How to get shot
Cliff
[
Packing heat gets you shot, say profs
Likelihood of cold dead fingers rises with gun ownership
]
[
Medical researchers in Philadelphia have conducted out a study which indicates -
according to their interpretation - that carrying a gun causes people to get
shot more often. "People should rethink their possession of guns," say the
medics.
�This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are
protective or perilous,� says University of Pennsylvania epidemiology prof
Charles Branas. The Penn announcement is headlined "Gun Possession [is] of
questionable value in an Assault
]
[
The Penn researchers carried out their study by randomly selecting 677 people in
Philadelphia who had been shot in "assaults".
]
[
According to the profs, six per cent of the shooting victims were packing heat
when they got plugged. They compared that to a control sample of Philadelphians
who had not been shot, and concluded that "people with a gun were 4.5 times more
likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun".
The research techniques used were the same as those previously used "to
establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and
car crashes". The message is: you smoke, you'll get cancer; you drive drunk,
you'll crash your car; carry a gun, you'll get shot.
]
Fred B. Brown
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:u3djc5tg12ohisf58...@4ax.com...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/04/guns_attract_bullets/
> [
> Packing heat gets you shot, say profs
> Likelihood of cold dead fingers rises with gun ownership
Stay out of drug infested areas and you won't get shot.
> [
> Medical researchers in Philadelphia have conducted out a study which
> indicates -
> according to their interpretation - that carrying a gun causes people to
> get
> shot more often. "People should rethink their possession of guns," say the
> medics.
>
> "This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are
> protective or perilous," says University of Pennsylvania epidemiology prof
> Charles Branas. The Penn announcement is headlined "Gun Possession [is] of
> questionable value in an Assault
Sara Brady has been pedaling that nonsense for years.
> [
> The Penn researchers carried out their study by randomly selecting 677
> people in
> Philadelphia who had been shot in "assaults".
677 of Phillys most sterling citizens I'm sure. All probably had rap sheeta
a yard long.
> [
> According to the profs, six per cent of the shooting victims were packing
> heat
> when they got plugged. They compared that to a control sample of
> Philadelphians
> who had not been shot, and concluded that "people with a gun were 4.5
> times more
> likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun".
>
> The research techniques used were the same as those previously used "to
> establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking
> and
> car crashes". The message is: you smoke, you'll get cancer; you drive
> drunk,
> you'll crash your car; carry a gun, you'll get shot.
I have carried one for years without getting shot.
MagneticEnergy
maybe those people were packing a gun because they lived in a bad
area, which would explain the increased number of shootings? Have you
ever been to some of the burroughs of Philadelphia? I'd pack a dang
gun too, that's one scary place. You think Rocky came from Philly
because of the sandwiches?
Gunner Asch
wrote:
http://actionamerica.org/guns/gun-web-widget.shtml
ohn Gaver
June 2, 2009
John GaverAfter many requests from our readers (and a lot of
procrastination, on my part), ActionAmerica.org has released a web
version of our very popular Macintosh Dashboard widget, the Gun
Self-Defense Counter, in Flash format. Actually, to make up for the
delay, this web version adds a little more data than is currently
available on the Dashboard version.
The Gun Self-Defense Counter web widget not only counts the number of
times that guns have been used in self defense, since the beginning of
the year, but for comparison, it also counts accidental gun deaths, gun
homicides and gun suicides. Then, to place all of those numbers into
perspective, it counts the number of times that people have died from
falling, since the first of the year.
This leads to some interesting findings. For example, guns are used
roughly 60 times more often to protect and innocent life, than to take a
life (innocent or otherwise). Another fact that it exposes is that you
are more likely to die from falling (20,823), than from a gun homicide
(12,791) or an accidental gun-shot wound (642).
ActionAmerica.org encourages you to share this widget with your friends,
by placing it on your web site, in the signature of your forum postings
and on your MySpace page and other social networking sites.
To share this widget with others, just select all of the text in the
following box and copy it (Ctrl�C on a PC or Cmd�C on a Mac). Then,
paste it into the HTML code of your web site, blog or forum posting
(Ctrl�V on a PC or Cmd�V on a Mac), where you want the Gun Self-Defense
Counter to appear on that page. That's all there is to it. Note that
some blogs and forums may not allow "embed" code, though most do.
<embed src=http://ActionAmerica.org/flash/gsdCount.swf width=240
height=175 wmode=transparent type=application/x-shockwave-flash></embed>
The data used to generate the numbers that you see on the face of the
widget comes from two very reliable sources. The death rate data comes
from the Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control for 2006; the federal agency tasked with
collecting and compiling such data. The gun self-defense data comes from
a report in the The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
Northwestern University School of Law, (Fall 1995) titled, "Armed
Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a
Gun," by renowned criminologists Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz.
While we have never had anyone question the numbers from the CDC death
data, we have often had gun control advocates, who were not familiar
with the unimpeachable quality of the Klek/Gertz study, try to dismiss
the numbers from that study. So, before going any further, I would like
to point out several things, concerning that study.
One of the most telling facts, regarding that study, is that prior to
undertaking that study, one of the authors, Gary Kleck, began his career
as an opponent of private gun ownership and had published several works
to that end. But after doing his own research, he reversed his position,
to one favoring gun ownership.
In fact, there are numerous published criminologists who have, like
Kleck, changed their position over the years, to support gun ownership,
after having spent a good part of their careers writing in favor of gun
control. There are no such changes in the other direction. This leads us
to conclude that the more a criminologist learns about gun usage, the
more he is likely to oppose any form of gun control and support private
gun ownership.
Furthermore, to show just how solid Kleck's research really was, I would
like to direct you to criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang, who has
researched guns and violence for more than 25 years. Wolfgang is one of
the country's most outspoken opponents of private gun ownership. But
after reading the Kleck/Gertz study, he praised the methodology that was
used by Kleck and Gertz, in a paper titled "A Tribute to a View I Have
Opposed," published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol.
86, Issue 1 (Fall 1995), p. 188.
In that article, Wolfgang begins by saying:
"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the
criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New
World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe
even from the police."
