Don't throw the baby out with the bath
Wikersham
>news:az5k...@drn.newsguy.com...
>Retired Cop <retc...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message >news:<3c519CBA...@nospamhotmail.com>...
>> Waldo wrote:
>>
>>"Jubilation T. Cornpone" <<j...@myob.com> wrote in message
>>news:aitk...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>Oh, do give it s break. Your average "armed citizen" has something
>>>like ten hours of training. That's barely enough to avoid shooting
>>>themselves in the foot : ( which explains why they shoot family
>>>members by mistake with such dismal regularity.
>>>
>>Whenever you answer a "shots fired" call, you always pray that you
>>aren't going to meet one of those Vigilance assholes with his gun.
>>Any Cop knows that the first thing is site control... get everyone disarmed.
>>
>>After that, you worry about who shot at whom first. Tell it to the judge.
>>In 30 years on the job, I never saw a single clear case of self defense...
>>Oh, a few possibles where you'd never prove it wasn't, but for every one
>>of those, there were twenty family shootings, road rage shootings, drinking
>>buddy shootings, and current fuck turned ex-fuck shootings.
>>
>
Guns preventing crime is like the idea that hot water freezes faster
than cold water. There exists a narrow set of conditions under which
a slightly warmer sample will freeze before the cooler one... but, in
general, hot water doesn't freeze faster. There are some cases where
a gun could prevent a crime. Researchers who claim to have shown this
typically focus on a period when crime was dropping.
>And then they'll say that guns prevent crime and cry like kids denied candy
>in the check out line if they can't have any kind of silly crap they want to
>buy. But I've got to prevent crime they whail.
>
Herb Martin
> than cold water. There exists a narrow set of conditions under which
> a slightly warmer sample will freeze before the cooler one... but, in
> general, hot water doesn't freeze faster. There are some cases where
> a gun could prevent a crime. Researchers who claim to have shown this
> typically focus on a period when crime was dropping.
>
And you base this on what?
2,000,000 self defense uses of firearms annually.
The Police carry them because it helps prevent crime and
deal with criminals.
Sky Marshals carry them because it helps deal with terrorists.
National Guard brings them to the baggage check because
it helps deal with crime.
Now, somehow you have the idea that none of this is true, or
maybe only some of it -- well, document EACH place you
disagree.
All that being said, even if guns caused crime (they don't) then
American citizens would still have the personal right to keep
and bear arms -- guaranteed by the Second Ammendment AND
by the rest of the Constitution even if the 2nd did not exist.
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"Wikersham" <t...@foo.com> wrote in message
news:tuhbluk94r5eip678...@4ax.com...
fundoc
Retired Cop
wrote:
>And you base this on what?
My life's work. 32 years in law enforcement, since you decided to
butt in.
>2,000,000 self defense uses of firearms annually.
And you base _this_ on what?
That's a number from a study by some academic. We've got criminals
who can sell a little dope, walk down to a their local sporting goods
store, amd have an Uzi or a Glock... we can see the people arriving in
the e-rooms every night by the ambulance-load and the best you can do
is point to some academic fantasy numbers? Bsaed on my experience,
not one out of a hundred shooting is even questionably self defense.
Of course, any time two drunks wave guns at each other, they'll both
say it was in self defense and I suspect this is what you're counting.
>
>The Police carry them because it helps prevent crime and
>deal with criminals.
Police officers have always had guns, yet people continue to commit
crimes. I don't see any panic among the criminal element. A police
officer receives thousands of hours of training and _still_ (somewhere
between 15 and 20% of the time based on the training scenarios)
occasionaly shoots an IBS.
Probably the best example came a few days ago. (Damn, I can't find
the story anymore.) A leader of one of the gun rights advocacy groups
was playing with his gun at a party and let it go off... here it is,
Bob Barr is a politician and board member of the NRA. The gun
belonged to a lobbyist. He accidentally shot out a glass door. So,
why were they playing with the gun? (Oh, they were preventing a
crime!)
And that would be funny if it weren't so pathetically typical. I like
this quote: "Nobody was in any danger. We were handling it safely..."
Had Barr been a LEO, playing with a gun and letting it discharge at a
party would have had career ending potential. We had a veteran fire
fighter do something similar in a diner about fifteen years ago and
they pink-slipped him and he was off duty when that happened...
course, it was the cop hang-out and the big shots happened to be
there.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> That's a number from a study by some academic. We've got criminals
> who can sell a little dope, walk down to a their local sporting goods
> store, amd have an Uzi or a Glock... we can see the people arriving in
> the e-rooms every night by the ambulance-load and the best you can do
> is point to some academic fantasy numbers? Bsaed on my experience,
> not one out of a hundred shooting is even questionably self defense.
So unilateral disarmament is the answer?
> Police officers have always had guns, yet people continue to commit
> crimes. I don't see any panic among the criminal element. A police
> officer receives thousands of hours of training and _still_ (somewhere
> between 15 and 20% of the time based on the training scenarios)
> occasionaly shoots an IBS.
Why should the crooks panic? There's always the unarmed population to
pick on. I doubt very seriously that a criminal would knowingly pick a
cop to rob if he had his choice.
> Probably the best example came a few days ago. (Damn, I can't find
> the story anymore.) A leader of one of the gun rights advocacy groups
> was playing with his gun at a party and let it go off... here it is,
So what does this have to do with me? *I* don't play with guns in
public and *I* have never had an AD.
> Had Barr been a LEO, playing with a gun and letting it discharge at a
> party would have had career ending potential.
So... if a cop has an AD in a moment of stupidity, should we disarm the
rest of the cops?
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
msch...@carolina.rr.com.BARF
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
Fred Klein
>
<snip>
> Guns preventing crime is like the idea that hot water freezes faster
> than cold water. There exists a narrow set of conditions under which
> a slightly warmer sample will freeze before the cooler one... but, in
> general, hot water doesn't freeze faster.
Yes, it does. Kinda. Hot water will evaporate ('steam off') much
more than cool water will. This reduces the amount of water left in
the bucket to freeze. Hot water will produce about 2/3 the amount
of ice as cool water, in less time.
Fred "IIRC" Klein
RD Thompson
news:tuhbluk94r5eip678...@4ax.com:
When it coincides with the advent of CCW just what time would you expect
them to look at? Please post all the gun control laws you wish to with the
before and after crime rates. Let's see how those laws did.
--
Sleep well tonight.........
RD (The Sandman)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/rdsandman
Just in from my financial advisor.....
If one year ago you had bought $1000 worth of Nortel, it would now be worth
$49,
with Enron, you would have $16, with Worldcom, you would have less than $5
RD Thompson
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 04:00:44 GMT, "Herb Martin" <He...@LearnQuick.Com>
> wrote:
>
>>And you base this on what?
>
> My life's work. 32 years in law enforcement, since you decided to
> butt in.
>
>>2,000,000 self defense uses of firearms annually.
>
> And you base _this_ on what?
>
> That's a number from a study by some academic.
