> > None of which will address concerns of self-defence.
>
> No, my point was that not getting an adequately paid job is a damn sight
> more damaging for more women than anything rapists do.
This is fantastic. Faced with a random and unprovoked attack,
similar to the situation you described which may have been
unavoidable unless she removed herself entirely from contact with
society, said woman should instead consider her career options,
whilst she is being raped ? Your induction astounds me.
> They can count
> on being f***** (EDITED SINCE UNNECESSARY) by capitalism whatever
> they do, and that's what they need to take practical measures about.
Whether you're right or wrong, it's an entirely separate issue.
Please don't cloud the issue with political irrelevance.
> And money is the most effective
> self-defence there is: with enough of it, you can choose who you mix
> with, where you live, when and how you travel.
You're right, and Jill Dando is wrong.
> Anybody working in mental health who even *thinks* about using rape-
> defence techniques on their clients is a psycho who ought to be locked
> up.
WHO IS TALKING ABOUT RAPE DEFENCE TECHNIQUES ? Pure and simple, if
someone is attacked, they can do what a large majority of humans will
do, adopt the foetal position and suffer to the degree of insanity
of the attacker, or they can hope for composure enough to ESCAPE
the situation. We're not talking about an execution here, we're
talking about self defence, in which one is able, as I said so
clearly in my last email, to EXTRICATE themselves from a situation.
Self defence, by definition, is defence of the self, and neither
implies nor requires attack.
> (Unfortunately such people do exist). There are ways of physically
> handling violently disturbed mentally ill people while maximizing the
> chance of a positive outcome, but poking them in the eyeballs with your
> biro isn't one of them.
Agreed. But how does one learn "ways of maximising the chance of
positive outcome" and what name can one give to this practice.
Allow me to suggest a name: "Self Defence".
> > because of trends (like the recent syringe assaults on
> > students in the meadoes) then they are absolutely within their
> > right to take steps to empower themselves to deal with this.
>
> Big deal. Serious injury from any such cause is a remote contingency,
Do you have an alarm on your car ? Do you take an E111 form and
travel insurance when you go on holiday ? Do you prefer to pay
the extra £100 when you buy a car for a passenger airbag in the
seat that your wife sits in ? Do you insist that your kids don't
walk home from school through the woods, but stick to the main
street with the other kids, even if it takes a few minutes more ?
Perhaps you answer all of the above yes, perhaps only some of
them, perhaps none of them. But the fact of the matter is, no
matter how remote the incident, we weigh up our insurance against
it not necessarily in terms of the likelihood of occurence, but
weighted by the consequence of the occurence. When the consequence
is possible death or maiming, we tend to assign a pretty high
weight to it. Some may choose to look at self defence in
this way, and it's their choice. For many of us, the consequence
of attack merits the investment of time to deal with it accordingly.
> whereas (usually but not always less serious) injury from trying to be
> prepared for it is very common indeed,
I'll desist to answer this, given that I feel your opinion is
not only wrong, but based on conjecture and a few unfortunate
and uncommon experiences of your own.
> life. (I don't believe any martial arts club anywhere would be willing
> to make a long-term study of such effects).
I defer to the studies outlined by James Hammerton, and the work
of the National Coaching Foundation in ensuring that coaches are
well educated and qualified in the practice of their art, so as not
to cause injury through their negligent practice.
> What's the difference? I mean people who do this stuff at club level
> and have recognized grades for it which they persist in trying to
> improve over a period of years.
So what is so wrong with the above ?
> Despite having to take the occasional
> month-long break because the strapping or stookie gets in the way.
Again, in my 20 years as a student and instructor of martial arts,
I find this is an exception rather than a norm. Your dataset may
be bigger than mine, and thus a more normal distribution.
I jumped on this thread, purely to highlight that a gulf exists
between martial arts and self-defence. I maintain that taught
correctly, self-defence is an equaliser in a situation of violent
assault, and can go a long way to allowing someone to avoid in the
first instance, and limit in the second instance, the risk of
serious injury or worse.
I've seen no logical or rational argument against this thesis.
If anyone has anything insightful to add, I'd be glad to respond
with my thoughts, but I apologise for not headbutting any brick
walls around here.
That would be more dangerous than boxing.
Steven
bogus address
>> My neighbour spent about half of the last year off work with back
>> injury from martial arts and will never be able to lift anything
>> heavy again, probably not even touch his toes. He's 20 years
>> younger than me, is now about as physically capable as an OAP and
>> likely to stay that way for the rest of his life.
I think from an accumulation of seemingly-minor injuries, each ignored
until they developed into something catastrophic (a common pattern with
back injury).
This is something a competent instructor could well forestall, but they
could hardly do so unless they recognized that the potentiality for such
an outcome was there. Martial arts aren't unique in encouraging people
to ignore pain signals and carry on regardless, of course.
Neil Chue Hong
| Picked up a copy of Student yesterday only to discover that the bright
| sparks at EUSA had opposed self-defence classes for women on the basis
| that it would be teaching them to kill.
|
| [statistics about rape snipped]
|
| What's so special about criminals that EUSA feels they should have
| safety at work? Hopefully students, of both sexes, will see clearly
| enough to ignore this idiocy and learn self-defence if they so choose.
What got me most about this article is the bias towards women. As you
say above Mike, hopefully both male and female students will be able
to, if they choose, be taught self-defence.
Recent articles printed in (amongst others) Student and the Evening
News have shown that male students are more likely to be attacked than
female students, and there are a fair few males who aren't built like
rugby players.
Allow people the choice of taking up self-defence classes (and the
choice of the slightly increased risk of physical injury) but make it
open to both sexes and ensure that any trainers recommended have
experience and qualifications.
Just my opinion of course,
neil
--
neil p chue hong - trained monkey @ play
ne...@cinecism.com :) - istrimy
[101f424dax619] FilmSoc - http://www.filmsoc.org/eufs/
M Holmes
: M Holmes (fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: | Picked up a copy of Student yesterday only to discover that the bright
: | sparks at EUSA had opposed self-defence classes for women on the basis
: | that it would be teaching them to kill.
: |
: | [statistics about rape snipped]
: |
: | What's so special about criminals that EUSA feels they should have
: | safety at work? Hopefully students, of both sexes, will see clearly
: | enough to ignore this idiocy and learn self-defence if they so choose.
: What got me most about this article is the bias towards women. As you
: say above Mike, hopefully both male and female students will be able
: to, if they choose, be taught self-defence.
: Recent articles printed in (amongst others) Student and the Evening
: News have shown that male students are more likely to be attacked than
: female students
It's traditional in Edinburgh to ignore inconvenient facts like this.
For example the Edinburgh City Council "Zero Tolerance" campaign
concentrated on violence against women and children despite young males
being most at risk according to government statistics. Their claim is
that they were concentrating only on domestic violence. Of course that
doesn't hold water either since the Home Office's own statistics
indicate that males are as likely to be assaulted by female partners as
the other way around.
Basically it's politically correct to form women's committees, dig up
some dubious statistics and spend wodges of taxpayer's loot on poster
campaigns or book burnings, whereas forming a men's committee would
probably produce apoplexy. Eris only knows what putting up "No Woman Has
The Right" posters would do.
: and there are a fair few males who aren't built like
: rugby players.
Unless you count the beergut, I'd be amongst their number.
: Allow people the choice of taking up self-defence classes (and the
: choice of the slightly increased risk of physical injury) but make it
: open to both sexes and ensure that any trainers recommended have
: experience and qualifications.
Of course for the lazy amongst us, it'd be a lot easier if we could
just buy tasers through the Innovations Catalog or have some of these TV
cooking programmes devoted to homemade mace recipies.
: neil
FoFP
Feorag NicBhride
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>probably produce apoplexy. Eris only knows what putting up "No Woman Has
>The Right" posters would do.
I've often wondered what was wrong with "No-one has the right" and "Zero
Tolerance of Violence".
>Of course for the lazy amongst us, it'd be a lot easier if we could
>just buy tasers through the Innovations Catalog or have some of these TV
If you're not relying on a weapon, your attacker can't disarm you and use
your weapon on you. Not that this worry ever stopped me carrying the 6
D-cell Maglite.
M Holmes
: On 22 Feb 2000 12:44:20 GMT, M Holmes
: <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
:>probably produce apoplexy. Eris only knows what putting up "No Woman Has
:>The Right" posters would do.
: I've often wondered what was wrong with "No-one has the right" and "Zero
: Tolerance of Violence".
Me too. I figure that it just wouldn't have been insulting enough to
those of us with external genitalia. Someone was telling me yesterday
that the Advertising Standards Authority in Nottingham had upheld a
complaint against Zero Tolerance posters there on the basis that the
stats, and the research upon which they were based, were bollocks. If
anyone knows of a URL referencing this, I'd be most interested.
:>Of course for the lazy amongst us, it'd be a lot easier if we could
:>just buy tasers through the Innovations Catalog or have some of these TV
: If you're not relying on a weapon, your attacker can't disarm you and use
: your weapon on you.
There is that, though an attacker has presumably already decided to
cause you harm. I've wondered how often in these cases some training,
and the prior decision to cause incapacitation to an attacker should it
be necessary, would help. It seems to work to some extent with handguns
in the US, though some of that effect might simply be by eliminating
thse who discover that they're not willing to harm attackers even if
threatened.
: Not that this worry ever stopped me carrying the 6 D-cell Maglite.
Ever Ready to provide enlightenment?
: Feorag
FoFP
James Hammerton
> >> My neighbour spent about half of the last year off work with back
> >> injury from martial arts and will never be able to lift anything
> >> heavy again, probably not even touch his toes. He's 20 years
> >> younger than me, is now about as physically capable as an OAP and
> >> likely to stay that way for the rest of his life.
> > Such a serious injury is rare in any sport. How did it occur?
>
> I think from an accumulation of seemingly-minor injuries, each ignored
> until they developed into something catastrophic (a common pattern with
> back injury).
When things "went catastrophic" was that during a martial arts session
or not? In other words, why do you think the back trouble is due to
the martial arts training?
Also what is the nature of the problem? Is it bulging discs, damaged
ligaments? Damaged vertebrae? I have 2 bulging discs but they're about
1 inch or so below the locus of the pain I get, and studies using
MRI scans have shown that something like 40% of the population will
have disc damage, including disc bulges without any symptoms of back
pain. Prior to the MRI scan my GP and the orthopaedic consultant I saw
suggested it was ligamentous. Trouble is damaged ligaments in the back
are difficult to treat.
> This is something a competent instructor could well forestall, but they
> could hardly do so unless they recognized that the potentiality for such
> an outcome was there. Martial arts aren't unique in encouraging people
> to ignore pain signals and carry on regardless, of course.
I don't think martial arts do encourage this. I think that people
tend to do this anyway.
Hilary Gay
> >> injury from martial arts and will never be able to lift anything
> >> heavy again, probably not even touch his toes. He's 20 years
> >> younger than me, is now about as physically capable as an OAP and
> >> likely to stay that way for the rest of his life.
>
> I think from an accumulation of seemingly-minor injuries, each ignored
> until they developed into something catastrophic (a common pattern with
> back injury).
>
> could hardly do so unless they recognized that the potentiality for such
Or unless the person admitted to the injury? Too often, "being macho" or
ignoring a slight injury leads to serious, sometimes permaanent, injury.
Hilary
http://www.scottishmagic.co.uk
bogus address
Steven Webster <steven....@ao-denkou-kai.org> writes:
>> I've been on the receiving end of a random street attack, many years
>> ago.
> to limit the personal injury caused to yourself, or even to have
> responses...]
Since the first I knew about what had happened was an explosion of
comic-book stars and "what's that cold thing under my cheek? oh, it's
the pavement", this wasn't too relevant to me. No kind of training
can help you think straight after a concussion. In fact the initial
blow was the worst of the damage anyway. (I have got out of quite
a number of violent incidents on other occasions, but usually found
my mouth the most useful means of escape).
>> I am well aware that many people in the "self-defence" industry do
>> wish to inculcate that sort of [distrust everybody on sight] attitude;
>> they can stick it, it's far more destructive to society than anything
>> a drunken thug could do.
> They
[dunno who "they" is]
> provide us with law (the criminal justice act) which honours us with
> the right to defend ourselves with reasonable force. You don't find
> it destructive to society, your suggestion that the innocent should
> lay down while the bully prospers ?
This is a dimwitted piece of misrepresentation, and you know it. I'm
talking about the ideology that says everybody you meet on the street
at night is a potential punchbag until proven innocent. Which *is*
the line you get from some self-defence trainers.
>> And money is the most effective self-defence there is: with enough
>> of it, you can choose who you mix with, where you live, when and
>> how you travel.
> You're right, and Jill Dando is wrong.
"Most effective" does not mean "100% effective".
>> Anybody working in mental health who even *thinks* about using rape-
>> defence techniques on their clients is a psycho who ought to be locked
>> up.
> WHO IS TALKING ABOUT RAPE DEFENCE TECHNIQUES ?
M. Holmes was. He implied there was no morally relevant difference
between the situations of a mental health worker faced with a violent
client and a woman faced with a rapist stranger.
> Pure and simple, if someone is attacked, they can do what a large
> majority of humans will do, adopt the foetal position and suffer to
> the degree of insanity of the attacker, or they can hope for composure
> enough to ESCAPE the situation.
This is unreal. Escape is not an option: in this situation, the
health worker is the one who has to sort it, nobody else is going to.
The typical violent-patient scenario is a six-stone anorexic who's
locked herself in the loo and is slicing her arms to hamburger with
a stanley blade. There's nothing to escape: the health worker's job
is get her out of there, disarmed, calmed down or at least immobilized,
and taken to A&E. For something like that, certain techniques taught
by martial arts could be *very* useful in the rare situations when
talking fails, and even lifesaving *for the client*; if I'd continued
working with acute psychotics I might well have tried to learn them
myself. But they aren't what EUSA is going to be teaching women
students to use in the Meadows.
>> Serious injury from any such cause is a remote contingency,
> no matter how remote the incident, we weigh up our insurance against
> it not necessarily in terms of the likelihood of occurence, but
> weighted by the consequence of the occurence.
We also weigh it against the premium, which in this case includes
time that might be spent on other things, potentiality for physical
injury while practicing defence techniques, psychic damage from the
"defence" culture inculcating irrationally paranoid attitudes,
targeting mistakes that get innocent people clobbered, and damage
to the social fabric from people generalizing strike-first-and-ask-
questions-later attitudes into political programmes. In some life
situations this premium may have to be paid, but for everybody, in a
culture like ours where the risk of random attack is low and falling?
I think not.
Mike Dickson
hil...@tardis.ed.ac.uk wrote...
> > talking about the ideology that says everybody you meet on the street
> > at night is a potential punchbag until proven innocent. Which *is*
> > the line you get from some self-defence trainers.
>
> No, "potential attacker". That's a very different perspective.
Correct. A paranoid one.
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Edinburgh, Scotland
fax 0131-665-1298 - Columnated Ruins Domino - Mellotron M400 #996
Sharon Bell
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Mike Dickson wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.100022...@tardis.tardis.ed.ac.uk>
> hil...@tardis.ed.ac.uk wrote...
>
> > > talking about the ideology that says everybody you meet on the street
> > > at night is a potential punchbag until proven innocent. Which *is*
> > > the line you get from some self-defence trainers.
> >
> > No, "potential attacker". That's a very different perspective.
>
> Correct. A paranoid one.
When I cross the road, I think of the cars as having the potential to
knock me down. So, I'm careful crossing the road. I don't think of myself
as paranoid. And when I walk down a quiet street at night I'll cross the
road to avoid strangers, and I don't think that's particularly paranoid
either.
Sharon Bell
Mike Dickson
nj...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk wrote...
> > > No, "potential attacker". That's a very different perspective.
> > Correct. A paranoid one.
>
> When I cross the road, I think of the cars as having the potential to
> knock me down. So, I'm careful crossing the road. I don't think of myself
> as paranoid.
Whatever. When I cross the road I do so knowing that (a) I'll do it in a
manner that will avoid me getting flattened by a car but, more
importantly, (2) cars are generally driven by people who don't want to
run anyone down in the first place.
Roy Millar
>No, "potential attacker". That's a very different perspective. (Many
>women when it's dark think like this anyway - it's safer to distrust than
>to trust everyone's as nice as you.)
It's a pretty sad state of affairs. I know what you mean, though.
I'm the sort of inquisitive individual who looks at everything
going on around me, and I've noticed when walking home late at night
that looking at an approaching woman has sometimes made her nervous (so
now I try to look away again quickly enough to lessen any fear).
And there's a domino effect - I too am now a touch nervous when going
home late.
Eventually we may have a society where everyone is paranoid, if we
aren't already.
--
Roy Millar, 1000...@CompuServe.com
rm...@Millstream.ednet.co.uk
"It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a
grievance and a ray of sunshine." - P.G. Wodehouse
Richard Caley
md> (2) cars are generally driven by people who don't want to
md> run anyone down in the first place.
Are you sure _sure_ you're posting from Edinburgh?:-)
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Roy Millar
>In article <CheetahPRO_v...@blackcat.demon.co.uk>,
Mike Dickson (md) writes:
>md> (2) cars are generally driven by people who don't want to
>md> run anyone down in the first place.
>Are you sure _sure_ you're posting from Edinburgh?:-)
In Edinburgh, even the *ambulances* try to run you down!
(speaking from personal experience).
Magnus Paterson
> In Edinburgh, even the *ambulances* try to run you down!
> (speaking from personal experience).
>
That's privatisation for you; they're just trying to drum
up extra business. :-)
Cheers,
Magnus
Alexander Holt
> ... the Home Office's own statistics indicate that males are as likely
> to be assaulted by female partners as the other way around.
Misinformation. I look forward to a reference.
The Home Office publishes the British Crime Survey. The 1998 survey is at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb2198.pdf
This covers crime during 1997 in England and Wales. The data is from a
random sample of 15,000 men & women. On page 21: "Women were the
victims of 70% of domestic incidents" [of violence]. Here, "domestic"
is used quite broadly to mean involving partners, ex-partners, household
members & other relatives. It doesn't break the figure down by who
commits the violence. But it would seem likely that
(1) the overwhelming majority of women experiencing domestic violence
will be experiencing it from men;
(2) a significant proportion of the male victims of domestic violence
are also suffering violence from other men (since the category will
include men experiencing violence from their fathers, uncles, sons,
and so on).
Conclusion: far more male-to-female domestic violence than
female-to-male -- something that I suspect will surprise only M. Holmes.
Lex Holt
Dog Star
M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:88jkkn$78v$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> In 33 American states the incidence of rape has fallen between 6 and 13%
> since 1972. The reason was a simple change in the law: concealed carry
> of handguns was permitted to adults of sound mind and no violent
> history. The higher figures were from those states where more women
> availed themselves of this right [Lott].
Holmes peddling more of his discredited rubbish.
I see you back to relying on THAT report, now what is it about that report......
Dog Star
Alexander Holt <alexand...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f4jhfep...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
Nothing surprises me regarding Holmes, he has some rather odd definition of things.
C.Brendan
> In 33 American states the incidence of rape has fallen between 6 and 13%
> since 1972. The reason was a simple change in the law: concealed carry
> of handguns was permitted to adults of sound mind and no violent
> history. The higher figures were from those states where more women
> availed themselves of this right [Lott].
Holmes peddling more of his discredited rubbish.
I see you're back to relying on THAT report, now what is it about that report......
C.Brendan
>
> Lex Holt
M Holmes
: M. Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
:> ... the Home Office's own statistics indicate that males are as likely
:> to be assaulted by female partners as the other way around.
: Misinformation. I look forward to a reference.
Busy at the moment. I'll get back to you on this.
: The Home Office publishes the British Crime Survey. The 1998 survey is at:
: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb2198.pdf
: This covers crime during 1997 in England and Wales. The data is from a
: random sample of 15,000 men & women. On page 21: "Women were the
: victims of 70% of domestic incidents" [of violence]. Here, "domestic"
: is used quite broadly to mean involving partners, ex-partners, household
: members & other relatives.
How about we limit "domestic" to what the word means? If they live with
someone who hits 'em, that's domestic violence.
If we're going to count outsiders then young men are far and away the
biggest victims of attackers outside the home, and of course young men
are the most frequent perpetrators.
: It doesn't break the figure down by who
: commits the violence. But it would seem likely that
: (1) the overwhelming majority of women experiencing domestic violence
: will be experiencing it from men;
Since most of 'em are partnered to men that would seem reasonable, just
as most male victims of domestic violence are attacked by women. I did
see a study indicating that doemstic violence is no less frequent in
lesbian relationships, casting further doubt on the thesis that the
fairer sex don't indulge in that sort of thing.
: (2) a significant proportion of the male victims of domestic violence
: are also suffering violence from other men (since the category will
: include men experiencing violence from their fathers, uncles, sons,
: and so on).
Again I disagree. I've certainly seen evidence that as far as physical
abuse is concerned, childen are as likely to be hit by mothers as
fathers. I'd concede that the evidence is that males are more frequently
the perpetrators of sexual abuse.
As I said though, I'll have to go hunting for the evidence when I get
more time.
: Lex Holt
FoFP
M Holmes
: M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
: news:88jkkn$78v$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
:> In 33 American states the incidence of rape has fallen between 6 and 13%
:> since 1972. The reason was a simple change in the law: concealed carry
:> of handguns was permitted to adults of sound mind and no violent
:> history. The higher figures were from those states where more women
:> availed themselves of this right [Lott].
: Holmes peddling more of his discredited rubbish.
Try to be accurate and give Lott the credit huh?
I see that the results are now coming in for the reverse experiment in
Australia where they've removed gun rights: violent crime way up and gun
crime considerably up, with home invasions and burglaries going through
the errrr roof.
Still, if you want to make an argument that rapists in the UK don't care
if they get killed during an attack, you go right ahead...