Those are certainly not the views of your ordinary anti-gun type. This
is a man who represents the ultimate in anti-gun philosophy. But to his
credit as a researcher, he was not so proud that he would deny the
excellent methodology employed by Kleck and Gertz. He went on to say:
"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The
reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case
of methodologically sound research in support of something I have
theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense
against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the
care and caution expressed in this article and this research."
Wolfgang concludes by saying:
"The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors
exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do
not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot
fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all
objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
Principal among the facts that Wolfgang was disappointed to learn, is
that Guns are used for self-defense between 2.1 Million and 2.5 Million
times every year. The following facts from the Kleck/Gertz study, relate
directly to this fact.
*
In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will
only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
*
In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will
even wound his attacker.
*
Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
*
As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from
home.
*
Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending
themselves against sexual assault or abuse.
*
This means that guns are used 60 times more often to protect the
lives of law-abiding citizens than to take a life.
*
At an estimated 263 million US population, in 1995, when the study
was released, it also means that an average of 1 out of every 105 to 125
people that you know will use a gun for self-defense every year.
Dr. Kleck also wrote in his book titled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence
in America (Social Institutions and Social Change)" that burglars are
more than three and a half times more likely to enter an occupied home
in a gun control country than in the USA. Compare the 45% average rate
of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands with the 12.7% of the USA.
He continued to point out that armed citizens shoot and kill at least
twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606). In a
related article titled, "Are We a Nation of Cowards'?" in the November
15, 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine, George Will reported that police
are more than 5 times more likely than a civilian to shoot an innocent
person by mistake.
This is not an indictment of the police. They often live on the edge and
they deal with an element of society that has no compunction against
killing anyone, even a policeman, who gets in their way. Their training
teaches them that if they hesitate, that may be the last thing that they
ever do, whereas a civilian, will hesitate, by nature, before shooting
and that hesitation is probably what makes the difference.
While I honor the brave policemen, who all too often, have to make such
snap decisions, if a gun is pointed at me, I would much rather it be my
cautious civilian neighbor, who is pointing the gun, than a policeman,
who lives on the edge.
But, as the infomercials say, "But, wait; there's more." The Wall Street
Journal reported, in an August 28, 1996 article titled, "More Guns, Less
Violent Crime," that a University of Chicago study revealed that states
which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%,
rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. The most
impressive single statement in the University of Chicago Study, which is
an ongoing study, is the very first sentence of the Abstract on the
first page.
"Using cross-sectional time series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to
1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters
violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths." - University of
Chicago Study (1st line of Abstract)
That deserves repeating. Concealed carry deters violent crime, without
increasing accidental deaths. But, it doesn't stop there.
In fact, the data keeps piling up in favor of private gun ownership.
Even when anti-gun presidents hand-pick anti-gun researchers, to help
them prove that guns in the hands of private citizens are bad, the truth
still comes out.
A 1979 Carter Justice Department study found that of more than 32,000
attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. That number dropped to
only 3% when the woman was armed. (The term, "armed," in this case,
included women armed with either a gun or knife - mace was not included.
However, other studies show that the vast majority of armed women,
choose a gun as their armament of choice. Visit a-human-right.com for
more on women and guns.) All of this means that an unarmed woman is more
than 10 times more likely to be raped than an armed woman. Think about
it...
Even when the Clinton Justice Department hand picked noted anti-gun
criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, to conduct a study on "Guns
in America," in 1997, to undermine the Kleck study, these researchers
couldn't hide the truth. Keep in mind that these were people who were
already well known for their anti-gun positions and whose pay check was
being signed by the Clinton Justice Department, yet the lowest that they
could get the number of defensive gun uses was still more than 1.5
million times a year.
The difference is the Cook/Ludwig numbers and the Kleck/Gertz numbers is
likely related to the fact that the Kleck/Gertz researchers identified
themselves as independent researchers, with Northwestern University and
that the respondents' answers would remain anonymous, while the
Cook/Ludwig researchers identified themselves as being tied to the US
Justice Department, even showing identification that included a badge,
in personal interviews and took down all contact imformation of every
adult in the household, before comencing the survey. Do the
anti-self-defense types not see a disconnect here?
Think about it. A lot of people just don't want to admit to any agent of
the government that they carry a gun or have used a gun, especially if
they live in a state or city that restricts your right to self-defense,
with a gun. That's just one reason why we use the Kleck/Gertz numbers in
the widget.
Then compare those numbers with the various other causes of gun-related
death. In 2006 (the last year for which the data is available), there
were only 642 accidental gun deaths, 12,791 gun homicides and 16,883 gun
suicides. None of those numbers are anywhere close to significant, when
compared to the 1.5 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year that is
supported by the various studies by both pro-gun and anti-gun
researchers.
By contrast, in 2006, there were 20,823 deaths caused by falls and
27,531 accidental poisoning deaths (not including 6,109 poisoning
suicides). In fact, an interesting figure that is lumped into a larger
category in the recent data, but was tracked separately in 1998, is
deaths from falling objects.
Using slightly older data from The National Safety Council Report, "What
are the odds of dying" (2005), we can get a more granular look at some
of the specific causes of death. For example, you are more than twice as
likely to die from falling down stairs than from an accidental gun-shot.
So, why don't we hear calls to ban stairs and force everyone to use
elevators. Oh, yes. I know. It's because another 533 people died from
falling out of windows and down elevator shafts. So maybe we should ban
multi-story buildings. But, another 607 people drowned in swimming
pools. Oops. I guess we need to ban swimming pools, too. But then, 1603
people drowned in natural water. Since that's more than double the
accidental gun deaths, I suppose that we should fence off all access to
oceans, rivers and lakes.
But, here's the tough one. More people die from choking on food every
year, than die from an accidental gun-shot. We can't ban eating. But,
maybe the government can mandate that all food be in the form of baby
food, so as to prevent choking accidents.
But, if you go back to the 1998 version of that National Safety Council
Report, when the data was even more granular than today, you will find
that there were 723 people killed by falling objects. That number is
just shy of the number of accidental gun deaths in the same year. Maybe
we should all go out and buy pith helmets to wear all of our waking
hours. Is a picture beginning to develop here?
Of course, we haven't even considered deaths caused by transportation
accidents, which totaled 48,441 deaths, in 2005.