More than that. There have been several studies on those DGUs ranging from
the NCVS at 108,000 to the LA TTimes at 3.6 million per year.
> We've got criminals
> who can sell a little dope, walk down to a their local sporting goods
> store, amd have an Uzi or a Glock...
If they are passing the background check, so what..... If not, you claim to
be a cop, what are you doing to arrest the person selling to him?
> we can see the people arriving in
> the e-rooms every night by the ambulance-load and the best you can do
> is point to some academic fantasy numbers? Bsaed on my experience,
> not one out of a hundred shooting is even questionably self defense.
We try to avoid the shootings by cops.
> Of course, any time two drunks wave guns at each other, they'll both
> say it was in self defense and I suspect this is what you're counting.
Nope.
>>The Police carry them because it helps prevent crime and
>>deal with criminals.
>
> Police officers have always had guns, yet people continue to commit
> crimes. I don't see any panic among the criminal element. A police
> officer receives thousands of hours of training
If you are claiming it is on firearms, you are full of shit. Too many
police officers don't ever fire their guns except for department
qualification.
> and _still_ (somewhere
> between 15 and 20% of the time based on the training scenarios)
> occasionaly shoots an IBS.
This is true.
> Probably the best example came a few days ago. (Damn, I can't find
> the story anymore.) A leader of one of the gun rights advocacy groups
> was playing with his gun at a party and let it go off... here it is,
> Bob Barr is a politician and board member of the NRA. The gun
> belonged to a lobbyist. He accidentally shot out a glass door. So,
> why were they playing with the gun? (Oh, they were preventing a
> crime!)
Your supposition, not ours.
> And that would be funny if it weren't so pathetically typical. I like
> this quote: "Nobody was in any danger. We were handling it safely..."
> Had Barr been a LEO, playing with a gun and letting it discharge at a
> party would have had career ending potential.
ROFLMAO!!! I have seen officers practicing fast draw against each other in
my kitchen. You have officers who end up firing their guns into the cement
for no reason while a perp was being handcuffed and nothing really said
about it.
Jubilation T. Cornpone
<msch...@carolina.rr.com.BARF> wrote:
>> Probably the best example came a few days ago. (Damn, I can't find
>> the story anymore.) A leader of one of the gun rights advocacy groups
>> was playing with his gun at a party and let it go off... here it is,
>
>
>So what does this have to do with me? *I* don't play with guns in
>public and *I* have never had an AD.
Sure, that's what they all say. Two million people claim to be out
thwarting crimes... if you ask them. They're all freaking experts,
too.
The NRA is supposedly the leading advocate of gun rights, yet they
can't even educate their own board members? Of course, it was his own
glass door that was shot out.
Just don't come along and try to get everyone to buy that ten hours in
class, $250, and a Brady check changes anyone's behavior or causes all
of the criminals to panic and leave the state.
Of the police officers who have been shot, nearly two out of five were
shot with their own weapon. Think about it!
JC
Wikersham
<rdsandman[from]@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Guns preventing crime is like the idea that hot water freezes faster
>> than cold water. There exists a narrow set of conditions under which
>> a slightly warmer sample will freeze before the cooler one... but, in
>> general, hot water doesn't freeze faster. There are some cases where
>> a gun could prevent a crime. Researchers who claim to have shown this
>> typically focus on a period when crime was dropping.
>
>When it coincides with the advent of CCW just what time would you expect
>them to look at? Please post all the gun control laws you wish to with the
>before and after crime rates. Let's see how those laws did.
"The advent of CCW"? Hah! The whole country has been CCW for nearly
two centuries.
You hear a string of shots break the quiet of an urban night.
A young girl frantically dials 911.
The ambulance arrives to find at least one person lying on the
pavement bleeding from a gunshot wound.
Now, assume you're placing a wager: the most likely explanation is:
1) An armed citizen has just prevented a crime.
2) Someone just shot a total stranger for no particular reason.
3) Some gang-bangers had a turf misunderstanding.
4) A dope dealer met a dissatisfied customer.
5) One significant other was "getting a little" on the side.
6) Somebody didn't like someone else's looks.
7) Someone was walking when confronted by a mugger; they decided to
try to draw faster than the mugger could pull the trigger.
Wikersham
<kdml...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>There exists a narrow set of conditions under which
>> a slightly warmer sample will freeze before the cooler one... but, in
>> general, hot water doesn't freeze faster.
>
>Yes, it does. Kinda. Hot water will evaporate ('steam off') much
>more than cool water will. This reduces the amount of water left in
>the bucket to freeze. Hot water will produce about 2/3 the amount
>of ice as cool water, in less time.
Utter nonsense.
You might want to look up Newton's Law of Cooling. When the
temperatures are very close, but measurably different, the warmer has
been observed to freeze first. This phenomenon has a name and a long,
convoluted explanation involving gradients and deltas which I have
never found to be of great interest. It's reproducible, but only
under laboratory conditions. If you stick a pail of hot water and a
pail of cold water in your freezer, the cold will freeze first.
V
Wikersham
<msch...@carolina.rr.com.BARF> wrote:
>> Police officers have always had guns, yet people continue to commit
>> crimes. I don't see any panic among the criminal element. A police
>> officer receives thousands of hours of training and _still_ (somewhere
>> between 15 and 20% of the time based on the training scenarios)
>> occasionaly shoots an IBS.
>
>
>Why should the crooks panic? There's always the unarmed population to
>pick on.
Something on the order of half of the people in the US have guns.
There is nothing I see to indicate that this has changed radically in
recent history. Since we've been keeping numbers, crime has ebbed and
flowed on a predictable cycle. For example, criminologists are
predicting that crime in the US will generally rise over the next
decade. If you've been watching the numbers, you can see the leading
edge of that long predicted increase happening right now.
So, what's the deal? Is the armed citizenry sleeping on the job? No.
They're the ones who commit the gun-related crimes... or don't commit
them in predictable numbers.
And there's no consensus among researchers that unarmed people are
more frequently victims. Some studies have, in fact, contradicted
that.
!Jones
<rdsandman[from]@comcast.net> wrote:
>Researchers who claim to have shown this
>> typically focus on a period when crime was dropping.
>
>When it coincides with the advent of CCW just what time would you expect
>them to look at? Please post all the gun control laws you wish to with the
>before and after crime rates. Let's see how those laws did.
There are many different bodies of gun control laws around the world.
There are many contradictory sets of numbers all claimed to represent
crime rates... many times all from government agencies. Numerous
researchers all parse the data; some of these find one trend and some
find contradictory trends.
Thus, you pick the time under evaluation. You pick the set of numbers
to use, and you pick a particular researcher to hold up as an exemplar
of statistical method... why am I not exactly amazed that his research
supports your beliefs? Someone else will choose different parameters
and claim that their findings refute yours.
Saying that gun proliferation causes fewer shootings is silly, though.
Jones
Gray Ghost
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 04:00:44 GMT, "Herb Martin" <He...@LearnQuick.Com>
> wrote:
>
>>And you base this on what?