FoFP
C.Brendan
> Alexander Holt <alexand...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> : M. Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> :> ... the Home Office's own statistics indicate that males are as likely
> :> to be assaulted by female partners as the other way around.
>
> : Misinformation. I look forward to a reference.
>
> Busy at the moment. I'll get back to you on this.
>
> : The Home Office publishes the British Crime Survey. The 1998 survey is at:
>
> : http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb2198.pdf
>
> : This covers crime during 1997 in England and Wales. The data is from a
> : random sample of 15,000 men & women. On page 21: "Women were the
> : victims of 70% of domestic incidents" [of violence]. Here, "domestic"
> : is used quite broadly to mean involving partners, ex-partners, household
> : members & other relatives.
>
> How about we limit "domestic" to what the word means? If they live with
> someone who hits 'em, that's domestic violence.
>
> If we're going to count outsiders then young men are far and away the
> biggest victims of attackers outside the home, and of course young men
> are the most frequent perpetrators.
The definition used is more or less correct, the only criterion that possibly could
not be included is ex-partners.
If you exclude the ex-partners then attacks by this individual group could be classed
as normal assault, whatever that is, but would this give a fair impression.
An example, a couple split and one moves out, the male then returns and beats up the
female.
It may, using your definition, not be counted as domestic.
It then comes down to time scales, is it domestic before they leave, yet not minutes
or hours later.
C.Brendan
: news:88jkkn$78v$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
:> In 33 American states the incidence of rape has fallen between 6 and 13%
:> since 1972. The reason was a simple change in the law: concealed carry
:> of handguns was permitted to adults of sound mind and no violent
:> history. The higher figures were from those states where more women
:> availed themselves of this right [Lott].
: Holmes peddling more of his discredited rubbish.
>Try to be accurate and give Lott the credit huh?
To be accurate I don't have to do anything, Kleck said it was flawed.
It was he who said that crime had gone down but it was more to do with other factors
not taken into account.
When you rely on the Lott report you obviously give it far more credit than your peers
do, such as Kleck.
>I see that the results are now coming in for the reverse experiment in Australia
where they've removed gun >rights: violent crime way up and gun crime considerably up,
with home invasions and burglaries going through >the errrr roof.
Is this a finished report?
If you taking preliminary results from a report that isn't yet finished you are liable
to get strange results.
If you are into comparing different countries and cultures tell me, who has the most
guns, the Uk or the USA?
Now you has the most gun crime, the UK or the USA?
10 children are killed by guns everyday in the USA.
Take a look at these;
http://www.handguncontrol.org/gunowner/statflaw.htm
http://www.health.su.oz.au/cgc/lmcritiq.HTM
http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/98/0326/iccon.asp
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/lottlink.htm
http://www.handguncontrol.org/gunlaw/B2/b2ccwfct.htm
>Still, if you want to make an argument that rapists in the UK don't care if they get
killed during an attack, you >go right ahead...
The only person who makes wild accusation is you Holmes.
M Holmes
: : M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
: : news:88jkkn$78v$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
: :> In 33 American states the incidence of rape has fallen between 6 and 13%
: :> since 1972. The reason was a simple change in the law: concealed carry
: :> of handguns was permitted to adults of sound mind and no violent
: :> history. The higher figures were from those states where more women
: :> availed themselves of this right [Lott].
: : Holmes peddling more of his discredited rubbish.
:>Try to be accurate and give Lott the credit huh?
: To be accurate I don't have to do anything, Kleck said it was flawed.
: It was he who said that crime had gone down but it was more to do with
: other factors not taken into account.
We went through this about a year ago, and Lott has answered Kleck's
objections. IIRC those answers were available on the Web.
Also as I've previously noted, Kleck is in the same camp as Lott as
regards the efficacy of defensive handgun ownership and use for crime
prevention - according to reports and reviews of his book.
: When you rely on the Lott report you obviously give it far more credit
: than your peers do, such as Kleck.
If it'll make you happy, I'll concede that I really should buy and read
Kleck's book. Last time I checked though, the asking price here was 57
quid and right now that'd buy just about all the books on telescopes
that I'm looking to buy. I'll get around to it one of these days and if
you really want to, we can restart the gun argument at that point.
:>I see that the results are now coming in for the reverse experiment in
:>Australia
: where they've removed gun >rights: violent crime way up and gun crime
: considerably up, with home invasions and burglaries going through >the
: errrr roof.
: Is this a finished report?
All I saw were the crime stats, and they weren't running anything like
the way you'd prefer.
: If you are into comparing different countries and cultures tell me,
: who has the most guns, the Uk or the USA? Now you has the most gun
: crime, the UK or the USA?
If last year's debate didn't teach you to look at the argument at
anything but the most superficial level then I can't see why you'd come
out of a repeat any more educated. If it did, then this is just simple
baiting and I'm not rising to it.
: Take a look at these;
: http://www.handguncontrol.org/gunowner/statflaw.htm
: http://www.health.su.oz.au/cgc/lmcritiq.HTM
: http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/98/0326/iccon.asp
: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/lottlink.htm
: http://www.handguncontrol.org/gunlaw/B2/b2ccwfct.htm
Sorry, this wasn't a gun thread and I've no intention of indulging in
one right now. I'll file 'em away for future reference. Thanks for
posting them though.
:>Still, if you want to make an argument that rapists in the UK don't
:>care if they get
: killed during an attack, you >go right ahead...
: The only person who makes wild accusation is you Holmes.
That should be either "wild accusations" or "a wild accusation" though I
will say that you're spelling and grammar would seem to have improved
considerably since your days under your previous alias.
Your ability to stay with the point is still suspect though. I'll recap
for you. EUSA are against women learning self-defence because "this
would teach them to kill". I've suggested that Scottish rapists
desisting through fear or death would be A Good Thing and have offered
Lott's statistic of American rape stats falling in 33 states as a result
of relegalised handgun carry as evidence that rapists do desist when
their work environment is made less safe.
Lott's study is therefore supportive of, but tangential to the subject
of debate, which is that rapists are mindful of personal danger and
therefore that teaching women "the ability to kill" would be A Good
Thing in that it would be likely to decrease the incidence of rape
attacks and, if it really were true that self-defence classes could
achive this, might just lead to a few dead rapists.
Needless to say, I regard that also as A Good Thing. Judging by your
previous comments in the RKBA debate, your mileage will probably vary.
So your contribution to the subject under discussion was what exactly?
FoFP
M Holmes
: If you are into comparing different countries and cultures tell me,
: who has the most guns, the Uk or the USA? Now you has the most gun
: crime, the UK or the USA?
Strangely I just came across some stats on this last night. It seems
that the number of juvenile homicides from handguns has been falling in
the US since 1993 while the number of legally held guns has been
increasing.
It's also the case that the number of stabbing deaths amongst juveniles
has been increasing. No stats on whether the number of knives are
increasing.
Maybe they just don't have enough knife control?
P.S: there's been a minor stushie in Scotland over our murder rate being
twice that of England and Wales. The favourite weapon for homicide here
being the knife. No talk of banning knives yet, or even of storing them
in such a way that teenagers can't get at them.
Mike "Perhaps the state should cut food into nice easily digested chunks" Holmes
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : If you are into comparing different countries and cultures tell me,
> : who has the most guns, the Uk or the USA? Now you has the most gun
> : crime, the UK or the USA?
>
> Strangely I just came across some stats on this last night. It seems
> that the number of juvenile homicides from handguns has been falling in
> the US since 1993 while the number of legally held guns has been
> increasing.
Errr, is this Holmes superficially quoting figures yet again?
Isn't it a shame that you find time, when you want to talk about guns, to pluck
figures out of the air.
Then when some web sites are handed to you, suddenly do want to talk about guns and
don't have time.
Your inconsistency is your only consistency.
> It's also the case that the number of stabbing deaths amongst juveniles
> has been increasing. No stats on whether the number of knives are
> increasing.
>
> Maybe they just don't have enough knife control?
Yet another position you have used before.
Tell me, as you have argued that more guns means less crime, is this true for all
weapons?
Or just ones that you have a particularly fetish with.
> P.S: there's been a minor stushie in Scotland over our murder rate being
> twice that of England and Wales. The favourite weapon for homicide here
> being the knife. No talk of banning knives yet, or even of storing them
> in such a way that teenagers can't get at them.
You should not be so hard on your homeland.
Richard Tobin
M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>that the number of juvenile homicides from handguns has been falling in
>the US since 1993 while the number of legally held guns has been
>increasing.
I don't know if it's significant here, but murder rates have been
reduced everywhere because of better survival rates because of better
medical treatment. Injuries that used to be fatal are now not.
-- Richard
--
Spam filter: to mail me from a .com/.net site, put my surname in the headers.
"The Internet is really just a series of bottlenecks joined by high
speed networks." - Sam Wilson
M Holmes
: "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
: news:8aalp7$h8q$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
:> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> : If you are into comparing different countries and cultures tell me,
:> : who has the most guns, the Uk or the USA? Now you has the most gun
:> : crime, the UK or the USA?
:>
:> Strangely I just came across some stats on this last night. It seems
:> that the number of juvenile homicides from handguns has been falling in
:> the US since 1993 while the number of legally held guns has been
:> increasing.
: Errr, is this Holmes superficially quoting figures yet again? Isn't it
: a shame that you find time, when you want to talk about guns, to pluck
: figures out of the air.
As it happens, someone mailed them to me.
: : Then when some web sites are handed to you, suddenly do want to talk
: about guns and : don't have time.
Hey, *you're* the one trying to turn it into a gun debate this time
around. I've already suggested that you stick to the debate at hand.
:> It's also the case that the number of stabbing deaths amongst
:> juveniles has been increasing. No stats on whether the number of
:> knives are increasing.
:> Maybe they just don't have enough knife control?
: Yet another position you have used before. Tell me, as you have
: argued that more guns means less crime, is this true for all weapons?
: Or just ones that you have a particularly fetish with.
Speak of plucking stuff out of thin air. I've only ever fired a gun
on one afternoon in my life. If that qualifies as an obsession, I hate
to think what you'd make of my habit of watching TV news every day.
Keep your day job. Your foray into the psychiatry field isn't going to
work out.
:> P.S: there's been a minor stushie in Scotland over our murder rate
:> being twice that of England and Wales. The favourite weapon for
:> homicide here being the knife. No talk of banning knives yet, or
:> even of storing them in such a way that teenagers can't get at them.
: You should not be so hard on your homeland.
Wrong again: I'm a Borderer.
FoFP
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> : news:8aalp7$h8q$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> :> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> :>
> :> : If you are into comparing different countries and cultures tell me,
> :> : who has the most guns, the Uk or the USA? Now you has the most gun
> :> : crime, the UK or the USA?
> :>
> :> Strangely I just came across some stats on this last night. It seems
> :> that the number of juvenile homicides from handguns has been falling in
> :> the US since 1993 while the number of legally held guns has been
> :> increasing.
>
> : Errr, is this Holmes superficially quoting figures yet again? Isn't it
> : a shame that you find time, when you want to talk about guns, to pluck
> : figures out of the air.
>
> As it happens, someone mailed them to me.
Would you be able to show details of this report.
So you just accept statistics without verifying the information.
> : : Then when some web sites are handed to you, suddenly do want to talk
> : about guns and : don't have time.
>
> Hey, *you're* the one trying to turn it into a gun debate this time
> around. I've already suggested that you stick to the debate at hand.
Sorry but it is generally accepted that if you use a position in an argument then
others are liable to debate that position, this is normal practice.
If you do not wish to debate a position, don't make it.
Very simple really.
> :> It's also the case that the number of stabbing deaths amongst
> :> juveniles has been increasing. No stats on whether the number of
> :> knives are increasing.
>
> :> Maybe they just don't have enough knife control?
>
> : Yet another position you have used before. Tell me, as you have
> : argued that more guns means less crime, is this true for all weapons?
> : Or just ones that you have a particularly fetish with.
>
> Speak of plucking stuff out of thin air. I've only ever fired a gun
> on one afternoon in my life. If that qualifies as an obsession, I hate
> to think what you'd make of my habit of watching TV news every day.
Who mentioned that you had fired one?
We were talking about you arguing a position that you have previously used.
> Keep your day job. Your foray into the psychiatry field isn't going to
> work out.
If you kept to yours them maybe the NG's would not be littered with your posts.
> :> P.S: there's been a minor stushie in Scotland over our murder rate
> :> being twice that of England and Wales. The favourite weapon for
> :> homicide here being the knife. No talk of banning knives yet, or
> :> even of storing them in such a way that teenagers can't get at them.
>
> : You should not be so hard on your homeland.
>
> Wrong again: I'm a Borderer.
So don't be hard on a country that provides you with work.
M Holmes
: "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
: news:8aigur$s7v$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
:> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
:> : "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
:> : news:8aalp7$h8q$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
:> :> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
:> :> : If you are into comparing different countries and cultures tell
:> :> : me, who has the most guns, the Uk or the USA? Now you has the
:> :> : most gun crime, the UK or the USA?
:> :> Strangely I just came across some stats on this last night. It
:> :> seems that the number of juvenile homicides from handguns has been
:> :> falling in the US since 1993 while the number of legally held guns
:> :> has been increasing.
:> : Errr, is this Holmes superficially quoting figures yet again? Isn't
:> : it a shame that you find time, when you want to talk about guns, to
:> : pluck figures out of the air.
:> As it happens, someone mailed them to me.
: Would you be able to show details of this report.
I'm afraid I delete stuff from Ian pretty quickly. Keeping stuff yhe
forwards to me qould quickly overwhelm my filespsace. However he's
pretty good about posting it all to uk newsgroups (though "good" isn't
the term that many would use). I'm sure someone as umm, assiduous as you
are will have no problem tracking down the article.
: So you just accept
: statistics without verifying the information.
Statistics indicating that criminals are apt to commit more crimes when
their victims have been legally denied the means to cause them harm
during the course of their business are, to put it mildly, unsurprising
to me. I'll worry about the details when I either move to Australia, or
become very interested in the debate. I mentioned it only because of
your own apparent keen interest in the subject.
:> : : Then when some web sites are handed to you, suddenly do want to
:> : : talk
:> : about guns and : don't have time.
:> Hey, *you're* the one trying to turn it into a gun debate this time
:> around. I've already suggested that you stick to the debate at hand.
: Sorry but it is generally accepted that if you use a position in an
: argument then others are liable to debate that position
That's fine: my position is that if rapists face danger of death during
the course of their activities then they're more likely to desist from
their crimes. Feel free to argue otherwise. Lott's studies, and the
recent history of Britain and Australia are supportive of this theory,
as is the slightest insight into human nature. A corrollary of my
position is that the EUSA statement on women and self-defence was
bollocks.
Clearly you've gone to some lengths to check criminology statistics in
the sphere of self-defence. I did wonder whether, rather than calling me
names, you were going to offer anything from your researches which
indicates either that danger of death merely encourages rapists to
further efforts, or at least simply leaves them unmoved in their choice
of career?
:> : Yet another position you have used before. Tell me, as you have
:> : argued that more guns means less crime, is this true for all
:> : weapons? Or just ones that you have a particularly fetish with.
:> Speak of plucking stuff out of thin air. I've only ever fired a gun
:> on one afternoon in my life. If that qualifies as an obsession, I
:> hate to think what you'd make of my habit of watching TV news every
:> day.
: Who mentioned that you had fired one?
Sorry. If you meant only that I'm supportive of victims and their right
to self-defence and an advocate that at the time of the crime, criminals
have voluntarily surrendered all rights, then I plead guilty. You;d
probably be horrified at the number of people who share this "fetish".
: We were talking about you
: arguing a position that you have previously used.
I'd like several million counts of comnsistency taken into account M'Lud.
:> Keep your day job. Your foray into the psychiatry field isn't going
:> to work out.
: If you kept to yours them maybe the NG's would not be littered with
: your posts.
I'd hate to make your obsession with trailing me around newsgroups to
insult me any more difficult than you could handle.
:> :> P.S: there's been a minor stushie in Scotland over our murder rate
:> :> being twice that of England and Wales. The favourite weapon for
:> :> homicide here being the knife. No talk of banning knives yet, or
:> :> even of storing them in such a way that teenagers can't get at
:> :> them.
:> : You should not be so hard on your homeland.
:> Wrong again: I'm a Borderer.
: So don't be hard on a country that provides you with work.
Who was being hard? I mentioned only the statistics (from the Times last
week IIRC). We do seem to have a problem in Scotland with idiot teenage
boys carrying knives and using them in anger. Certainly most of us who
grew up in these parts have known more than one "Begbie" character.
FoFP
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> : news:8aigur$s7v$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
>
> :> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :> : "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> :> : news:8aalp7$h8q$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
>
> :> :> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :> :> : If you are into comparing different countries and cultures tell
> :> :> : me, who has the most guns, the Uk or the USA? Now you has the
> :> :> : most gun crime, the UK or the USA?
>
> :> :> Strangely I just came across some stats on this last night. It
> :> :> seems that the number of juvenile homicides from handguns has been
> :> :> falling in the US since 1993 while the number of legally held guns
> :> :> has been increasing.
>
> :> : Errr, is this Holmes superficially quoting figures yet again? Isn't
> :> : it a shame that you find time, when you want to talk about guns, to
> :> : pluck figures out of the air.
>
> :> As it happens, someone mailed them to me.
>
> : Would you be able to show details of this report.
>
> I'm afraid I delete stuff from Ian pretty quickly.
If I was a cynic I would say that was very convenient.
>Keeping stuff yhe
> forwards to me qould quickly overwhelm my filespsace. However he's
> pretty good about posting it all to uk newsgroups (though "good" isn't
> the term that many would use). I'm sure someone as umm, assiduous as you
> are will have no problem tracking down the article.
What's his name?
> : So you just accept
> : statistics without verifying the information.
>
> Statistics indicating that criminals are apt to commit more crimes when
> their victims have been legally denied the means to cause them harm
> during the course of their business are, to put it mildly, unsurprising
> to me. I'll worry about the details when I either move to Australia, or
> become very interested in the debate. I mentioned it only because of
> your own apparent keen interest in the subject.
So you got this email from a mate with some figures, didn't say how they were
calculated or which report they derived from.
You can't produce any evidence of the figures, nor can you tell me anything else about
them.
You believe them, as you would, yet accuse others of using superficial figures.
At least those can be checked, unlike your unnamed, unknown figures.
Not very credible.
> :> : : Then when some web sites are handed to you, suddenly do want to
> :> : : talk
>
> :> : about guns and : don't have time.
>
> :> Hey, *you're* the one trying to turn it into a gun debate this time
> :> around. I've already suggested that you stick to the debate at hand.
>
> : Sorry but it is generally accepted that if you use a position in an
> : argument then others are liable to debate that position
>
> That's fine
So you are saying it is about guns?
>: my position is that if rapists face danger of death during
> the course of their activities then they're more likely to desist from
> their crimes. Feel free to argue otherwise. Lott's studies, and the
> recent history of Britain and Australia are supportive of this theory,
Australia, Oh we are back to those figures which can't be verified because you just
happen to, Ummm, deleted.
As for the UK, well, most people, except you, believe the rise in figures is down to
more women reporting the offences to the police, where before they wouldn't.
You are the only person I have seen who seems to infer that these have risen since the
banning of guns.
The concept you are unable to understand is that when any country bans guns, which
were previously freely available in huge amounts, then gun crime or any other violent
crime will still occur with them.
You see, the thing is that criminals are not honest people, when the Gov't ask for
all guns to be handed in they cheat and don't, only the good people do. So what you
then have is not a gun ban, but a ban on legal guns.
This is because of a concept that when guns are freely available, in large numbers,
they often fall into the wrong hands, this means there a very bad men running around
with guns. The nice people feel scared, hence they buy some also, unfortunately some
of these legal guns get lost, stolen and taken off the nice people in an attack.
The result is that more and more guns are purchased, therefore if anyone is brave
enough to take on the gun types and bring in a ban, the only effect is that it
prevents any new guns coming into being, so to speak.
Thus societies with more and more guns are likely to have more problems removing them
even when a ban is imposed. Criminals will note the advantage, this then leads to the
pro gun people saying crime has gone up and that having guns reduces crime. They
forget that the increased crimes are with guns and are unable to understand that if
there were no guns at all there would be no gun crime.
They then use the rape argument, the only thing is that most attackers are known to
the victim.
If they are concerned about stopping rapes then there are other means to do this, most
women are uncomfortable with guns and they can always be used by the person doing the
attacking.
> Clearly you've gone to some lengths to check criminology statistics in
> the sphere of self-defence.
Not like you and those web sites.
> I did wonder whether, rather than calling me
> names
My dear boy I wouldn't say anything about you that wasn't true.
You are paranoid, I have not called you in this thread.
>, you were going to offer anything from your researches which
> indicates either that danger of death merely encourages rapists to
> further efforts, or at least simply leaves them unmoved in their choice
> of career?
Your one and only approach is the disputed Lott report, and some stats which are not
able to be validated because you removed them.
All that I said was that the Lott report, which you only mention, was wrong, I also
offered some web sites which you said you didn't have the time to check.
You offer nothing.
> :> : Yet another position you have used before. Tell me, as you have
> :> : argued that more guns means less crime, is this true for all
> :> : weapons? Or just ones that you have a particularly fetish with.
>
> :> Speak of plucking stuff out of thin air. I've only ever fired a gun
> :> on one afternoon in my life. If that qualifies as an obsession, I
> :> hate to think what you'd make of my habit of watching TV news every
> :> day.
>
> : Who mentioned that you had fired one?
>
> Sorry. If you meant only that I'm supportive of victims and their right
> to self-defence and an advocate that at the time of the crime, criminals
> have voluntarily surrendered all rights, then I plead guilty. You;d
> probably be horrified at the number of people who share this "fetish".
It isn't what I said, Holmes, it is what you said.
Do follow the topic.
> : We were talking about you
> : arguing a position that you have previously used.