To put these numbers into even better perspective, in 2006, the total of
all injury deaths in the USA was 179,065. Of that number, 121,599 were
accidental. Of all accidental deaths, accidental gun deaths totaled only
642 or about one-half of one percent (0.5%) of all accidental injury
deaths. Maybe the people who are so worried about the very few
accidental gun deaths should worry about more significant causes of
accidental deaths, such as the 2,172 deaths from "the adverse affects of
medical care" (such as patients getting the wrong treatment, surgical
misadventures or even malpractice).
Be it accidental deaths or homicides, the statistics clearly show that
guns save many more lives than are taken by use of a gun.
For the record, the Gun Self-Defense Counter widget uses the Kleck/Gertz
numbers, since the Kleck/Gertz findings are not as likely to be biased,
as those of researchers whose study was being underwritten by an
anti-gun administration and who identified themselves as being related
to a government agency, before asking any questions. Furthermore, we
must not forget that prior to commencing their study, Gary Kleck was a
noted opponent of private gun ownership. So, if his study was to be
biased in any way, it would have been biased toward lower self-defense
numbers. Plus, the fact that Kleck's own findings in this study, caused
him to change his position on gun ownership, indicates an honesty of
purpose that is seldom seen in such research.
To learn more about the real facts surrounding gun usage, on both sides
of the issue, we suggest that you spend some time browsing the links on
GunCite.com. In fact, that site shoots down myths about guns and gun
control, on both sides, as they strive to provide just the facts.
We encourage you to embed the Gun Self-Defense Counter web-widget,
wherever you post information to the internet. The more people know of
the real facts surrounding gun usage, the less likely that we will lose
our right to protect ourselves.
Copyright 2009
ActionAmerica.org
Gray Ghost
news:u3djc5tg12ohisf58...@4ax.com:
All of which is directly contradicted by the USDOJ study that says having a
gun produces the best result, for the victim anyway.
Don't have the link, someone else will post it.
What morons conducted this "survey" and why are they allowed anywhere near a
school?
Buford Pusser
wrote:
Here's an interesting article I like to post when people say the
citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons for self defense:
Gray Ghost
news:20f3db85-bc8d-4be7...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
Wow! Thank you!
Demon Buddha
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/04/guns_attract_bullets/
What a load of crap.
Can you say "invalid methods and fallacious reasoning"?
RD (The Sandman)
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/04/guns_attract_bullets/
Interesting.....I have carried a gun on and off for over 50 years.
Haven't been shot yet. Been shot at but those were times when I wasn't
carrying.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
"Fear is the foundation of most governments."
President John Adams
jf...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>
Your gun, like many or most others, must be defective and sent back to
the manufacturer for repair or replacement. If you haven't been shot
or your gun hasn't killed someone, especially a friend or
acquaintance, then it must be defective.
Fred B. Brown
<jf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:esgkc515o23ivagav...@4ax.com...
Come on over, stick an apple on top of your head and I'll blast off
a few rounds, I guarantee the gun ain't defective, my aim might be.
§ñühwø£f
pile of:
Brilliant. You're the poster boy for why guns should be agressively
regulated.
Now go stand in the corner you gormless fucknuckle.
^_^
--
http://www.care2.com/click-to-donate/wolves/
http://ltsaloon.org
http://www.ramusa.org/
http://www.bartcop.com/list-the-facts.htm
http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/
RD (The Sandman)
And you are the poster boy for why the internet should not be used for
sarcasm and humor.
jf...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
Well, the gun grabbers seem to think that a gun is designed to kill
people and if it hasn't killed a person in 50 years, then it must be
defective in some manner.
Gray Ghost
news:i8vkc5psli3a526o6...@4ax.com:
Damn! That means I have a safe full of defective guns! What do I do?
Gunner Asch
Well..it should be used Intelligently for sarcasm and humor. The OP
seems to be lacking that particular part ......
Gunner Asch
Ill take em off your hands!!
And in less than 3 yrs..they will all be tested.
Gray Ghost
news:7u0lc59v0h9c9o0k3...@4ax.com:
That's OK, I'm pretty good with my hands. I'll get 'em to work. In less than
3 years, have 'em sighted in properly by then, too. Looks like I have a 100
yard range going to going in soon on my property.
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/04/guns_attract_bullets/
> [
> Packing heat gets you shot, say profs
> Likelihood of cold dead fingers rises with gun ownership
> ]
> [
> Medical researchers in Philadelphia have conducted out a study which indicates -
> according to their interpretation - that carrying a gun causes people to get
> shot more often. "People should rethink their possession of guns," say the
> medics.
>
> protective or perilous,? says University of Pennsylvania epidemiology prof
> Charles Branas. The Penn announcement is headlined "Gun Possession [is] of
> questionable value in an Assault
> ]
> [
> The Penn researchers carried out their study by randomly selecting 677 people in
> Philadelphia who had been shot in "assaults".
> ]
> [
> According to the profs, six per cent of the shooting victims were packing heat
> when they got plugged. They compared that to a control sample of Philadelphians
> who had not been shot, and concluded that "people with a gun were 4.5 times more
> likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun".
>
> The research techniques used were the same as those previously used "to
> establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and
> car crashes". The message is: you smoke, you'll get cancer; you drive drunk,
> you'll crash your car; carry a gun, you'll get shot.
> ]
Did they factor in the activities of the persons shot ?
I.E. drug dealer or thug ?
heytwo
> Here's an interesting article I like to post when people say the
> citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons for self defense:
>
> http://www.verandaparknews.com/fourhorses.html- Hide quoted text -
----------------------------------------------------
Shouldnt be allowed by who !! Themselves ?
The Crime syndicate ( police ) or the
crime syndicate Fed Congress ,
or the Mafia ..
The community says there are NO laws , only ethics ( aka customs)
and the customs in USA , are to carry a gun , if you need to .
Never mind what the govt written Constitution says .
The Community says you shoot any mob , gang , or uniformed
humans , carrying guns .
Uniformed humans carrying guns , are
certainly going to harm individual Americans , steal their property
etc ..
Like Waco Texas . The mob could not seem to steal
the property , so they burned it and the properties owners to
death .
A syndicate is allways criminal , for the power it "discovers"
even UNARMED , they see the opportunity to steal property .