>
> My life's work. 32 years in law enforcement, since you decided to
> butt in.
>
>>2,000,000 self defense uses of firearms annually.
>
> And you base _this_ on what?
>
> That's a number from a study by some academic. We've got criminals
> who can sell a little dope, walk down to a their local sporting goods
> store, amd have an Uzi or a Glock... we can see the people arriving in
Really and what big city is it that allows citizens toi buy handguns, New
York City, Washington, DC, Chicago? Without a waiting period and
background check. I'm still looking for a gun store in DC. Or that sells
guns to convicted criminals (you did say crimianls). And by Uzi are you
trying to infer a gasp automatic weapon. Well gee what sporitng goods
store in a big city sells Class 3s over the counter with no background
check?
Buzzzzzz!. No sorry. But thanks for playing. If you really are a cop,
you're a desk jockey/political hack poofster. I've met your kind before.
Like at a debate in Richmond a few years ago. The Richmond PD had it's
assigned sock puppet Major Bennet there with a table for of "evil assualt
weapons" (Trademark pending). A little conversation reveals that no the
guns weren;t form the evidence room, they had to go around to strores
outside the city and "borrow" them for the display. Or the dipshit Lt
from Norfolk(?) who was waving around an SKS in a Legislative committee
hearing, turns out ther had been no crimes committed with SKSs, they just
looked scary.
Fuck you, serve and protect what you hack?
> the e-rooms every night by the ambulance-load and the best you can do
Who gives a fuck. Let the gangsters kill each other off.
> is point to some academic fantasy numbers? Bsaed on my experience,
> not one out of a hundred shooting is even questionably self defense.
Well duh, how many law abiding citizens in your foul city are weven
allowed to have a gun let alone carry it. If the only people with guns
are the bad guys then DUH! suprise! about who gets shot and why. What a
f**king joke.
> Of course, any time two drunks wave guns at each other, they'll both
> say it was in self defense and I suspect this is what you're counting.
Where they drunk cops?
--
Frank
"...flying a plane while smashed should be legal too."
-Pride of America, 8/6/02
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
Sigmund Freud, "General Introduction to Psychoanlysis", 1952
I guess that explains Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Gary Condit.
Gray Ghost
What does that have to do woth anything. Cops are required to engage,
civillians are not. Cops are much more likely to mix it up with a dangerous
felon than a civvie is. What would be your point?
>
> JC
>
In Virginia the requiren=ments to get a CCW are tougher than to be a cop.
You can have violent felonies and still be a cop.
Gray Ghost
news:b7adlu4qpl3a8c7rq...@4ax.com:
So bad guys are deliberating robbing armed civilians. You will have to post
specific refs to your studies.
Gray Ghost
news:na8dlusf3lc71ioo1...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:42:51 GMT, RD Thompson
><rdsandman[from]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Guns preventing crime is like the idea that hot water freezes faster
>>> than cold water. There exists a narrow set of conditions under which
>>> a slightly warmer sample will freeze before the cooler one... but, in
>>> general, hot water doesn't freeze faster. There are some cases where
>>> a gun could prevent a crime. Researchers who claim to have shown
>>> this typically focus on a period when crime was dropping.
>>
>>When it coincides with the advent of CCW just what time would you
>>expect them to look at? Please post all the gun control laws you wish
>>to with the before and after crime rates. Let's see how those laws
>>did.
>
> "The advent of CCW"? Hah! The whole country has been CCW for nearly
> two centuries.
>
> You hear a string of shots break the quiet of an urban night.
>
> A young girl frantically dials 911.
>
> The ambulance arrives to find at least one person lying on the
> pavement bleeding from a gunshot wound.
>
> Now, assume you're placing a wager: the most likely explanation is:
>
> 1) An armed citizen has just prevented a crime.
Good for him.
> 2) Someone just shot a total stranger for no particular reason.
Really? Happens all the time in my neighborhood.
>
> 3) Some gang-bangers had a turf misunderstanding.
Criminals who noone is going to miss. And crimianls inpossesion. Guess
tthose tough urban gun control laws ain't to effective.
>
> 4) A dope dealer met a dissatisfied customer.
Criminals who noone is going to miss. And crimianls inpossesion. Guess
tthose tough urban gun control laws ain't to effective.
>
> 5) One significant other was "getting a little" on the side.
Really? Happens all the time in my neighborhood.
>
> 6) Somebody didn't like someone else's looks.
Really? Happens all the time in my neighborhood.
>
> 7) Someone was walking when confronted by a mugger; they decided to
> try to draw faster than the mugger could pull the trigger.
Really? Happens all the time in my neighborhood.
>
Who reminds you to breath every 12 seconds?
Herb Martin
>
> My life's work. 32 years in law enforcement, since you decided to
> butt in.
Well, then you need to write up your finding in a scholarly
journal and include your methodology so that it can be
critiqued.
> >2,000,000 self defense uses of firearms annually.
>
> And you base _this_ on what?
Anyone who reads this group regularly knows of this research.
Lott. "More Guns, Less Crime."
> That's a number from a study by some academic. We've got criminals
> who can sell a little dope, walk down to a their local sporting goods
> store, amd have an Uzi or a Glock... we can see the people arriving in
If they are criminals, they cannot do this. The Brady law
forbids felons and some others from purchasing firearms
in this manner.
If you mean you "think" they are criminals, then this just shows
you are unqualified to be a law enforcement officer. You must
prove they are criminals.
> not one out of a hundred shooting is even questionably self defense.
> Of course, any time two drunks wave guns at each other, they'll both
> say it was in self defense and I suspect this is what you're counting.
You haven't read the research obviously. Get a clue, then
come back.
> officer receives thousands of hours of training and _still_ (somewhere
> between 15 and 20% of the time based on the training scenarios)
This is highly doubtful. I don't think you are intentionally lying but
probably just overestimating.
Most police receive no where near "1000's of hours" of any meaningful
training. Oh, they may 'ride with a training officer' for around a 1000
hours, this isn't really "training" and it isn't "1000s" plural.
> And that would be funny if it weren't so pathetically typical. I like
> this quote: "Nobody was in any danger. We were handling it safely..."
> Had Barr been a LEO, playing with a gun and letting it discharge at a
> party would have had career ending potential. We had a veteran fire
> fighter do something similar in a diner about fifteen years ago and
> they pink-slipped him and he was off duty when that happened...
> course, it was the cop hang-out and the big shots happened to be
> there.
We agree on this part. Since 'we' don't get to decide Barr's
career, that is for his constituents as a group, we cannot directly
affect him. As to Widener, if it was HIS fault as he claims, he should
never again be allowed a public position with the NRA or any firearms
or 2nd ammendment organization.
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"Retired Cop" <retc...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pcnclusrkj40r358n...@4ax.com...
!Jones
wrote:
>> >2,000,000 self defense uses of firearms annually.
>>
>> And you base _this_ on what?
>
>Anyone who reads this group regularly knows of this research.
>Lott. "More Guns, Less Crime."