>
> I'd like several million counts of comnsistency taken into account M'Lud.
>
> :> Keep your day job. Your foray into the psychiatry field isn't going
> :> to work out.
>
> : If you kept to yours them maybe the NG's would not be littered with
> : your posts.
>
> I'd hate to make your obsession with trailing me around newsgroups to
> insult me any more difficult than you could handle.
Holmes, you will have to get over this persecution complex about you being insulted.
Where have I insulted you, it certainly isn't anymore than what you do to myself, I am
not moaning.
> :> :> P.S: there's been a minor stushie in Scotland over our murder rate
> :> :> being twice that of England and Wales. The favourite weapon for
> :> :> homicide here being the knife. No talk of banning knives yet, or
> :> :> even of storing them in such a way that teenagers can't get at
> :> :> them.
>
> :> : You should not be so hard on your homeland.
>
> :> Wrong again: I'm a Borderer.
>
> : So don't be hard on a country that provides you with work.
>
> Who was being hard? I mentioned only the statistics (from the Times last
> week IIRC).
Well at least we know where you got those stats from.
Richard Caley
cb> most people, except you, believe the rise in figures is down to
cb> more women reporting the offences to the police, where before they
cb> wouldn't.
I presume you can produce real figures to back up this assertion of
what `most people' believe?
Perhaps you deleted them?
M Holmes
: What's his name?
Ian Geldard. If you can hunt down everything I post on usenet you should
have absolutely no problem finding Ian's stuff.
: You can't produce any evidence of the figures, nor can you tell me
: anything else about them. You believe them, as you would, yet accuse
: others of using superficial figures. At least those can be checked,
: unlike your unnamed, unknown figures. Not very credible.
I had a lot more interest in the gun debate at the time we argued about
it last year than I currently do. I have other projects and other
interests on the go at the moment and haven't the time to check up on
stats I'm only somewhat interested in. I forwarded reference to the
Australian stuff only because *you* apparently have the time and
interest to go scouring round the net for the details - such as the
minor debate between Lott and Kleck that you referenced.
: So you are saying it is about guns?
I'm not getting into your usual crap of turning every debate back to
some previous one from long ago that you still feel sore about.
This debate is about women, rape, and self-defence. Specifically it's
about the subject as it affects Edinburgh. If you have something to
contribute, then please do so. Otherwise I suggest you'll have more fun
if you go look up Tim Starr or Rob Knauer over on talk.politics.guns.
Having met Tim, I'd suggest that he's more persistent than I am and
he'll almost certainly have read the references you keep demanding I go
and read.
If you still feel compelled to argue with me personally then my current
obsession du jour is the Millenium Crash. I'd probably even go and read
any references you found.
:>: my position is that if rapists face danger of death during
:> the course of their activities then they're more likely to desist
:> from their crimes. Feel free to argue otherwise. Lott's studies,
:> and the recent history of Britain and Australia are supportive of
:> this theory,
: Australia, Oh we are back to those figures which can't be verified
: because you just happen to, Ummm, deleted. As for the UK, well, most
: people, except you, believe the rise in figures is down to more women
: reporting the offences to the police, where before they wouldn't. You
: are the only person I have seen who seems to infer that these have
: risen since the banning of guns.
So I'm unique. Trust me, on ed.general that's not a newsflash.
[Stuff which has nothing to do with women, rape and self-defence elided]
FoFP
M Holmes
:> :> :> Strangely I just came across some stats on this last night. It
:> :> :> seems that the number of juvenile homicides from handguns has been
:> :> :> falling in the US since 1993 while the number of legally held guns
:> :> :> has been increasing.
:>
:> :> : Errr, is this Holmes superficially quoting figures yet again? Isn't
:> :> : it a shame that you find time, when you want to talk about guns, to
:> :> : pluck figures out of the air.
:>
:> :> As it happens, someone mailed them to me.
:>
:> : Would you be able to show details of this report.
:>
:> I'm afraid I delete stuff from Ian pretty quickly.
: If I was a cynic I would say that was very convenient.
Just tried to email an article from Ian to you (posting it up here will
only encourage a gun debate). It bounced. Is there some reason for that?
FoFP
C.Brendan
"Richard Caley" <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:eyhya7l...@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk...
> In article <zXez4.4752$921.1...@news3.cableinet.net>, C Brendan (cb) writes:
>
> cb> most people, except you, believe the rise in figures is down to
> cb> more women reporting the offences to the police, where before they
> cb> wouldn't.
>
> I presume you can produce real figures to back up this assertion of
> what `most people' believe?
>
> Perhaps you deleted them?
Someone else from Edinburgh University.
The figures are from several reports over the years, they have been well publicised.
I also believe there are some Home office stats also.
As for your statement, well as we have not really carried handguns how would they
attribute any rise down to the banning of them.
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :> :> :> Strangely I just came across some stats on this last night. It
> :> :> :> seems that the number of juvenile homicides from handguns has been
> :> :> :> falling in the US since 1993 while the number of legally held guns
> :> :> :> has been increasing.
> :>
> :> :> : Errr, is this Holmes superficially quoting figures yet again? Isn't
> :> :> : it a shame that you find time, when you want to talk about guns, to
> :> :> : pluck figures out of the air.
> :>
> :> :> As it happens, someone mailed them to me.
> :>
> :> : Would you be able to show details of this report.
> :>
> :> I'm afraid I delete stuff from Ian pretty quickly.
>
> : If I was a cynic I would say that was very convenient.
>
> only encourage a gun debate). It bounced. Is there some reason for that?
The very same reason as yours.
Stops Spam I find.
I suggest any evidence that you refer to in an argument in a NG should be posted in
the thread so others may check for quality.
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : What's his name?
>
> Ian Geldard. If you can hunt down everything I post on usenet you should
> have absolutely no problem finding Ian's stuff.
ROTFLOL
Ian is well known, many make fun of him with his UK TORY thing.
> : You can't produce any evidence of the figures, nor can you tell me
> : anything else about them. You believe them, as you would, yet accuse
> : others of using superficial figures. At least those can be checked,
> : unlike your unnamed, unknown figures. Not very credible.
>
> I had a lot more interest in the gun debate at the time we argued about
> it last year than I currently do. I have other projects and other
> interests on the go at the moment and haven't the time to check up on
> stats I'm only somewhat interested in.
So anything I put to you in the way of evidence will be like talking to a brick wall,
as you won't look at the sites.
>I forwarded reference to the
> Australian stuff only because *you* apparently have the time and
> interest to go scouring round the net for the details - such as the
> minor debate between Lott and Kleck that you referenced.
The Aus stuff, what reference, you said nothing, just some figures from a friend which
can't be confirmed because you deleted the message.
> : So you are saying it is about guns?
>
> I'm not getting into your usual crap of turning every debate back to
> some previous one from long ago that you still feel sore about.
You mean like bringing guns into a debate which isn't about guns.
> This debate is about women, rape, and self-defence.
And your position regarding a questionable report.
>Specifically it's
> about the subject as it affects Edinburgh. If you have something to
> contribute, then please do so.
My contribution, as you put it, was that the report which you claimed had reduced
attacks was flawed.
There is a lot of crap on Usenet, I was just trying to stop anymore.
> Otherwise I suggest you'll have more fun
Talking to you isn't fun.
> if you go look up Tim Starr or Rob Knauer over on talk.politics.guns.
> Having met Tim, I'd suggest that he's more persistent than I am and
> he'll almost certainly have read the references you keep demanding I go
> and read.
All gun friends together, hey.
> If you still feel compelled to argue with me personally then my current
> obsession du jour is the Millenium Crash. I'd probably even go and read
> any references you found.
I am only interested in correcting your post.
> :>: my position is that if rapists face danger of death during
> :> the course of their activities then they're more likely to desist
> :> from their crimes. Feel free to argue otherwise. Lott's studies,
> :> and the recent history of Britain and Australia are supportive of
> :> this theory,
>
> : Australia, Oh we are back to those figures which can't be verified
> : because you just happen to, Ummm, deleted. As for the UK, well, most
> : people, except you, believe the rise in figures is down to more women
> : reporting the offences to the police, where before they wouldn't. You
> : are the only person I have seen who seems to infer that these have
> : risen since the banning of guns.
>
> So I'm unique. Trust me, on ed.general that's not a newsflash.
Getting things wrong isn't unique, in that regard you are not.
In future if you don't want people to get into debate with you regarding something you
say, don't use it as evidence to support your position.
In fact when it was posted I wonder what you intended to achieve by it, was people
supposed to believe it without question.
M Holmes
: So anything I put to you in the way of evidence will be like talking
: to a brick wall, as you won't look at the sites.
Anything you reference regarding *the current debate* I may look at.
Anything you reference to merely resurrect a debate from last year I
almost certainly won't bother. Someone has asked you for the source of
your claims regarding reported rape statistics. That's at least on
topic. Why not supply some references for those?
I'll pass on your references on the Lott and Kleck disagreement to
someone I know who keeps up on this. Initial comments suggest that Lott
has answered Kleck's criticisms and also that both an in agreement that
guns are more often used to prevent crime in the US than they are to
cause it, by a very large proportion. When references on this get back
to me I'll pass them on, provided of course that you'll supply your real
email address. Until then I suggest once again that you stick to the
topic under discussion.
:>I forwarded reference to the
:> Australian stuff only because *you* apparently have the time and
:> interest to go scouring round the net for the details - such as the
:> minor debate between Lott and Kleck that you referenced.
: The Aus stuff, what reference, you said nothing, just some figures
: from a friend which can't be confirmed because you deleted the
: message.
If you'll supply your real email address then I'll get the article to you.
: There is a lot of crap on Usenet, I
: was just trying to stop anymore.
You have a glass of paraquat and tomorrow I guarantee there'll be less
crap on usenet.
:> Otherwise I suggest you'll have more fun
: Talking to you isn't fun.
Don't slam the door on your way out.
:> if you go look up Tim Starr or Rob Knauer over on talk.politics.guns.
:> Having met Tim, I'd suggest that he's more persistent than I am and
:> he'll almost certainly have read the references you keep demanding I
:> go and read.
: All gun friends together, hey.
There's nothing like the thought that someone might be armed to
encourage others to stand their round.
:> If you still feel compelled to argue with me personally then my
:> current obsession du jour is the Millenium Crash. I'd probably even
:> go and read any references you found.
: I am only interested in correcting your post.
Sooner or later you'll again be saying what I've said all along and
claiming that it was your position all along. The denizens of
uk.astronomy are probably still chuckling over that one.
Or would you like to revert to your "CS" alias and tell us once again
that apes should have human rights? If we're going to rehash old
arguments, we should at least select the more amusing ones.
FoFP
M Holmes
:> :> : Would you be able to show details of this report.
:> :> I'm afraid I delete stuff from Ian pretty quickly.
:> : If I was a cynic I would say that was very convenient.
:> Just tried to email an article from Ian to you (posting it up here
:> will only encourage a gun debate). It bounced. Is there some reason
:> for that?
: The very same reason as yours. Stops Spam I find.
So let's see: if we take "nospam" out of my address, we get my real
address. What's the obvious thing to do to
in order to produce your real address?
Then again, with your views I'd be too embarassed to give my real name
and address too.
: I suggest any
: evidence that you refer to in an argument in a NG should be posted in
: the thread so others may check for quality.
The gun stuff is irrelevant to a discussion on women, rape, and
self-defence and therefore wouldn't forward the argument.
You said you wanted the article. If that's the case then send your email
adress to me and I'll send it. Otherwise quit whining that you haven't
got it.
FoFP
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : So anything I put to you in the way of evidence will be like talking
> : to a brick wall, as you won't look at the sites.
>
> Anything you reference regarding *the current debate* I may look at.
The current debate was your claim that guns reduced crime.
I have offered evidence, in the form of web sites, that question your claim.
> Anything you reference to merely resurrect a debate from last year I
> almost certainly won't bother.
Do you have some kind of problem getting to grip of things.
You brought the subject up.
>Someone has asked you for the source of
> your claims regarding reported rape statistics. That's at least on
> topic. Why not supply some references for those?
This was in response to your, yet to be seen, unnamed report, deleted figures.
As I said we have never carried guns around so how you logically came to that
conclusion one could only guess. Maybe you could tell us.
As for my point, there have been many reports of them, you say you watch the news,
surprised you didn't see them.
> I'll pass on your references on the Lott and Kleck disagreement to
> someone I know who keeps up on this.
If you are not going to argue a point you started why should I argue with someone
else.
> Initial comments suggest that Lott
> has answered Kleck's criticisms
No.
> and also that both an in agreement that
> guns are more often used to prevent crime in the US than they are to
> cause it, by a very large proportion.
The analogy you have missed is that Kleck, who is pro gun, dismisses the report that
you claim show that guns reduce crime.
> When references on this get back
> to me I'll pass them on, provided of course that you'll supply your real
> email address.
As I said this is a Usenet discussion, not an email one.
It started on Usenet, it is for public interest.
Any mail sent to myself will be treated as spam, your address and ISP at Edinburgh
will be reported.
> Until then I suggest once again that you stick to the
> topic under discussion.
Your initial post in this thread was the use of the Lott report.
> :>I forwarded reference to the
> :> Australian stuff only because *you* apparently have the time and
> :> interest to go scouring round the net for the details - such as the
> :> minor debate between Lott and Kleck that you referenced.
>
> : The Aus stuff, what reference, you said nothing, just some figures
> : from a friend which can't be confirmed because you deleted the
> : message.
>
> If you'll supply your real email address then I'll get the article to you.
Post it on Usenet, what is the problem in doing this.
Is this a ploy to avoid the subject.
> : There is a lot of crap on Usenet, I
> : was just trying to stop anymore.
>
> You have a glass of paraquat and tomorrow I guarantee there'll be less
> crap on Usenet.
You will still be there.
> :> Otherwise I suggest you'll have more fun
>
> : Talking to you isn't fun.
>
> Don't slam the door on your way out.
Now now, Mike.
> :> if you go look up Tim Starr or Rob Knauer over on talk.politics.guns.
> :> Having met Tim, I'd suggest that he's more persistent than I am and
> :> he'll almost certainly have read the references you keep demanding I
> :> go and read.
>
> : All gun friends together, hey.
>
> There's nothing like the thought that someone might be armed to
> encourage others to stand their round.
Yes, you are all scared.
> :> If you still feel compelled to argue with me personally then my
> :> current obsession du jour is the Millenium Crash. I'd probably even
> :> go and read any references you found.
>
> : I am only interested in correcting your post.
>
> Sooner or later you'll again be saying what I've said all along and
> claiming that it was your position all along. The denizens of
> uk.astronomy are probably still chuckling over that one.
Are we on about your, Sun crossing the Meridian one here.
Or your confusion over what a nova was.
Or that where you asked for a difference, yet said there was none.
> Or would you like to revert to your "CS" alias and tell us once again
> that apes should have human rights? If we're going to rehash old
> arguments, we should at least select the more amusing ones.
That was a classic of yours, claiming intelligent computers could be killed, even
though you admitted they weren't alive.
LOL.
If I had come out with that I would have changed my name.
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :> :> : Would you be able to show details of this report.
>
> :> :> I'm afraid I delete stuff from Ian pretty quickly.
>
> :> : If I was a cynic I would say that was very convenient.
>
> :> will only encourage a gun debate). It bounced. Is there some reason
> :> for that?
>
> : The very same reason as yours. Stops Spam I find.
>
> So let's see: if we take "nospam" out of my address, we get my real
> address. What's the obvious thing to do to
You don't have nospam.
If you use that method any old idiot knows what to do, they can then spam the address.
> c.br...@cableinet.co.uk
>
> in order to produce your real address?
So is your fofp address the real one?
> Then again, with your views I'd be too embarrassed to give my real name
> and address too.
What views are those.
> : I suggest any
> : evidence that you refer to in an argument in a NG should be posted in
> : the thread so others may check for quality.
>
> The gun stuff is irrelevant to a discussion on women, rape, and
> self-defence and therefore wouldn't forward the argument.
Then why did you use the gun report as evidence of it reducing crime.
Is this abstract or what.
> You said you wanted the article. If that's the case then send your email
> address to me and I'll send it. Otherwise quit whining that you haven't
> got it.
Do you have a problem in posting?
You have never offered to mail stuff before, why now?
Is this a deflection manoeuvre?
You made the claim on Usenet, evidence should be addressed here.
Post it here.
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :> :> : Would you be able to show details of this report.
>
> :> :> I'm afraid I delete stuff from Ian pretty quickly.
>
> :> : If I was a cynic I would say that was very convenient.
>
M Holmes
: "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
: news:8am1pt$7nu$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
:> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> : So anything I put to you in the way of evidence will be like talking
:> : to a brick wall, as you won't look at the sites.
:>
:> Anything you reference regarding *the current debate* I may look at.
: The current debate was your claim that guns reduced crime.
As before, I have to conclude that you're basically retarded. For the
*LAST* time: *THIS* debate is about rape, and women learning
self-defence. If ypou have any doubts, go check out the archives.
: I have offered evidence, in the form of web sites, that question your claim.
We've been through all that. Go look up Lott's rebuttal to Kleck. Then
check mout Kleck himself. He's very solidly in the camp that guns in the
US prevent an awful lot more crime than they're used in. I take it you
can't find any credible criticism from the opposing camp? perhaps like
Lott, people start out anti self-defence until research to prove the
case shows that guns prevent crime rather than cause it.
:> Anything you reference to merely resurrect a debate from last year I
:> almost certainly won't bother.
: Do you have some kind of problem getting to grip of things.
Look up "projection" in your amateur psychiatry book.
:> Someone has asked you for the source of
:> your claims regarding reported rape statistics. That's at least on
:> topic. Why not supply some references for those?
: This was in response to your, yet to be seen, unnamed report, deleted
: figures. As I said we have never carried guns around so how you
: logically came to that conclusion one could only guess. Maybe you
: could tell us. As for my point, there have been many reports of them,
: you say you watch the news, surprised you didn't see them.
So basically If I quote statistics I'm supposed to read every reference
to them on the Net you can dig up. If you quote statistics then they're
just something everyobne knows for a fact?
If you think you've hit on some killer argument that proves rapists are
basically unafraid to die, and it's in all these references you keep
wittering about then why don't you just summarise the salient points for
everyone present? I'm about the only person regularly around ed.general
who was even vaguely likely to do that. If you only think you've proven
Lott wrong with some of Kleck's criticisms then tell us where Lott was
wrong, why, and how it's relevant to the current debate. Extra points
will be awarded for references to Lott's responses to Kleck.
Do that sensibly and I guarantee that I'll read your summary - I could
even genuinely say that I'm curious about it.
:> I'll pass on your references on the Lott and Kleck disagreement to
:> someone I know who keeps up on this.
: If you are not going to argue a point you started why should I argue
: with someone else.
You're the one who wants a gun debate. Why not just bugger off to where
they have lots of 'em? Is it just that they gave you your head on a
plate in much the same way the uk astronomers did when you called them
in as expert witnesses?
:> Initial comments suggest that Lott
:> has answered Kleck's criticisms
: No.
I'm interested in that: in what way did Lott's response to Kleck not
satisfy Kleck's objections to Lott's study?
:> and also that both an in agreement that guns are more often used to
:> prevent crime in the US than they are to cause it, by a very large
:> proportion.
: The analogy you have missed is that Kleck, who is pro gun, dismisses
: the report that you claim show that guns reduce crime.
That's not an analogy, but that just indicates that when I suggested you
look it up during your "monkeys have human rights" efforts, you didn't.
I suppose my suggestions that you read up on logic rather than simply
dismissing it as "all that A and B stuff" fell on similarly deaf ears?
Anyway you're basically arguing that Kleck believes that Lott is correct in
that handgun ownership reduces crime, but merely has some statistical
questions about Lott's research? So do *any* of those questions go to
the heart of my claim that rapists are less likely to rape if they face
danger of death?
:> When references on this get back
:> to me I'll pass them on, provided of course that you'll supply your
:> real email address.
: As I said this is a Usenet discussion, not an email one. It started
: on Usenet, it is for public interest. Any mail sent to myself will be
: treated as spam, your address and ISP at Edinburgh will be reported.
If you don't want information then don't ask for it. As for your
anonymous address, I can assure you that, unlike most people, it won't
reduce your credibility.
:> Until then I suggest once again that you stick to the
:> topic under discussion.
: Your initial post in this thread was the use of the Lott report.
And did your always suspect interpretation skills grasp that it was
quoted only to support the theory that rapists will desist if faced with
danger of death. I ask again: did any of Kleck's criticism indicate that
rapists do not in fact fear death and was this unaddressed in Lott's
response to Kleck?
Do you personally believe that rapists are careless of danger to
themselves? Why do you suppose that rapists tend to rape when nobody but
their victims is around? Are we to suppose that they're just shy?
:> :>I forwarded reference to the
:> :> Australian stuff only because *you* apparently have the time and
:> :> interest to go scouring round the net for the details - such as the
:> :> minor debate between Lott and Kleck that you referenced.
:> : The Aus stuff, what reference, you said nothing, just some figures
:> : from a friend which can't be confirmed because you deleted the
:> : message.
:> If you'll supply your real email address then I'll get the article to
:> you.
: Post it on Usenet, what is the problem in doing this. Is this a ploy
: to avoid the subject.
No, it's a ploy to return to the subject of debate rather than indulge
idiots who feel sore about a spanking they got last year.
:> : There is a lot of crap on Usenet, I was just trying to stop
:> : anymore.
:> You have a glass of paraquat and tomorrow I guarantee there'll be
:> less crap on Usenet.
: You will still be there.
OK, you've got half the point. Stick with it. You'll get there in the end...
:> :> if you go look up Tim Starr or Rob Knauer over on
:> :> talk.politics.guns. Having met Tim, I'd suggest that he's more
:> :> persistent than I am and he'll almost certainly have read the
:> :> references you keep demanding I go and read.