Democracy is a mob . Its "majority" is allways wrong .
Cliff
Wingers have problems counting on their fingers.
--
Cliff
Fred B. Brown
"§ñühwø£f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:hadnj6$fjq$7...@tioat.net...
Don't recognize sarcasm when you see it, dimwit?
What's your degree in, Basket Weaving or Finger Painting?
§ñühw¤£f
^_^
--
http://www.care2.com/click-to-donate/wolves/
Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
http://www.ramusa.org/
Cash for *who*?
http://www.bartcop.com/list-the-facts.htm
http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/
§ñühw¤£f
Making "fake" threats of gun violence promotes the publics acceptance of gun
ownership how, dimmy?
You fucking dopes dont see that text on a screen is easily misinterpreted.
Now tell me about this 1337 sarcasm font you've developed.
Gray Ghost
@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
Didja bother to READ the item?
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
> heytwo <kc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
...
>> Democracy is a mob . Its "majority" is allways wrong .
> Didja bother to READ the item?
Only the part about how "necessary" it is to MAKE WAR on some imaginary
enemy that only exists in the minds of the war addicts.
Thanks,
Rich
RD (The Sandman)
That's very possible. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
C'mon, I don't even know your sister.
RD (The Sandman)
news:Xns9C9BC419FF7CAWe...@216.196.97.142:
Don't let them near mine. Since they are also defective, we can't have
them multiplying........no, wait....perhaps.....
"The Great One"
"§ñühw¤£f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:CLydnSglQcFwxFbX...@centurytel.net...> > "§ñühwø£f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> Wolfus-Puss
Tell us why you munch on peckers, Wolfus-Puss ??
--
Your Pal,
John C.
"The Great One"
"§ñühw¤£f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:QdKdnegORrirxFbX...@centurytel.net...> > §ñühwø£f <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in news:hadnj6$fjq$7...@tioat.net:
> Wolfus-Puss
And you are the poster-boi for Gay sex, Wolfus-Puss !!
§ñühw¤£f
She wont let you near the goats either.
No dice.
Don Foreman
>>
>> "This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are
>> protective or perilous," says University of Pennsylvania epidemiology prof
>> Charles Branas. The Penn announcement is headlined "Gun Possession [is] of
>>
>> The Penn researchers carried out their study by randomly selecting 677
>> people in Philadelphia who had been shot in "assaults".
Random selection would presumably result in 2% or less of this group
having permits to legally carry firearms. Therefore, for those in the
sample that were armed, 98% or so were doing so illegally and
therefore of questionable competence with same. It is easy and
inexpensive to get a CCW in PA for residents who can pass a background
check.
I also note that there's no mention of what percentage of their
"control sample" who had not been shot were armed, or whether these
people frequented the same neighborhoods as those who were shot.
I hope these "medical researchers" aren't doing research on any
medical matters.
Fred B. Brown
"���hw��f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:CLydnSglQcFwxFbX...@centurytel.net...
Just as I figured, Finger Painting 101
§ñühw¤£f
Non Sequitur. Now wheres that font youve developed?
Cliff
<butterf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Only some moron from the UK would write this crap? Gee, ya think
>maybe those people were packing a gun because they lived in a bad
>area, which would explain the increased number of shootings? Have you
>ever been to some of the burroughs of Philadelphia? I'd pack a dang
>gun too, that's one scary place.
Thereby increasing greatly your chances of getting shot, eh?
Great plan !!!
>You think Rocky came from Philly
>because of the sandwiches?
>
>
--
Cliff
William Wixon
"MagneticEnergy" <butterf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:904661d5-a4e6-419d...@v20g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
> Only some moron from the UK would write this crap? Gee, ya think
> maybe those people were packing a gun because they lived in a bad
> area, which would explain the increased number of shootings? Have you
> ever been to some of the burroughs of Philadelphia? I'd pack a dang
> because of the sandwiches?
>
>
>
"Autopsies to be done today on Meleanie Hain, husband"
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/autopsies_to_be_done_today_on.html
William Wixon
one of the links at the above news story.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/gun-toting_soccer_moms_death_r.html
Aratzio
Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Cliff wrote:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/04/guns_attract_bullets/
>
> What a load of crap.
>
> Can you say "invalid methods and fallacious reasoning"?
Yes, I can, but can you support your conclusion with your scientific
analysis of the data?
Aratzio
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> got double secret
probation for writing:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:u3djc5tg12ohisf58...@4ax.com:
>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/04/guns_attract_bullets/
>> [
>> Packing heat gets you shot, say profs
>> Likelihood of cold dead fingers rises with gun ownership
>>]
>> [
>> Medical researchers in Philadelphia have conducted out a study which
>> indicates - according to their interpretation - that carrying a gun
>> causes people to get shot more often. "People should rethink their
>> possession of guns," say the medics.
>>
>> �This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns
>> are protective or perilous,� says University of Pennsylvania
>> epidemiology prof Charles Branas. The Penn announcement is headlined
>> "Gun Possession [is] of questionable value in an Assault
>>]
>> [
>> The Penn researchers carried out their study by randomly selecting 677
>> people in Philadelphia who had been shot in "assaults".
>>]
>> [
>> According to the profs, six per cent of the shooting victims were
>> packing heat when they got plugged. They compared that to a control
>> sample of Philadelphians who had not been shot, and concluded that
>> "people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault
>> than those not possessing a gun".
>>
>> The research techniques used were the same as those previously used
>> "to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or
>> drinking and car crashes". The message is: you smoke, you'll get
>> cancer; you drive drunk, you'll crash your car; carry a gun, you'll
>> get shot.
>
>Interesting.....I have carried a gun on and off for over 50 years.
>Haven't been shot yet. Been shot at but those were times when I wasn't
>carrying.
The single person view does not alter the scientific conclusion
garnered from a larger data set, no matter how much you wish it to be.
Aratzio
alt.usenet.kooks, ���hw�f <snuh...@netscape.net> got double secret
probation for writing:
>On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:10:02 -0500, Fred B. Brown pinched out a steaming
>pile of:
>
>> <jf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:esgkc515o23ivagav...@4ax.com...
>>> On 5 Oct 2009 04:40:02 -0500, "Fred B. Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>>>>news:u3djc5tg12ohisf58...@4ax.com...