Actually, the reference is probably Kleck... and contradicted by
Kellerman. Isn't that 2,000,000 number Kleck?
Jones
Gray Ghost
news:ohqdlu0aqa890jfae...@4ax.com:
Don't quote Kellerman. He's about as respectable as Harrison.
Retired Cop
>Fuck you, serve and protect what you hack?
>
>> the e-rooms every night by the ambulance-load and the best you can do
>
>Who gives a fuck. Let the gangsters kill each other off.
>
>> is point to some academic fantasy numbers? Bsaed on my experience,
>> not one out of a hundred shooting is even questionably self defense.
>
>What a f**king joke.
>
>> Of course, any time two drunks wave guns at each other, they'll both
>> say it was in self defense and I suspect this is what you're counting.
>
>Where they drunk cops?
Headers trimmed
Well, I guess I'd better watch the headers a little more closely. I
didn't realize that someone had cross-posted the thread to the gun
loons. It should have caught my attention when the quality of the
dialog suddenly disintegrated into the monosyllabic grunts and
name-calling that passes for intelligent discourse over there, though.
Sorry, guys. Keep your guns clean, now.
Bye.
Joseph Lovell
Gray Ghost wrote:
>
> Jubilation T. Cornpone <j...@myob.com> wrote in
> news:227dlug6epg58i0r3...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:45:39 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> ><msch...@carolina.rr.com.BARF> wrote:
> >
> >>> Probably the best example came a few days ago. (Damn, I can't find
> >>> the story anymore.) A leader of one of the gun rights advocacy groups
> >>> was playing with his gun at a party and let it go off... here it is,
> >>
> >>
> >>So what does this have to do with me? *I* don't play with guns in
> >>public and *I* have never had an AD.
> >
> > Sure, that's what they all say. Two million people claim to be out
> > thwarting crimes... if you ask them. They're all freaking experts,
> > too.
> >
> > The NRA is supposedly the leading advocate of gun rights, yet they
> > can't even educate their own board members? Of course, it was his own
> > glass door that was shot out.
> >
> > Just don't come along and try to get everyone to buy that ten hours in
> > class, $250, and a Brady check changes anyone's behavior or causes all
> > of the criminals to panic and leave the state.
> >
> > Of the police officers who have been shot, nearly two out of five were
> > shot with their own weapon. Think about it!
>
> What does that have to do woth anything. Cops are required to engage,
> civillians are not. Cops are much more likely to mix it up with a dangerous
> felon than a civvie is. What would be your point?
??????
First, cops ARE civilians. Unless we have become what the Founding
Fathers feared and teh army has taken over and now acts as the police
force.
Second, are you saying that cops are on the scene when a crime happens?
Seems like it is much more likely for the average citizen to be
confronted by a dangerous felon than it is for a cop to be. The cops
show up AFTER the crime. Yes, cops are the ones that go out later and
maybe make an arrest, but it is overwhelmingly the non-police citizen
who faces criminals day to day.
Gray Ghost
news:3D56F623...@sonic.net:
That is in the context that cops haev a duty to purse, serve warrants, etc
and therefore expose themselves to more situations directly yhan a noncop
would. On any given day I will not have a confrontation with someone, how
many will a cop have?
Yes a noncop can confront a bad guy anytime, but generally a cop will see
one or more daily.
Gray Ghost
Well if you're going to visit and make unsubstantiated remarks than you
will get slammed. Where are these drug dealers legally buying Uzi machine
carbines from Gaylans? Or Models? Without a background check. In one day.
!Jones
>>>> >2,000,000 self defense uses of firearms annually.
>>>>
>>>> And you base _this_ on what?
>>>
>>>Anyone who reads this group regularly knows of this research.
>>>Lott. "More Guns, Less Crime."
>>
>> Actually, the reference is probably Kleck... and contradicted by
>> Kellerman. Isn't that 2,000,000 number Kleck?
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>Don't quote Kellerman. He's about as respectable as Harrison.
Actually, he's pretty well respected (although, like Kleck and Lott,
criticized) in that he showed coincidence. His weakness (and, sir,
they *all* have weaknesses) is that the type of study he did can't
show causality.
Example: Applying Kellerman's method, we find that insulin is found in
homes where diabetics live. Thus we might conclude that insulin
causes diabetes. All we can say is that they coincide.
But Kellerman is widely respected as a qualitative researcher. Funny
how you manage to ignore the weaknesses of resaerch when you like its
findings. It looks to me like whether or not researchers are
respected depends more on their findings than their methods.
Jones
Edwin J. Noonan
"Wikersham" wrote...
> Guns preventing crime is like the idea that hot water freezes faster
> than cold water. There exists a narrow set of conditions under
which
> a slightly warmer sample will freeze before the cooler one... but,
in
> general, hot water doesn't freeze faster. There are some cases
where
> a gun could prevent a crime. Researchers who claim to have shown
this
> typically focus on a period when crime was dropping.
If I found myself in your "narrow set of conditions" or in one of your
"some cases", I'd rather be armed.
EJN
Joseph Lovell
(first a good natured jab at your typo - cops have a duty to "purse" -
living close to San Francisco as I do, that brings up an interesting
image)
Now, that out of the way. Cops have NO duty to do a damn thing to
protect anyone. They have the general duty to protect society as a
whole. Which could be construed to mean just being a presence on the
street to keep traffic to a reasonable speed.
Since there are a lot more crimes committed than are solved, I would say
that the ordinary citizen is still more likely to be confronted by a
criminal than a cop is. Correctional officers excepted. Well, maybe
not - after all, everyoen in prison is innocent, right?
Joseph
Gray Ghost
Oy vey you are a tough audience. I give up.
Gray Ghost
> (first a good natured jab at your typo - cops have a duty to "purse" -
> living close to San Francisco as I do, that brings up an interesting
> image)
> Now, that out of the way. Cops have NO duty to do a damn thing to
> protect anyone. They have the general duty to protect society as a
> whole. Which could be construed to mean just being a presence on the
> street to keep traffic to a reasonable speed.
> Since there are a lot more crimes committed than are solved, I would
> say that the ordinary citizen is still more likely to be confronted by
> a criminal than a cop is. Correctional officers excepted. Well, maybe
> not - after all, everyoen in prison is innocent, right?
>
> Joseph
>
>> Yes a noncop can confront a bad guy anytime, but generally a cop will
>> see one or more daily.
>>
You are correct, I am aware of that ruling you are referring to. What I am
saying is is that it is the cop's job to deal with bad guys every stinking
day. (After those real life cop shows I can understand how cops can get a
bad attitude. Look at the morons they have to deal with.) I believe that on
nay given day that is statistically much more likely for any given cop to
meet up with a bad guy that I am. But I'm bringing my Glock anyway, just in
case.
Dirk Diggler
> >"Jubilation T. Cornpone" <<j...@myob.com> wrote in message
> >news:az5k...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> >Retired Cop <retc...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message >news:<3c519CBA...@nospamhotmail.com>...