:> : All gun friends together, hey.
:> There's nothing like the thought that someone might be armed to
:> encourage others to stand their round.
: Yes, you are all scared.
As it happens Tim's a very nice guy. All but one of the people I've met
first on usenet and then in the world have been.
:> :> If you still feel compelled to argue with me personally then my
:> :> current obsession du jour is the Millenium Crash. I'd probably
:> :> even go and read any references you found.
:> : I am only interested in correcting your post.
:> Sooner or later you'll again be saying what I've said all along and
:> claiming that it was your position all along. The denizens of
:> uk.astronomy are probably still chuckling over that one.
: Are we on about your, Sun crossing the Meridian one here. Or your
: confusion over what a nova was. Or that where you asked for a
: difference, yet said there was none.
The latter. IIRC the difference between us is that when my errors
regarding the first two were pointed out to me, I acknowledged and
thanked those who corrected me. Admittedly your technique was probably
more complimentary: adopting my position as your own after argiung
against it for weeks and then blaming me for inviting dissent when I
knew I was correct in the first place.
:> Or would you like to revert to your "CS" alias and tell us once again
:> that apes should have human rights? If we're going to rehash old
:> arguments, we should at least select the more amusing ones.
: That was a classic of yours, claiming intelligent computers could be
: killed
You certainly don't get any brighter. A large part of that debate hinged
around my use of the word "murdered" rather than "killed" and you still
confuse the two.
: even though you admitted they weren't alive. LOL. If I had
: come out with that I would have changed my name.
You did change your name.
FoFP
M Holmes
:> :> Just tried to email an article from Ian to you (posting it up here
:> :> will only encourage a gun debate). It bounced. Is there some reason
:> :> for that?
:>
:> : The very same reason as yours. Stops Spam I find.
:>
:> So let's see: if we take "nospam" out of my address, we get my real
:> address. What's the obvious thing to do to
: You don't have nospam. If you use that method any old idiot knows
: what to do, they can then spam the address.
They're evil geniuses that's what they are.
:> in order to produce your real address?
: So is your fofp address the real one?
Yes, my address really is fo...@ed.ac.uk
:> : I suggest any evidence that you refer to in an argument in a NG
:> : should be posted in the thread so others may check for quality.
:> The gun stuff is irrelevant to a discussion on women, rape, and
:> self-defence and therefore wouldn't forward the argument.
: Then why did you use the gun report as evidence of it reducing crime.
The rape statistics in the report indicated that rapists will desist
when faced with danger of death. In the discussion EUSA had suggested
that women shouldn't learn self-defence because it "would be teaching
them to kill". See the connection? That's what we call "relevance" on
our planet.
The tricky thing about relevance is that it can be quite specific. That
one part of Lott's research is relevant to the debate doesn't mean that
each and every part of it is relevant to the debate. Once you manage to
grasp that concept, you'll see why every little argument between Kleck
and Lott that you seem determined to drag in might just not be relevant.
:> You said you wanted the article. If that's the case then send your
:> email address to me and I'll send it. Otherwise quit whining that
:> you haven't got it.
: Do you have a problem in posting?
Only the one I've stated. Which is written right up there in English and
everything. With which part of it are you having difficulty?
FoFP
Richard Caley
cb> The figures are from several reports over the years, they have
cb> been well publicised. I also believe there are some Home office
cb> stats also.
The home office go around making surveys of what `most people think?
Actually they probably do, given we have a rule by focus group in all
other areas. Why hire 10 policemne when you can hire amarket research
firm....
cb> As for your statement, well as we have not really carried handguns
cb> how would they attribute any rise down to the banning of them.
I have made no statement about guns at all, and I'd thank you not to
put words into my mouth.
C.Brendan
>"MHolmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8am22p$7nu$2...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
>:> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>:>
>:> : So anything I put to you in the way of evidence will be like talking
>:> : to a brick wall, as you won't look at the sites.
>:>
>:> Anything you reference regarding *the current debate* I may look at.
>: The current debate was your claim that guns reduced crime.
>As before, I have to conclude that you're basically retarded. For the *LAST* time:
*THIS* debate is about >rape, and women learning
>self-defence. If ypou have any doubts, go check out the archives.
Is rape not a crime?
Your position was about guns reducing rape.
Are you retracting this.
>: I have offered evidence, in the form of web sites, that question your claim.
>We've been through all that. Go look up Lott's rebuttal to Kleck.
Where would it be found, where did you see it.
>Then check mout Kleck himself. He's very solidly in the camp that guns in the US
>prevent an awful lot more >crime than they're used in.
I am not denying that Kelck is pro gun. What I am saying, yet you seem unable to
understand, is that the very report that you put so much weight on, is, according to
even pro gun people, flawed.
UNDERSTAND.
> I take it you can't find any credible criticism from the opposing camp? perhaps like
>Lott, people start out anti >self-defence until research to prove the case shows that
>guns prevent crime rather than cause it.
There are loads on anti gun statements and figures, I can show them for you if you
like, it would be better for you to look at the web sites yourself as you seem not to
be very busy, going from the rate you are posting.
>:> Someone has asked you for the source of>:> your claims regarding reported rape
statistics. That's at least on
>:> topic. Why not supply some references for those?
>: This was in response to your, yet to be seen, unnamed report, deleted
>: figures. As I said we have never carried guns around so how you
>: logically came to that conclusion one could only guess. Maybe you
>: could tell us. As for my point, there have been many reports of them,
>: you say you watch the news, surprised you didn't see them.
>So basically If I quote statistics I'm supposed to read every reference to them on
>the Net you can dig up. If you >quote statistics then they're just something
everyone
>knows for a fact?
Most people have TV's and watch the news and read newspapers, are you denying that
there have been these reports?
YES or NO.
How did you come to the conclusion that rapes in Britain have gone up since guns were
banned even though we never carry handguns?
>If you think you've hit on some killer argument that proves rapists are basically
>unafraid to die, and it's in all >these references you keep wittering about then why
>don't you just summarise the salient points for everyone >present?
You have said the rapes have gone up in Britain since the gun ban, you claimed this
reinforced your argument regarding your claim about guns.
I am asking, as you made a bold statement, where did you get those figure from as we
have never carried hand guns here.
>I'm about the only person regularly around ed.general who was even vaguely likely to
>do that. If you >only think >you've proven Lott wrong with some of Kleck's criticisms
>then tell us where Lott was wrong, why, and >how it's >relevant to the current
debate.
>Extra points will be awarded for references to Lott's responses to >Kleck.
Are you a half wit?
The Kleck argument is used to show others, not you obviously, that the report was
flawed.
Now if that is from someone who IS pro gun then what does that say?
As for Lott well, John Lott is a John M. Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago Law
School.
The funder of Lott's fellowship is the John M. Olin Foundation.
There are links between this foundation and the Olin Corporation.
The Olin Corporation own Winchester Ammunition.
Independent?
>:> I'll pass on your references on the Lott and Kleck disagreement to
>:> someone I know who keeps up on this.
>: If you are not going to argue a point you started why should I argue
>: with someone else.
>You're the one who wants a gun debate.
No.
If you are daft enough to use a GUN report as evidence, then that will become a gun
issue.
Indeed what was it you intended to achieve by using the gun report.
The issue was that guns stopped rapes, was it?
Did you believe you could use it as evidence, then not talk about it.
> Why not just bugger off to where they have lots of 'em? Is it just that they gave
>you your head on a plate in >much the same way the uk astronomers did when you called
>them in as expert witnesses?
I didn't see any astronomers coming to support you.
I did see them say if there wasn't a difference then they are the same, then that begs
the question, if they are the same why infer a difference and ask for one.
Indeed what was that you came out with regarding the Sun always crossing the Meridian
at the same time.
Usually when you are in that NG you are being corrected.
Isn't this just a tactic to go off the subject.
>:> Initial comments suggest that Lott
>:> has answered Kleck's criticisms
: No.
>I'm interested in that: in what way did Lott's response to Kleck not satisfy Kleck's
>objections to Lott's study?
The No refers to your statement.
You have not demonstrated this, you just said that they had.
But it wasn't just Kleck who questioned the report, many well respected researches
did.
>:> and also that both an in agreement that guns are more often used to
>:> prevent crime in the US than they are to cause it, by a very large
>:> proportion.
>: The analogy you have missed is that Kleck, who is pro gun, dismisses
>: the report that you claim show that guns reduce crime.
>That's not an analogy, but that just indicates that when I suggested you look it up
>during your "monkeys have human rights" efforts, you didn't. I suppose my suggestions
>that you read up on logic rather than simply dismissing it as "all that A and B
stuff"
>fell on similarly deaf ears
Is there not an agreement or similarity between Kleck and Lott?
In regards to them being both pro gun.
Then the analogy is that they are both pro gun, yet my point from this is that Kleck
questions the credibility of the report.
There is nothing new in you not being able to understand simple words, I remember you
had the cheek to redefine the Oxford English dictionary version of the meaning of
"First hand experience"
Your childish games trying to highlight something just make me laugh when I remember
what strange
things you have said.
C.Brendan
>:> :> Just tried to email an article from Ian to you (posting it up here
>:> :> will only encourage a gun debate). It bounced. Is there some reason
>:> :> for that?
>:>
>:> : The very same reason as yours. Stops Spam I find.
>:>
>:> So let's see: if we take "nospam" out of my address, we get my real
>:> address. What's the obvious thing to do to
>: You don't have nospam. If you use that method any old idiot knows
>: what to do, they can then spam the address.
>They're evil geniuses that's what they are.
Strange that you think that is genius.
>:> in order to produce your real address?
>: So is your fofp address the real one?
>Yes, my address really is fo...@ed.ac.uk
Not what I have seen.
>:> : I suggest any evidence that you refer to in an argument in a NG
>:> : should be posted in the thread so others may check for quality.
>:> The gun stuff is irrelevant to a discussion on women, rape, and
>:> self-defence and therefore wouldn't forward the argument.
>: Then why did you use the gun report as evidence of it reducing crime.
>The rape statistics in the report indicated that rapists will desist when faced with
>danger of death. In the >discussion EUSA had suggested that women shouldn't learn
>self-defence because it "would be teaching >them to kill". See the connection? That's
>what we call "relevance" on our planet.
But that report has been discredited, that's why I asked you too look at those sites.
>The tricky thing about relevance is that it can be quite specific. That one part of
>Lott's research is relevant to >the debate doesn't mean that each and every part of
it
>is relevant to the debate. Once you manage to grasp >that concept, you'll see why
>every little argument between Kleck and Lott that you seem determined to drag in
>might just not be relevant.
And it is relevant to state that the report that you claim is relevant is in fact
disputed.
Many, including pro gun Kleck, believe the report is incorrect in the conclusions.
The relevant bits are the crime reductions and the rape reductions that you and the
report attribute to using guns. Kleck and others believe that is not the case, it is
wrong.
That is, by any stretch of the imagination, relevant.
>:> You said you wanted the article. If that's the case then send your
>:> email address to me and I'll send it. Otherwise quit whining that
>:> you haven't got it.
>: Do you have a problem in posting?
>Only the one I've stated. Which is written right up there in English and everything.
With which part of it are you >having difficulty?
Posting is generally used in regard to Usenet.
C.Brendan
> In article <gfvz4.5839$921.1...@news3.cableinet.net>, C Brendan (cb) writes:
>
> cb> The figures are from several reports over the years, they have
> cb> been well publicised. I also believe there are some Home office
> cb> stats also.
>
> The home office go around making surveys of what `most people think?
Really, so those figures of crimes are actually thought crimes?
> Actually they probably do, given we have a rule by focus group in all
> other areas. Why hire 10 policemne when you can hire amarket research
> firm....
I suppose victims are groups.
> cb> As for your statement, well as we have not really carried handguns
> cb> how would they attribute any rise down to the banning of them.
>
> I have made no statement about guns at all, and I'd thank you not to
> put words into my mouth.
I apologise, my error.
Richard Tobin
C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>Yes, my address really is fo...@ed.ac.uk
>
>Not what I have seen.
Mike has been fofp since before you were born.
Richard Caley
cb> The figures are from several reports over the years, they have
cb> been well publicised. I also believe there are some Home office
cb> stats also.
>> The home office go around making surveys of what `most people think?
cb> Really, so those figures of crimes are actually thought crimes?
Dunno, it was your claim that `most people think...' and that the home
office had done studies.
M Holmes
:>"MHolmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
: news:8am22p$7nu$2...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
:>:> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
:>:>
:>:> : So anything I put to you in the way of evidence will be like talking
:>:> : to a brick wall, as you won't look at the sites.
:>:>
:>:> Anything you reference regarding *the current debate* I may look at.
:>: The current debate was your claim that guns reduced crime.
:>As before, I have to conclude that you're basically retarded. For the *LAST* time:
: *THIS* debate is about >rape, and women learning
:>self-defence. If ypou have any doubts, go check out the archives.
: Is rape not a crime?
: Your position was about guns reducing rape.
Try reading more carefullyu idiot-boy. My position was about danger of
death reducing rape.
:>: I have offered evidence, in the form of web sites, that question your claim.
:>We've been through all that. Go look up Lott's rebuttal to Kleck.
: Where would it be found, where did you see it.
I'm currently trying to find it again. I'll let you know.
:>Then check mout Kleck himself. He's very solidly in the camp that
:>guns in the US prevent an awful lot more >crime than they're used in.
: I am not denying that Kelck is pro gun.
Kleck isn't just "pro gun". He's pro the argument that Lott converted
to, which is the argument that guns are used in the US more often to
prevent crime than they are to commit it.
: What I am saying, yet you
: seem unable to understand, is that the very report that you put so
: much weight on, is, according to even pro gun people, flawed.
: UNDERSTAND.
I understand what you're saying. I'm waiting for you to back it up by
telling us all specifically where it is flawed and why those flaws
affect the current debate on whether rapists will desist from rape if
faced with danger of death. I ask again: can you tell us of any flaws in
Lott's research which indicate that he is wrong in claiming that rapists
will desist if faced with danger of death?
For someone so enamoured of the cites you've found, and apparently so
convinced that you've proven Lott wrong on this issue, you seem
remarkably reluctant to actually post this crucial evidence you refer us
all to. Is this due to some infirmity of yours which prevents you typing
it in?
:> I take it you can't find any credible criticism from the opposing
:> camp? perhaps like
:>Lott, people start out anti >self-defence until research to prove the
:>case shows that guns prevent crime rather than cause it.
: There are loads on anti gun statements and figures, I can show them
: for you if you like
If they're relevant to this debate on rape and self-defence then please
do. How about starting with the one I've asked for above and the stats
that Richard Caley asked for which show that what you;ve claimed what
"everyone knows" is in fact correct?
: it would be better for you to look at the web
You said that I shouldn't post evidence to your mailbox because this is
a usenet debate. Surely then if you've found evidence you should post it
here rather than refer to websites?
: sites yourself as you seem not to be very busy, going from the rate
: you are posting.
You complain I'm too busy to read your references and then that I'm not
busy enough. If you're going to argue with grownups, you need to learn
consistency.
:>So basically If I quote statistics I'm supposed to read every
:>reference to them on the Net you can dig up. If you quote statistics
:>then they're just something everyone
:>knows for a fact?
: Most people have TV's and watch the news and read newspapers,
Yeah right. If it's on TV or in the comics, it must be true.
: are you
: denying that there have been these reports? YES or NO.
There have been *claims* that increased statistics are due to increased
reporting rather than increased crime. That's a far cry from evidence.
: How did you
: come to the conclusion that rapes in Britain have gone up since guns
: were banned even though we never carry handguns?
I claimed that crime has increased in the UK since the
snowdrop ban and that gun crime is amongst those categories of crime
which have increased. I refer you to Home Office statistics for
confirmation and note that someone is now more likely to be burgled or
mugged in England and Wales than in the US - a result in opposite
directions of crime trends between the two countries.
By the way: handguns were legal here a century ago and there was even a
law in England requiring men rich enough to own them to carry them in
order to deter criminals. Hard to see why there'd be such a law if guns
didn't in fact deter criminals. Perhaps you could explain this?
:>If you think you've hit on some killer argument that proves rapists
:>are basically unafraid to die, and it's in all >these references you
:>keep wittering about then why don't you just summarise the salient
:>points for everyone >present?
: You have said the rapes have gone up in Britain since the gun ban, you
: claimed this reinforced your argument regarding your claim about guns.
: I am asking, as you made a bold statement, where did you get those
: figure from as we have never carried hand guns here.
You need to read my claim more carefully and then tie in your question
accurately to my claim.
:>I'm about the only person regularly around ed.general who was even
:>vaguely likely to do that. If you >only think >you've proven Lott
:>wrong with some of Kleck's criticisms then tell us where Lott was
:>wrong, why, and >how it's >relevant to the current
: debate.
:>Extra points will be awarded for references to Lott's responses to
:>>Kleck.
: Are you a half wit?
Asks he who can't even spell the word.
: The Kleck argument is used to show others, not you obviously, that the
: report was flawed.
So you claim. Now quote from Kleck and tell us in what way the report
was flawed in claiming that rapists are deterred by danger of death. I'm
unaware of any criticism which affects the research quite so strongly.
Of course if you'd care to back up your claim as opposed to merely
making it?
: Now if that is from someone who IS pro gun then
: what does that say?
It says that there was a minor statistical disagreement between two
allies.
: As for Lott well, John Lott is a John M. Olin
: Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. The funder of Lott's
: fellowship is the John M. Olin Foundation. There are links between
: this foundation and the Olin Corporation. The Olin Corporation own
: Winchester Ammunition.
I'll charitably assume that your copy of Lott's book was the original
rather than revised edition where this criticism is amply answered in
chapter 7.
You're also conveniently forgetting that the purpose of Lott's research
was to prove that guns cause crime since Lott was anti-gun. After his
research, the largest study yet conducted in the US, he was too
intellectually honest to ignore facts in order to indulge his emotions
and changed to the pro self-defence camp despite the opprobrium this
cost him amongst the sort of people who retaliated with the sort of
smear you repeat above.
: No. If you are daft enough to use a GUN report as evidence, then that
: will become a gun issue. Indeed what was it you intended to achieve
: by using the gun report. The issue was that guns stopped rapes, was
: it? Did you believe you could use it as evidence, then not talk about
: it.
I'd intended to stick to the subject under debate.
:> Why not just bugger off to where they have lots of 'em? Is it just
:> that they gave
:>you your head on a plate in >much the same way the uk astronomers did
:>when you called them in as expert witnesses?
: I didn't see any astronomers coming to support you.
You need to reconfigure your newsreader. I'm only amazed they could be
so polite.
: I did see them
: say if there wasn't a difference then they are the same, then that
: begs the question, if they are the same why infer a difference and ask
: for one.
You didn't look up "rhetorical" did you?
: Indeed what was that you came out with regarding the Sun
: always crossing the Meridian at the same time. Usually when you are
: in that NG you are being corrected.
Indeed so. I'm there to learn from those who know more than I do.
BTW: your description of my error here indicates that you understand
neither what I said, nor why I was wrong in saying it. If you want to
label me ignorant, you might at least learn enough to pretend that you
aren't.
:>I'm interested in that: in what way did Lott's response to Kleck not
:>satisfy Kleck's objections to Lott's study?
: The No refers to your statement. You have not demonstrated this, you
: just said that they had. But it wasn't just Kleck who questioned the
: report, many well respected researches did.
Let's start with you showing why Kleck's criticisms are relevant - I
have a lot of respect for Kleck. After that you can quote some more.
It'd move this a little further than you saying "Mike's wrong nya nan
nya nan nya" if you'd at least post *one* item of backup for your
witterings.
: Is there not an agreement or similarity between Kleck and Lott? In
: regards to them being both pro gun. Then the analogy is that they are
: both pro gun
You don't know what an analogy is any more than your understanding of
logic is more advanced than your calling it "all that A and B stuff".
The evidence is that you can barely comprehend and write English. Let's
just keep this to basics rather than you attempting to use tools you
don't understand.
: yet my point from this is that Kleck questions the
: credibility of the report.
I think we understood that this was your point about six articles ago.
What we're waiting for is for you to back up that point by quoting
anything from Kleck, or indeed anyone else which indicates that Lott was
wrong, or that anyone is wrong, in claiming that rapists will sometimes
desist from rape if faced with danger of death.
Now if you really have all this evidence which you insist I should read,
then just quote a few relevant paragraphs. Otherwise I don't see that
you have anything to contribute here.
FoFP
M Holmes
:>: So is your fofp address the real one?
:>Yes, my address really is fo...@ed.ac.uk
: Not what I have seen.
Why would I lie about something so stupid? Just email me at that address
and I'll forward your email back to you.
I repeat, if you want the evidence you keep whining about, send me your
email address and I'll send it to you. Or is there some reason you have
to remain anonymous?
:>:> : I suggest any evidence that you refer to in an argument in a NG
:>:> : should be posted in the thread so others may check for quality.
:>:> The gun stuff is irrelevant to a discussion on women, rape, and
:>:> self-defence and therefore wouldn't forward the argument.
:>: Then why did you use the gun report as evidence of it reducing crime.
:>The rape statistics in the report indicated that rapists will desist
:>when faced with danger of death. In the >discussion EUSA had
:>suggested that women shouldn't learn self-defence because it "would be
:>teaching >them to kill". See the connection? That's what we call
:>"relevance" on our planet.
: But that report has been discredited
So you claim. You demur whenever you're asked to produce the evidence of
this.
FoFP
M Holmes
: In article <uBVz4.674$hY5....@news3.cableinet.net>,
: C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
:>>Yes, my address really is fo...@ed.ac.uk
:>
:>Not what I have seen.
: Mike has been fofp since before you were born.
Sadly, that's even possibly true.
: -- Richard
FoFP
rjh...@ucs.ed.ac.uk
>
> > M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
If you were intelligent enough to find your a**e with either, or both
hands, you would also be intelligent enough to determine that this
adddress is correct. It has been Mycroft's(*) address since Adam were a
lad (as we say oop North)...