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/04/guns_attract_bullets/
>>>>> [
>>>>> Packing heat gets you shot, say profs
>>>>> Likelihood of cold dead fingers rises with gun ownership
>>>>
>>>>Stay out of drug infested areas and you won't get shot.
>>>>
>>>>> [
>>>>> Medical researchers in Philadelphia have conducted out a study which
>>>>> indicates -
>>>>> according to their interpretation - that carrying a gun causes people to
>>>>> get
>>>>> shot more often. "People should rethink their possession of guns," say
>>>>> the
>>>>> medics.
>>>>>
>>>>> "This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns
>>>>> are
>>>>> protective or perilous," says University of Pennsylvania epidemiology
>>>>> prof
>>>>> Charles Branas. The Penn announcement is headlined "Gun Possession [is]
>>>>> of
>>>>> questionable value in an Assault
>>>>
>>>>Sara Brady has been pedaling that nonsense for years.
>>>>
>>>>> [
>>>>> The Penn researchers carried out their study by randomly selecting 677
>>>>> people in
>>>>> Philadelphia who had been shot in "assaults".
>>>>
>>>>677 of Phillys most sterling citizens I'm sure. All probably had rap
>>>>sheeta
>>>>a yard long.
>>>>
>>>>> [
>>>>> According to the profs, six per cent of the shooting victims were
>>>>> packing
>>>>> heat
>>>>> when they got plugged. They compared that to a control sample of
>>>>> Philadelphians
>>>>> who had not been shot, and concluded that "people with a gun were 4.5
>>>>> times more
>>>>> likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun".
>>>>>
>>>>> The research techniques used were the same as those previously used "to
>>>>> establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or
>>>>> drinking
>>>>> and
>>>>> car crashes". The message is: you smoke, you'll get cancer; you drive
>>>>> drunk,
>>>>> you'll crash your car; carry a gun, you'll get shot.
>>>>
>>>>I have carried one for years without getting shot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your gun, like many or most others, must be defective and sent back to
>>> the manufacturer for repair or replacement. If you haven't been shot
>>> or your gun hasn't killed someone, especially a friend or
>>> acquaintance, then it must be defective.
>>
>> Come on over, stick an apple on top of your head and I'll blast off
>> a few rounds, I guarantee the gun ain't defective, my aim might be.
>
>Brilliant. You're the poster boy for why guns should be agressively
>regulated.
>
>Now go stand in the corner you gormless fucknuckle.
>
>^_^
No matter the number of t8mes that is pointed out to the gunnutz they
just never quite get it. They are their own worst enemy.
Aratzio
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> got double secret
probation for writing:
>���hw�f <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in news:hadnj6$fjq$7...@tioat.net:
>And you are the poster boy for why the internet should not be used for
>sarcasm and humor.
Yeah, offering to kill people is always so hilarious.
Aratzio
tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>In article <u3djc5tg12ohisf58...@4ax.com>,
ie human being.
Aratzio
B. Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>
>"���hw�f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:hadnj6$fjq$7...@tioat.net....
>>
>> Brilliant. You're the poster boy for why guns should be agressively
>> regulated.
>>
>> Now go stand in the corner you gormless fucknuckle.
>
>Don't recognize sarcasm when you see it, dimwit?
>What's your degree in, Basket Weaving or Finger Painting?
>
So rather than address anything substansive within a rational
framework of debate you deflected to disrupt the conversation away
from a subject that you were intellectually incapable of discussing.
Gray Ghost
news:c7d1d5lcu3ca28mqj...@4ax.com:
As soon as the idiots who authored the study support thier conclusion with
ANY scientific analysis of the data.
tankfixer
@sneakemail.com says...
Yes they are, and it is sad they end up dead.
But each person makes choices in their lives.
Those choices will have consequences.
For the researchers to ignore the choices made by the subjects in the
study they can do little more than reach false conclusions.
Gray Ghost
news:o9d1d5hmgjplctetm...@4ax.com:
The failure to discern between lawful CCW holders, law enforcement and
criminals unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon and the actual circumstances
of the shootings, no matter how large a data set is used, completely
invalidates the conclusion made no matter how much you wish it to be.
Aratzio
grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) got double secret
probation for writing:
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>news:c7d1d5lcu3ca28mqj...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:06:46 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>>>Cliff wrote:
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/04/guns_attract_bullets/
>>>
>>> What a load of crap.
>>>
>>> Can you say "invalid methods and fallacious reasoning"?
>>
>> Yes, I can, but can you support your conclusion with your scientific
>> analysis of the data?
>>
>
>As soon as the idiots who authored the study support thier conclusion with
>ANY scientific analysis of the data.
>
Ah, another dismissal of the scientific conclusions without any
supporting argument. Standing around waving your arms and screaming
"liar" is not considered refutation of conclusion.
Your killfile has leaked, again.
Your follow-ups defeated, again.
Do you revel in your failure?
Aratzio
So your strawman is now a fact and the people shot are criminals.
Amazing leap you made without an iota of evidence.
You ask a question and in your mind the question is now fact to be
argued.
Truly bizarre.
Here is where you support your conclusion that the researchers ignored
anything:
Aratzio
grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) got double secret
probation for writing:
"I don't like that you included everyone in your data set!"
Really, that is your argument? That the data set is too broad? How
many should be in the data set and specifically which people should be
included so that the conclusion agrees with your preconceptions.
Follow-ups defeated, again.
Failure is your life.
Gray Ghost
news:7th1d5pdiganofrhc...@4ax.com:
What scientific conclusions am I dismissing? The conclusions are not
scoentific, not based on the data produced. They are wishful thinking.
>
> Your killfile has leaked, again.
> Your follow-ups defeated, again.
>
> Do you revel in your failure?
Actually I opened this thread up to see how many cockroaches I would find.
And there you were!
Gray Ghost
news:u3i1d59shvhvgfckv...@4ax.com:
Um, no. In point of fact I said that no conclusion can be drawn because there
is not sufficient information concerning the persons or the circumstances. Or
is that to difficult for you to grasp?
> You ask a question and in your mind the question is now fact to be
> argued.
No, not hardly, I asked the question and have yet to have it answered
suggesting the answer does not support the conculsions. I have not drawn any
conclusions myself as there would appear to be insifficient information to
draw any conclusion.