> >> Waldo wrote:
> >>
> >>"Jubilation T. Cornpone" <<j...@myob.com> wrote in message
> >>news:aitk...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >>>Oh, do give it s break. Your average "armed citizen" has something
> >>>like ten hours of training. That's barely enough to avoid shooting
> >>>themselves in the foot : ( which explains why they shoot family
> >>>members by mistake with such dismal regularity.
> >>>
> >>Whenever you answer a "shots fired" call, you always pray that you
> >>aren't going to meet one of those Vigilance assholes with his gun.
> >>Any Cop knows that the first thing is site control... get everyone disarmed.
> >>
> >>After that, you worry about who shot at whom first. Tell it to the judge.
> >>In 30 years on the job, I never saw a single clear case of self defense...
> >>Oh, a few possibles where you'd never prove it wasn't, but for every one
> >>of those, there were twenty family shootings, road rage shootings, drinking
> >>buddy shootings, and current fuck turned ex-fuck shootings.
> >>
> >
>
> than cold water.
Oh, brilliant fucking analogy there, Adam Nye The Science Guy. Lemme
guess--life is like a box of chocolates, too?
> There exists a narrow set of conditions under which
> a slightly warmer sample will freeze before the cooler one
There exists an even narrower set of conditions under which you might
make a coherent point. Be gone.
Ford Prefect
>shot with their own weapon. Think about it!
>JC
well JC, that's why I carry my own gun for protection. I've never felt it
wise to rely on the policeman for my ultimate safety.
Ford
David Lentz
"!Jones" wrote:
<snip>
> >Don't quote Kellerman. He's about as respectable as Harrison.
>
> Actually, he's pretty well respected (although, like Kleck and Lott,
> criticized) in that he showed coincidence. His weakness (and, sir,
> they *all* have weaknesses) is that the type of study he did can't
> show causality.
>
> Example: Applying Kellerman's method, we find that insulin is found in
> homes where diabetics live. Thus we might conclude that insulin
> causes diabetes. All we can say is that they coincide.
>
> But Kellerman is widely respected as a qualitative researcher. Funny
> how you manage to ignore the weaknesses of resaerch when you like its
> findings. It looks to me like whether or not researchers are
> respected depends more on their findings than their methods.
>
> Jones
Dr. Arthur Kellerman problem was one of competency, or lack
thereof same. Kellerman assumed, without any valid reason, that
guns were a pathogen. Kellerman is simply not competent in the
field, home safety, which he purported to study.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
RD Thompson
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:42:51 GMT, RD Thompson
> <rdsandman[from]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Guns preventing crime is like the idea that hot water freezes faster
>>> than cold water. There exists a narrow set of conditions under
>>> which a slightly warmer sample will freeze before the cooler one...
>>> but, in general, hot water doesn't freeze faster. There are some
>>> cases where a gun could prevent a crime. Researchers who claim to
>>> have shown this typically focus on a period when crime was dropping.
>>
>>When it coincides with the advent of CCW just what time would you
>>expect them to look at? Please post all the gun control laws you wish
>>to with the before and after crime rates. Let's see how those laws
>>did.
>
> "The advent of CCW"? Hah! The whole country has been CCW for nearly
> two centuries.
Which country are you speaking of? Not the US.
> You hear a string of shots break the quiet of an urban night.
>
> A young girl frantically dials 911.
>
> The ambulance arrives to find at least one person lying on the
> pavement bleeding from a gunshot wound.
>
> Now, assume you're placing a wager: the most likely explanation is:
>
> 1) An armed citizen has just prevented a crime.
>
> 2) Someone just shot a total stranger for no particular reason.
>
> 3) Some gang-bangers had a turf misunderstanding.
>
> 4) A dope dealer met a dissatisfied customer.
>
> 5) One significant other was "getting a little" on the side.
>
> 6) Somebody didn't like someone else's looks.
>
> 7) Someone was walking when confronted by a mugger; they decided to
> try to draw faster than the mugger could pull the trigger.
>
Unortunately the most common answer is 3 followed by 5.
RD Thompson
news:gsbdlu4924v3o9sib...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:42:51 GMT, RD Thompson
> <rdsandman[from]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Researchers who claim to have shown this
>>> typically focus on a period when crime was dropping.
>>
>>When it coincides with the advent of CCW just what time would you
>>expect them to look at? Please post all the gun control laws you wish
>>to with the before and after crime rates. Let's see how those laws
>>did.
>
> There are many different bodies of gun control laws around the world.
> There are many contradictory sets of numbers all claimed to represent
> crime rates... many times all from government agencies. Numerous
> researchers all parse the data; some of these find one trend and some
> find contradictory trends.
Yep.
> Thus, you pick the time under evaluation. You pick the set of numbers
> to use, and you pick a particular researcher to hold up as an exemplar
> of statistical method... why am I not exactly amazed that his research
> supports your beliefs? Someone else will choose different parameters
> and claim that their findings refute yours.
Also true.
> Saying that gun proliferation causes fewer shootings is silly, though.
A claim I have not made.
Fred Klein
>
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:31:00 GMT, Fred Klein
> <kdml...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >There exists a narrow set of conditions under which
> >> a slightly warmer sample will freeze before the cooler one... but, in
> >> general, hot water doesn't freeze faster.
> >
> >Yes, it does. Kinda. Hot water will evaporate ('steam off') much
> >more than cool water will. This reduces the amount of water left in
> >the bucket to freeze. Hot water will produce about 2/3 the amount
> >of ice as cool water, in less time.
>
> Utter nonsense.
Not true. Try looking at
http://www.urbanlegends.com/science/hot_water_freezes_faster.html
It says, in part:
The cooling of pails without lids is partly Newtonian and partly by
evaporation of the contents. The proportions depend on the walls and
on temperature. At sufficiently high temperatures evaporation is
more important. If equal masses of water are taken at two starting
temperatures, more rapid evaporation from the hotter one may
diminish its mass enough to compensate for the greater temperature
range it must cover to reach freezing. The mass lost when cooling is
by evaporation is not negligible. In one experiment, water cooling
from 100C lost 16% of its mass by 0C, and lost a further 12% on
freezing, for a total loss of 26%.
The cooling effect of evaporation is twofold. First, mass is carried
off so that less needs to be cooled from then on. Also, evaporation
carries off the hottest molecules, lowering considerably the average
kinetic energy of the molecules remaining. This is why "blowing on
your soup" cools it. It encourages evaporation by removing the water
vapor above the soup.
Thus experiment and theory agree that hot water freezes faster than
cold for sufficiently high starting temperatures, if the cooling is
by evaporation. Cooling in a wooden pail or barrel is mostly by
evaporation. In fact, a wooden bucket of water starting at 100C
would finish freezing in 90% of the time taken by an equal volume
starting at room temperature. The folklore on this matter may well
have started a century or more ago when wooden pails were usual.
Considerable heat is transferred through the sides of metal pails,
and evaporation no longer dominates the cooling, so the belief is
unlikely to have started from correct observations after metal pails
became common.