RH
(*) Don't bother to ask - the reference will be far to subtle for you to
understand.
C.Brendan
So what exactly are you disputing.
C.Brendan
> Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> : In article <uBVz4.674$hY5....@news3.cableinet.net>,
> : C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :>
> :>Not what I have seen.
>
>
> Sadly, that's even possibly true.
Got all your little friends to look.
Well is there more than one M Holmes listed in your Uni?
There is a listing for M.Holmes.
Email address is , M.Holmes at EUCS, that is yours is it not.
There is a FoFP, but it isn't M.Holmes.
The department is artificial wisdom, maybe it is you.
C.Brendan
"M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8aqolp$jsm$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :>"MHolmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> : news:8am22p$7nu$2...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> :>:> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> :>:>
> :>:> : So anything I put to you in the way of evidence will be like talking
> :>:> : to a brick wall, as you won't look at the sites.
> :>:>
> :>:> Anything you reference regarding *the current debate* I may look at.
>
> :>: The current debate was your claim that guns reduced crime.
>
> :>As before, I have to conclude that you're basically retarded. For the *LAST* time:
> : *THIS* debate is about >rape, and women learning
> :>self-defence. If ypou have any doubts, go check out the archives.
>
> : Is rape not a crime?
> : Your position was about guns reducing rape.
>
> Try reading more carefullyu idiot-boy. My position was about danger of
> death reducing rape.
And you cite as evidence the report about guns.
No doubt if you searched hard enough you would find evidence that other things prevent
rape, or does it not interest you unless firearms are involved?
As for your position, well your position was that guns prevented rape.
Is this correct?
> :>: I have offered evidence, in the form of web sites, that question your claim.
>
> :>We've been through all that. Go look up Lott's rebuttal to Kleck.
>
> : Where would it be found, where did you see it.
>
> I'm currently trying to find it again. I'll let you know.
Maybe it is deleted.
> :>Then check mout Kleck himself. He's very solidly in the camp that
> :>guns in the US prevent an awful lot more >crime than they're used in.
>
> : I am not denying that Kelck is pro gun.
>
> Kleck isn't just "pro gun".
I never said he is just pro gun, I am sure he has other interests.
> He's pro the argument that Lott converted
> to, which is the argument that guns are used in the US more often to
> prevent crime than they are to commit it.
Yet he said that it was flawed and came to the wrong conclusions.
> : What I am saying, yet you
> : seem unable to understand, is that the very report that you put so
> : much weight on, is, according to even pro gun people, flawed.
> : UNDERSTAND.
>
> I understand what you're saying. I'm waiting for you to back it up by
> telling us all specifically where it is flawed and why those flaws
That is why I gave you those web sites, idiot.
> For someone so enamoured of the cites you've found, and apparently so
> convinced that you've proven Lott wrong on this issue, you seem
> remarkably reluctant to actually post this crucial evidence you refer us
> all to. Is this due to some infirmity of yours which prevents you typing
> it in?
I could post lots of articles, I did post as evidence some of the web sites.
Anyone who is interested will be able to look.
> :> I take it you can't find any credible criticism from the opposing
> :> camp? perhaps like
>
> :>Lott, people start out anti >self-defence until research to prove the
> :>case shows that guns prevent crime rather than cause it.
>
> : There are loads on anti gun statements and figures, I can show them
> : for you if you like
>
> If they're relevant to this debate on rape and self-defence then please
> do. How about starting with the one I've asked for above and the stats
> that Richard Caley asked for which show that what you;ve claimed what
> "everyone knows" is in fact correct?
How about you showing me the evidence that you referred to that the banning of guns in
a country that never carried hand guns, led to an increase in rape?
As for my position, well I have just looked back and unless you are able to correct me
my original remark was "most people".
As the surveys by independent groups and the home office are usually a reflection of
what society believes then I would say it was a fair remark to make.
I have answered your question now answer mine.
As for stats, the only thing you offer is Lott, nothing else apart from superficial
figures that you oh so happen to have deleted.
Come on Holmes offer some hard facts, where are the facts that made you say that rapes
in Britain had gone because of the gun ban.
How would you get to this when we never have
carried hand guns.
Put up or shut up.
> : it would be better for you to look at the web
>
> You said that I shouldn't post evidence to your mailbox because this is
> a usenet debate. Surely then if you've found evidence you should post it
> here rather than refer to websites?
Because you half wit the amount of info in those sites would take up too much
bandwidth.
What is it your having difficulty with, do you not have access to the web only
Usenet.
> : sites yourself as you seem not to be very busy, going from the rate
> : you are posting.
>
> You complain I'm too busy to read your references and then that I'm not
> busy enough. If you're going to argue with grownups, you need to learn
> consistency.
You said you was too busy.
I am pointing out your inconstancy, which in itself you're consistent at.
Check your posts.
As for the grow up remark, well there is no evidence of a grown up from what I read.
> :>So basically If I quote statistics I'm supposed to read every
> :>reference to them on the Net you can dig up. If you quote statistics
> :>then they're just something everyone
> :>knows for a fact?
>
> : Most people have TV's and watch the news and read newspapers,
>
> Yeah right. If it's on TV or in the comics, it must be true.
Now whose grown up!!!!
> : are you
> : denying that there have been these reports? YES or NO.
>
> There have been *claims* that increased statistics are due to increased
> reporting rather than increased crime.
See, that TV is good.
> That's a far cry from evidence.
It is the same kind of evidence that you offer, but tell you what, lets have a debate
over what is evidence
Anything to get off the subject.
> : How did you
> : come to the conclusion that rapes in Britain have gone up since guns
> : were banned even though we never carry handguns?
>
> I claimed that crime has increased in the UK since the
> snowdrop ban and that gun crime is amongst those categories of crime
> which have increased. I refer you to Home Office statistics for
> confirmation and note that someone is now more likely to be burgled or
> mugged in England and Wales than in the US - a result in opposite
> directions of crime trends between the two countries.
Your lying or trying to change what you said.
This is what you said;
my position is that if rapists face danger of death during
the course of their activities then they're more likely to desist from
their crimes. Feel free to argue otherwise. Lott's studies, and the
recent history of Britain and Australia are supportive of this theory,
as is the slightest insight into human nature. A corrollary of my
position is that the EUSA statement on women and self-defence was
bollocks.
There, the reference is specific and in respect to rapes, not crime in general, as you
are now twisting to say.
How does the recent history of Britain have any bearing, when the recent history of
Britain did not have handguns.
> By the way: handguns were legal here a century ago
You see this as recent history?
> :>If you think you've hit on some killer argument that proves rapists
> :>are basically unafraid to die, and it's in all >these references you
> :>keep wittering about then why don't you just summarise the salient
> :>points for everyone >present?
>
> : You have said the rapes have gone up in Britain since the gun ban, you
> : claimed this reinforced your argument regarding your claim about guns.
> : I am asking, as you made a bold statement, where did you get those
> : figure from as we have never carried hand guns here.
>
> You need to read my claim more carefully and then tie in your question
> accurately to my claim.
What I see is that you avoided the original question and tried to ask a question to
deflect.
WHERE DID YOU GET THE EVIDENCE.
> :>I'm about the only person regularly around ed.general who was even
> :>vaguely likely to do that. If you >only think >you've proven Lott
> :>wrong with some of Kleck's criticisms then tell us where Lott was
> :>wrong, why, and >how it's >relevant to the current
>
> : debate.
>
> :>Extra points will be awarded for references to Lott's responses to
> :>>Kleck.
>
> : Are you a half wit?
>
> Asks he who can't even spell the word.
Holmes, go back and check your past posts, they are full of spelling mistakes.
> : The Kleck argument is used to show others, not you obviously, that the
> : report was flawed.
>
> So you claim.
No, so Kleck says.
> Now quote from Kleck and tell us in what way the report
> was flawed in claiming that rapists are deterred by danger of death. I'm
> unaware of any criticism which affects the research quite so strongly.
Here you are just one of the quotes, there are others at those sites.
Even Gary
Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University whose work
is routinely praised by the NRA, wrote that "[More] likely, the
declines in crime, coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were
largely attributable to other factors not controlled for in the Lott analysis."
> Of course if you'd care to back up your claim as opposed to merely
> making it?
>
> : Now if that is from someone who IS pro gun then
> : what does that say?
>
> It says that there was a minor statistical disagreement between two
> allies.
No, not minor.
> : As for Lott well, John Lott is a John M. Olin
> : Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. The funder of Lott's
> : fellowship is the John M. Olin Foundation. There are links between
> : this foundation and the Olin Corporation. The Olin Corporation own
> : Winchester Ammunition.
>
> I'll charitably assume that your copy of Lott's book was the original
> rather than revised edition where this criticism is amply answered in
> chapter 7.
Be charitable again and produce quotes which address the above remarks.
> You're also conveniently forgetting that the purpose of Lott's research
> was to prove that guns cause crime since Lott was anti-gun.
Strange since it is usually humans who cause it.
> : No. If you are daft enough to use a GUN report as evidence, then that
> : will become a gun issue. Indeed what was it you intended to achieve
> : by using the gun report. The issue was that guns stopped rapes, was
> : it? Did you believe you could use it as evidence, then not talk about
> : it.
>
> I'd intended to stick to the subject under debate.
Yes, and you made guns part of the solution.
I suggest it is only fair that is debated, if you don't wish to debate it, don't make
the claim.
> :> Why not just bugger off to where they have lots of 'em? Is it just
> :> that they gave
>
> :>you your head on a plate in >much the same way the uk astronomers did
> :>when you called them in as expert witnesses?
>
> : I didn't see any astronomers coming to support you.
>
> You need to reconfigure your newsreader. I'm only amazed they could be
> so polite.
You need to stick to the issue.
> : I did see them
> : say if there wasn't a difference then they are the same, then that
> : begs the question, if they are the same why infer a difference and ask
> : for one.
>
> You didn't look up "rhetorical" did you?
I suggest you look at way the post was constructed.
> : Indeed what was that you came out with regarding the Sun
> : always crossing the Meridian at the same time. Usually when you are
> : in that NG you are being corrected.
>
> Indeed so. I'm there to learn from those who know more than I do.
Bloody hell, basic stuff.
Then in that case why did you make the same error, later.
> BTW: your description of my error here indicates that you understand
> neither what I said, nor why I was wrong in saying it. If you want to
> label me ignorant, you might at least learn enough to pretend that you
> aren't.
Which one, the Nova or the Sun?
If it is your Sun one I suggest your talking rubbish again.
From what I recall you even tried to argue the point when the geezer was trying to
educate you.
What was crystal was that you saying the Sun crossed the Meridian at midday, each day,
was wrong.
Whatever the reason for saying is not important, the fact, and it is a very basic
fact, is that it was wrong, all that it shows is that you had poor understanding.
Be grow up and just admit it.
> :>I'm interested in that: in what way did Lott's response to Kleck not
> :>satisfy Kleck's objections to Lott's study?
>
> : The No refers to your statement. You have not demonstrated this, you
> : just said that they had. But it wasn't just Kleck who questioned the
> : report, many well respected researches did.
>
> Let's start with you showing why Kleck's criticisms are relevant - I
> have a lot of respect for Kleck. After that you can quote some more.
I have, how about you now quote evidence, ooops, I forgot, you deleted it.
> It'd move this a little further than you saying "Mike's wrong nya nan
> nya nan nya" if you'd at least post *one* item of backup for your
> witterings.
Yep, your being grown up.
What have you offered?
> : Is there not an agreement or similarity between Kleck and Lott? In
> : regards to them being both pro gun. Then the analogy is that they are
> : both pro gun
>
> You don't know what an analogy is any more than your understanding of
> logic is more advanced than your calling it "all that A and B stuff".
> The evidence is that you can barely comprehend and write English. Let's
> just keep this to basics rather than you attempting to use tools you
> don't understand.
This is from you, who a few post ago accused myself abuse.
Go look in a dictionary Holmes.
Look up first hand experience.
> : yet my point from this is that Kleck questions the
> : credibility of the report.
>
> I think we understood that this was your point about six articles ago.
> What we're waiting for is for you to back up that point by quoting
> anything from Kleck, or indeed anyone else which indicates that Lott was
> wrong, or that anyone is wrong, in claiming that rapists will sometimes
> desist from rape if faced with danger of death.
Here is a list of those who think it is flawed.
Dr. John Lott's methodology has been debunked by many well-respected,
independent researchers, as well as by his peers.
These researchers include
Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University;
Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky
Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University;
Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins University
Arthur Kellermann at Emory University.
As part of a nationally televised debate which included John Lott, Professors
Nagin, Black, and Ludwig stated that Lott's study was so flawed that
"nothing can be learned of it," and that it should not be used as the
basis for policy-making.
These are from those sites you won't look at.
I would say that any more evidence to what people think about Lott should be viewed by
yourself at those sites.
While you are at it, that report that you tried to email, post it here, do you have a
problem in doing this basic thing?
> Now if you really have all this evidence which you insist I should read,
> then just quote a few relevant paragraphs. Otherwise I don't see that
> you have anything to contribute here.
The evidence, idiot, is in those sites.
Why will you not go to them.
From looking at what you have said and posted amounts to nothing.
All that you have is the Lott report.
You claim this and that, make things up in regards to guns in Britain.
Make childish claims about not being able to post reports.
Can't show evidence because it has been deleted.
You ask for evidence and you get it, yet you simple push it to one side without any
counter evidence.
You have web sites which you won't look at.
Quotes from Kleck and others about why it is flawed.
List of his peers who say he is wrong.
In fact looking at this subject you seem more happy with giving abuse than arguing
your point constructively.
If you reply give some evidence not just your version of it.
Give evidence that supports Lott' claims.
Give evidence showing how Lott refutes Kleck's conclusion.
Give evidence that Lott's peers are wrong.
Give evidence of the report that you referred to.
Give the evidence that lead to you making the statement regarding Britain.
Give us the evidence.
rjh...@ucs.ed.ac.uk
>
> Well is there more than one M Holmes listed in your Uni?
> There is a listing for M.Holmes.
> Email address is , M.Holmes at EUCS, that is yours is it not.
> There is a FoFP, but it isn't M.Holmes.
Thus proving beyond all doubt that you know diddly-squat about email
addresses and aliases.
FOAFOFP
You won't understand the signature, but don't worry about it - you have
far too many problems already to worry about little things like that.
Kate Joester
> Well is there more than one M Holmes listed in your Uni?
> There is a listing for M.Holmes.
> Email address is , M.Holmes at EUCS, that is yours is it not.
> There is a FoFP, but it isn't M.Holmes.
that's where the mail comes from with my shift times in it. can we get
back to the moderately interesting argument now?
Kate
M Holmes
: "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
: news:8aqp0q$jsm$3...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
:> Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
:> : In article <uBVz4.674$hY5....@news3.cableinet.net>,
:> : C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> :>>Yes, my address really is fo...@ed.ac.uk
:> :>
:> :>Not what I have seen.
:>
:> : Mike has been fofp since before you were born.
:>
:> Sadly, that's even possibly true.
: Got all your little friends to look.
You might find it helpful when visiting, as an outsider, local
newsgroups like ed.general to refrain from disparaging the natives. Yes,
some are friends, and have probably been on the other side of arguments
with me more often than you've had dates, and have made a considerably
better fist of it. More lurking and you might have learned something.
But to the point: *anyone* can look up staff email addresses here.
: Well is there more than one M Holmes listed in your Uni?
Well there's more than one person with the surname "Holmes" and the
initial "M" but there's only one "M.Holmes" in the staff email directory
and that's Yours Truly. That's because I registered it first.
: There is a listing for M.Holmes.
: Email address is , M.Holmes at EUCS, that is yours is it not.
That's correct.
: There is a FoFP, but it isn't M.Holmes.
That's incorrect.
: The department is artificial wisdom, maybe it is you.
It is. "fofp" is my username on the machine on which my mailbox resides.
This dates from circa 1987 when "FoFP" first became my email moniker on
a local bulletin board system on which we thrashed out these little
debates which you're currently struggling with. The "Artificial Wisdom"
was kind of a little joke from a debate back then and I guess it's just
been left there.
I suggested you use the "FoFP" address because I have scripts which will
separate email coming to that address from work email when it arrives at
my mailbox. I hope this makes things clear?
It makes you look very foolish to imply that someone doesn't know their
own email address. If you don't understand our email system then all you
need to do is ask. I'll even send you a free signed copy of one of the
manuals I've written about it.
Now, back to your email address. Is there some reason, other than simple
embarassment, for you to post anonymously?
Back to the subject: I'll try to make time over the weekend to look up
the stats you requested. Could you please tell me where you read Lott's
work? This would help a lot with providing page numbers.
In return, and in order to advance the debate faster than the snail's
pace you usually drag things down to, could you:
A) Post *SPECIFIC* criticisms by Kleck, Black, Nagin, or anyone else,
relating to the Lott work you are attacking and specifically to issues
relating to women and self-defence. I'd also appreciate it if you could
post why you believe the criticism to be valid and any fault you find
with Lott's reply to such criticism. This would help a lot to keep the
debate concentrated on the subject at hand, and to allow me to
concentrate available time on answering your questions as completely as
possible. As I've already intimated, your saying "see this website" is
not acceptable. Undoubtedly much of the content of the website is not
directed specifically at the issue of women and self-defence. Quoting
from those websistes on that subject, giving specific cites, would be
acceptable. It was after all, you who insisted that in a usenet debate,
answers should be posted for all to see. I'm sure you wouldn't want
anyone to think ypou a hypocrite.
I'd also consider it a great personal favour if you;d be polite enough
to respond to Richard's query and post up these statistics concerning
women and rape you alluded to, and claimed that "everyone knows". It
seems that some people around here aren't members of "everyone". I'm
also informed, though I'm sure they must just be joshing, that "everyone
knows" isn't really accepted as a valid source even in undergraduate essays.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
FoFP
Richard Caley
>> Dunno, it was your claim that `most people think...' and that the home
>> office had done studies.
cb> So what exactly are you disputing.
Wasn't disputing anything. I thought it was fairly obvious that I was
pointing out the hypocracy of complaining that Mike isn't posting
statistical reports in support of his point and then tossing out
claims about what `most people think' with no supporting evidence.
Richard Caley
cb> Well is there more than one M Holmes listed in your Uni?
Er, you really, really should turn your brain up above 20 watts before
posting you know.
Have you considered the possibility that may people have more than one
email addess?
Get mummy to explain about email addresses to you before you borrow
her computer next time.
M Holmes
:> Kleck isn't just "pro gun".
: I never said he is just pro gun, I am sure he has other interests.
:> He's pro the argument that Lott converted to, which is the argument
:> that guns are used in the US more often to prevent crime than they
:> are to commit it.
: Yet he said that it was flawed and came to the wrong conclusions.
He criticised certain aspects of the Lott study, not every single item
in it. That would be unlikely since Kleck himself is cited in some of
the report. The question at hand is whether any of Kleck's criticisms go
to the heart of what Lott said regarding women and self-defence, and
whether Lott's response might be considered adequate rebuttal.
To discuss that issue, we need you to post parts of tyhe Lott report,
specific to women and self-defence, which you consider to be in error.
If your support for this is Kleck, then we need to to quote the comment
by Kleck and why you find his criticism of Lott justified. This at least
would get us to the point that someone might answer you.
Or are you being vague in order to avoid dealing with answers?
:> : What I am saying, yet you seem unable to understand, is that the
:> : very report that you put so much weight on, is, according to even
:> : pro gun people, flawed.
So you say. I'm waiting for you to post *details* as to *why* it is
flawed, and why this *specifically* affects any support support the
report might offer to an argument that attackers of women tend to desist
if faced with danger of death.
As a start, why don't you just quote *any* Lott comment from the report,
which addresses the issue of women and self-defence, which you believe to
be in error, and why you believe him to be wrong.
:> I understand what you're saying. I'm waiting for you to back it up
:> by telling us all specifically where it is flawed and why those flaws
: That is why I gave you those web sites, idiot.
You said that in a usenet debate, argument should be posted. I await you
to post your argument rather than just point us at web sites which
address much broader issues than simply women and self-defence.
We can all read those web sites if we feel like it. I presumed you'd
joined in here to make an argument rather than just suggesting a reading
list. You do *have* something to contribute do you?
:> For someone so enamoured of the cites you've found, and apparently so
:> convinced that you've proven Lott wrong on this issue, you seem
:> remarkably reluctant to actually post this crucial evidence you refer
:> us all to. Is this due to some infirmity of yours which prevents you
:> typing it in?
: I could post lots of articles,
Nobody is asking you to post lots of articles. You've been asked only to
say specifically where you believe Lott is incorrect on the issue of
women and self-defence, why you believe him to be wrong, and a source
for the stats you claim that "everyone knows".
At most this requires you to type one paragraph from Lott, another
paragraph or two on why you believe Lott to be in error, and one
sentence quoting the source of these stats that "everyone knows". Now we
all know that you're capable of typing up two paragraphs and a sentence,
so quit avoiding the issue and get on with it.
: I did post as evidence some of the web
: sites. Anyone who is interested will be able to look.
Anyone interested could have looked anyway. Are you here to contribute
to the debate or merely slow it up with your vague references and
witterings?
:> If they're relevant to this debate on rape and self-defence then
:> please do. How about starting with the one I've asked for above and
:> the stats that Richard Caley asked for which show that what you;ve
:> claimed what "everyone knows" is in fact correct?
: How about you showing me the evidence that you referred to that the
: banning of guns in a country that never carried hand guns, led to an
: increase in rape?
I've argued that crime in the UK, including gun crime, has risen since
the banning of guns in the UK and that this is supportive of Lott's
thesis. The evidence that crime has increased since the 1997 ban I'll
try to get over the weekend. That this is supportive of Lott's thesis
that gun bans are often couterproductive is pretty obvious.