If you would like to draw a conculsion that fits your agenda from an
incomplete set of data, that makes you the fanatic, not me.
> Truly bizarre.
Yes, you are.
Gray Ghost
> Here is where you support your conclusion that the researchers ignored
> anything:
>
1) How many of the victims were lawful CCW holders?
2) How many were law enforcement?
a) On duty?
b) On assignment?
c) Off duty?
3) How many were persons neither CCW holders or law enforcement, meaninign
criminals?
4) Exactly what were the circumstances of the shooting?
a) They were minding thier own business and were attacked.
b) They were looking for trouble.
c) They were law enforcement in the normal course of duty.
d) The were law enforcement actively involved in a case.
Perhaps if I could get this information, which is not forthcoming, I would be
on firmer ground. However lacking this data thier conculsion is not only
suspect, it is preposterous.
Gray Ghost
news:h9i1d5l02k2tvn4ia...@4ax.com:
You really are a silly little man.
Do you revel in making false conclusions? Well apparently...
It is not that the data set is to broad or not broad enough. It is that the
underlying specifics of each individual case have a bearing on the outcome
and that lacking even categorized information about the specifics, which I
have already detailed in 2 previous posts and I will not repeat, it is seems
rather impossible to draw a relevant conclusion.
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>news:7th1d5pdiganofrhc...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:21:43 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) got double secret
>> probation for writing:
>>
>>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>news:c7d1d5lcu3ca28mqj...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:06:46 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>> Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where> got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>
>>>>>Cliff wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/04/guns_attract_bullets/
>>>>>
>>>>> What a load of crap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you say "invalid methods and fallacious reasoning"?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I can, but can you support your conclusion with your scientific
>>>> analysis of the data?
>>>>
>>>
>>>As soon as the idiots who authored the study support thier conclusion with
>>>ANY scientific analysis of the data.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, another dismissal of the scientific conclusions without any
>> supporting argument. Standing around waving your arms and screaming
>> "liar" is not considered refutation of conclusion.
>
>What scientific conclusions am I dismissing? The conclusions are not
>scoentific, not based on the data produced. They are wishful thinking.
Still awaiting you to stop waving your hands and screaming liar. That
is an article in a peer reviewd journal "American Journal of Public
Health".
Would you care to refute the conclusions based upon your
interpretation of the data? I
>>
>> Your killfile has leaked, again.
>> Your follow-ups defeated, again.
>>
>> Do you revel in your failure?
>
>Actually I opened this thread up to see how many cockroaches I would find.
>And there you were!
Transslation: You lied when you ran away last time and now need to
cover-up for your previous cowardice.
cowardly follow-ups defeated as usual.
Aratzio
grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) got double secret
probation for writing:
Funny, did your sockpuppet just fuckup?
Cliff
Tankfixer
Me
Tankfixer
Me
Grey Ghost - claiming he wrote something in this specific sub-thread.
If as "you" claim the researchers ignored something that is not
evident anywhere in the article. "You" need to support that claim.
>
>> You ask a question and in your mind the question is now fact to be
>> argued.
>
>No, not hardly, I asked the question and have yet to have it answered
>suggesting the answer does not support the conculsions. I have not drawn any
>conclusions myself as there would appear to be insifficient information to
>draw any conclusion.
Yet you argue in your conclusion that the scientists involved ignored
some data point. Your proof:
>
>If you would like to draw a conculsion that fits your agenda from an
>incomplete set of data, that makes you the fanatic, not me.
What incomplete data set? Specifically what data set do you feel you
have evidence is missin:
>
>> Truly bizarre.
>
>Yes, you are.
Says the sockpuppet supporting his other sockpuppet.
Aratzio
grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) got double secret
probation for writing:
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
So you are guessing and claim your guesses are valid evidence of what?
Aratzio
So you want to restrict the data set so that the conclusion fits your
parameters.
How very unscientific of you.
tankfixer
Why did the persons conduction the reasearch hide the information ?
>
> You ask a question and in your mind the question is now fact to be
> argued.
>
> Truly bizarre.
>
> Here is where you support your conclusion that the researchers ignored
> anything:
The fact they did not consider the activities of those shot.
tankfixer
Go right ahead and show I am anyones sockpuppet..
Or that I have any of my own.
Use all the bbyte you need.
tankfixer
@sneakemail.com says...
I'd say his questions indicate the reasearches had a predetrmined
outcome and wrote their report to exclude any information that
contradicts that conclusion.
tankfixer
@sneakemail.com says...
>
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:34:40 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) got double secret
> probation for writing:
>
> >Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
> >news:h9i1d5l02k2tvn4ia...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:24:39 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> >> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) got double secret
> >> probation for writing:
> >>
> >>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
> >>>news:o9d1d5hmgjplctetm...@4ax.com:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:59:18 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> got double secret
> >>>> probation for writing:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> >>>>>news:u3djc5tg12ohisf58...@4ax.com:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/04/guns_attract_bullets/ [
> >>>>>> Packing heat gets you shot, say profs
> >>>>>> Likelihood of cold dead fingers rises with gun ownership
> >>>>>>]
> >>>>>> [
> >>>>>> Medical researchers in Philadelphia have conducted out a study which
> >>>>>> indicates - according to their interpretation - that carrying a gun
> >>>>>> causes people to get shot more often. "People should rethink their
> >>>>>> possession of guns," say the medics.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> are protective or perilous,? says University of Pennsylvania
He didn't say that now did he.
He, and I would like to see all the data they gathered, not just what
the "reaserchers" cherry picked to support a conslusion they most likely
had before they started.
How very unscientific of them..
Aratzio
What did you miss in the publishing in a peer reviewed journal?
>
>>
>> You ask a question and in your mind the question is now fact to be
>> argued.
>>
>> Truly bizarre.
>>
>> Here is where you support your conclusion that the researchers ignored
>> anything:
>
>The fact they did not consider the activities of those shot.
You do know that information, yet you claim the information is hidden.
How bizarre.
Aratzio
Tankfixer: For the researchers to ignore the choices made by the
subjects in the study they can do little more than reach false
conclusions.
Me: Amazing leap you made without an iota of evidence.