Fred Klein
RD Thompson
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:45:39 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <msch...@carolina.rr.com.BARF> wrote:
>
>>> Probably the best example came a few days ago. (Damn, I can't find
>>> the story anymore.) A leader of one of the gun rights advocacy groups
>>> was playing with his gun at a party and let it go off... here it is,
>>
>>
>>So what does this have to do with me? *I* don't play with guns in
>>public and *I* have never had an AD.
>
> Sure, that's what they all say. Two million people claim to be out
> thwarting crimes... if you ask them. They're all freaking experts,
> too.
Hmmmm, I am not one of those. Apparently they do exist however, since
surveys keep finding them.
> The NRA is supposedly the leading advocate of gun rights, yet they
> can't even educate their own board members? Of course, it was his own
> glass door that was shot out.
Not everyone should have a gun.
> Just don't come along and try to get everyone to buy that ten hours in
> class, $250, and a Brady check changes anyone's behavior or causes all
> of the criminals to panic and leave the state.
No one is claiming that.
> Of the police officers who have been shot, nearly two out of five were
> shot with their own weapon. Think about it!
Hmmm, perhaps they are attempting to arrest someone.....we are not. The
conditions are different when you look at CCW versus LEOs.
RD Thompson
The term 'civilians' is one that is used by many LEOs and non-LEOs to
simply distinguish which one is the subject of the sentence. I doubt that
very many attach much more meaning to it in normal conversation. I also
know that many of the things that bother cops, most 'civilians' do not
understand although many CCW folks come closer.
> Second, are you saying that cops are on the scene when a crime
> happens? Seems like it is much more likely for the average citizen to
> be confronted by a dangerous felon than it is for a cop to be. The
> cops show up AFTER the crime. Yes, cops are the ones that go out
> later and maybe make an arrest, but it is overwhelmingly the
> non-police citizen who faces criminals day to day.
Nope. It is the non-police citizen who is most likely to be a *victim* of
criminals, but the police do interface with them every single day.
something that most non-LEOs do not do unless they are members of the
court.
RD Thompson
Au contraire, mon ami. Do not try to read more into that Supreme Court
decision than is there. The police do not have the responsibility to
protect individuals from all that can happen to them, but they *DO* have a
responsibility to address crimes in progress. That means that they are not
required to follow you around town to protect you, personally, but if they
come on the a scene where you are being mugged, yes, they do have the
responsibility to step in and adress the problem.
> Since there are a lot more crimes committed than are solved, I would
> say that the ordinary citizen is still more likely to be confronted by
> a criminal than a cop is. , right?
Wrong. Again, a nonLEO will be more often in the mode of a victim than a
cop will, however that is not the only interface with the criminal element.
Citizens do not have to make arrests everyday.....or get involved in
stopping a bar fight....or participate in a drug bust....or patrol the
streets, etc...
RD Thompson
>>Where they drunk cops?
>
> Headers trimmed
>
> Well, I guess I'd better watch the headers a little more closely. I
> didn't realize that someone had cross-posted the thread to the gun
> loons. It should have caught my attention when the quality of the
> dialog suddenly disintegrated into the monosyllabic grunts and
> name-calling that passes for intelligent discourse over there, though.
>
> Sorry, guys. Keep your guns clean, now.
>
> Bye.
>
IOW, you would rather voice your bullshit where you won't get caught. :^)
RD Thompson
news:ohqdlu0aqa890jfae...@4ax.com:
Where did Kellerman contradict it. I thought the published contradiction to
Kleck was Ludwig and Cook.
!Jones
wrote:
>> Actually, he's pretty well respected (although, like Kleck and Lott,
>> criticized) in that he showed coincidence. His weakness (and, sir,
>> they *all* have weaknesses) is that the type of study he did can't
>> show causality.
>
>Dr. Arthur Kellerman problem was one of competency, or lack
>thereof same. Kellerman assumed, without any valid reason, that
>guns were a pathogen. Kellerman is simply not competent in the
>field, home safety, which he purported to study.
This posting is a good example of "Usenet myopia". Notice the subtle
shift from a substantive discussion of the study's strengths and
weaknesses, to: "Kellerman is simply not competent..."
Although the Charlton Heston stuff was weak beyond salvage, the pro
side of this one seems to be quicker on the uptake with the ad hominem
approach to debate.
David, address the particular points of the work (it'll help if
you'll read it first), not your opinion of the author. Remember that
all studies have their strong points (Kellerman counted actual,
discreet, provable events, as opposed to someone's belief or existing
data of unknown quality) and their weak points (he tries to draw a
stronger conclusion than the study will support.) Don't be too quick
to trash a study based on your perception of the author's standing in
the field... remember, Lott is an economist, yet you praise his work.
(Of course, people will pay a great deal of money to hear expounded
that which they already believe.)
Jones
Joseph Lovell
RD Thompson wrote:
>
> Joseph Lovell <sub...@sonic.net> wrote in
>
>
>
> Au contraire, mon ami. Do not try to read more into that Supreme Court
> decision than is there. The police do not have the responsibility to
> protect individuals from all that can happen to them, but they *DO* have a
> responsibility to address crimes in progress. That means that they are not
> required to follow you around town to protect you, personally, but if they
> come on the a scene where you are being mugged, yes, they do have the
> responsibility to step in and adress the problem.
>
But, if I recall one of the court decisions correctly, a cop is not
required to place his life in danger to protect you. Which again puts
the burden of self protection on the individual, not the cops.
Herb Martin
> decision than is there. The police do not have the responsibility to
> protect individuals from all that can happen to them, but they *DO* have a
> responsibility to address crimes in progress. That means that they are
not
> required to follow you around town to protect you, personally, but if they
> come on the a scene where you are being mugged, yes, they do have the
> responsibility to step in and adress the problem.
Get you facts straight. This "address crimes in progress" is
precisely what they were found to have no enforcable duty
to do.
They were called -- and indicated they would respond -- multiple
times over many hours and yet did NOT "address this crime in
progress."
Even if police HAD a legal responsibility -- many of them do
individually accept an ethical responsibility -- they have no
physical capability to intervene in the vast majority of violent
crime until the danger has passed.
This is just a practical necessity of most situations.
> Wrong. Again, a nonLEO will be more often in the mode of a victim than a
> cop will, however that is not the only interface with the criminal
element.
And why should this remain the case? Why should people remain
in the "mode of the victim"?
You haven't even shown evidence for this 'mode' but part of the point
of concealed carry is to LEAVE the mode of the victim and remain
in the mode of the safe.
> Citizens do not have to make arrests everyday.....or get involved in
> stopping a bar fight....or participate in a drug bust....or patrol the
> streets, etc...
No. And British cops do much of this without firearms so what?
A citizen has the right to self-defense and defense of family,
friends, community, and nation.
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"RD Thompson" <rdsandman[from]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9268A7E1...@216.166.71.239...
David Lentz
Subtle, my ass.