As for "never carried handguns", see my previous posting regarding a
law requiring this. Would you like me to look up the statute for you, or
can you manage that on your own?
: As for my position, well I have just looked back and unless you are
: able to correct me my original remark was "most people". As the
: surveys by independent groups and the home office are usually a
: reflection of what society believes then I would say it was a fair
: remark to make.
Could you just tell us specifically *which* surveys you are referring
to? For someone so demanding of chapter and verse from others, you're as
reluctant to supply any more detail of the support for your argument as
you are your real email address.
: I have answered your question
No. You haven't. I'm after specific references rather than vague
allusions to what "most people" know, surveys by "independent groups" or
"the newspapers".
:> You said that I shouldn't post evidence to your mailbox because this
:> is a usenet debate. Surely then if you've found evidence you should
:> post it here rather than refer to websites?
: Because you half wit
I realise that as far as insults go, you're very unentertaining, but
could we at least make a rule that if you can't spell the insult, you
won't use it? Arguing with you feels too much like poking retards with a
stick already.
: the amount of info in those sites would take up
: too much bandwidth.
That's OK. All I'm asking for is those statements from the Lott report,
referencing women and self-defence, which you believe to be in error and
why you believe this. That's not much to type.
: What is it your having difficulty
Your evasiveness mostly, but your grammar also makes it rather difficult to
follow what passes for your thought processes.
:> : sites yourself as you seem not to be very busy, going from the rate
:> : you are posting.
:> You complain I'm too busy to read your references and then that I'm
:> not busy enough. If you're going to argue with grownups, you need to
:> learn consistency.
: You said you was too busy.
Are you sure I didn't say I were too busy?
: subject.
:> By the way: handguns were legal here a century ago
: You see this as recent history?
To gainsay a claim that in Britain we've never carried handguns, a
that's needed is *any* historical evidence. Just admitting that you were
wrong will be fine.
:> : Are you a half wit?
:> Asks he who can't even spell the word.
: Holmes, go back and check your past posts, they are full of spelling
: mistakes.
Most likely they'll have typing mistakes punctuated by the odd spelling
mistake. You on the other hand tend to post articles with the odd
sentence in correct English. Of course if English wasn't your native
language, I'd feel constrained to make allowances. However your
anonymity removes any inclination to bother.
: Even Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University
: whose work is routinely praised by the NRA, wrote that "[More] likely,
: the declines in crime, coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were
: largely attributable to other factors not controlled for in the Lott
: analysis."
That's a start, but it's still far too vague. What does Kleck say in regard
to statistics concerning women and self-defence? Note also that Lott has
responded to the statement you quote above.
:> : As for Lott well, John Lott is a John M. Olin Fellow at the
:> : University of Chicago Law School. The funder of Lott's fellowship
:> : is the John M. Olin Foundation. There are links between this
:> : foundation and the Olin Corporation. The Olin Corporation own
:> : Winchester Ammunition.
:> I'll charitably assume that your copy of Lott's book was the original
:> rather than revised edition where this criticism is amply answered in
:> chapter 7.
: Be charitable again and produce quotes which address the above
: remarks.
They're not relevant to women and self-defence. When you post relevant
material, I'll respond to it.
:> You're also conveniently forgetting that the purpose of Lott's
:> research was to prove that guns cause crime since Lott was anti-gun.
: Strange since it is usually humans who cause it.
Picky picky. OK, Lott started out to prove that in the US, where there
were more guns, there would be more crime. So perhaps your smear should
be amended to imply that arms manufacturers were funding work which
would show that they were contributing to crime? That doesn't seem to
have the same emotional impact does it, though it's equally irrelevant as
criticism of the research.
:> : No. If you are daft enough to use a GUN report as evidence, then
:> : that will become a gun issue. Indeed what was it you intended to
:> : achieve by using the gun report. The issue was that guns stopped
:> : rapes, was it? Did you believe you could use it as evidence, then
:> : not talk about it.
:> I'd intended to stick to the subject under debate.
: Yes, and you made guns part of the solution.
Reading interpretation difficulties again? Perhaps I can help: the
solution I suggested was that if EUSA was correct that teaching women
self-defence would teach them to kill, then it'd be a damned good thing.
It's true that I also advocate the right of women, and men, to carry
concealed handguns, but I haven't done so in this debate.
: I suggest it is only
: fair that is debated, if you don't wish to debate it, don't make the
: claim.
If it'll shut you up, I'll debate it, but *ONLY* if you quit wasting
time and post specific arguments as to why you believe Lott incorrect on
the issue of women and self-defence. If you persist in your usual
evasiveness then you'll be left in your usual Pythonesque position of
shouting to the usenet ether "Come back and post some stats you coward"
without even the coconut shells for company.
:> : I did see them say if there wasn't a difference then they are the
:> : same, then that begs the question, if they are the same why infer a
:> : difference and ask for one.
:> You didn't look up "rhetorical" did you?
: I suggest you look at way the post was constructed.
That's the excuse you tried on alt.peeves. Can you clean your teeth
without an enema yet?
:> : Indeed what was that you came out with regarding the Sun always
:> : crossing the Meridian at the same time. Usually when you are in
:> : that NG you are being corrected.
:> Indeed so. I'm there to learn from those who know more than I do.
: Bloody hell, basic stuff.
OK if you want to play astronomer for the amusement of the gallery let's
just recap.
A) I think you'll find that at one longitudinal line in each time zone
the Sun does cross the meridian at noon each day (allowing for oddities
like British Summer time anyway).
B) If someone were completely lost, then assuming that the Sun at noon
indicated south would improve the situation a lot since they'd be at the
very worst about 20 degrees out. Measuring the Sun's altitude and
assuming that the maximum altitude was south, would work even better.
C) Back calculating where the Sun's transit would be from the time of
day would be reasonably accurate only in the tropics, but would do for
someone totally lost pretty much anywhere they're likely to be in the
northern hemisphere.
D) For the sort of accuracy needed to take boats across an ocean, there
are other factors to be taken into account. If you want to play Better
Navigator Than Thou then be my guest. You can start by explaining
Equation of Time.
Now obviously given that you'd crossposted an argument to
uk.sci.astronomy hoping that they'd tell me I was wrong (in that the
difference between a heliocentric solar system and a geocentric solar
system in which a deity moved everything in such a way that the
heliocentric model was correct, would be scientifically indetectible)
and had your head nailed to the floor, you were so cheered to see
someone correct me on a minor issue that you'll be still be trotting it
out on usenet when you leave school. However, it was a minor and to an
extent pedantic correction. Personally if I were you and disposed to
crow at an opponents mistakes forevermore, I'd have chosen the time I
got the nomenclature concerning novae and supernovae incorrect, but I
suspect that you just don't know enough to spot which error was more
egregious.
: Then in that case why did you make the same
: error, later.
I doubt I did, otherwise you'd almost certainly have corrected me.
:> BTW: your description of my error here indicates that you understand
:> neither what I said, nor why I was wrong in saying it. If you want
:> to label me ignorant, you might at least learn enough to pretend that
:> you aren't.
: Which one, the Nova or the Sun? If it is your Sun one I suggest your
: talking rubbish again. From what I recall you even tried to argue the
: point when the geezer was trying to educate you. What was crystal was
: that you saying the Sun crossed the Meridian at midday, each day, was
: wrong. Whatever the reason for saying is not important, the fact, and
: it is a very basic fact, is that it was wrong, all that it shows is
: that you had poor understanding. Be grow up and just admit it.
See above. If you want to call me ignorant, then at least be prepared to
do enough research that you appear to know what you're talking about.
: This is from you, who a few post ago accused myself abuse. Go look in
: a dictionary Holmes. Look up first hand experience.
Let's just keep your sex life out of it shall we?
:> : yet my point from this is that Kleck questions the credibility of
:> : the report.
:> I think we understood that this was your point about six articles
:> ago. What we're waiting for is for you to back up that point by
:> quoting anything from Kleck, or indeed anyone else which indicates
:> that Lott was wrong, or that anyone is wrong, in claiming that
:> rapists will sometimes desist from rape if faced with danger of
:> death.
: Here is a list of those who think it is flawed.
: Dr. John Lott's methodology has been debunked by many well-respected,
: independent researchers, as well as by his peers. These researchers
: include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University; Daniel Black of the
: University of Kentucky Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University;
: Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins
: University Arthur Kellermann at Emory University.
: As part of a nationally televised debate which included John Lott,
: Professors Nagin, Black, and Ludwig stated that Lott's study was so
: flawed that "nothing can be learned of it," and that it should not be
: used as the basis for policy-making.
I remember that Nagin and Black are answered at length in Lott's book.
Where did you read Lott's stuff that you missed that?
The rest I'll look up if you post specifically what Lott says about
women and self-defence that they say is wrong and why they say it's
wrong.
:> Now if you really have all this evidence which you insist I should
:> read, then just quote a few relevant paragraphs. Otherwise I don't
:> see that you have anything to contribute here.
: The evidence, idiot, is in those sites. Why will you not go to them.
Too much effort just to get to the stuff on women and self-defence.
Besides, since you've already read them, you'll be able to go straight
to those parts and post it up here. Since it's you that claims it as
support for your contribution, I regard it as your task to do that.
: From looking at what you have said and posted amounts to nothing. All
: that you have is the Lott report
And I've said specifically why I believe it bolsters the argument that
attackers of women desist if faced with danger of death. You've yet to
be anything remotely so specific.
: You ask for evidence and you get it
You've yet to post *one* specific quote that addresses Lott on women and
self-defence.
: Give evidence that supports Lott' claims.
I'll be happy to look for it just as soon as you point to specifically
which claims are at issue and why.
FoFP
Alias
Richard Caley wrote in message ...
>In article <4OdA4.272$mc6....@news3.cableinet.net>, C Brendan (cb)
writes:
>
>cb> Well is there more than one M Holmes listed in your Uni?
>
>Er, you really, really should turn your brain up above 20 watts before
>posting you know.
>
>Have you considered the possibility that may people have more than one
>email addess?
>
(dogstar...@cableinet.co.uk)
bogus address
[ 544-column References: line trimmed ]
"C.Brendan" <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:
>"M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote
>> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>> :>"MHolmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote
>> :>:> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
[ several hundred lines deleted]
Kindly find two seconds and a pair of .357 magnums, head off
to Holyrood Park at dawn and settle this in private, willya?
========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
C.Brendan
"Kate Joester" <ka...@ling.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.95.1000317100802.28775A-100000@babel...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, C.Brendan wrote:
> > Email address is , M.Holmes at EUCS, that is yours is it not.
> that's where the mail comes from with my shift times in it. can we get
> back to the moderately interesting argument now?
The issue over email address was not brought up be me.
It was brought up by Holmes, he made a big thing over it.
Now get back to work.
C.Brendan
Not really.
Holmes gave some statistics which he claimed to support his position.
I asked for them to be put on Usenet, he said they had been deleted.
I asked who the report was by, he didn't say.
I asked for any references, he doesn't give any.
I asked how did he get them, he said some bloke posted them.
So what he has are some figures from a bloke regarding a unnamed report, no
references, deleted and can't post them.
At least I tell you where my figures come from, they can be checked.
Maybe you should ask Holmes about his evidence.
Go one, show me you're being fair.
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> : news:8aqp0q$jsm$3...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> :> Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> :> : In article <uBVz4.674$hY5....@news3.cableinet.net>,
> :> : C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> :>
> :> :>>Yes, my address really is fo...@ed.ac.uk
> :> :>
> :> :>Not what I have seen.
> :>
> :> : Mike has been fofp since before you were born.
> :>
> :> Sadly, that's even possibly true.
>
> : Got all your little friends to look.
>
> You might find it helpful when visiting, as an outsider, local
> newsgroups like ed.general to refrain from disparaging the natives.
Sorry to those I offended by saying you were a friend of Holmes.
How could I have made such an error to believe that he has any.
:-)
> : Well is there more than one M Holmes listed in your Uni?
>
> Well there's more than one person with the surname "Holmes" and the
> initial "M" but there's only one "M.Holmes" in the staff email directory
> and that's Yours Truly. That's because I registered it first.
>
> : There is a listing for M.Holmes.
> : Email address is , M.Holmes at EUCS, that is yours is it not.
>
> That's correct.
>
> : There is a FoFP, but it isn't M.Holmes.
>
> That's incorrect.
Well it doesn't say so.
> It makes you look very foolish to imply that someone doesn't know their
> own email address.
You will have to show me where I said this, or even inferred it.
>If you don't understand our email system then all you
> need to do is ask. I'll even send you a free signed copy of one of the
> manuals I've written about it.
Clever lad.
> Now, back to your email address. Is there some reason, other than simple
> embarassment, for you to post anonymously?
I recall answering this.
Regarding your other ramblings.
There is hardly any point bringing any new topics into the discussion as you haven't
answered the ones currently being discussed.
This is an over used diversionary method of yours.
Once you answer these then the subject can move on.
Topics that need your answer to your position regarding the Lott report.
When will you post the report, the one which Gledard gave you.
Show evidence to support your claim that since the gun ban rape has gone because women
are no longer allowed to use guns. Also show evidence that they did carry guns.
Answer the question regarding the independence of the report.
Answer Kleck's criticisms.
Answer the other peers criticisms.
Show any other evidence that supports Lott's position.
No need to answer here, use the posting which have the subjects in.
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :> Kleck isn't just "pro gun".
>
> : I never said he is just pro gun, I am sure he has other interests.
>
> :> He's pro the argument that Lott converted to, which is the argument
> :> that guns are used in the US more often to prevent crime than they
> :> are to commit it.
>
> : Yet he said that it was flawed and came to the wrong conclusions.
>
> He criticised certain aspects of the Lott study, not every single item
> in it. That would be unlikely since Kleck himself is cited in some of
> the report. The question at hand is whether any of Kleck's criticisms go
> to the heart of what Lott said regarding women and self-defence, and
> whether Lott's response might be considered adequate rebuttal.
Who said he criticised every aspect.
What I quoted is that Kleck believes the declines in crimes is more likely down to
other factors not included by Lott.
I assume that rape is included as a crime, if that is fact then it points to the heart
of the report and it's conclusions being flawed.
Indeed if you can show evidence that exempts that part of the report please do.
You ask for evidence I produce it, Kleck believes the conclusions are wrong.
Now I ask you to show that this excludes rapes.
> To discuss that issue, we need you to post parts of tyhe Lott report,
> specific to women and self-defence, which you consider to be in error.
Not really, if you are agreeing that the report is flawed apart from the rape
incidence
then you need to demonstrate this. The criticism of are not just Kleck's but the other
peers that indicate that the report's conclusions, which include those of rape, are
wrong.
There is no differentiation between the crimes and the conclusions.
> Or are you being vague in order to avoid dealing with answers?
You're the expert at that.
> :> : What I am saying, yet you seem unable to understand, is that the
> :> : very report that you put so much weight on, is, according to even
> :> : pro gun people, flawed.
>
> So you say. I'm waiting for you to post *details* as to *why* it is
> flawed, and why this *specifically* affects any support support the
> report might offer to an argument that attackers of women tend to desist
> if faced with danger of death.
I am saying, actually his peers are, that the reports methodology, analysis and
conclusions are wrong.
This includes all crimes, you are the only on trying to separate the issue.
> As a start, why don't you just quote *any* Lott comment from the report,
> which addresses the issue of women and self-defence, which you believe to
> be in error, and why you believe him to be wrong.
Err Holmes this is your argument not mine.
I am pointing out that the conclusions, which you don't question, are believed to be
wrong.
> :> I understand what you're saying. I'm waiting for you to back it up
> :> by telling us all specifically where it is flawed and why those flaws
>
> : That is why I gave you those web sites, idiot.
>
> You said that in a usenet debate, argument should be posted. I await you
> to post your argument rather than just point us at web sites which
> address much broader issues than simply women and self-defence.
This is strange, it was you who posted the site of the pro gun Lott report in a
previous argument, you asked
for it to be viewed.
Now unless you are being hypocritical, why can't you do the same.
> We can all read those web sites if we feel like it. I presumed you'd
> joined in here to make an argument rather than just suggesting a reading
> list. You do *have* something to contribute do you?
You obviously don't wish to, or are you still busy.
I joined in to indicate that the report was flawed, and highlighted sites where this
was stated.
You won't argue it.
> :> For someone so enamoured of the cites you've found, and apparently so
> :> convinced that you've proven Lott wrong on this issue, you seem
> :> remarkably reluctant to actually post this crucial evidence you refer
> :> us all to. Is this due to some infirmity of yours which prevents you
> :> typing it in?
>
> : I could post lots of articles,
>
> Nobody is asking you to post lots of articles. You've been asked only to
> say specifically where you believe Lott is incorrect on the issue of
> women and self-defence, why you believe him to be wrong, and a source
> for the stats you claim that "everyone knows".
I specifically did not mention rape, I said that the report was flawed.
Look back at my initial posting.
I have shown that the independence of the report is questionable.
I have shown quotes from Kleck and his peers which state that the conclusions
regarding
the reductions that Lott refers to are flawed.
These reduction includes rape, if you are saying that it does not, then how do you get
to this.
>and one
> sentence quoting the source of these stats that "everyone knows".
I thought I answered this in my last post.
I asked you to correct me if I was wrong, my original remark was "most people".
As the surveys by independent groups and the Home Office are usually a reflection of
what society believes then I would say it was a fair remark to make.
> : I did post as evidence some of the web
> : sites. Anyone who is interested will be able to look.
>
> Anyone interested could have looked anyway. Are you here to contribute
> to the debate or merely slow it up with your vague references and
> witterings?
Why don't you stop moaning and asking for evidence and look at those sites.
You may actually learn something dear boy.
> :> If they're relevant to this debate on rape and self-defence then
> :> please do. How about starting with the one I've asked for above and
> :> the stats that Richard Caley asked for which show that what you;ve
> :> claimed what "everyone knows" is in fact correct?
>
> : How about you showing me the evidence that you referred to that the
> : banning of guns in a country that never carried hand guns, led to an
> : increase in rape?
>
> I've argued that crime in the UK, including gun crime, has risen since
> the banning of guns in the UK and that this is supportive of Lott's
> thesis. The evidence that crime has increased since the 1997 ban I'll
> try to get over the weekend. That this is supportive of Lott's thesis
> that gun bans are often couterproductive is pretty obvious.
No.
You are a liar.
I showed you but you deliberately deleted it and not answered. You was specific
regarding rape.
Now where did you get the figures that made you say that rapes have gone up since the
gun ban, since in recent history, your term, women did not carry them.
And if you are saying they did carry them then where did you get the stats.
No answer will be taken as a admission that you were wrong.
> : As for my position, well I have just looked back and unless you are
> : able to correct me my original remark was "most people". As the
> : surveys by independent groups and the home office are usually a
> : reflection of what society believes then I would say it was a fair
> : remark to make.
>
> Could you just tell us specifically *which* surveys you are referring
> to?
Home office surveys.
Are you saying they have never been done.
> :> You said that I shouldn't post evidence to your mailbox because this
> :> is a usenet debate. Surely then if you've found evidence you should
> :> post it here rather than refer to websites?
>
> : Because you half wit
>
> I realise that as far as insults go, you're very unentertaining, but
> could we at least make a rule that if you can't spell the insult, you
> won't use it? Arguing with you feels too much like poking retards with a
> stick already.
And as you can't spell what does that make you.
A retard with a stick?
> : the amount of info in those sites would take up
> : too much bandwidth.
>
> That's OK. All I'm asking for is those statements from the Lott report,
> referencing women and self-defence, which you believe to be in error and
> why you believe this. That's not much to type.
When was I specific to rape?
I was specific to his conclusions, in a report, which included rape.
I would say you should go back and look at the initial post.
Kleck and those peers make no special case regarding rape.
> : What is it your having difficulty
>
> Your evasiveness mostly, but your grammar also makes it rather difficult to
> follow what passes for your thought processes.
Yawn.
> :> : sites yourself as you seem not to be very busy, going from the rate
> :> : you are posting.
>
> :> You complain I'm too busy to read your references and then that I'm
> :> not busy enough. If you're going to argue with grownups, you need to
> :> learn consistency.
>
> : You said you was too busy.
>
> Are you sure I didn't say I were too busy?
Do you remember saying it?
> : subject.
>
> :> By the way: handguns were legal here a century ago
>
> : You see this as recent history?
>
> To gainsay a claim that in Britain we've never carried handguns, a
> that's needed is *any* historical evidence. Just admitting that you were
> wrong will be fine.
In respect to the claim regarding the time around the gun ban.
As I said, what do you call recent.
It was never common for women to carry guns around the time before or after the gun
ban.
Now maybe you give those figures.
No answer will be taken as an admission that you were wrong.
> : Holmes, go back and check your past posts, they are full of spelling
> : mistakes.
>
> Most likely they'll have typing mistakes punctuated by the odd spelling
> mistake.
LOL.
No.
Nice try.
You just highlight what a prat you are by calling others, yet not correcting yourself.
Simpleton.
> : Even Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University
> : whose work is routinely praised by the NRA, wrote that "[More] likely,
> : the declines in crime, coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were
> : largely attributable to other factors not controlled for in the Lott
> : analysis."
>
> That's a start, but it's still far too vague.
Come on....
That is too vague, I think it is a case that goes straight to the point of your claim.
> :> : As for Lott well, John Lott is a John M. Olin Fellow at the
> :> : University of Chicago Law School. The funder of Lott's fellowship
> :> : is the John M. Olin Foundation. There are links between this
> :> : foundation and the Olin Corporation. The Olin Corporation own
> :> : Winchester Ammunition.
>
> :> I'll charitably assume that your copy of Lott's book was the original
> :> rather than revised edition where this criticism is amply answered in
> :> chapter 7.
>
> : Be charitable again and produce quotes which address the above
> : remarks.
>
> They're not relevant to women and self-defence. When you post relevant
> material, I'll respond to it.