Grey Ghost: Um, no. In point of fact I said that no conclusion
Wasn't all that hard and the evidence is right there for everyone to
see.
Any other conclusion? You could claim GG is a complete moron incapable
of reading for comprehension?
Aratzio
tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
So the questions are in now facts? Really?
I am still awaiting evidence from either of your sockpuppets of your
claims.
Aratzio
tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
You still have not provided once bit of evidence to support your
claims.
Gray Ghost
news:g212d55o6l7rauok9...@4ax.com:
> You still have not provided once bit of evidence to support your
> claims.
>
Oddly enough, neither have the researchers.
Gray Ghost
news:eao1d5l25eqcsjqn6...@4ax.com:
1) How many of the victims were lawful CCW holders?
Gray Ghost
news:0q02d552tii54dbpe...@4ax.com:
1) How many of the victims were lawful CCW holders?
Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/04/guns_attract_bullets/
> [
> Packing heat gets you shot, say profs
> Likelihood of cold dead fingers rises with gun ownership
> ]
> [
> Medical researchers in Philadelphia have conducted out a study which indicates -
> according to their interpretation - that carrying a gun causes people to get
> shot more often. "People should rethink their possession of guns," say the
> medics.
>
> protective or perilous,” says University of Pennsylvania epidemiology prof
> Charles Branas. The Penn announcement is headlined "Gun Possession [is] of
> questionable value in an Assault
> ]
> [
> The Penn researchers carried out their study by randomly selecting 677 people in
> Philadelphia who had been shot in "assaults".
> ]
> [
> According to the profs, six per cent of the shooting victims were packing heat
> when they got plugged. They compared that to a control sample of Philadelphians
> who had not been shot, and concluded that "people with a gun were 4.5 times more
> likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun".
>
> The research techniques used were the same as those previously used "to
> establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and
> car crashes". The message is: you smoke, you'll get cancer; you drive drunk,
> you'll crash your car; carry a gun, you'll get shot.
> ]
I agree...especially with the psycho wingers who think guns are
substitute penises.
TMT
Aratzio
Can you provide the link where you verified the methods and data
points?
Aratzio
Sad when sockpuppets get caught and are left in broken record mode.
>1) How many of the victims were lawful CCW holders?
>2) How many were law enforcement?
> a) On duty?
> b) On assignment?
> c) Off duty?
>3) How many were persons neither CCW holders or law enforcement, meaninign
>criminals?
>
>4) Exactly what were the circumstances of the shooting?
> a) They were minding thier own business and were attacked.
> b) They were looking for trouble.
> c) They were law enforcement in the normal course of duty.
> d) The were law enforcement actively involved in a case.
>
>Perhaps if I could get this information, which is not forthcoming, I would be
>on firmer ground. However lacking this data thier conculsion is not only
>suspect, it is preposterous.
Left frothing the same thing based upon what exactly? Do you have any
links to support your beliefs that refute either the methods or the
data sets?
Major Imbu
news:mce2d517gfifhi53t...@4ax.com:
Ratz, you are a serious cunt picking on those poor halfwits like that.
Why don't you pick on someone with more than half your IQ.
Poik
tankfixer
They published only what they wanted to, not all their research.
>
> >
> >>
> >> You ask a question and in your mind the question is now fact to be
> >> argued.
> >>
> >> Truly bizarre.
> >>
> >> Here is where you support your conclusion that the researchers ignored
> >> anything:
> >
> >The fact they did not consider the activities of those shot.
>
> You do know that information, yet you claim the information is hidden.
Did they consider the activities of the indivudals who were shot?
I would find it unusual if they didn't.
> How bizarre.
It is, that you will blindly take some report and unquestioningly
proclaim it gospel.
tankfixer
So you have nothing other than the fact two people disagree with you and
both hold similar points of view on this matter ?
That's ALL you have ?
That's sad, truly sad..
tankfixer
says...
I supose you might be.
But polite people try not to point it out ...
tankfixer
If you are unable to answer his questions just say so.
You won't look so much of an ass if you do.
>
> I am still awaiting evidence from either of your sockpuppets of your
> claims.
Why are you waiting if you think anyone here is a sockpuppet ?
To wait only makes you look the bigger fool ..
Aratzio
You have a link?
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You ask a question and in your mind the question is now fact to be
>> >> argued.
>> >>
>> >> Truly bizarre.
>> >>
>> >> Here is where you support your conclusion that the researchers ignored
>> >> anything:
>> >
>> >The fact they did not consider the activities of those shot.
>>
>> You do know that information, yet you claim the information is hidden.
>
>Did they consider the activities of the indivudals who were shot?
>I would find it unusual if they didn't.
Ah, now it is you are no longer sure of your claims.
>
>> How bizarre.
>
>It is, that you will blindly take some report and unquestioningly
>proclaim it gospel.
Where did I do that? You are the one making proclamations with regard
to the data. I keep asking you to provide evidence to support your
claims.
Aratzio
Keep squirming. You could not keep your sockpuppets in order and were
responding in the first person with the wrong sockpuppet.
Aratzio
Wow, PeeWee Herman would be so proud of you.
Aratzio
Since you fail to provide the links that would be required the
questions are a fallacious attempt to divert.
Dishonesty at best.
>
>>
>> I am still awaiting evidence from either of your sockpuppets of your
>> claims.
>
>Why are you waiting if you think anyone here is a sockpuppet ?
>To wait only makes you look the bigger fool ..
Still squirming. You should remember to not use the first person when
using a sockpuppet.
Poik
news:MPG.253ae6f...@news.bytemine.net:
Fucking brilliant that retort. You always make a habit of topping
yourself in public? Christ, you'd think those skint wankers would be
embarrassed by the shite they post.
tankfixer
I could ask you to compare headers between my posts and the alleged sock
puppets but I don't want to cause your head to explode.
I hope you get some help for that paranoia..
tankfixer
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1?
maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=branas&searchid=1
&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You ask a question and in your mind the question is now fact to be
> >> >> argued.
> >> >>
> >> >> Truly bizarre.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here is where you support your conclusion that the researchers ignored
> >> >> anything:
> >> >
> >> >The fact they did not consider the activities of those shot.
> >>
> >> You do know that information, yet you claim the information is hidden.