Arthur Kellerman was, and I presume, remains incompetent to study
the subject he attempted to study. For evidence consider where
Kellerman's study was published, the New England Journal of
Medicine. Could Kellerman not find a journal dealing with home
safety to publish his study or did he not even try? I say the
latter. Guns are not a pathogen. So studying guns as if they
were pathogen is a useless activity.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
RD Thompson
>
>
> RD Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Joseph Lovell <sub...@sonic.net> wrote in
>> news:3D574684...@sonic.net:
>>
>>
>>
>> Au contraire, mon ami. Do not try to read more into that Supreme
>> Court decision than is there. The police do not have the
>> responsibility to protect individuals from all that can happen to
>> them, but they *DO* have a responsibility to address crimes in
>> progress. That means that they are not required to follow you around
>> town to protect you, personally, but if they come on the a scene
>> where you are being mugged, yes, they do have the responsibility to
>> step in and adress the problem.
>>
> But, if I recall one of the court decisions correctly, a cop is not
> required to place his life in danger to protect you. Which again puts
> the burden of self protection on the individual, not the cops.
You will have to post that cite....I must have missed it.
RD Thompson
news:N1Z59.81788$Yd.36...@twister.austin.rr.com:
>> Au contraire, mon ami. Do not try to read more into that Supreme
>> Court decision than is there. The police do not have the
>> responsibility to protect individuals from all that can happen to
>> them, but they *DO* have a responsibility to address crimes in
>> progress. That means that they are
> not
>> required to follow you around town to protect you, personally, but if
>> they come on the a scene where you are being mugged, yes, they do
>> have the responsibility to step in and adress the problem.
>
> Get you facts straight. This "address crimes in progress" is
> precisely what they were found to have no enforcable duty
> to do.
Post a cite, Herb. The Supreme Court case stated that they had no duty to
protect individual citizens like a body guard. I have not seen a court
case where a cop can simply walk away from a crime he witnesses in
progress.
> They were called -- and indicated they would respond -- multiple
> times over many hours and yet did NOT "address this crime in
> progress."
>
> Even if police HAD a legal responsibility -- many of them do
> individually accept an ethical responsibility -- they have no
> physical capability to intervene in the vast majority of violent
> crime until the danger has passed.
This is true if they are called. The example I used was a mugging in
progress that the cop witnessed.
> This is just a practical necessity of most situations.
>
>> Wrong. Again, a nonLEO will be more often in the mode of a victim
>> than a cop will, however that is not the only interface with the
>> criminal
> element.
>
> And why should this remain the case? Why should people remain
> in the "mode of the victim"?
Huh? WTF are you babbling about? No one is saying that people should
remain "in the mode of the victim". The point was that normal citizens
become a victim more often than a uniformed cop. That is usually the role
that citizens fulfill when they interface with criminals. Cops have to
interface with criminals under many other conditions that citizens do not.
> You haven't even shown evidence for this 'mode' but part of the point
> of concealed carry is to LEAVE the mode of the victim and remain
> in the mode of the safe.
No shit. That was not even the subject.
>> Citizens do not have to make arrests everyday.....or get involved in
>> stopping a bar fight....or participate in a drug bust....or patrol
>> the streets, etc...
>
> No. And British cops do much of this without firearms so what?
So?? What's your point? No one is saying that the cops had to use
firearms.
> A citizen has the right to self-defense and defense of family,
> friends, community, and nation.
Finally, something we can agree on, although it has nothing to do with what
I posted in this thread.
--
Sleep well tonight.........
RD (The Sandman)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/rdsandman
Whether a gun is used to save a life or to illegally
take one, the only difference is whose hands are
in control of that gun. The gun itself is neutral.
!Jones
wrote:
>Subtle, my ass.
>
>Arthur Kellerman was, and I presume, remains incompetent to study
>the subject he attempted to study. For evidence consider where
>Kellerman's study was published, the New England Journal of
>Medicine. Could Kellerman not find a journal dealing with home
>safety to publish his study or did he not even try? I say the
>latter. Guns are not a pathogen. So studying guns as if they
>were pathogen is a useless activity.
By that logic, Lott (an economist) isn't competent to study the field
either... the antis are quite quick to point out his funding source,
BTW. (Oh, with *perfect* Usenet myopia, you will defend Lott, I'm
sure.)
Would any of my writing be published in the New England Journal of
Medicine, I would probably have an uncontrolled orgasm. In terms of
name recognition, peer review, and general scholastic rigor, that one
is right at the top. The NEJM is to Kellerman's field (behavirol
science) as the Journal of Higher Education is to teachers, as the
American Rifleman is to the pro gun side of the debate, as the Rolling
Stone is to rock music. (And I keep getting richer, but I can't get
my picture *on the COVER OF THE ROLLING STOOOOONE*!)
Try again. The study has its weak points. Consider addressing the
actual points instead of carping about the moral quality of the author
for daring to gore your sacred cow.
Jones
David Williamson
wrote:
>> Guns preventing crime is like the idea that hot water freezes faster
>> than cold water.
>
>Oh, brilliant fucking analogy there, Adam Nye The Science Guy. Lemme
>guess--life is like a box of chocolates, too?
>
>> There exists a narrow set of conditions under which
>> a slightly warmer sample will freeze before the cooler one
>
>There exists an even narrower set of conditions under which you might
>make a coherent point. Be gone.
Hey! Way to go there, Dirk! Are you by any chance aware that your
opinion (shit) stinks just as badly as the next guy's does? But
really, we just hang on your every word, we do! No bullshit, pal, we
really like your scathing "rebuttal" and your demands that others
cease posting.
Had you actually read what the person said, then you would have seen
that this person never intended to post to your group.
David Lentz
"!Jones" wrote:
<snip>
There is no evidence which would suggest that guns are
pathogens. Therefore a study, Kellerman's, which study guns as
if they were pathogens is bogus.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Joseph Lovell
David Lentz wrote:
>
>
> There is no evidence which would suggest that guns are
> pathogens. Therefore a study, Kellerman's, which study guns as
> if they were pathogens is bogus.
>
> David
Don't you know that guns get passed from person to person and the soon
everyone has one, just like colds.
Mary Rosh
I am disappointed with you. I thought that you were going to be more
skeptical of the claims made by the gun control organizations against
Lott. No myopia is required here.
He has served as chief economist of the United States Sentencing
Commission and, at least when I had his class in the early 1990s, he
had published many dozens of important papers in top journals on
crime.
!Jones
wrote:
>
>
>There is no evidence which would suggest that guns are
>pathogens. Therefore a study, Kellerman's, which study guns as
>if they were pathogens is bogus.
Let's boil down your logic (I know, I know, he hasn't thus far been
responsive to logic... humor me for one last try), essentially, you
say, "Here's my opinion. Any study which is inconsistent with my
opinion is bogus." The AMA treats guns thus. (Before I set anyone
off on a tirade, let me say that I tend to disagree with the AMA on
this point.) Nonetheless, there are many highly educated
professionals who would disagree with your first sentence.
Kellerman is a behavioral scientist who accepts the premise that
shooting a family member is pathological behavior. It is a weak
attack on a study to focus only on the premises and then call the
researcher "incompetent". Are you suggesting that the Dallas man who
shot his family last week was not behaving pathologically?