Only a fool would say that a report which doesn't demonstrate its independence is
irrelevant.
I can here those peers LOL.
They are relevant to a report that possibly isn't independent.
Now you said he refutes it, now produce some quotes.
No answer will be taken as an admission that you were wrong.
> :> : No. If you are daft enough to use a GUN report as evidence, then
> :> : that will become a gun issue. Indeed what was it you intended to
> :> : achieve by using the gun report. The issue was that guns stopped
> :> : rapes, was it? Did you believe you could use it as evidence, then
> :> : not talk about it.
>
> :> I'd intended to stick to the subject under debate.
>
> : Yes, and you made guns part of the solution.
>
> Reading interpretation difficulties again? Perhaps I can help: the
> solution I suggested was that if EUSA was correct that teaching women
> self-defence would teach them to kill, then it'd be a damned good thing.
Yes, and you put forward your position with the Lott report.
Of course if you are saying that you would of used the report if it had been counter
your position, then fine.
> : I suggest it is only
> : fair that is debated, if you don't wish to debate it, don't make the
> : claim.
>
> If it'll shut you up, I'll debate it, but *ONLY* if you quit wasting
> time and post specific arguments
Specific as in......
Questionable independence?
Criticisms from Kleck?
Criticism from his peers?
None of which you have answered.
Start with these then we will move on.
> :> : I did see them say if there wasn't a difference then they are the
> :> : same, then that begs the question, if they are the same why infer a
> :> : difference and ask for one.
>
> :> You didn't look up "rhetorical" did you?
>
> : I suggest you look at way the post was constructed.
>
> That's the excuse you tried on alt.peeves. Can you clean your teeth
> without an enema yet?
Maybe you don't need to brush you teeth as you clearly talk out of your arse.
> :> : Indeed what was that you came out with regarding the Sun always
> :> : crossing the Meridian at the same time. Usually when you are in
> :> : that NG you are being corrected.
>
> :> Indeed so. I'm there to learn from those who know more than I do.
>
> : Bloody hell, basic stuff.
>
> OK if you want to play astronomer for the amusement of the gallery let's
> just recap.
> A) I think you'll find that at one longitudinal line in each time zone
> the Sun does cross the meridian at noon each day (allowing for oddities
> like British Summer time anyway).
Firstly are you trying to give a different definition of the term meridian?
The meridian is the line which connects the Northern Celestial Pole to the South
Celestial Pole.
The Line above the horizon is known as the upper meridian.
The reason why the Sun does not cross the meridian at mid-day each day is because the
Sun does not
have a constant speed across the sky throughout the year.
This is because the Earth's orbit is an ellipse, and because of the tilt on the
ecliptic.
This produces an effect that means at certain times the movement of the Sun can be
more
up and down than across.
As a result the error for the Sun to cross the meridian can be upto plus or minus
approx 15 mins .
If what you say is correct then all sundials would show the correct time.
> Now obviously given that you'd crossposted an argument to
> uk.sci.astronomy hoping that they'd tell me I was wrong (in that the
> difference between a heliocentric solar system and a geocentric solar
> system in which a deity moved everything in such a way that the
> heliocentric model was correct, would be scientifically indetectible)
> and had your head nailed to the floor, you were so cheered to see
> someone correct me on a minor issue that you'll be still be trotting it
> out on usenet when you leave school.
Minor, it undermined your whole argument.
> However, it was a minor and to an
> extent pedantic correction.
LOL
> Personally if I were you and disposed to
> crow at an opponents mistakes forevermore, I'd have chosen the time I
> got the nomenclature concerning novae and supernovae incorrect, but I
> suspect that you just don't know enough to spot which error was more
> egregious.
I know more than you obviously did.
Please continue, I may dig out your old post, the last one which you didn't answer.
> : Then in that case why did you make the same
> : error, later.
>
> I doubt I did, otherwise you'd almost certainly have corrected me.
You did, and someone did.
> :> BTW: your description of my error here indicates that you understand
> :> neither what I said, nor why I was wrong in saying it. If you want
> :> to label me ignorant, you might at least learn enough to pretend that
> :> you aren't.
>
> : Which one, the Nova or the Sun? If it is your Sun one I suggest your
> : talking rubbish again. From what I recall you even tried to argue the
> : point when the geezer was trying to educate you. What was crystal was
> : that you saying the Sun crossed the Meridian at midday, each day, was
> : wrong. Whatever the reason for saying is not important, the fact, and
> : it is a very basic fact, is that it was wrong, all that it shows is
> : that you had poor understanding. Be grow up and just admit it.
>
> See above. If you want to call me ignorant, then at least be prepared to
> do enough research that you appear to know what you're talking about.
> : This is from you, who a few post ago accused myself abuse. Go look in
> : a dictionary Holmes. Look up first hand experience.
>
> Let's just keep your sex life out of it shall we?
Well the first hand experience remark was yours in respect to your leg opener
statement.
If it was anyone's sex life it was yours.
> :> : yet my point from this is that Kleck questions the credibility of
> :> : the report.
>
> :> I think we understood that this was your point about six articles
> :> ago. What we're waiting for is for you to back up that point by
> :> quoting anything from Kleck, or indeed anyone else which indicates
> :> that Lott was wrong, or that anyone is wrong, in claiming that
> :> rapists will sometimes desist from rape if faced with danger of
> :> death.
>
> : Here is a list of those who think it is flawed.
>
> : Dr. John Lott's methodology has been debunked by many well-respected,
> : independent researchers, as well as by his peers. These researchers
> : include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University; Daniel Black of the
> : University of Kentucky Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University;
> : Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins
> : University Arthur Kellermann at Emory University.
>
> : As part of a nationally televised debate which included John Lott,
> : Professors Nagin, Black, and Ludwig stated that Lott's study was so
> : flawed that "nothing can be learned of it," and that it should not be
> : used as the basis for policy-making.
>
> I remember that Nagin and Black are answered at length in Lott's book.
> Where did you read Lott's stuff that you missed that?
Really, what was said.
> The rest I'll look up if you post specifically what Lott says about
> women and self-defence that they say is wrong and why they say it's
> wrong.
You mean your going to produce some quotes, that will be a first.
> :> Now if you really have all this evidence which you insist I should
> :> read, then just quote a few relevant paragraphs. Otherwise I don't
> :> see that you have anything to contribute here.
>
> : The evidence, idiot, is in those sites. Why will you not go to them.
>
> Too much effort just to get to the stuff on women and self-defence.
> Besides, since you've already read them, you'll be able to go straight
> to those parts and post it up here. Since it's you that claims it as
> support for your contribution, I regard it as your task to do that.
No no Holmes dear boy.
If you are going to argue you should look for yourself.
Are you not able to access the net.
> : From looking at what you have said and posted amounts to nothing. All
> : that you have is the Lott report
>
> And I've said specifically why I believe it bolsters the argument that
> attackers of women desist if faced with danger of death. You've yet to
> be anything remotely so specific.
But the conclusions are flawed.
I said all that you have is the Lott report.
You have said nothing else and produced no other evidence.
> : Give evidence that supports Lott' claims.
>
> I'll be happy to look for it just as soon as you point to specifically
> which claims are at issue and why.
You will have to show me where Kleck and those peers exclude the rape reduction
conclusions.
Also that report you tried to email, how about posting it here.
M Holmes
: "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
:> : As part of a nationally televised debate which included John Lott,
:> : Professors Nagin, Black, and Ludwig stated that Lott's study was so
:> : flawed that "nothing can be learned of it," and that it should not be
:> : used as the basis for policy-making.
:>
:> I remember that Nagin and Black are answered at length in Lott's book.
:> Where did you read Lott's stuff that you missed that?
: Really, what was said.
Presumably you read Lott's reply when you read Lott's book, in which
case what's the point of me rehashing it here?
:> The rest I'll look up if you post specifically what Lott says about
:> women and self-defence that they say is wrong and why they say it's
:> wrong.
: You mean your going to produce some quotes
Sure, just as soon as you quote something Lott said that you claim was
wrong concerning women and self-defence, supported by your quotes from
Kleck or whoever. If you won't do that one simple thing, quit wasting my
time. If you argue convincingly enough based on Kleck, I'll shell out
the 57 quid to get Kleck's book. Can't say fairer than that.
FoFP
M Holmes
:> : There is a listing for M.Holmes.
:> : Email address is , M.Holmes at EUCS, that is yours is it not.
:>
:> That's correct.
:>
:> : There is a FoFP, but it isn't M.Holmes.
:>
:> That's incorrect.
: Well it doesn't say so.
:> It makes you look very foolish to imply that someone doesn't know their
:> own email address.
: You will have to show me where I said this, or even inferred it.
You inferred it when you suggested that I was wrong about my email
address being fo...@ed.ac.uk
FoFP
M Holmes
Apologies in advance for dropped letters. This connection isn't very
good.
:> :> : Indeed what was that you came out with regarding the Sun always
:> :> : crossing the Meridian at the same time. Usually when you are in
:> :> : that NG you are being corrected.
:> :> Indeed so. I'm there to learn from those who know more than I do.
:> : Bloody hell, basic stuff.
:> OK if you want to play astronomer for the amusement of the gallery
:> let's just recap. A) I think you'll find that at one longitudinal
:> line in each time zone the Sun does cross the meridian at noon each
:> day (allowing for oddities like British Summer time anyway).
: Firstly are you trying to give a different definition of the term
: meridian?
It's 25 years since I had a look at navigation so I'll apologise in
advance if my memory is faulty. Fortunately I know that there are those
on ed.general who'll keep us straight.
: The meridian is the line which connects the Northern Celestial Pole to
: the South Celestial Pole. The Line above the horizon is known as the
: upper meridian.
Not quite. There are many lines which connect the north celestial pole
to the south celestial pole. In the reference frame of the constellations
these are known as lines of Right Ascension and are, so to speak, the
celestial equivalent of longitude lines. When we talk of "the meridian"
in navigation terms, we mean a similar line in a frame of reference
which moves with the earth and consists of those lines to the geographic
north and south. In the context here, we specifically mean the southern
meridian.
: The reason why the Sun does not cross the meridian at mid-day each day
On the contrary, the Sun crosses the meridian at noon each day on at
least one line of longitude in each time zone except those operating a
shifted time such as British Summer Time. There are therefore a ot of
places each day at which the Sun crosses the southern meridan precsel at
noon.
: is because the Sun does not have a constant speed across the sky
: throughout the year. This is because the Earth's orbit is an ellipse,
: and because of the tilt on the ecliptic. This produces an effect that
: means at certain times the movement of the Sun can be more up and down
: than across. As a result the error for the Sun to cross the meridian
: can be up to plus or minus approx 15 mins .
Yes, this is the correction which is applied from Equation of Time
tables.
Note that if this were the only complicating factor, anyone who did as I
suggested and used a southern solar transit as a marker for South would
be at most 4 degrees out. For someone who's lost, that's pretty good.
: If what you say is correct
: then all sundials would show the correct time.
Being accurate to 15 minutes would be very good for a sundial. What you've
forgotten about is of course the potentially greater correction for
longitude. For example in the UK each degree of longitude from the
Greenwich line will involve an adustment of 4 minutes in the local time
of solar transit of the merdian. A similar adjustment applies in each
time zone.
:> Now obviously given that you'd crossposted an argument to
:> uk.sci.astronomy hoping that they'd tell me I was wrong (in that the
:> difference between a heliocentric solar system and a geocentric solar
:> system in which a deity moved everything in such a way that the
:> heliocentric model was correct, would be scientifically indetectible)
:> and had your head nailed to the floor, you were so cheered to see
:> someone correct me on a minor issue that you'll be still be trotting
:> it out on usenet when you leave school.
: Minor, it undermined your whole argument.
Not at all. If, in the UK, you used the method I suggested to find
south then even in the farthest longitudinal position from Greenwich on
the worst day of the year (a 16 minute EOT adjustment) you'd only be ten
degrees out. Of course you'd be at Lands End and would find it difficult
not to find south.
As I said, it's not good enough for purists, and it's certainly not good
enough to navigate a boat across oceans (though if I recall correctly,
solar transits of the southern median were used before reliable maritime
clocks?) but it's certainly good enough if you have absolutely no idea
which direction is what. Someone has since told me they were taught the
same method in the Scouts, but I can't confirm, since they booted me out
on my second week.
:> However, it was a minor and to an
:> extent pedantic correction.
: LOL
If you feel that it's other than minor, and that the method is useless,
I'd be interested in your explanation as to why, and even more
interested in how you would establish direction.
FoFP
M Holmes
: This is strange, it was you who posted the site of the pro gun Lott
: report in a previous argument, you asked for it to be viewed. Now
: unless you are being hypocritical, why can't you do the same.
You were the person who insisted that debate be conducted in articles
when I offered to spare everyone the agony and take it to email. You've
yet to offer your real address. On that basis I hold you to your own
rule and will answer only specific points raised in articles.
:> We can all read those web sites if we feel like it. I presumed you'd
:> joined in here to make an argument rather than just suggesting a
:> reading list. You do *have* something to contribute do you?
: You obviously don't wish to, or are you still busy.
Yes, I'm still very busy. Visitors coming and chores to do. I should
really be in bed already.
: I joined in to
: indicate that the report was flawed, and highlighted sites where this
: was stated. You won't argue it.
I'm here aren't I? My patience isn't infinite though, so if you don't
soon quote those parts of Lott which you believe to be at issue, and say
specifically why, with definite references to sources if that's what
you;re basing it on, then you'll be back on your own crying into the
usenet void. I don't have enough time to spare to waste it waiting for
you to be specific enough to answer.
:> : I could post lots of articles,
:> Nobody is asking you to post lots of articles. You've been asked
:> only to say specifically where you believe Lott is incorrect on the
:> issue of women and self-defence, why you believe him to be wrong, and
:> a source for the stats you claim that "everyone knows".
: I specifically did not mention rape
This discussion is about women and self-defence. Are you now telling me
you have nothing to say on the issue?
: I said that the report was
: flawed.
Yes, you *said* that it was flawed. What I've been waiting for is for
you to quote anything Lott said on women and self-defence, the say why
it's wrong.
: Look back at my initial posting. I have shown that the
: independence of the report is questionable.
No, you've merely repeated a smear already answered in Lott's book,
indicating only that your reading comprehension of Lott is on a par with
your reading comprehension of everything else. As I've already pointed
out, Lott was anti-gun at the start of the study so linking him with an
ammnition manufacturer wouldn't even be a very good slur were it true.
In fact, as is clearly stated in Lott's book, by the President of the
Olin Foundation, the Foundation has no connection with Olin Corporation.
The Foundation supports a programme in Law and Ecnomcs at Chicago
University Law school and it wasthe committee there, without reference
to the Olin Foundation, which funded Lott's research.
This would appear to call nto qestion just how carefully you read Lott.
Are your other criticisms of equal quality?
: I thought I answered this in my last post. I asked you to correct me
: if I was wrong, my original remark was "most people". As the surveys
: by independent groups and the Home Office are usually a reflection of
: what society believes then I would say it was a fair remark to make.
You'll find that the "Home Ofice" will also supply you with the stats
that you requested regarding increased crime n the UK since the Snowdrop ban.
:> : the amount of info in those sites would take up too much bandwidth.
:> That's OK. All I'm asking for is those statements from the Lott
:> report, referencing women and self-defence, which you believe to be
:> in error and why you believe this. That's not much to type.
: When was I specific to rape?
You weren't, which s *precisely* the problem since that's what this
discussion is *ABOUT*.
: Kleck and those peers make no special case regarding rape.
Again you haven't read Lott very carefully. I quote:
"While resistance is generally associated with higher probabilities of
serious injury to the victim, not all types of resistance are equally
risky. By examining the data provided from 1979 to 1987 by the Dept of
Justice's National Crime Victimisation Survey Lawrence Southwick,
confirming earlier estimates by Gary Kleck, found that the probability of
serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women oferng no
resistance than for women ofering resistance with a gun. In contrast,
the probability of women being seriously injured was almost 4 times
greater when resisting without a gun than when resisting with a gun."
Now that appears to say that something about gun use in particular is
detrimental to the success of the attacker's mission. So unless i's just
an irrational fear of guns, might I suggest that it is in fact the case
that attackers are deterred by threats of injury or death to their
persons, which as I recall, was my original point with which you took
issue.
Now, since this appears to confirm estimates by gary Kleck, it would
certainly be interesting had Kleck gainsayed this argument and I thus
look forward to you quoting from a source where he did in fact contradict
this.
:> :> : sites yourself as you seem not to be very busy, going from the
:> :> : rate you are posting.
:> :> You complain I'm too busy to read your references and then that
:> :> I'm not busy enough. If you're going to argue with grownups, you
:> :> need to learn consistency.
:> : You said you was too busy.
:> Are you sure I didn't say I were too busy?
: Do you remember saying it?
:> : subject.
:> :> By the way: handguns were legal here a century ago
:> : You see this as recent history?
:> To gainsay a claim that in Britain we've never carried handguns, a
:> that's needed is *any* historical evidence. Just admitting that you
:> were wrong will be fine.
: In respect to the claim regarding the time around the gun ban. As I
: said, what do you call recent.
You said specifically that we'd never carried handguns here. I've shown
that we in fact had a law requiring it where possible. That's a slam-dunk
case of I'm right and you're not. Thanks for playing.
Note for the pedants: I'm using "we" in the British rather than Scottsh
sense here as we're playing fast & loose with the Home Office anyway.
:> :> : As for Lott well, John Lott is a John M. Olin Fellow at the
:> :> : University of Chicago Law School. The funder of Lott's
:> :> : fellowship is the John M. Olin Foundation. There are links
:> :> : between this foundation and the Olin Corporation. The Olin
:> :> : Corporation own Winchester Ammunition.
:> :> I'll charitably assume that your copy of Lott's book was the
:> :> original rather than revised edition where this criticism is amply
:> :> answered in chapter 7.
:> : Be charitable again and produce quotes which address the above
:> : remarks.
:> They're not relevant to women and self-defence. When you post
:> relevant material, I'll respond to it.
: Only a fool would say that a report which doesn't demonstrate its
: independence is irrelevant. I can here those peers LOL.
: They are relevant to a report that possibly isn't independent. Now
: you said he refutes it, now produce some quotes.
I did. Now tell me how you managed to miss that when you read Lott? It's
not exactly a complex counterargument.
:> : Here is a list of those who think it is flawed.
:> : Dr. John Lott's methodology has been debunked by many
:> : well-respected, independent researchers, as well as by his peers.
:> : These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University;
:> : Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky Daniel Nagin at Carnegie
:> : Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster,
:> : all of Johns Hopkins University Arthur Kellermann at Emory
:> : University.
:> : As part of a nationally televised debate which included John Lott,
:> : Professors Nagin, Black, and Ludwig stated that Lott's study was so
:> : flawed that "nothing can be learned of it," and that it should not
:> : be used as the basis for policy-making.
:> I remember that Nagin and Black are answered at length in Lott's
:> book. Where did you read Lott's stuff that you missed that?
: Really, what was said.
If you give me a good reason why you don't already know this from Lott
then I'll post up the details.
FoFP
Rainer Thonnes
M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: You will have to show me where I said this, or even inferred it.
>
>You inferred it when you suggested that I was wrong about my email
>address being fo...@ed.ac.uk
How restrained of you not to take him to task over the
difference between infer and imply.
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Apologies in advance for dropped letters. This connection isn't very
> good.
>
> :> :> : crossing the Meridian at the same time. Usually when you are in
> :> :> : that NG you are being corrected.
>
> :> :> Indeed so. I'm there to learn from those who know more than I do.
>
> :> : Bloody hell, basic stuff.
>
> :> OK if you want to play astronomer for the amusement of the gallery
> :> let's just recap. A) I think you'll find that at one longitudinal
> :> line in each time zone the Sun does cross the meridian at noon each
> :> day (allowing for oddities like British Summer time anyway).
>
> : Firstly are you trying to give a different definition of the term
> : meridian?
>
> advance if my memory is faulty. Fortunately I know that there are those
> on ed.general who'll keep us straight.
>
> : the South Celestial Pole. The Line above the horizon is known as the
> : upper meridian.
>
> to the south celestial pole. In the reference frame of the constellations
> these are known as lines of Right Ascension and are, so to speak, the
> celestial equivalent of longitude lines. When we talk of "the meridian"
> in navigation terms, we mean a similar line in a frame of reference
> which moves with the earth and consists of those lines to the geographic
> north and south. In the context here, we specifically mean the southern
> meridian.
Your are a bit confused.
These lines are not meridian lines, there is only one meridian line, local to your
site.
The lines you refer to are lines separating hours of right ascension.
Indeed the meridian line is fixed and these longitude lines, as you call them, pass in
front of it, it is these lines that are used to produce the hour angle.
> : The reason why the Sun does not cross the meridian at mid-day each day
>
> On the contrary, the Sun crosses the meridian at noon each day on at
> least one line of longitude in each time zone except those operating a
> shifted time such as British Summer Time. There are therefore a ot of
> places each day at which the Sun crosses the southern meridan precsel at
> noon.
Just think a minute, if you are saying that that is so, then depending on where you
were on the world the Sun would speed up from one time zone to another.
Time zones don't really come into it as the meridian is local to your time and to your
site.
Note that the transit of a meridian is in reference to the transit on the previous
day.
The reason why the Sun cannot cross the meridian at mid day each day is because the
Sun does not move across the sky at a constant speed. This difference can vary by plus
or minus 15 mins thoughout the seasons.
If you are saying that the Sun always crosses the meridian at the same time then there
would be no need for mean solar time, which is what our clocks use.
> : is because the Sun does not have a constant speed across the sky
> : throughout the year. This is because the Earth's orbit is an ellipse,
> : and because of the tilt on the ecliptic. This produces an effect that
> : means at certain times the movement of the Sun can be more up and down
> : than across. As a result the error for the Sun to cross the meridian
> : can be up to plus or minus approx 15 mins .