> >
> >Did they consider the activities of the indivudals who were shot?
> >I would find it unusual if they didn't.
>
> Ah, now it is you are no longer sure of your claims.
>
> >
> >> How bizarre.
> >
> >It is, that you will blindly take some report and unquestioningly
> >proclaim it gospel.
>
> Where did I do that? You are the one making proclamations with regard
> to the data. I keep asking you to provide evidence to support your
> claims.
I want to see all the data.
The researches admit the adjusted it.
"Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an
assault and 684 population-based control participants within
Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for
confounding variables."
Kadaitcha Man
SUCKPOPPET!!!!1!@
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
tankfixer
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087
&context=dennis_culhane
Go ahead, read it.
You will find they selected data that would skew the results.
>
> Dishonesty at best.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I am still awaiting evidence from either of your sockpuppets of your
> >> claims.
> >
> >Why are you waiting if you think anyone here is a sockpuppet ?
> >To wait only makes you look the bigger fool ..
>
> Still squirming. You should remember to not use the first person when
> using a sockpuppet.
You should try proving I'm someones sockpuppet before you fling
accusations about..
Gunner Asch
Then you do admit to being a retard?
Is that your admission?
"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"
Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno
SaPeIsMa
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.253b125...@news.bytemine.net...
They also reference Kellerman as a valid basis, when it's a study which has
been discredited
>
>>
>> Dishonesty at best.
>>
Aratzio
So you imagine that headers tell the whole story?
Really?
Do you imagine that people would believe that only one newsserver and
one news client exist?
You could at least try something credible to cover up. Lying so
obviously just makes you look even more pathetic than getting your
sockpuppets crossed.
Aratzio
BWAHAAAAHAAAHAAAAHAAAAA
Your evidence they didn't publish all their research is because all
you can find is an Abstract.
So you did not actually read the article or analyze the data and yet
you could come to conclusions about the data and the validity of the
report because you accessed the abstract.
So you were just making up your conclusions based upon what you want
to believe and claiming that the scientists published in a peer
reviewed journal were, for want of a better term, lying.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You ask a question and in your mind the question is now fact to be
>> >> >> argued.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Truly bizarre.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here is where you support your conclusion that the researchers ignored
>> >> >> anything:
>> >> >
>> >> >The fact they did not consider the activities of those shot.
>> >>
>> >> You do know that information, yet you claim the information is hidden.
>> >
>> >Did they consider the activities of the indivudals who were shot?
>> >I would find it unusual if they didn't.
>>
>> Ah, now it is you are no longer sure of your claims.
>>
>> >
>> >> How bizarre.
>> >
>> >It is, that you will blindly take some report and unquestioningly
>> >proclaim it gospel.
>>
>> Where did I do that? You are the one making proclamations with regard
>> to the data. I keep asking you to provide evidence to support your
>> claims.
>
>I want to see all the data.
You need to pay money and you can see the data. That is how scientific
publication works. Due to the limited scope of most scientific
research there is a limited base interest and therefore the access to
the research is restricted to paying customers to at least cover the
publication costs. You know free market economy. You are not against
the free market setting the price for a product, are you?
>The researches admit the adjusted it.
Yes, they did. That is why there is a control group.
If you were not so ignorant of scientific methods this would not be
such a confusing thing for you and your over active imagination would
not be fabricating your conclusions for you.
>"Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an
>assault and 684 population-based control participants within
>Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for
>confounding variables."
Yes, that is the exact quote from the abstract. Now unless you know
what are the "confounding variables" then you don't know squat. The
term confounding has specific meaning when working in statistical
analysis and modeling. Based upon your ignorance you jumped to a
conclusion and are going to stick to that conclusion because it fits
what you want to believe rather than what it actually means.
Aratzio
alt.usenet.kooks, Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> got double secret
probation for writing:
SUCHAWANKER!!!!~~
tankfixer
SaPe...@HotMail.com says...
The wording in the study indicated they were from that school of
thinking..
They started with a preordained conclusion and they massaged data to
pretend it support that conclusion.
Gray Ghost
news:48e2d5t0179hn29vc...@4ax.com:
You mean you haven't already verified the data and methods and you are
calling me names for questioning the results?
What an asshole.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087
&context=dennis_culhane
Will there be anything else?
tankfixer
More than the silly claims you keep making.
>
> Really?
>
> Do you imagine that people would believe that only one newsserver and
> one news client exist?
I've used any number of them.
>
> You could at least try something credible to cover up. Lying so
> obviously just makes you look even more pathetic than getting your
> sockpuppets crossed.
Let look at those worthless header a bit eh ?
Grey Ghost:
Path: news.bytemine.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!
news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.insightbb.com!
news.insightbb.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
User-Agent: Xnews/4.05.11
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
Tankfixer:
Path: news.bytemine.net!not-for-mail
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.80.1
X-Usenet-Provider: bytemine - http://www.bytemine.net
Yeah, sure looks like we are in the same place, NOT..
Gray Ghost
Aratzio
I read most of the article, their methods seem appropriate and their
reporting methods were highly detailed.
So, make your case that they skewed the data in a manner you find
statistically unreliable or scientifically non-reproduceable.
>
>
>>
>> Dishonesty at best.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I am still awaiting evidence from either of your sockpuppets of your
>> >> claims.
>> >
>> >Why are you waiting if you think anyone here is a sockpuppet ?
>> >To wait only makes you look the bigger fool ..
>>
>> Still squirming. You should remember to not use the first person when
>> using a sockpuppet.
>
>You should try proving I'm someones sockpuppet before you fling
>accusations about..
You should have use a more ambiguous pronoun in response, puppetboi.
Gray Ghost
news:rru3d513ufdod0uei...@4ax.com:
You might want to stay on the subject which is the study which is badly
glawed.
Of course getting off into who's a sockpuppet conveniently moves the
conversation away from where it was embarassing you. Typical.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087
&context=dennis_culhane
Gray Ghost
news:q804d5p4jrpc5ot1s...@4ax.com:
And here we have the intellectual left descending into childish namecaliing.
Poo tossing should be next.
For those who have clearly forgotten the issue was the honesty of the article
entitled "Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault" at
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087
&context=dennis_culhane and if the study has serious flaws which biased the
results in a predetermined direction.