Jones
Jones
Joseph Lovell
But was the gun a pathogen? Did it somehow infect the guy?
Would it have been different if he had firebombed the house or slashed
their throats? Would then matches or knives be pathogens?
!Jones
>> By that logic, Lott (an economist) isn't competent to study the field
>> either... the antis are quite quick to point out his funding source,
>> BTW. (Oh, with *perfect* Usenet myopia, you will defend Lott, I'm
>> sure.)
>>
>
>I am disappointed with you. I thought that you were going to be more
>skeptical of the claims made by the gun control organizations against
>Lott. No myopia is required here.
Mary, you didn't read very carefully. I'm comparing what I consider
to be a weak argument presented by another to the anti arguments
against Lott and I'm obviously unimpressed with that person's
position... thus, a fairly high degree of skepticism on my part is
implicit.
Actually, Lott is stronger than I expected him to be. He hasn't ruled
out all other variables yet, and I doubt he will... but, then, I
haven't finished reading. He shows a good correlation, but then, the
price of rum in Havanna correlates with salaries of Protestant
preachers in Boston over the last century. (*Statistical Theory*, 4th
Ed, Lindgren, B.W. 2001)
Something can ge factual, but if I simply accept it because that's
what I already believe, then truth doesn't matter.
Jones
!Jones
wrote:
The AMA treats aggressive driving as pathological. Do you have an
issue with that?
Jones
David Lentz
"!Jones" wrote:
<snip>
For my purposes you misspelled incompetent quack. My criticism
of Arthur Kellerman is of his methodology. Likewise I criticize
Kellerman's publisher, the New England Journal of Medicine, and
his fundinug source, the Center for Disease Control for the same
mistake attempting to study a non pathogen, guns, and pretending
the conclusion has any validity.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Joseph Lovell
Only if it has the premise that cars cause the aggression. If it looks
at aggression as coming from the person, fine. If it says that an
inanimate object causes people to be aggressive then it needs to get a
new batch of experts and stop dabbling in anamistic shamanism.
RD Thompson
news:35mjlu0br2i736k55...@4ax.com:
That is the driving that they are treating that way, not the automobile
itself. To use the automobile in the studies would be saying that more
automobile fatalities occur where cars are used than where they are not.
Duh!!
I have no problem with the AMa or anyone else studying the misuse of
automobiles or firearms anytime they wish and publishing their result. I
do have a problem with pointing out the firearm or the automobile as the
*CAUSE* of that misuse. That is like saying that Diet Colas cause obesity.
RD Thompson
news:lekjluolh7hc4bqgi...@4ax.com:
> Kellerman is a behavioral scientist who accepts the premise that
> shooting a family member is pathological behavior. It is a weak
> attack on a study to focus only on the premises and then call the
> researcher "incompetent". Are you suggesting that the Dallas man who
> shot his family last week was not behaving pathologically?
>
I have no problem with Kellerman *IF* he places the blame where it
belongs...on the thinking organism in the study. That is NOT the firearm.
!Jones
wrote:
>> Kellerman is a behavioral scientist who accepts the premise that
>> shooting a family member is pathological behavior. It is a weak
>> attack on a study to focus only on the premises and then call the
>> researcher "incompetent". Are you suggesting that the Dallas man who
>> shot his family last week was not behaving pathologically?
>
>But was the gun a pathogen? Did it somehow infect the guy?
>Would it have been different if he had firebombed the house or slashed
>their throats? Would then matches or knives be pathogens?
I never suggested that it/they was/were. I never argued that
Kellerman was *right*. I never suggested that you couldn't disagree
with the study. You said that, because he disagreed with you, he was,
therefore, incompetent. There exists much research with which I
disagree... that alone does not make the authors imcompetent.
Jones
!Jones
wrote:
>> Kellerman is a behavioral scientist who accepts the premise that
>> shooting a family member is pathological behavior. It is a weak
>> attack on a study to focus only on the premises and then call the
>> researcher "incompetent". Are you suggesting that the Dallas man who
>> shot his family last week was not behaving pathologically?
>>
>> Jones
>
>For my purposes you misspelled incompetent quack.
Do you mean:
For my purposes you misspelled "incompetent quack".
... or perhaps:
For my purposes you misspelled "incompetent", quack.
If you're going to "grammar troll" me, then at least punctuate the
sentence correctly.
>My criticism of Arthur Kellerman is of his methodology.
No kidding? Most criticism of Kellerman suggests that his conclusions
don't follow from his methodology. What, specifically, is your issue
therein?
>Likewise I criticize
>Kellerman's publisher, the New England Journal of Medicine, and
>his fundinug source, the Center for Disease Control for the same
>mistake attempting to study a non pathogen, guns, and pretending
>the conclusion has any validity.
Oh, no! Not *that* one again! Shall we then drag out Lott, Olin and
all of that stuff? (Forgive me, Mary Rosh... but I *am* being
skeptical here.)
Guys, the funding source isn't a valid criticism of the study. If
(and only if) you claim it is, then I'll wave Lott... but you can't
attack Lott based on that... therefore...
(Why am I shooting this fish in a bucket? He probably won't even know
he's shot.)
Jones
David Lentz
Can you present any evidence that guns are pathogens? If not, I
say no more.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Joseph Lovell
Actually, that was someone else who suggested that he was imcompetent.
I do question the motives (or maybe the intelegence) of someone who
starts off a study with the assumtion that ANY inanimate object is a
microbe of some sort (disease causing agent - definition from the OED).
!Jones
wrote:
>> I never suggested that it/they was/were. I never argued that
>> Kellerman was *right*. I never suggested that you couldn't disagree
>> with the study. You said that, because he disagreed with you, he was,
>> therefore, incompetent. There exists much research with which I
>> disagree... that alone does not make the authors imcompetent.
>>
>> Jones
>Actually, that was someone else who suggested that he was imcompetent.
Yes, thank you for correcting my error. I regret mis-attributing
statements to you... such was not deliberate, I assure you.
Jones
Joseph Lovell
These things happen. With all the quote and partial quotes and
responses it can be a bit difficult to keep track of who said what.
Joseph
!Jones
wrote:
I never said they were. I'm not claiming that I think the AMA's
terminology is right. That's Kellerman's premise; his conclusions
follow (sort of) from his premises and his data. Personally, I think
he tries to go too far and over reaches the limitations of his study.
On the other hand, he has some valid points that an intelligent person
considering acquiring a gun should reconcile, that's all.
His point is that homes where guns are present tend to have an
elevated risk of gunshot injury. If you think about it, that's not
exactly an earth shaking discovery; homes with pools will have an
elevated risk of drownings; homes with motorcycles will acquire a
greater risk of motorcycle accidents, and so on.
As I indicated above, he tried to make a much stronger statement than
his data support by claiming causality... it may be so, but his type
of study can't show that. *That* is the point of criticism, not the
author's competence.
Jones