>
> Yes, this is the correction which is applied from Equation of Time
> tables.
>
> Note that if this were the only complicating factor, anyone who did as I
> suggested and used a southern solar transit as a marker for South would
> be at most 4 degrees out. For someone who's lost, that's pretty good.
Only if they did what you suggested regarding the Sun crossing the meridian, South at
mid day each day.
This is the reason that you can't.
If I was lost, apart from my watch, what you are saying is that when my watch
indicated mid day then the Sun would be due South. I am saying this is wrong because
the Sun_does_not_always_cross_the_meridian_at_mid_day.
For that to be true I would have to know which season it was.
> : If what you say is correct
> : then all sundials would show the correct time.
>
> Being accurate to 15 minutes would be very good for a sundial. What you've
> forgotten about is of course the potentially greater correction for
> longitude.
I haven't.
The Sundial remark was to highlight that if you were correct then Sundials would be
good timekeepers.
They are not.
>For example in the UK each degree of longitude from the
> Greenwich line will involve an adustment of 4 minutes in the local time
> of solar transit of the merdian. A similar adjustment applies in each
> time zone.
As this is off topic I am posting this to the relevant astronomy NG.
I am now going to check my Astronomy books to see if I am right.
Rainer Thonnes
M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>
>Not at all. If, in the UK, you used the method I suggested to find
>south then even in the farthest longitudinal position from Greenwich on
>the worst day of the year (a 16 minute EOT adjustment) you'd only be ten
>degrees out. Of course you'd be at Lands End and would find it difficult
>not to find south.
That's taking the anglocentric view, though. Ardnamurchan Point, not
Land's End, is the westernmost point of the GB mainland, but of course
the UK extends a bitty further West still. The sun will cross the
meridian at St Kilda some 10 minutes later than at Ardnamurchan.
> (though if I recall correctly,
>solar transits of the southern median were used before reliable maritime
>clocks?)
Yes, but indirectly. They wouldn't have been that sure, with
their dodgy compasses and uncertain magnetic variation, exactly
where the meridian was so that they could observe the sun crossing
it. Instead, they determined South, and local noon, by the sun's
height above the horizon, measured by sextant. They'd know roughly
when it would be and started watching and measuring away like mad,
and then as soon as the sun stopped rising and started setting,
that was it.
M Holmes
: "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
: The lines you refer to are lines separating hours of right ascension.
: Indeed the meridian line is fixed
The north-south meridian line is not fixed. If it didn't rotate with
the Earth then the Sun would transit it only two times per year.
: and these longitude lines, as you
: call them, pass in front of it
Since they're a fiction, it doesn't really make sense to say that they
"pass in front of" anything.
: > : The reason why the Sun does not cross the meridian at mid-day
: > : each day
:> On the contrary, the Sun crosses the meridian at noon each day on at
:> least one line of longitude in each time zone except those operating
:> a shifted time such as British Summer Time. There are therefore a ot
:> of places each day at which the Sun crosses the southern meridan
:> precsel at noon.
: Just think a minute, if you are saying that that is so, then depending
: on where you were on the world the Sun would speed up from one time
: zone to another.
Huh?
: Time zones don't really come into it as the meridian
: is local to your time and to your site.
Indeed. And at one line of longitude in each time zone (except where
issues like British Summer time come into play) the time at which the
Sun crosses the local meridian is precisely noon. Time zones therefore
do "come into it".
: Note that the transit of a
: meridian is in reference to the transit on the previous day.
Eh? The transit of the southern meridian occurs when the Sun is at its
highest altitude. It's not dependent on the behaviour of the Sun the
previous day at all, although with Equation of Time tables, the time can
be predicted from the time of transit the previous day.
: The
: reason why the Sun cannot cross the meridian at mid day each day is
: because the Sun does not move across the sky at a constant speed.
The Sun *DOES* cross the meridian at precisely mid-day each day in each
time zone. It just crosses it at noon at a slightly different line of
longitude in each time zone each day.
: This difference can vary by plus or minus 15 mins thoughout the
: seasons.
And therefore by plus and minus 4 degrees in each time zone. IIRC the
max in EOT tables is nearer 16 minutes but as I said, I last saw such
tables about 24 years ago so I could be out on that one.
: If you are saying that the Sun always crosses the meridian
: at the same time
No. I'm not. If you're going to argue with what I'm saying then at least
do me the courtesy of carefully reading what I'm saying.
: then there would be no need for mean solar time,
: which is what our clocks use.
:> : is because the Sun does not have a constant speed across the sky
:> : throughout the year. This is because the Earth's orbit is an
:> : ellipse, and because of the tilt on the ecliptic. This produces an
:> : effect that means at certain times the movement of the Sun can be
:> : more up and down than across. As a result the error for the Sun to
:> : cross the meridian can be up to plus or minus approx 15 mins .
:> Yes, this is the correction which is applied from Equation of Time
:> tables.
:> Note that if this were the only complicating factor, anyone who did
:> as I suggested and used a southern solar transit as a marker for
:> South would be at most 4 degrees out. For someone who's lost, that's
:> pretty good.
: Only if they did what you suggested regarding the Sun crossing the
: meridian, South at mid day each day.
I thought you *WERE* arguing against that suggestion. If not, then what
exactly are we arguing *ABOUT*?
: This is the reason that you
: can't. If I was lost, apart from my watch, what you are saying is
: that when my watch indicated mid day then the Sun would be due South.
I'm saying that if you were lost, it'd be near enough due south to get
you headed in whatever direction you wanted to go unless better than ten
degrees of accuracy was required. I wouldn't rely on it if I had to walk
a thin path between two cliffs in fog, but if I just needed to head
generally in a particular direction, it'd be fine. Even with a compass
most people wouldn't head in a particular direction to less than a ten
degree tolerance anyway.
: I am saying this is wrong because the
: Sun_does_not_always_cross_the_meridian_at_mid_day.
Not at *EVERY* particular place it doesn't, though at a lot of places
each day it does precisely that. At *ANY particular place in the UK,
just assuming it does will get you a heading within ten degrees of
south, and in most of the UK, rather better than that.
: For that to be
: true I would have to know which season it was.
You probably would. The rest of us would be fine.
: As this is off topic I am posting this to the relevant astronomy NG.
While you're at it, take your arguments against Lott to a gun newsgroups
and bugger off out of here.
FoFP
M Holmes
: In article <8b6hte$cja$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
: M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
:>
:>Not at all. If, in the UK, you used the method I suggested to find
:>south then even in the farthest longitudinal position from Greenwich on
:>the worst day of the year (a 16 minute EOT adjustment) you'd only be ten
:>degrees out. Of course you'd be at Lands End and would find it difficult
:>not to find south.
: That's taking the anglocentric view, though. Ardnamurchan Point, not
: Land's End, is the westernmost point of the GB mainland, but of course
: the UK extends a bitty further West still. The sun will cross the
: meridian at St Kilda some 10 minutes later than at Ardnamurchan.
:> (though if I recall correctly,
:>solar transits of the southern median were used before reliable maritime
:>clocks?)
: Yes, but indirectly. They wouldn't have been that sure, with
: their dodgy compasses and uncertain magnetic variation, exactly
: where the meridian was so that they could observe the sun crossing
: it. Instead, they determined South, and local noon, by the sun's
: height above the horizon, measured by sextant.
Yep, that's what I was alluding to. I still have to confess myself
amazed at the Antarctic escape where they managed to reach the Falklands
by doing this in a rowboat in very very rough seas.
FoFP
M Holmes
:> : The meridian is the line which connects the Northern Celestial Pole to
:> : the South Celestial Pole. The Line above the horizon is known as the
:> : upper meridian.
:>
:> Not quite. There are many lines which connect the north celestial pole
:> to the south celestial pole. In the reference frame of the constellations
:> these are known as lines of Right Ascension and are, so to speak, the
:> celestial equivalent of longitude lines. When we talk of "the meridian"
:> in navigation terms, we mean a similar line in a frame of reference
:> which moves with the earth and consists of those lines to the geographic
:> north and south. In the context here, we specifically mean the southern
:> meridian.
: Your are a bit confused. These lines are not meridian lines, there is
: only one meridian line, local to your site. The lines you refer to
: are lines separating hours of right ascension. Indeed the meridian
: line is fixed
A quick check of my dictionary seems to indicate that it is you who are
confused. A "meridian" is a line passing through the north and south
celestial poles (a line of Right Ascension in otherwords); a similar
line passing through the poles of the Earth (a longitude line in other
words); with special note to the highest point of transit of a star or
the Sun.
I.E: any longitude or RA line is a meridian, but "the meridian" refers
to the particular meridian lying to the observer's South.
"The meridian" is of course not fixed at all, but rotates with the Earth.
Perhaps looking at your books would be a good idea.
FoFP
Richard Caley
cb> So what he has are some figures from a bloke regarding a unnamed report, no
cb> references, deleted and can't post them.
cb> At least I tell you where my figures come from, they can be
cb> checked.
No, you just said `most people think...' with no reference to who had
asked which people what question and how many of them thought that.
Pure bullshitting in fact.
bogus address
"C.Brendan" <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:
> Lines: 494
[all deleted]
What the *fuck* do you think you're up to, cretin?
M Holmes
> So what he has are some figures from a bloke regarding a unnamed
> report, no references, deleted and can't post them.
I'm sure you can find enough statistics on sexual assault in Australia
to keep you going at:
www.aic.gov.au/stats/facts99/sec3.html#sassault
> At least I tell
> you where my figures come from, they can be checked.
Sure, since your reference was "everyone knows" all we have to do to
check them is go ask everyone.
I assume you'll be happy enough to continue the debate *after* we've
carried out a poll of 7 billion people?
FoFP
C.Brendan
> cb> references, deleted and can't post them.
> cb> At least I tell you where my figures come from, they can be
> cb> checked.
>
> No, you just said `most people think...' with no reference to who had
> asked which people what question and how many of them thought that.
I said most people believe.
Later, when asked, I said the Home Office had produced the figures.
> Pure bullshitting in fact.
Have you looked for the figures?
C.Brendan
> In article <jTtB4.117$f67....@news3.cableinet.net>, C Brendan (cb) writes:
>
> > So what he has are some figures from a bloke regarding a unnamed
>
> I'm sure you can find enough statistics on sexual assault in Australia
> to keep you going at:
>
> www.aic.gov.au/stats/facts99/sec3.html#sassault
Have you looked at my sites?
> > At least I tell
> > you where my figures come from, they can be checked.
>
> Sure, since your reference was "everyone knows" all we have to do to
> check them is go ask everyone.
No it wasn't.
My initial posting was believe.
Idiot.
C.Brendan
> :> : the South Celestial Pole. The Line above the horizon is known as the
> :> : upper meridian.
> :>
> :> Not quite. There are many lines which connect the north celestial pole
> :> to the south celestial pole. In the reference frame of the constellations
> :> these are known as lines of Right Ascension and are, so to speak, the
> :> celestial equivalent of longitude lines. When we talk of "the meridian"
> :> in navigation terms, we mean a similar line in a frame of reference
> :> which moves with the earth and consists of those lines to the geographic
> :> north and south. In the context here, we specifically mean the southern
> :> meridian.
>
> : Your are a bit confused. These lines are not meridian lines, there is
> : only one meridian line, local to your site. The lines you refer to
> : are lines separating hours of right ascension. Indeed the meridian
> : line is fixed
>
> confused. A "meridian" is a line passing through the north and south
> celestial poles (a line of Right Ascension in otherwords); a similar
> line passing through the poles of the Earth (a longitude line in other
> words); with special note to the highest point of transit of a star or
> the Sun.
No, and this is where I think you are confused.
According to Nortons Star Atlas, better than a dictionary, the term is;
Meridian,
This is an imaginary line that runs from north to south in the sky, passing through
both celestial poles and through the zenith.
When an object lies on the meridian it is said to transit or culminate.
There is no mention of the reference to RA.
Indeed the Meridian is seen as fixed over the sky, with the RA moving underneath.
Simple use of a planisphere will show this.
With the fixed imaginary line and moving RA you are able to determine the hour angle
of a object.
If they were both locked in you would be unable to measure an hour angle of a
celestial object.
Therefore the RA line and meridian are independent.
Your assumption that "A meridian is a line of Right Ascension in otherwords", is
incorrect.
A line of RA is not a meridian in actual terms, RA is a measurement system determined
by the first point of Aries, and is divide into 24 separate units.
As a result of your poor understanding I think you should now revaluate your claim
regarding the Sun.
> I.E: any longitude or RA line is a meridian, but "the meridian" refers
> to the particular meridian lying to the observer's South.
Nonsense.
> "The meridian" is of course not fixed at all, but rotates with the Earth.
If it rotated with the Earth as with the RA, then you would be unable to measure a HA.
It is seen to be fixed, in the loose term, to the local observing site.
Have a look at the definition of a Hour Angle.
> Perhaps looking at your books would be a good idea.
I have and your wrong.
C.Brendan
> C.Brendan <c.br...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : This is strange, it was you who posted the site of the pro gun Lott
> : report in a previous argument, you asked for it to be viewed. Now
> : unless you are being hypocritical, why can't you do the same.
>
> You were the person who insisted that debate be conducted in articles
> when I offered to spare everyone the agony and take it to email. You've
> yet to offer your real address. On that basis I hold you to your own
> rule and will answer only specific points raised in articles.
Stick to the point.
You offered web sites and asked those in discussion to look.
Now you are being hypocritical.
Get over my email address and post here that report.
Is this beyond the range of your capabilities?
> :> We can all read those web sites if we feel like it. I presumed you'd
> :> joined in here to make an argument rather than just suggesting a
> :> reading list. You do *have* something to contribute do you?
>
> : You obviously don't wish to, or are you still busy.
>
> Yes, I'm still very busy. Visitors coming and chores to do. I should
> really be in bed already.
Too busy to educate yourself.
> : I joined in to
> : indicate that the report was flawed, and highlighted sites where this
> : was stated. You won't argue it.
>
> I'm here aren't I? My patience isn't infinite though, so if you don't
> soon quote those parts of Lott which you believe to be at issue, and say
> specifically why, with definite references to sources if that's what
> you;re basing it on, then you'll be back on your own crying into the
> usenet void. I don't have enough time to spare to waste it waiting for
> you to be specific enough to answer.
I have provided evidence questioning the reports independence, relevant to all
conclusions I suggest.
You won't discuss.
I have provided evidence from Kleck that questions the reports conclusions,
conclusions
that include the rape reductions. You won't discuss.
I have provided other evidence that question the report and a list of these peers, you
won't discuss.
Indeed you defence seems to be that the rape conclusions are some how excluded from
those criticisms.
Where does Kleck and the rest say this?
Where do you get this conclusion from?
> :> : I could post lots of articles,
>
> :> Nobody is asking you to post lots of articles. You've been asked
> :> only to say specifically where you believe Lott is incorrect on the
> :> issue of women and self-defence, why you believe him to be wrong, and
> :> a source for the stats you claim that "everyone knows".
>
> : I specifically did not mention rape
>
> This discussion is about women and self-defence. Are you now telling me
> you have nothing to say on the issue?
This discussion is actually about you using a flawed report whose conclusions indicate
that rape is reduced by using guns.
His peers, including some pro gun, question that.
> : I said that the report was
> : flawed.
>
> Yes, you *said* that it was flawed. What I've been waiting for is for
> you to quote anything Lott said on women and self-defence, the say why
> it's wrong.
You said some time ago that Lott's conclusions demonstrated a reduction in rape
due to legality of handguns. You used that same conclusion here.
THAT REPORT is, according to his peers, flawed.
> : Look back at my initial posting. I have shown that the
> : independence of the report is questionable.
>
> No, you've merely repeated a smear already answered in Lott's book,
Yes you also said that if I produced a quote you would answer it with a quote from the
book.
I am still waiting.
> In fact, as is clearly stated in Lott's book, by the President of the
> Olin Foundation, the Foundation has no connection with Olin Corporation.
> The Foundation supports a programme in Law and Ecnomcs at Chicago
> University Law school and it wasthe committee there, without reference
> to the Olin Foundation, which funded Lott's research.
Tax records of stock sales by the Olin Foundation disclose that millions of dollars in
Olin Corporation stock were donated to the foundation in 1957 and that as recently as
1994 the foundation sold shares for millions of dollars in revenue (the Olin
Foundation initially denied that it held significant holdings in Olin Corporation and
then would not respond to inquiries regarding how many shares of Olin Corporation
stock it holds today).
> This would appear to call nto qestion just how carefully you read Lott.
>
> Are your other criticisms of equal quality?
> : I thought I answered this in my last post. I asked you to correct me
> : if I was wrong, my original remark was "most people". As the surveys
> : by independent groups and the Home Office are usually a reflection of
> : what society believes then I would say it was a fair remark to make.
>
> You'll find that the "Home Ofice" will also supply you with the stats
> that you requested regarding increased crime n the UK since the Snowdrop ban.
Funny that, looked at their site, loads of figures, none to support yours.
> :> : the amount of info in those sites would take up too much bandwidth.
>
> :> That's OK. All I'm asking for is those statements from the Lott
> :> report, referencing women and self-defence, which you believe to be
> :> in error and why you believe this. That's not much to type.
>
> : When was I specific to rape?
>
> You weren't, which s *precisely* the problem since that's what this
> discussion is *ABOUT*.
No.
What it is about is your use of a flawed report to try and prove a point, idiot.
> : Kleck and those peers make no special case regarding rape.
> Again you haven't read Lott very carefully. I quote:
>
> "While resistance is generally associated with higher probabilities of
> serious injury to the victim, not all types of resistance are equally
> risky. By examining the data provided from 1979 to 1987 by the Dept of
> Justice's National Crime Victimisation Survey Lawrence Southwick,
> confirming earlier estimates by Gary Kleck, found that the probability of
> serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women oferng no
> resistance than for women ofering resistance with a gun. In contrast,
> the probability of women being seriously injured was almost 4 times
> greater when resisting without a gun than when resisting with a gun."
Here is a study by the department of justice.
32,000 is the number of rapes and attempted rapes by
strangers in the 26 cities surveyed. The number of rapes and
attempted rapes by strangers in the sample was about 1600.
The completion rate for rapes by strangers was 32%.
The 3% completion rate was when the woman "used/brandished gun or
knife" (Response 1, Question 136 on the original survey.)
gun/knife was used for self defence in only 2% of the cases. The
study marks the 3% statistic as "statistically unreliable" since it is
based on less then 50 sample cases.
To give you an idea of how unreliable the 3% statistic is,
the completion rate for white women who used a gun/knife is 14%, while
the completion rate for white women who "resisted without force/took
evasive action" was 6%.
Can we conclude that running away is better than resisting with a gun?
> :> :> : sites yourself as you seem not to be very busy, going from the
> :> :> : rate you are posting.
>
> :> :> You complain I'm too busy to read your references and then that
> :> :> I'm not busy enough. If you're going to argue with grownups, you
> :> :> need to learn consistency.
>
> :> : You said you was too busy.
>
> :> Are you sure I didn't say I were too busy?
>
> : Do you remember saying it?
> :> : subject.
>
> :> :> By the way: handguns were legal here a century ago
>
> :> : You see this as recent history?
>
> :> To gainsay a claim that in Britain we've never carried handguns, a
> :> that's needed is *any* historical evidence. Just admitting that you
> :> were wrong will be fine.
>
> : In respect to the claim regarding the time around the gun ban. As I
> : said, what do you call recent.
>
> You said specifically that we'd never carried handguns here.
In respect to the time which you referred to regard the gun ban and those figure which
you won't produce.
>I've shown
> that we in fact had a law requiring it where possible. That's a slam-dunk
> case of I'm right and you're not. Thanks for playing.
So you will be able to produce the figures indicating the number of women who carried
guns.
> Note for the pedants: I'm using "we" in the British rather than Scottsh
> sense here as we're playing fast & loose with the Home Office anyway.
I am still waiting for the figures.
> :> :> : As for Lott well, John Lott is a John M. Olin Fellow at the
> :> :> : University of Chicago Law School. The funder of Lott's
> :> :> : fellowship is the John M. Olin Foundation. There are links
> :> :> : between this foundation and the Olin Corporation. The Olin
> :> :> : Corporation own Winchester Ammunition.
>
> :> :> I'll charitably assume that your copy of Lott's book was the
> :> :> original rather than revised edition where this criticism is amply
> :> :> answered in chapter 7.
>
> :> : Be charitable again and produce quotes which address the above
> :> : remarks.
>
> :> They're not relevant to women and self-defence. When you post
> :> relevant material, I'll respond to it.
>
> : Only a fool would say that a report which doesn't demonstrate its
> : independence is irrelevant. I can here those peers LOL.
>
> : They are relevant to a report that possibly isn't independent. Now
> : you said he refutes it, now produce some quotes.
> :> : Here is a list of those who think it is flawed.
>
> :> : Dr. John Lott's methodology has been debunked by many
> :> : well-respected, independent researchers, as well as by his peers.
> :> : These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University;
> :> : Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky Daniel Nagin at Carnegie
> :> : Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster,
> :> : all of Johns Hopkins University Arthur Kellermann at Emory
> :> : University.
>
> :> : As part of a nationally televised debate which included John Lott,
> :> : Professors Nagin, Black, and Ludwig stated that Lott's study was so
> :> : flawed that "nothing can be learned of it," and that it should not
> :> : be used as the basis for policy-making.
>
> :> I remember that Nagin and Black are answered at length in Lott's
> :> book. Where did you read Lott's stuff that you missed that?
>
> : Really, what was said.
>
> If you give me a good reason why you don't already know this from Lott
> then I'll post up the details.
So you go round claiming that it has been refuted but not offer evidence?
Indeed we are back to giving references, you won't look at those sites, you say I
should produce quotes.
Produce quotes Holmes.